A man named Cole Allen, who appears to be the same person as the suspect in the shooting incident at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner in Washington, D.C., April 25, 2026, is interviewed by KABC in Los Angeles in March 2017. (KABC)
The government argued earlier that Allen poses a grave risk of danger to the public for allegedly seeking to carry out an attack at Saturday’s dinner.
“This was a planned attack of unfathomable malice that risked the lives of hundreds of people whose only transgression was attending an annual event celebrating the media and featuring the President of the United States,” prosecutors said in a filing on Wednesday. “It was, at its core, an anti-democratic act of political violence.”
Allen, 31, faces three felony counts of attempted assassination of the President of the United States, transportation of a firearm and ammunition over state lines with the intent to commit a felony and discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. He has not entered a plea.
The California native — who was carrying a shotgun, a pistol and knives — was tackled by law enforcement after Saturday night’s gunfire inside the Washington, D.C., Hilton hotel, where thousands of journalists as well as President Donald Trump and members of his Cabinet were gathered for the annual dinner. Allen did not reach the ballroom, where the dinner was underway. A Secret Service member was shot during the incident, but the bullet hit the agent’s protective vest, officials said.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office after signing an Executive Order April 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump doubled down on his claim that the term “86” is a “mob term” for a killing as former FBI Director James Comey faces a federal indictment over a social media post of seashells arranged to read “86 47.”
“’86’ is a mob term for ‘kill him.’ They say 86 him! ’86 47′ means ‘kill President Trump,'” Trump wrote in a social media post Wednesday night, before going on to assail Comey as a “Dirty Cop” who “knows this full well!”
Comey, who was indicted on Tuesday by a federal grand jury in North Carolina, made an initial court appearance on Wednesday after self-surrendering to law enforcement at the courthouse in the Eastern District of Virginia. Comey did not enter a plea.
The former FBI director, who was fired in 2017 by Trump during the president’s first term, faces one charge of threats against the president and successors, and one charge of transmitting a threat in interstate commerce.
The indictment centers on a controversy that erupted nearly a year ago when Comey, in a since-deleted Instagram post, shared a picture showing the numbers “86 47” written in seashells on the beach with the caption “Cool shell formation on my beach walk.”
“EIGHT MILES OUT, SIX FEET DOWN! Didn’t he also lie to the FBI about this??? I think so!” Trump said on Wednesday night, describing his apparent interpretation of what the eight and six represent.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary, which lists several definitions of “eighty-six,” says the most common use for the informal saying is to describe a way “to refuse to serve” or “to eject or ban” a customer from a restaurant or bar. The dictionary says it’s often used as a way to say something has been removed. The American Heritage dictionary says the term may have derived as a rhyming slang for “nix.”
The origin of the president’s assertion that the term comes from the mob is unclear. A search of scripts from the American Film Institute’s top 10 gangster films shows no instance of the phrase being used, despite Trump referring reporters to mob movies on Wednesday.
“You ever see the movies? ’86 ’em’ — the mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, ’86 ’em.’ That means kill ’em. It’s — I think of it as a mob term,” he said.
Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said he did some of his own research on the term.
“I searched to the end of the internet last night, I can’t find one example where the number 86 had anything to do with any violent threat. So hopefully there’s more to it than just the picture in the sand,” Tillis told reporters on Wednesday. “Otherwise, I just think it’s another example of where we’re going to regret this because we’re setting a fairly low bar and political physics, like I’ve said around here for years, is what it is. For every action, there’s an equal and opposite reaction.”
Tillis later added, “maybe there’s deep history in the use of this word and communicating threats. I just can’t find it anywhere.”
The Department of Justice in announcing that the indictment that had been handed up said that “a reasonable recipient [of Comey’s image] who is familiar with the circumstances would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to do harm to the President of the United States.”
And while the president has repeated his claim that Comey’s post was a call for him to be killed, Trump appeared to hedge when asked directly Wednesday whether he believed his life was in danger.
“Probably, I don’t know,” he said. “You know, based on — based on what I’m seeing out there, yeah.”
U.S. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) speaks at a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 21, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — After drama and delay, House Republicans narrowly approved a blueprint for legislation to fund immigration enforcement agencies, the first step in the GOP’s plan to reopen the Department of Homeland Security.
