(MERRITT ISLAND, FL) — With the successful launch of SpaceX’s Fram2 mission on Monday night, an all-civilian crew is attempting to do what professional astronauts have never tried — orbit the Earth from pole to pole.
Riding on top of a Falcon 9 rocket, a SpaceX Dragon lifted off from Launch Complex 39A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida just after 9:46 p.m. and carried the team into a 90-degree polar orbit.
During the three to five-day mission, the autonomous Dragon will repeatedly travel from the North Pole to the South Pole at an altitude of 267 miles, with each orbit taking about 46 minutes.
The privately funded mission is being led by Maltese cryptocurrency entrepreneur Chun Wang. Wang is joined by Jannicke Mikkelsen, a Norwegian film director and cinematographer, Rabea Rogge, a robotics researcher from Berlin and Eric Philips, a self-described professional polar adventurer. This will be the first time in space for the quartet.
After liftoff, the Falcon 9’s first-stage booster landed on a SpaceX droneship in the Atlantic Ocean for reuse in future launches.
Named for the famous Norwegian polar exploration ship Fram, meaning “forward,” the Fram2 website says the team plans to view and photograph Earth’s polar regions from low-Earth orbit and conduct 22 experiments focused on “advancing human health and performance in space, particularly for future long-duration missions” including being the first mission to take x-rays of the human body in space, growing mushrooms in microgravity and studying atmospheric phenomena.
“After extensive training and dedication from our entire crew, we are honored to continue the legacy of the Fram name in an exciting era of commercial space exploration,” Wang said in a press release. “We are thankful for this opportunity, and we are grateful to SpaceX for making this mission a reality – we are excited to be the first crew to view and capture the Earth’s polar regions from low-Earth orbit and support important research to help advance humanity’s capabilities for long-duration space exploration.”
Mikkelsen, the mission’s vehicle commander, is a Norwegian film director and cinematographer specializing in next-generation technology for filming in hazardous and remote environments like the Earth’s poles.
Berlin-born Rogge, a robotics researcher, will serve as Fram2’s pilot, while Eric Philips, a professional polar adventurer and guide from Australia, will serve as Fram2’s mission specialist and medical officer.
The crew will observe Earth’s polar regions over 430 kilometers (267 miles) above the surface, allowing the Crew Dragon Resilience to travel from the North to the South Pole in under an hour. This route provides extensive coverage, enabling observation of areas and phenomena other missions cannot access.
Throughout Fram2’s time in orbit, the crew will take the first x-ray in space, perform exercise studies to maintain muscle and skeletal mass, and grow mushrooms in microgravity.
An exact landing date has not yet been announced, but the mission is expected to last nearly four days.
SpaceX says this will be the first west coast recovery of a Dragon crew. The capsule will splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the southern California coast. This is the fourth flight of this Dragon capsule.
(GUANTANAMO BAY) — One of the Venezuelan migrants who is believed to be among the latest group sent to El Salvador on Sunday night was in Guantanamo Bay and had a final order of removal, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Maiker Espinoza Escalona was the lead plaintiff in one of the Guantanamo cases brought by the ACLU against the Department of Homeland Security filed last month. His partner is currently detained in a detention center in Texas and his two-year-old daughter is in HHS custody, according to the ACLU.
“The government opposed our request for TRO on the ground that he was not in imminent danger of being sent from the U.S. to Guantanamo, but told the Court they would alert it within 2 business days if he or other Plaintiffs were transferred to Guantanamo,” Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU told ABC News. “The government has apparently chosen to use a loophole and transfer him on a Friday night, thereby avoiding notice to the Court at this point. He has apparently now been transferred to the notorious Salvadoran prison.”
Gelernt said he has serious concerns about the government’s “sudden allegations” against Escalona. “He and others being sent to the Salvadoran prison must be given due process to test the government’s assertions,” Gelernt added.
A White House official tells ABC News that the 17 alleged gang members who were deported to El Salvador last night were not deported under the Alien Enemies Act but under different authorities, including under Title 8 authorities.
It’s not clear whether the individuals including Escalona who were deported would have been protected by the Temporary Restraining Order issued by a federal judge on Friday that blocked the deportation of migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a chance to argue their removal in immigration court.
