A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions, on June 23, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Tuesday bolstered the ability of federal border agents to remove from the country lawful permanent residents, or green card holders, who may have committed a crime involving “moral turpitude.”
In a 6-3 decision by Justice Clarence Thomas in Blanche v. Lau, the court said border agents do not bear the burden of having to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that an immigrant seeking to re-enter the country after a trip abroad had committed a crime before denying them admission, but need only show that there was reason to believe they had.
“The Immigration and Nationality Act does not impose that requirement,” Thomas wrote. The ruling effectively makes it easier for border officials to strip lawful permanent resident (LPR) status from people as they arrive at U.S. ports of entry.
It is also a setback for plaintiff Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and U.S. green card holder who was deemed inadmissible at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in 2012 as he was returning from a trip to China. Officials denied his formal re-entry into the U.S. because he faced New Jersey state charges for trademark counterfeiting at the time, though he was conditionally allowed readmission.
.S. immigration law states that green card holders who legally leave the U.S. for short periods should be allowed to re-enter, but there are exceptions – among them if the green card holder is convicted of or admits to having committed “a crime involving moral turpitude.”
A year later, Lau pleaded guilty to the counterfeiting charge and was subsequently ordered deported. He continued to contest his removal, arguing that the crime didn’t constitute one of “moral turpitude.”
In a dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, argued that the government must bear the burden of first proving that a green card holder had, in fact, committed a crime before stripping their status.
“I worry that the court has now handed the government a massive blank check,” Jackson wrote, in part. “With today’s the decision, the Court allows the government to return an LPR to the status of ‘seeking admission’ upon his entry at the border, so long as the government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted. That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation” of the law.
Rain clouds roll over the United States Supreme Court building on June 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. The high court handed down three decisions Thursday, including United States v Hemani where the court ruled 9-0 to limit a federal ban on drug users’ Second Amendment right to own firearms. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that oil giant Exxon Mobil can sue the Cuban government over more than $1 billion in seized property, potentially giving the United States greater financial leverage over the cash-strapped country.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that state-owned companies can’t argue they are protected by sovereign immunity to fight litigation over assets seized by Cuba’s communist government.
The decision — as well as a similar case last month when the Supreme Court ruled companies can be held liable for using seized property — comes as the Trump administration ratchets pressure on the struggling island nation through embargoes and a criminal indictment of former leader Raul Castro. The decision could open the door to more litigation over assets seized by the Cuban government, adding pressure to the economically distressed country.
The case revolved around the interpretation of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996, also known as the Helms-Burton Act, which was passed by Congress after Cuba shot down two unarmed planes flown by humanitarian organization Brothers to the Rescue. The law established the right of U.S. nationals to sue over property seized by the Cuban government, though every president until President Donald Trump waived that provision.
The day Trump allowed lawsuits against Cuba in 2019, Exxon Mobil sued over their property in the country — including hundreds of gas stations, an oil refinery, depots and packaging plants — valued at more than $1 billion. In court, the Cuban government argued that the companies were protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and that Exxon would need to show they were exempted from that law for the case to proceed. Both the district and circuit courts sided with Cuba — eventually leading the case to the Supreme Court, which reversed those rulings in the opinion on Tuesday. “It would make little sense for Congress to construct an elaborate statute authorizing suits against the Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities if, because of the FSIA, almost no suits could ever get through the courthouse door,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that “the entire architecture of the Helms-Burton Act” establishes that sovereign immunity does not apply and that ruling otherwise would “badly undermine Congress’s design and thwart the President’s statutorily authorized assessment of current developments in Cuba.”
“After the President has allowed suits under the Act to go forward, there is no additional FSIA hurdle that a plaintiff must clear in order to sue Cuban agencies or instrumentalities,” wrote Kavanaugh. “The Helms-Burton Act authorizes private suits against Cuban agencies and instrumentalities — suits that would largely be nonstarters if subjected to the FSIA’s requirements.”
The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the majority, writing that the Helms-Burton Act falls short of the high legal bar to show that it eliminates claims of sovereign immunity.
“Nothing in the text or ‘architecture’ of the Helms-Burton Act suggests that Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of these defendants — much less that it did so with the requisite unmistakable clarity,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote.
Last month, the Supreme Court delivered a similar defeat for Cuba, ruling that cruise lines Royal Caribbean, Carnival, Norwegian and MSC can be held liable for using a port confiscated by the Cuban government.