The party-line vote, which was held open for more than five hours, was called at 10:39 p.m. on Wednesday after Speaker Mike Johnson and Republican leaders huddled with holdouts.
Reps. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, Andrew Clyde of Georgia, Andy Harris of Maryland, Michael Cloud of Texas and Victoria Spartz of Indiana flipped their votes to yes after hours of discussion. Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an Independent who conferences with Republicans, voted present.
The final vote was 215-211-1.
The budget resolution kicks off the drafting process of a bill that Republicans said would provide billions of dollars to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection for the remainder of President Donald Trump’s term.
Trump has set a June 1 deadline for Republicans to fund the immigration enforcement agencies.
Republicans are using reconciliation, a lengthy and complex process, to overcome Democratic opposition.
Democrats have said they won’t support funding for ICE and CBP without reforms to their operating procedures, after two American citizens in Minneapolis were fatally shot by federal agents earlier this year.
DHS has been shut down since mid-February, making it the longest shutdown in U.S. history.
The shooting at the White House Correspondents Association dinner at the Washington Hilton on Saturday rekindled the DHS funding fight. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the funding lapse a “national emergency.”
But it’s currently unclear when House Republican leaders plan to put a Senate-passed bill to fund the rest of DHS on the floor for a vote.
Nuno F.G. Loureiro, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been identified as the man fatally shot at a home in Brookline on Dec. 15, 2025. (MIT)
(WASHINGTON) — The shootings in December that targeted Brown University and an MIT professor were “symbolic in nature,” according to a report released by the FBI.
Claudio Manuel Neves Valente, a Portuguese national and a legal permanent resident who had been living in Miami, Florida, committed a mass shooting at a building on the campus of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, before driving north to Brookline, Massachusetts, to kill an MIT professor, authorities said.
Two students died and nine others were injured in the shooting at Brown University on Dec. 13, 2025, and Nuno F.G. Loureiro, an MIT professor, was shot and killed at his home in Brookline by Neves Valente, two days later.
The shooting at the Ivy League school, where the 48-year-old Neves Valente had previously been a physics graduate student, rocked the tight-knit community in Providence.
The suspect was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in a storage unit in New Hampshire following a dayslong manhunt, authorities said.
“Based on analysis of the information and evidence gathered throughout the investigation, the FBI assesses Neves Valente’s victims were symbolic in nature,” the FBI said in a release. “Brown University as a whole and Dr. Loureiro represented to the shooter his personal failures and injustices he perceived were inflicted by others over time. By attacking them, Neves Valente was likely able to overcome his shame and envy by using violence to punish those communities that he perceived contributed to his downfall.”
Portugal’s Instituto Superior Técnico (IST) previously confirmed to ABC News that Neves Valente and Loureiro had studied in the school’s physics engineering program between 1995 and 2000.
The FBI determined Neves Valente had no criminal record and the shooting had no nexus to terrorism.
”The FBI has determined that Neves Valente was committed to conducting the attack and had completed his planning,” the report said. “He considered, planned, and prepared for the mass shooting at Brown University in increments over a period of several years in isolation, spanning multiple geographic locations. Neves Valente’s transient lifestyle, long-term planning, and social isolation provided little to no opportunity for bystanders to observe and contextualize the significance of his behaviors.”
The bureau’s report added, “The shooter lacked traditional support, such as family, peers, and authority figures, who would have been able to observe any potential warning signs and contact law enforcement.”
More than 1,327 audio files recovered after the shooting made by Neves Valente outline his thoughts for carrying out the shooting, according to the FBI.
“The FBI believes the shooter experienced a failure to thrive, long-standing suicidality, and his current situation was incongruent to where he felt he should be at this stage in his life. As his failures outweighed successes, his paranoia increased, compounding his continued inability to thrive, leading to him being mentally unwell and committed to dying. However, mental health stressors alone cannot fully explain the attacks that occurred.”
The FBI said they recovered guns at a storage facility used by Neves Valente in New Hampshire that matched the guns used to carry out the attack.