In a sworn declaration filed in early March before he was allegedly sent to Guantanamo, Escalona said he had been in immigration detention since May 22, 2024, in El Paso, Texas. He entered the country on May 14 and requested asylum, according to his declaration.
“I believe that I am at risk of being transferred because I have a final order of deportation and am from Venezuela,” Escalona said in the sworn declaration. “I also believe that I am going to be transferred to Guantanamo because of my tattoos, even though they have nothing to do with gangs. I have twenty tattoos.”
Escalona went on to list his tattoos he has that include a cross, a crown, the ghost icon for the social media app Snapchat, his niece’s name and the word “Faith” in Spanish.
“I do not want to be transferred to or detained at Guantanamo,” Escalona said in the declaration files in early March. I am afraid of what will happen to me when I get there. “I want access to an attorney to help me get out of detention and figure out what options I have in my immigration case.”
According to Escalona’s sworn declaration and the ACLU, his partner is currently detained in El Paso and his two-year-old daughter is under the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.
“If I am transferred to Guantanamo, I will be separated from my family,” Escalona said.
(HOUSTON) — One of the astronauts who returned to Earth after an unexpected nine months in space said on Monday that everyone holds “responsibility” for what may have gone wrong with Boeing’s Starliner test flight.
Barry “Butch” Wilmore and Sunita “Suni” Williams performed the first astronaut-crewed flight of Starliner to the International Space Station (ISS) in June 2024.
However, what was supposed to be a mission lasting about one week turned into a nine-month stay aboard the ISS due to several issues with Starliner before they returned home in mid-March 2024.
In response to a question during a press briefing at the Johnson Space Center in Houston on Monday about who is to “blame” for what went wrong, Wilmore said everyone holds some “responsibility.”
“I’ll start with me,” Wilmore said. “There were questions that I, as a commander of the spacecraft, that I should have asked, and I did not. At the time, I didn’t know I needed to. And maybe you could call that hindsight. But I’ll start and point the finger, and I’ll blame me. I could’ve asked some questions, and the answers to those questions could have turned the tide.”
“‘Blame’ … I don’t like that term, but certainly there’s responsibility throughout all the programs, and certainly you can start with me,” he continued. “Responsibility with Boeing, yes. Responsibility with NASA, yes, all the way up and down the chain. We all are responsible. We all own this.”
Issues with the spacecraft prompted NASA and Boeing to send Starliner back to Earth uncrewed and keep Wilmore and Williams onboard the ISS until early 2025, when they would return home on a SpaceX Crew-9 Dragon spacecraft once Crew-10 arrived at the ISS.
The SpaceX Crew-9 undocked in the early hours of Tuesday, March 18, and deorbited in the afternoon, before returning to Earth Tuesday evening.
Williams said they were “surprised” by the public interest in their mission.
“It’s interesting. We go and launch, we knew it was a little bit unique, obviously, first time flying on a new spacecraft,” she said. “But, you know, then life goes on up there and … we pivoted, and we were International Space Station crew members, and we’re doing what all of our other friends and in the astronaut, office do is go and work and train and do science.”
“And so you’re not really aware of what else is going on down here. But, I think we were just really focused on what we were doing and trying to be part of the team and making sure we pulled our weight for the team,” Williams said. “So no, I don’t think we were aware to the degree — honored and humbled by the fact of when we came home like, ‘Wow, there’s, there are a lot of people who are interested.'”
The pair were also asked about how they felt about being pulled into the middle of a political battle.
During a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity in February, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that the astronauts has been abandoned in space by then-president Joe Biden.
“They didn’t have the go-ahead with Biden,” Trump said. “He was going to leave them in space. I think he was going to leave them in space. … He didn’t want the publicity. Can you believe it?”
During the Hannity interview, Musk said SpaceX was “accelerating” the return of Wilmore and Williams at Trump’s request, adding that “they were left up there for political reasons, which is not good.”
These comments were made despite confirmation from NASA in August 2024 that Wilmore and Williams would return on the SpaceX Crew 9 spacecraft in early 2025.