An exterior view of the U.S. Capitol on September 9, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Bonnie Cash/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Congress is one step closer to passing its most far-reaching housing reform legislation in decades.
The Senate voted 85-5 on the final passage of the 21st Century Road to Housing Act on Monday.
With midterm elections months away, Congress is taking noteworthy and rare bipartisan action to tackle one element of affordability, a talking point in races across the country this year.
The bill comes as a recent Zillow analysis found the cost of buying a starter home is $1 million or more in a record 242 cities across the country.
The legislation aims to address the nation’s housing shortage by increasing the supply of homes and overall homeownership. This is achieved through loosening regulations to encourage housing construction and limiting Wall Street investors’ ability to buy homes that could go to families instead.
A 2024 study from the government-sponsored housing enterprise Freddie Mac estimated that U.S. faces a shortfall of 3.7 million units contributing to its housing crisis.
The bill also provides grants to turn vacant buildings into affordable housing.
By increasing the supply of homes for sale, the legislation is intended to lower home costs for Americans.
With the Senate passing the bill 85-5, the legislation now moves to the House of Representatives, where it is also expected to pass with overwhelming bipartisanship as early as Tuesday night when they return from their recess break.
Once through Congress, the bill will head to the desk of President Donald Trump to become law.
“Today’s vote proves that it is possible to find bipartisan common ground on legislation that actually helps the American people, and importantly, it proves that bipartisan legislation doesn’t have to be the weakest, most milquetoast agreement that doesn’t offend anyone or do too much to help anyone,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said on the Senate floor ahead of Monday’s vote.
“I don’t say this a lot, but today I’m proud to be a member of the United States Senate,” Warren said.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, discussed how the bill can give Americans more options on Monday.
“When you put more housing supply on the market, more people have a chance to become first-time homebuyers,” he said. “Today, the average first-time homebuyer is 40 years old. That is just too old.”
Republican Sens. Ron Johnson (Wisc.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rick Scott (Fla.) and Tommy Tuberville (Ala.) voted against the legislation. Over the weekend, Sen. Rick Scott explained his objection to the legislation, arguing that the federal government cannot successfully impact housing regulation.
“Well, I don’t see how it’s going to drive down the cost of housing. What’s going to drive down the U.S. cost of housing, two things, if you balance a budget, interest rates are going to come down, one of the biggest with lousing,” Scott said on Fox News’ Saturday in America. “Number two, most of regulation with respect to housing is not the federal level. It’s at the local level, what cities and counties are doing. The federal government cannot drive the cost of housing down.”
The entrance to a U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) detention facility is seen following a shooting, on September 25, 2025 in Dallas, Texas. (Brandon Bell/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Tuesday announced is seeking to fine an immigration attorney who allegedly filed false asylum claims — the first time the agency has filed such a claim.
Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security, announced five notices of intent to fine attorney Vinod Doddamani, who they say filed 32 immigration cases in which he filed 64 fraudulent documents.
Doddamani faces a $250,000 fine for what DHS says is a pattern of filing allegedly false asylum claims. He allegedly filed the “identical or nearly identical in language and substance, containing the same or nearly the same factual narrative and supporting details regarding the alleged persecution,” according to DHS.
The action against Doddamani comes after DHS’s top lawyer last month directed ICE to go after lawyers who filed fraudulent asylum claims in immigration court. DHS has never sough to punish lawyers who have allegedly file fraudulent claims before.
Filing a false immigration claim violates anti-fraud statues, according to DHS General Counsel James Percival, and those who file them should be held accountable, according to a memo from Percival and reviewed by ABC News.
“Fraudulent asylum claims threaten the safety of Americans by overwhelming our burdened immigration system and delaying the removal of dangerous criminal aliens,” said Percival. “By holding [Doddamani] accountable, we are sending a message to other immigration attorneys who engage in fraud across the country: your days of abusing and defrauding our immigration system are over.”
ABC News has reached out to Doddamani’s attorney for comment.
A light rain falls outside of the U.S. Supreme Court ahead of the release of new opinions on June 23, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A narrowly divided Supreme Court on Tuesday denied a Louisiana man the ability to sue state prison officials for damages after they forcibly shaved him bald behind bars, allegedly violating his religious rights as a devout Rastafarian.
In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said federal law did not permit the plaintiff, Damon Landor, to seek money from individual state employees.