Janet Mills, governor of Maine and Democratic US Senate candidate, during a roundtable discussion with community leaders in Westbrook, Maine, US, on Tuesday, March 10, 2026. (Photographer: Sofia Aldinio/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Maine Gov. Janet Mills announced Thursday morning that she is suspending her U.S. Senate campaign, leaving Graham Platner as the likely Democratic nominee.
She cited financial resources as a reason for suspending her campaign.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
People walk along Broadway with shopping bags in Manhattan on February 27, 2026 in New York City. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The United States economy grew at a solid pace over the first three months of 2026, rebounding from sluggish performance at the end of last year, a government report on Thursday showed.
The economy grew at an annualized rate of 2% in the first quarter, marking an acceleration from 0.5% growth recorded in the previous quarter. The performance came in slightly below economists’ expectations.
The fresh data covers a period mostly before the outset of the Iran war on Feb. 28, which sent gasoline prices surging and prompted warnings of a possible recession.
The jump in economic output over the first quarter owes to a rise in government spending, exports and investment, the U.S. Commerce Department said.
Consumer spending slowed down from the previous quarter, however, providing a cautionary note for the nation’s outlook. Consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.
Households, meanwhile, are weathering a surge in prices as a result of an oil shock set off by the Iran war.
The Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index, a measure of inflation preferred by the Federal Reserve, increased 3.5% in March, the report showed. That reading marked a jump from a 2.8% rate in the previous month.
The Middle East conflict prompted Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway that facilitates the transport of about one-fifth of the global supply of oil and natural gas.
The average price of a gallon of gas stands at $4.30 as of Thursday, hitting the highest level in four years.
The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday, in part due to the recent rise in costs. The benchmark rate stands at a level between 3.5% and 3.75%.
The solid economic performance at the outset of this year may allow the Fed to keep interest rates elevated for longer as it seeks to avert a prolonged rise in prices amid the Iran war.
Construction crews continue to remove the East Wing of the White House and prepare for the new ballroom construction as seen from the newly reopened Washington Monument on November 14, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Leyden/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Americans oppose President Donald Trump tearing down the East Wing of the White House to build a ballroom by a 2-to-1 margin, oppose a 250-foot arch by an even wider margin and oppose the addition of Trump’s signature to paper currency by more than 5-to-1, according to an ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll conducted using Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.
Trump’s ballroom
The Trump administration announced the construction of a 90,000-square-foot ballroom in July 2025, with Trump promising “it won’t interfere with the current building.” By October, demolition started on the East Wing of the White House, which was built in 1902 and renovated in 1942.
The ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll finds that more than half of Americans, 56%, oppose tearing down the East Wing to make way for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, with 28% in support and 15% unsure. The results are nearly identical to an October ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll.
Currently, strong opposition (47%) outweighs strong support (16%) by about 3-to-1.
In December, the National Trust for Historic Preservation – a privately-funded nonprofit designated by Congress to protect historic sites – filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the ballroom construction until the administration completed the federal review process standard for federal building projects. Earlier this month, an appeals court panel allowed construction of the ballroom to continue, granting an administrative stay of an earlier injunction.
Trump has reiterated his desire for the ballroom in the aftermath of the attempted shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner on Saturday night, arguing that the hotel ballroom did not provide the appropriate security measures for an event the president is attending.
The poll was in the field before and after the Saturday dinner. Overall, there was no significant difference in attitudes before and after the White House correspondents’ dinner, but Republican support for the ballroom increased from 62% before the dinner to 72% after.
Despite Republican calls for building the ballroom in light of the attempted attack Saturday night, the planned ballroom, according to a National Capital Planning Commission staff report, would have a seating capacity of about 1,000 guests. About 2,600 guests were seated for this year’s White House correspondents’ dinner. A White House event would be under the purview of the administration, whereas many events the president attends – including the correspondents’ dinner – are run by outside, independent, entities.
Republicans proposed a bill that would provide $400 million in funding for the facility. It comes after Trump said in October that the ballroom would be “paid for 100% by me and some friends of mine,” referencing donors. “The government is paying absolutely nothing.” Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to regulate the project and impose restrictions on donations — aimed at prohibiting bribery.
Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats oppose the ballroom project, along with about 6 in 10 independents. Among Republicans, 65% support tearing down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a ballroom. Support grows to 77% among MAGA-Republicans (which include Republican-leaning independents who support the MAGA movement), but it drops to just 31% among non-MAGA Republicans.