NASA astronaut Nick Hague, who returned with Wilmore and Williams on Crew-9 said the politics “don’t make it up” to the ISS, but that there was always a plan to bring the astronauts home.
“We were planning from day one to return toward the end of end of February,” he said. “That all predicated on the fact that we would have a replacement crew show up, and we’d have adequate hand over that’s important to maintain the mission of the International Space Station, to continue pushing research and exploration, and that was never in question the entire time.”
Wilmore said although the Starliner mission did not go as originally planned, there were “contingencies” In place.
“We said this before; we had a plan, right? The plan went way off what we had planned,” he said. “But because we’re in human spaceflight, we prepare for any number of contingencies, because this is a curvy road. You never know where it’s going to go, we prepare for this.”
Ron Galella/Ron Galella Collection via Getty Images
(SANTA FE, NM) — A New Mexico judge ruled Monday that video, audio and photos that fall under New Mexico public records law can be released in connection to the deaths of actor Gene Hackman and his wife, Betsy Arakawa.
But Judge Matthew Wilson said their bodies cannot be shown; the bodies must be blurred or edited out.
This comes after Hackman’s estate petitioned for an injunction to stop the release of certain records.
It’s unclear when the remaining body worn camera footage will be released and if it will take any editing by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office.
The New Mexico Office of the Medical Investigator said it “respects the ruling.”
“As of today, the NM OMI has not finalized the post-mortem examination reports of Mr. Eugene Hackman and Mrs. Betsy Hackman,” the agency said. “However, once those reports are finalized, the NM OMI will release the reports and will not release photos, as ordered. The NM OMI will release documents to those who have requested them through it’s normal protocol, which is through The University of New Mexico’s public records portal. The NM OMI offers condolences to the Hackman Family.”
Officials previously released body camera footage from authorities responding to the Hackmans’ home, but not the couple’s bodies.
Hackman and Arakawa were mysteriously found dead in their Santa Fe home during a Feb. 26 welfare check with authorities unclear about their causes of death.
It was later announced Hackman, 95, died of cardiovascular and Alzheimer’s disease likely around Feb. 18, about one week after his wife died from a rare syndrome, hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, on about Feb. 12, officials said.
Hackman’s death was from “hypertensive and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with Alzheimer’s disease as a significant contributory factor,” Dr. Heather Jarrell, chief medical investigator for the state’s Office of the Medical Investigator, announced at a news conference.
“Mr. Hackman showed evidence of advanced Alzheimer’s disease,” she said. “He was in a very poor state of health. He had significant heart disease, and I think, ultimately, that is what resulted in his death.”
Arakawa, 65, died from hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare disease transmitted through rodent urine, droppings or saliva, officials said.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the disease “initially causes flu-like symptoms that can progress to more severe illness where people have trouble breathing.”
Those who contract hantavirus after being exposed to rodent excrement often feel ill for roughly three to six days, Jarrell said.
“Then they can transition to that pulmonary phase, where they have fluid in their lungs and around their lungs,” she said. “And at that point, a person can die very quickly, within 24 to 48 hours, roughly speaking, without medical treatment.”
Hackman was likely home with his deceased wife for one week before he died, Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza said.
(DALLAS) — “Numerous” homemade explosive devices were discovered by a citizen who was walking near a park outside of Dallas, according to authorities.
The person was in a wooded area near Wynne Park in Garland, when, around 11:30 a.m. Sunday, they saw an open suitcase and items scattered near it — including what looked like explosives, the Garland Police Department said.
Garland is about 20 miles northeast of Dallas.
The Garland Police Bomb Unit and FBI bomb technicians rushed to the scene and determined “there were numerous live homemade explosive devices,” police said.
“Bomb technicians worked through the day and into the night to safely render each device inoperative,” police said in a statement Monday.
No injuries were reported.
Police said authorities are still working to establish where the devices came from and the suspect’s intent.
Anyone with information is urged to call the Garland Police Department at 972-485-4840 or Garland Crime Stoppers at 972-272-TIPS (8477). Garland Crime Stoppers is offering a reward up to $5,000, police said.