Landor, whose locks of hair had grown uncut for 20 years, has said he felt “raped” by the experience.
The ruling was a victory for states, which said such claims could bankrupt them.
Religious rights advocates warned that it would severely restrict the ability of victims of religious discrimination to sue for justice and accountability.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Congressional candidate Claire Valdez speaks during a Get Out the Vote (GOTV) rally at Kings Theater on June 18, 2026 in New York City. Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier are challenging incumbents in Democratic primary contests. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The first major test of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s political influence could come Tuesday as three of his congressional endorsees face competitive primary races.
Two Democratic congressmen in New York City are facing challenges from progressive candidates endorsed by Mamdani, while two other races in the city each have multiple candidates vying for the Democratic nomination, including a Kennedy family member.
The Empire State is once again expected to play a pivotal role in the battle for control of the House this November.
North of the city in the Hudson Valley, a crowded Democratic field is seeking to flip Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler’s seat.
And in the state’s sprawling 21st Congressional District, which stretches from the top of the Catskill Mountains to the Canadian border, a candidate endorsed by President Donald Trump is taking on a state GOP-backed assemblyman in the race to replace Rep. Elise Stefanik.
1 city, 4 high-profile races
New York City largely leans blue, but the primary races are showing deep divisions among Democratic voters.
“I think what’s interesting about primaries, especially in New York, is that they’re the main contest because they tend to have an outsized influence on the general election,” said Hostos Community College assistant professor Helen Chang.
When drivers cross into Brooklyn, they are greeted with a sign noting that Mamdani is the mayor and Antonio Reynoso is the borough president.
While Mamdani and Reynoso’s names might appear together on the sign, they are not on the same page in the 7th District race in which Reynoso is a candidate. Reynoso is supported by New York Attorney General Letitia James, but Mamdani is backing state Assemblywoman Claire Valdez. Julie Won, a city council member, is also running.
In Manhattan and Brooklyn’s 10th District, Rep. Dan Goldman is being challenged by Mamdani-endorsed former comptroller Brad Lander, while in the 13th District, which covers parts of Manhattan and the Bronx, the mayor is supporting community advocate Darializa Avila Chevalier over Rep. Adriano Espaillat. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is backing Espaillat and Goldman.
Mamdani did not endorse a candidate in Manhattan’s 12th District. The race has been dominated by the artificial intelligence industry, with spending both supporting and opposing state Assemblyman Alex Bores.
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed state Assemblyman Micah Lasher in the race, while former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is backing former President John F. Kennedy’s grandson, Jack Schlossberg. Lincoln Project co-founder George Conway, health researcher Nina Schwalbe and attorney Laura Dunn are also running.
Noteworthy contests to the north
In the northern suburbs, the 17th is one of the state’s handful of swing districts. Home to Bill and Hillary Clinton, the district has been represented by Lawler since 2023.
Several Democrats are looking to make the district blue again, including former National Security Council Counterterrorism Director Cait Conley, Rockland County Legislator Beth Davidson, Tarrytown Village Trustee Effie Phillips-Staley, former reporter Michael Sacks and retired Air Force officer John Cappello.
Further upstate in the state’s northernmost district, Republican primary candidate Anthony Constantino has aimed to closely align himself with Trump.
Constantino, who received the president’s endorsement, is the CEO of Sticker Mule and made headlines in 2024 by placing a large “Vote for Trump” sign atop his building.
Rival candidate Robert Smullen, a state assemblyman and retired Marine Corps officer, was endorsed by the chair of the New York Republican State Committee.
Steny Hoyer arrives in Christianborg Palace on January 16, 2026 in Copenhagen, Denmark. (Photo by Martin Sylvest Andersen/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — At the beginning of this year, after spending more than four decades in Congress and serving as the number two Democrat in the House under Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Steny Hoyer, 87, announced his plans to retire at the end of his current term.
Hoyer’s announcement instantly launched a crowded race to replace him in southern Maryland’s deep-blue 5th Congressional District, which has ballooned to include more than 20 Democratic primary candidates. Voters head to the polls Tuesday to decide who will be the Democratic nominee for Hoyer’s seat, as well as other federal, state and local offices on the ballot in Maryland’s midterm primary election.
Shortly after announcing his retirement, Hoyer chose his intended successor — the longtime Democrat endorsed his former aide Maryland state Del. Adrian Boafo. The district is unlikely to elect a Republican, so whoever wins the Democratic primary is on a glide path to victory in November.