An arch
In addition to Trump’s major changes to the White House structure, the president has also proposed a 250-foot-tall arch to be built at Memorial Circle, right before the entrance to Arlington National Cemetery, at the other end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge.The arch would be more than twice as tall as the Lincoln Memorial at the other side of the bridge.
“I’d like it to be the biggest [arch] of all,” even bigger than the 164-foot-tall Arc De Triomphe in Paris, Trump said.
By an over 2-to-1 margin, Americans oppose (52%) rather than support (21%) the Trump administration’s plan to build the arch. Another 26% are unsure.
Strong opposition (41%) outweighs strong support (9%) by more than 4-to-1.
A group of Vietnam War veterans have sued to stop construction of the arch, arguing that the project needs to be authorized by Congress before construction can begin, adding that the arch would block the line of sight between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. The veterans have reached a compromise with the administration, stalling the lawsuit for now, with a promise that the administration will follow the legal process to build the arch.
Taxpayer funds would cover at least part of the project: $2 million in special initiative funds and $13 million in matching grants.
Majorities of Democrats (78%) and independents (57%) oppose the arch. A slim 51% of Republicans support building an arch, including 59% of MAGA Republicans and just 23% of non-MAGA Republicans.
Trump’s signature on money
In March, the U.S. Treasury Department announced that Trump’s signature will be added to future U.S. paper currency. This would be a first for a sitting president, as no previous U.S. president’s name has ever appeared on currency. Earlier in March, the federal Commission of Fine Arts approved Trump’s image on commemorative gold coins and in October, the administration proposed a Trump-themed $1 coin.
Americans oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money instead of the treasury secretary’s by a wider margin than either the ballroom or the arch: 68% oppose it while just 12% support it. Another 19% say they aren’t sure. Over half, 55%, strongly oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money; just 5% strongly support it.
An 1866 amendment prohibits living persons from appearing on government securities and a U.S. statute states that “only the portrait of a deceased individual may appear on U.S. currency and securities.” A living president has appeared on currency once before: In 1926, President Calvin Coolidge was featured on a coin celebrating the 150th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence along with a portrait of President George Washington.
Majorities of Americans across most demographic groups oppose printing Trump’s signature on paper money, including 9 in 10 Democrats and over 7 in 10 independents. Just under 3 in 10 Republicans support it, including just over a third of MAGA Republicans (35%) – the largest share across demographic groups.
The poll did not address the addition of Trump’s photo to national park passes or the renaming of the Kennedy Center. The poll was conducted before the announcement that Trump’s image would appear on limited-edition passports.
Methodology – This ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll was conducted among 2,560 U.S. adults overall, but these questions were conducted among a half sample of 1,292 U.S. adults and have an error margin of +/- 2.8 percentage points. Error margins are larger among subgroups.
President Donald Trump listens during a press conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky following their meeting at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club on December 28, 2025 in Palm Beach, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The White House’s new policy for preserving presidential records risks allowing the Trump administration to “unlawfully destroy important records,” a group of Senate Democrats warned in a letter to the White House Counsel on Wednesday.
Thirteen Senate Democrats are seeking assurances from the White House that it would continue to preserve presidential records, saying they had grown “deeply concerned” with recent steps the Trump administration had taken to loosen rules dictating document retention.
The Democrats’ missive comes after the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) wrote an opinion this month that deemed the Presidential Records Act — a Watergate-era law that changed the legal ownership of presidential records from private to public — to be unconstitutional and “untethered from any valid and identifiable legislative purpose.”
One day after the opinion was issued, White House Counsel David Warrington issued new guidance for White House staffers to adopt new document retention policies based on the DOJ’s new determination about the legality of the Presidential Records Act.
“The 1978 law is a significant departure from historical practice. For 200 years the presidency existed without the legislative branch invading the rights of the executive branch,” Warrington said in a memo that was later included in a court filing.
Led by Sen. Adam Schiff of California, the Democrats wrote to White House Counsel David Warrington that they feared “the President and his staff” will use the OLC option to “unlawfully destroy important records covered by the [Presidential Records Act].”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in a statement that the Democrats’ letter reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of the Administration’s policy.”