(NEW YORK) — In recent weeks stories have emerged about college students whisked off campuses by immigration agents – targeted for deportation based on their writings or activism – and detained in federal custody despite never being charged with a crime.
While the number of impacted students appears to be small — with Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicating around 300 students were targeted last week — the actions, part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, have sparked fear and questions about the rights these students have, especially free speech.
Experts, immigration attorneys and advocates told ABC News the Trump administration has been using an unprecedented application of immigration law to expedite their removals. The administration, for its part, maintains that it is following the law and has accused some of the students detained of showing support for Hamas and participating in movements that are “creating a ruckus,” Rubio said.
While legal experts have said that noncitizens are generally guaranteed the same free speech as American citizens, the Trump administration has argued that their presence in the United States is a privilege. As their cases move through federal courts, the students challenging their removals have the potential to reshape the law related to free speech and immigration, according to legal experts.
In the meantime, the students caught in the Trump administration’s crosshairs may be detained for months despite never being charged with any crimes because of the massive backlog of cases in U.S. immigration courts.
Here’s what the experts say there is to know about their rights:
What rights do student visa or green card holders have if they are threatened with deportation?
Once the Trump administration attempts to revoke a visa or green card – which grants permanent residency rather than a short-term stay in the US for a specific purpose — students still have the right to an immigration hearing to determine if their deportations are justified, according to Cheryl David, a New York immigration attorney.
“The level of due process that they may be entitled to will depend on what immigration status they have in the United States, and whether or not the Trump administration has a basis for revoking their lawful status in the United States that has any reasonable basis in law or not,” said Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of its Immigrants’ Rights Clinic.
During those removal proceedings, noncitizens have the right to access a lawyer but are not guaranteed one like they would in a criminal court. If they are detained while they await their removal hearing, the noncitizens also have the right to file a habeas petition to challenge their detention.
Even though all the recent students who have had their visas revoked do not have criminal records, the Trump administration has insisted that they be detained while their cases play out, meaning they could spend more than six months behind bars without being charged with any crimes, according to retired Cornell Law School professor Stephen Yale-Loehr.
“The Trump administration has been a lot more aggressive than past administrations on putting people who have not been convicted of crimes into immigration detention,” said Yale-Loehr.
The Trump administration had justified the detentions by arguing that some of the students have supported terrorist activities, pose an ongoing threat to the United States, or threaten the country’s foreign policy interests.
Have past administrations revoked student visas?
The Trump administration’s policy of revoking student visas marks the most aggressive approach in more than two decades, according to immigration attorney Renata Castro.
“Because presidents have direct control over policies on the issuance of student visas by embassies and consulates, they are able to dial up or down the heat when It comes to issuing student visas from individuals of certain countries,” Castro said.
Following the 9/11 terror attacks, the George W. Bush administration implemented stricter immigration and student visas policies based on national security concerns. According to Castro, what makes the Trump administration’s revocations unique is that they are sometimes rooted on the exercise of free speech – a basis that could eventually be challenged in court.
“The government is looking at speech – the exercise of free speech – and using that to dig into perceived immigration violations so that they can revoke student visa,” she said.
What role might colleges and universities have related to deportations?
If a college or university expels a student for their campus activism, the students face a heightened risk of removal because they no longer have the student status required by their visa.
“If the school is not cooperating and they are still going to school, they’re not in violation of their student status,” said David. “Then the government would have to find another way to say that they’re removable from the United States.”
According to Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Trump administration’s recent crackdown has included more aggressive enforcement action on campuses, where some universities have cooperated with law enforcement.
“I have not seen before the kinds of aggressive tactics ICE is now taking to apprehend students in their dormitories, on campus or near campus for immigration enforcement,” said Chen.
Can a student be deported because they threaten U.S. foreign policy?
In some instances, the Trump administration has invoked a rarely-used law to justify removing noncitizens based on their impact on foreign policy. Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and Georgetown University fellow Badar Khan Suri were both detained based on the law.
The provision, 8 U.S.C. § 237 (a)(4)(C)(i), allows the removal of noncitizens if their presence in the United States could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
According to an analysis of past immigration cases conducted by political scientists Graeme Blair and David Hausman, the United States has invoked that law only 14 times in history as a basis for a removal, including only two times since 2000 when it was the sole basis for removal.