Boafo, who served as Hoyer’s campaign manager, also picked up endorsements from other Democratic heavyweights in the state like Maryland Gov. Wes Moore and U.S. Sen. Angela Alsobrooks.
Those running against Boafo include former Prince George’s County Executive Rushern Baker, healthcare CEO Quincy Bareebe, Prince George’s County Councilwoman Wala Blegay and former Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn, who rose to national prominence for his testimony in congressional hearings about defending the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection. Dunn ran for the House in the 3rd District in 2024 and finished second in the Democratic primary.
The debate over the influence of pro-Israel and pro-cryptocurrency super PAC money has played a central role in the race to replace Hoyer, as Boafo’s opponents have criticized the millions of dollars his campaign has received from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s United Democracy Project (UDP) PAC and Protect Progress, a crypto-aligned super PAC.
“Adrian has spent the last year laser-focused on the issues impacting Marylanders. His opponents continue to try and make the race about anything else besides what this race is actually about: the people of this district and the real need to have a fighter who stands up to this President,” Boafo’s campaign manager, Oren Adams, told ABC News in a statement.
In the northwest part of the state, former Rep. David Trone — who gave up his seat representing Maryland’s 6th District to launch an unsuccessful run for Senate in 2024 — is trying to make a political comeback after losing to Alsobrooks in the 2024 Democratic primary. Trone, a businessman who has self-funded his campaigns to the tune of tens of millions of dollars, is hoping to reclaim his seat from his successor, Rep. April McClain-Delaney, the wife of former Rep. John Delaney, who also once represented the 6th District before leaving to seek higher office.
At the top of the ballot, Moore seeks the Democratic nomination for what would be his second term in the governor’s mansion. The high-profile governor is seeking re-election as his name continues to be floated as a potential contender for the Democratic nomination for president in 2028.
Governor of Minnesota Tim Walz makes a speech during the ’10th Austrian World Summit’ climate conference at the Hofburg Palace in Vienna, Austria, June 16, 2026. (Salih Okuroglu/Anadolu via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Monday tossed out multiple Justice Department subpoenas to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other officials tied to a federal investigation regarding the state’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, according to a newly published legal opinion.
Patrick Schiltz, chief judge of the Minnesota federal district court, found that the subpoenas were “part of a broader campaign to coerce state and local officials” to aid the Trump administration in supporting federal immigration activities that “played out against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s well-established history of using criminal investigations to retaliate against and pressure the President’s political and personal adversaries.”
“The fact that connections between the information sought in the subpoenas and any possible criminal violation range from extremely weak to nonexistent only adds to the overwhelming evidence that these subpoenas were not issued to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate,” Schiltz wrote in his order released Monday.
The subpoenas, which were issued on Jan. 20 against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration surge in Minnesota that drew widespread protests, sought an expansive amount of information from Walz and others including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and Board of Commissioners.
In his opinion quashing the subpoenas, Schiltz lambasted the government for their “extraordinarily broad” request examining materials “that largely if not entirely relate to constitutionally protected conduct.” It’s almost unheard of for federal judges to quash criminal subpoenas from Justice Department prosecutors.
“The Department has launched a significant incursion into matters that the Constitution reserves to sovereign states, and one would expect that the Department would not have done so unless it was aware of compelling evidence of criminal or at least suspicious behavior,” Schiltz said.
Pointing to a series of statements from President Donald Trump, including social media posts previewing a “DAY OF RECKONING AND RETRIBUTION” was coming for Minnesota — followed by a leak just three days later of a purported federal investigation in Walz and Frey — Schiltz said there was a clear pattern established of the government using its powers purely to punish Trump’s adversaries for their refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
justify the subpoenas, which he said had such a remote connection to potential criminal conduct “as to be spurious.”
“The Department suggests that requiring city officials to report known ICE activity to the City Council could result in the dissemination of that information-and that dissemination of that information could, in turn, result in other individuals evading or interfering with future ICE activity,” Schiltz wrote. “This reasoning piles speculation upon speculation, while also taking aim at perfectly legal-indeed, constitutionally protected-behavior. As a general matter, any citizen who happens across law-enforcement activity has a constitutional right to observe it, to record it, and to mention it to anyone they’d like-including members of the Minneapolis City Council.”