“The new White House records retention policy makes it clear that important records will be preserved,” Jackson added.
The senators, in their letter, alluded to what they characterized as President Donald Trump’s “unlawful personal retention and mismanagement of classified documents” in requesting a briefing from White House officials on their “records management procedures” at some point before the end of his term. Trump was indicted after his first term for allegedly storing classified records at his Mar-a-Lago estate and obstructing investigators, though the case was dismissed over U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon’s concerns about the appointment of special counsel Jack Smith.
Drafted in the wake of the Watergate scandal, the Presidential Records Act was passed in 1978 to ensure the preservation of presidential records. Every president since Ronald Reagan has been subject to the law, which places the National Archives and Records Administration in control of the official records — such as emails, phone records, and other documentary material created by the president and his staff in the course of their duties — once the president leaves office.
Under the PRA, which is overseen by Congress, former presidents have up to 12 years after leaving office to turn over all their presidential records.
During President Trump’s current term, his administration has moved to unwind record retention protocols. Earlier this month, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote an opinion that would upend the established process for ensuring the public ownership of presidential records, arguing that “the PRA exceeds the oversight power [of Congress] because it serves no identifiable and valid legislative purpose.”
With three years left in Trump’s second term, his Department of Justice now says the president “need not further comply” with the law governing the handover of his presidential records once he leaves office.
The day after the publication of the Justice Department’s opinion, Warrington issued new guidance for the Executive Office of the President regarding the preserve of records going forward. While the memo said that staff could use policies developed under the PRA, Warrington said the new policy would cover the retention of both classified and unclassified material going forward.
In their letter to Warrington on Wednesday, the senators asserted that administration “does not have the authority to override Supreme Court rulings or unilaterally overturn laws passed by Congress.”
Within a week of the OLC opinion and new White House guidance, the country’s largest group of a historians and a watchdog organization brought a lawsuit seeking to force the Trump administration to comply with the PRA.
“The Executive Branch has nullified the determinations of the other two branches of government so that the President may claim these official government records to be his own,” the lawsuit said.
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have defended the policy in court filings, arguing the PRA is an “unconstitutional and ahistorical imposition on presidential autonomy.”
As part of the lawsuit, the Trump administration released the new White House guidance on document retention. The Director of Archival Operations at the National Archives, meanwhile, said that the agency continues to “preserve all Presidential records in its custody” and plans to continue processing requests to access those records.
Alejandro Jacomino Gonzalez is seen circa October 2024 in a photo released by the FBI. (FBI)
(FLORIDA) — A truck driver who went missing in a possible hijacking while transporting vehicles from Georgia to Florida has been found dead, the FBI said Wednesday.
Alejandro Jacomino Gonzalez, 41, was last seen alive in the early morning hours on April 17 at a rest stop on I-95 south in Brevard County, Florida, according to the FBI’s Tampa field office.
The truck was located in Port Wentworth, Georgia, that day, though Gonzalez was not there, according to the FBI, which called his disappearance “suspicious.” Several vehicles were also missing from the hauler.
On Wednesday, the FBI field offices in Tampa and Atlanta said a body found in coastal Georgia is confirmed to be Gonzalez. They did not say where or when the body was located.
The FBI Tampa and Atlanta divisions are leading the investigation into Gonzalez’s death.
Gonzalez, a CDL driver for an unidentified trucking company, had picked up multiple vehicles from the Port of Brunswick in Georgia on April 16 and was supposed to drop them off in Miami, the FBI said.
He arrived at the truck stop in Grant-Valkaria at approximately 1:21 a.m. on April 17 and rested for several hours, the FBI said. At 7:49 a.m., the truck drove south one exit and then turned north, according to the FBI.
“Soon after, Gonzalez became unreachable and the truck was reported missing,” the FBI stated in a missing person bulletin.
Three vehicles that went missing from the hauler have since been located in Florida, the FBI said.
Anyone with information on the investigation is asked to contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI or submit tips online.
Demonstrators chant and hold signs outside U.S. Supreme Court on April 29, 2026, in Washington. (Tom Brenner/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday grappled with whether the Trump administration has the authority to end humanitarian protections for thousands of immigrants without facing judicial review.