“I’ve been doing this for 25 years. I’ve never seen this used,” said Cheryl David, a longtime immigration attorney.
To prove that a noncitizen threatens U.S. foreign policy, Yale-Loehr said the administration will have to submit sworn declarations or evidence to prove the person’s impact on foreign policy.
“If it is this foreign policy ground, you need a statement from the secretary of state saying the magic words, this person’s presence would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences,” he said.
Mukherjee, of Columbia University’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, called the use of the law “unprecedented and unconstitutional” and believes the policy will be shot down by the courts because it is at odds with the First Amendment.
“It’s important for the American public to keep in mind that the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech for all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status. This is long established constitutional law ruled on by the Supreme Court over decades,” she said.
The Trump administration has argued that the invocation of the law is a justified, lawful, and protects US interests.
What basis is the Trump administration using for the removals?
The Trump administration has alleged that some students have supported terrorists as a basis for their removal. To prove that, David said, they will need to demonstrate that they did more than simply practice their free speech.
“Because a person you know necessarily does an op-ed saying we think that Israel is committing genocide, that’s not going to be enough,” David. “But if they are handing out flyers and promoting activities that the government thinks are related to terrorism, then that could be grounds to say they did engage in terrorist activity.”
Authorities are also looking closely at visa applications.
Federal authorities alleged that Columbia graduate student and legal permanent resident Mahmoud Khalil – who was first detained based on his alleged impact on foreign policy — lied on his green card application. Experts said that examining visa applications may become a broader strategy for the Trump administration to justify deportations.
“If you don’t disclose information on a green card application that the government thinks was material to whether or not they would have admitted you to the United States, then they can allege that you committed fraud on that application,” said David.
Can a removal decision be appealed?
Noncitizens generally have the right to challenge an immigration judge’s decision with the Board of Immigration Appeals or in federal court; however, David noted that they might not be able to fully exercise their appeal if they are already in U.S. custody and removed before their appellate rights are exhausted.
“Unless a federal judge saves that deportation, that person is going to be deported from the United States,” David said.
While other presidents – including Barack Obama – have embraced a policy of swift deportations, the Trump administration appears to be testing the limits of the law, experts said.
Does the location where a noncitizen is detained during their immigration proceedings matter?
According to Castro, keeping the students detained while their cases move through the courts could prompt more people to self-deport – a policy the Trump administration has actively encouraged.
“When an individual is kept in detention, it’s almost to break their spirit, because now they don’t have the ability to work. They don’t have access to free legal representation. Their life is falling apart,” she said. “Migrants who self deport are usually the ones who haven’t committed a crime and look at themselves in the mirror and think, ‘I’m being treated like a criminal, even though I’m not one.’”
The process of granting a bond in immigration court is a “marathon” according to Castro that takes at least three weeks, and judges in some jurisdictions infrequently hear habeas cases filed by noncitizens.
In some cases, the Trump administration has relocated noncitizens from the district where they were arrested to ICE holding facilities in other states. The location where they are currently held could be impactful if or when they file a habeas petition in federal court, according to Nicholas Espíritu, deputy legal director at the National Immigration Law Center.
For noncitizens held in the South Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Basile, Louisiana, they would end up filing their habeas petition in the more conservative Western District of Louisiana and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The move to another state could also complicate their legal representation and make it harder to communicate regularly with lawyers, said Espíritu.
“These individuals are students, and the idea that they are going to have the resources necessary kind of on their own to be able to secure that robust legal protection just demonstrates the way in which the actions taken by the federal government are really seeking to undermine, quite frankly, the ability for these individuals to have their case heard in court,” he said.
A vegetation fire in California rapidly spread to 1,000 acres on Sunday, prompting evacuations of parts of Inyo and Mono counties. (Cal Fire)
(BISHOP, CA) — A vegetation fire in California rapidly spread to 1,250 acres on Sunday, prompting evacuations of parts of Inyo and Mono counties.