The order follows a similar move by the chief district judge in Washington, D.C., in March that quashed subpoenas tied to the DOJ’s investigation of then-Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, after Judge James Boasberg determined the probe was based on no clear evidence and appeared purely rooted in Trump’s animus towards Powell.
“Today’s ruling is a victory for the rule of law and our democracy. A federal district judge found that the U.S. Department of Justice’s investigation into me and other Minnesota elected officials was politically motivated, unconstitutional, and meritless,” Walz said in a statement.
“The U.S. Justice Department is pursuing criminal investigations into the President’s political opponents,” Walz said. “This case was just one example of that, but we are seeing daily reminders of this administration’s lawlessness — in Minnesota and around the country. We all must continue to seek justice and uphold the rule of law.”
Frey, in his own statement, said that “criticism of our government is not a crime.”
“One of the defining strengths of our democracy is the ability to challenge those in power without fear of retribution,” Frey wrote. “Elected officials have both the right and the responsibility to speak honestly about how government decisions affect the people they serve.”
In a statement responding to the ruling, a DOJ spokesperson did not say whether the Justice Department plans to appeal Schiltz’s order.
“The department takes the unlawful obstruction of federal law enforcement operations extremely seriously and will continue to act in full compliance with the law to investigate these matters,” the spokesperson said.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Monday tossed out multiple Justice Department subpoenas to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other officials tied to a federal investigation regarding the state’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, according to a newly published legal opinion.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
The Lincoln Memorial is seen on June 20, 2026 in Washington, DC. The National Park Service continues to work to control and remove the algae bloom that has turned the pool green following the Trump Administration’s recent $14 million repair, resealing and painting project. (Photo by Anna Rose Layden/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Three-time U.S. Olympian David Hearn told ABC News that police arrested him on Friday after he touched a piece of blue coating that was partially detached from the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Hearn said he went on a bike ride on Friday afternoon and stopped by the Reflecting Pool as a “curious, concerned citizen”. Given his background in materials science, Hearn says he was interested to see the situation for himself after reading about reports of algae in the water and paint peeling off.
“I saw a piece of this loose end of this blue coating … I reached out and touched the end of that piece that was loose but still attached to the bottom,” Hearn told ABC News. “I was able to reach out and touch the edge of that that was still attached at the bottom and handled it a little bit.”
Hearn, who represented the U.S. in canoeing, said he was able to feel and bend the coating a bit.
“I did not remove, I did not damage, I did not rip, tear, break, destroy or harm any part of the Reflecting Pool,” Hearn said.
“The condition of that part and all other parts of the Reflecting Pool were in the same condition after I walked away as they were before I walked up to it.”
Hearn said as he was touching the material, a National Park Service employee told him to stop touching it. He said he then walked back to his bike where National Guardsmen told him that the Park Police wanted to talk to him.
“I had no idea I was about to be arrested,” Hearn said. “They didn’t say they were charging me, but they did start to handcuff me. They did not ever read me my rights. They did not allow me any phone calls for the ensuing five hours, and they did not detail the charges that were going to be leveled against me.”
The National Park Service has not replied to a request from ABC News about Hearn’s arrest or any others.
Hearn is set to appear in court on July 9.
Hearn said he was “fully cooperative” the whole time, did not resist and was held for five hours before being released Friday night.
Asked whether he is worried about what will happen to him next, Hearn said: “I am concerned. I’m very wary of our current government; I’m a single citizen being singled out in this way by my government. It’s not fair, and it’s not right.”
The Reflecting Pool has been plagued with algae and peeling paint in the days since the Trump administration completed a $14.65 million renovation. Visitors have been flocking to the pool over the weekend and some have taken to social media with photos and videos showing the algae and peeling paint.
President Donald Trump claims, without evidence, that the damage was committed by vandals, saying Saturday in a lengthy post on his social media platform that the pool would need to be partially drained to repair the peeling lining.
Trump said multiple people had been arrested for vandalism and blamed the condition of the pool on someone pouring “corrosive and destructive chemicals” into the pool and that “They took some form of knife or blade, and put a 250 foot long gash into the beautiful facade of what took so much work, competence, and money to build and complete.”
An administration official said on Sunday that as of Saturday night, five individuals had been arrested for vandalism, and five others had been issued citations.
The official added that 14 police reports had also been filed for alleged vandalism, including the alleged crime Trump described.
Hearn said he has “a lot of support.”
“I have several very respectable law firms who are offering to provide pro bono counsel, and we will be vigorously defending against these charges,” he said.