While an unrelated ruling about the Voting Rights Act overshadowed the arguments, the court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical of the legal challenge to reverse the cancellation of temporary protected status for thousands of Haitians and Syrians.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Congress gave the Secretary of Homeland Security unreviewable discretion to manage and end TPS designations, arguing that a legal challenge would result in “judicial micromanagement” of foreign policy.
“Congress balanced the risk there might be some decision that’s erroneous or baseless… that would evade judicial review, against the risk of what we’re living through here, which is judicial micromanagement of the sorts of foreign policy laden in determinations and decisions that are naturally conferred upon the political branches,” Sauer said.
But attorneys representing the Haitians and Syrian Temporary Protected Status holders argued that the Homeland Secretary must follow the “procedural guardrails” set by Congress, which include reviewing country conditions, consulting other government agencies, and providing TPS holders 60 days of notice.
“The bottom line is the secretary can terminate TPS, but he must turn square corners and follow the rules Congress set,” said attorney Ahilan T. Arulantham. “In contrast, as we’ve heard today, the government reads the statute like a blank check today. They want to use it to expel non-citizens, but the power that they seek is a double-edged sword.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned the significance of the legal challenge, which was described as a “box-checking exercise,” if the Trump administration still canceled the designation as long as they followed the procedural steps.
“If it’s just kind of a box-checking exercise, I mean, why would Congress permit review of the procedural aspect, when really what everybody cares about much more is the substance?” Barrett asked.
“I think it’s because Congress and us too, and the millions of people who live with TPS holders, have some faith in government, and they believe that if there is consultation, the decisions will be better,” Arulanantham said.
Sauer pushed back on those arguments, claiming that the Trump administration fulfilled the procedural requirements by “seeking input” from the State Department, though he claimed that even those basic steps were not necessary.
“If the secretary posted a notice on X saying, ‘I hereby terminate Syria’s TPS program effective tomorrow,’ you would say that there’s no judicial review of that decision,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
“Correct,” Sauer said.
The three liberal justices also pressed Sauer about President Donald Trump’s public and social media comments about Haitian immigrants, suggesting the statements show a “discriminatory purpose” behind the TPS cancellation.
“The President has disparaged Haitian TPS holders specifically as undesirables from a ‘s——- country,’ and days after falsely accusing them of ‘eating the dogs and eating the cats of Americans,’ he vowed that he would terminate Haiti’s TPS, and that is exactly what happened,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pushed back on the government’s claim that Trump’s rhetoric was focused on policy issues like crime or poverty and pointed to remarks made about “welcoming people” from Norway or Denmark.
“If the position of the United States is that we have to have an actual racial epithet… [and] we aren’t allowed to look at all the context,” Jackson said, then the court would be ignoring a “prime example” of discriminatory intent.
Justice Jackson noted that U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes — who attended Wednesday’s hearing and blocked the termination of TPS for Haitians in February — found that there is evidence of “discriminatory intent.”
“So aren’t we bound in some regard with respect to what the lower court has already determined about these facts?” she asked.
Sauer said the court should apply the logic of a different judge who said the President’s statements “are less relevant.”
At one point during the hearing, Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned the protections in place for Syrians by mentioning that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is no longer in place.
“The whole thing was the Assad regime,” Kavanaugh said. “After 53 years of complete oppression and brutal treatment, it’s done.”
Arulantham, who argued on behalf of the Syrians, pushed back and said that while the regime may have changed, the country remains a war zone and pointed to current State Department reports of violence in the country.
“It is of no relevance because even if the secretary is right and the State Department is wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that they didn’t talk to each other, and the national interest is not a criteria,” Arulantham said.
While the Court on Wednesday appeared closely divided on whether to invalidate Trump’s cancellation of TPS for Haitians and Syrians over procedural missteps, the bottom line is that the administrationretains almost unquestionable discretion as to if and when TPS status for certain countries should be discontinued.
And that means, if the legal teams representing the migrants prevail in this instance, it may be short-lived. The administration can move againto cancel their status, following the appropriate procedural steps, and more than 350,000+ immigrants who have lived here legally for quite some time under TPS could be forced to leave the country.
The court is expected to issue its decision in the case this summer.