The fire was first reported just after 2 p.m. PT near Highway 6 and Silver Canyon Road north of Bishop, California, a city east of Fresno, according to Cal Fire.
Officials named the fast-moving blaze the Silver Fire.
It remained at 0% containment as of 9 a.m. Monday.
Cal Fire said Sunday evening that the blaze crossed Highway 6, threatening multiple structures and power lines.
There are no known injuries associated with the fire, officials said.
Fighting the blaze was impacted by strong winds, with gusts reaching up to 35 mph at Bishop Airport, according to Cal Fire, which noted extreme turbulence grounded some firefighting aircraft.
The National Weather Service forecasts continued windy conditions for the region, with a High Wind Warning in effect through Monday evening.
ABC News’ Timmy Truong and Tristan Maglunog contributed to this report
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — A group of advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit on Monday challenging Donald Trump’s recent executive order seeking to overhaul the U.S. election system, accusing the president of trying to enact “unlawful actions” to enforce “lawless mandates.”
The lawsuit alleges that Trump’s unilateral efforts to reshape voting in federal elections — including requiring proof of citizenship when registering and restricting mail-in voting deadlines — exceeds his authority as president and threatens to strip millions of their voting rights.
“The Order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the President authority to declare election rules by executive fiat,” the lawsuit alleged. “The Order is an attack on the constitutionally mandated checks and balances that keep American elections free and fair.”
The lawsuit — filed in the D.C. federal court by the Campaign Legal Center and State Democracy Defenders Fund on behalf of a League of United Latin American Citizens, Secure Families Initiative and Arizona Students’ Association — asks a federal judge to block the implementation of parts of the order and force the Trump administration to rescind any guidance they issued.
It names a number of defendants, including the Executive Office of the President, the Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Department of Defense, as well as the United States Election Assistance Commission and its commissioners — an independent government commissioner focused on election administration.
Trump’s executive order, signed last week, alleged that the United States “fails to enforce basic and necessary election protections.” The order instructs the Department of Justice to prosecute elections crimes in states the administration deems are not in compliance with federal law, requires the Department of Homeland Security to work with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to review state voter registration lists, and directs the Election Assistance Commission to withhold federal funding if states do not institute “uniform and nondiscriminatory” standards for counting votes.
“Under the Constitution, State governments must safeguard American elections in compliance with Federal laws that protect Americans’ voting rights and guard against dilution by illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error,” the order said.
Specifically, the executive order calls for proof of citizenship nationwide on the form used when registering to vote — a change from current election laws and a provision voting rights experts have taken issue with. Documents that can be used for proof, according to the order, include a passport, Real ID, a military ID card, or a valid federal or state ID.
But the lawsuit points out that the order does not accept identification documents issued by Tribal governments or birth certificates as forms of proof. The suit also raises questions about the approved methods, arguing that only half of Americans possess a passport and “most” Real IDs do not indicate citizenship.
Regardless, the lawsuit suggests the order’s direction to the Election Assistance Commission to change the form to add the proof of citizenship requirement could violate the Voter Registration Act of 1993, which according to the lawsuit gives the EAC “exclusive authority” to administer the form.
“In keeping with the NVRA’s intent to create a simple and easy-to-complete registration form, the NVRA specifies that the Federal Form may not “include any requirement for notarization or other formal authentication,” the lawsuit states.
Trump’s order suggested that noncitizens can easily vote in federal elections, but experts have called noncitizen voting a “vanishingly rare phenomenon” that is easily prosecuted. According to a study of over 23 million votes cast in the 2016 election, officials identified only 30 suspected incidents of noncitizen voting, only 0.0001% of the total votes cast.
Separately, the executive order also takes aim at mail-in voting, making federal funding conditional on states setting a deadline for ballots to be received by Election Day. Trump — who was charged with multiple federal crimes for his effort to overturn the 2020 election in cases that were dropped once he was elected — has repeatedly suggested that mail-in ballots have led to an increase in voting fraud.
The lawsuit claims the provision about mail-in ballots is unlawful, arguing that “states have wide discretion and flexibility” to establish the time, place, and manner of federal elections under the Elections and Electors Clauses in the Constitution.
“Congress can enact election laws if it chooses, but absent a conflict with federal law, States have the power to establish and follow their own election laws,” the lawsuit states.
According to the suit, seventeen states, plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, have laws that allow ballots to be counted as long as they are mailed by Election Day and received by a certain deadline afterward.
“Many of these States have had such receipt deadlines for many years, and Congress has declined to pass any laws dictating ballot receipt deadlines,” the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit notes that Congress has “long established” that the federal Election Day is the first Tuesday in November, in addition to establishing the date that presidential electors must be appointed, but “has left further regulation in this area largely up to States.” The lawsuit says the U.S. Supreme Court “has said that while votes must be cast by Election Day, some aspects of the election process, such as tabulating all votes, will naturally take place after Election Day.”
“The Attorney General does not have the authority to ‘enforce’ the federal Election Day statutes, and the President cannot order her to do so. Nor does a State “violate” those statutes when it counts validly cast ballots mailed by Election Day that are received after Election Day if State law so allows,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit also suggests the executive order could make it harder for citizens abroad and those serving in the military to vote. The executive order signed by Trump directs to secretary of defense to update the form used by these groups to register and request an absentee ballot — called the “Federal Post Card Application” — to include a requirement of documentary proof of citizenship as well as “proof of eligibility to vote in elections in the State in which the voter is attempting to vote.”
The lawsuit notes this form is required by law as part of the the The Uniformed And Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, passed in 1986 to “protect the voting rights of Americans serving in the military, their families, and other U.S. citizens living abroad.” The suit claims the changes required by the order would be “impossible given the format required by Congress.”
“Neither the President nor the Secretary of Defense has any legal authority to disregard UOCAVA’s statutory requirement to make such a post card available to military and overseas voters,” the lawsuit states.
Together, these provisions would have a “significant impact” on voting rights., the lawsuit claims.
Members of LULAC — a Hispanic and Latin American civil rights organization — for example, would be harmed if some of its members “who are eligible to vote often do not have the requisite citizenship documents.” the lawsuit states. The organization expects that efforts to register voters “will plummet.”
The Arizona Students’ Association will similarly be harmed by the proof of citizenship requirement, the lawsuit states, despite it being required when voters register on the state form there.
“Even those members who are able to register face imminent harm. Some members will be able to obtain or access DPOC only by spending significant time, money, and/or effort to do so, and will face greater difficulty registering because of the DPOC Requirement,” the lawsuit said.
ABC News’ Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
(KING COUNTY, Wa.) — Armed gunmen broke into former Seattle Seahawks player Richard Sherman’s home with his family inside at the time, according to video he shared on social media from his residential security cameras.
The King County Sheriff’s Office said the break-in occurred just after midnight on Sunday, which was Sherman’s 37th birthday.
“House being robbed at gun point with my family in it isn’t what anyone wants for a birthday gift,” Sherman said. “Scary situation that my wife handled masterfully and kept my kids safe. If anyone has any info that can help find these people please reach out.”
The video shows three individuals busting through a window in Sherman’s home.
Police said the robbery remains an open and active investigation.
It is not clear if anything was taken from Sherman’s home. Investigators have seen the security camera footage and will use that and any other evidence to build the case, police said.
There have been no arrests and there are no suspects at this time.
Sherman, a cornerback, was a fifth round pick out of Stanford in 2011 and became the lynchpin of the Seahawks’ “Legion of Boom” defense. He spent seven seasons in Seattle, being named first-team All Pro three times and making the Pro Bowl five times.
Sherman won a Super Bowl with the Seahawks in 2014. He later played for the San Francisco 49ers for three seasons and finished his career with a brief stint in Tampa Bay. He currently works as a TV commentator for Amazon Prime’s Thursday Night Football.
The group allegedly stole jewelry, watches, cash and “other luxury merchandise” from the homes of two Kansas City Chiefs players — Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce — and burglarized the home of Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow, federal prosecutors said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Securities and Exchange Commission is continuing its $150 million lawsuit against Elon Musk that was brought during the Biden administration.
According to a court filing Monday, the tech billionaire and head of the Department of Government Efficiency has agreed to respond to the suit, which accuses him of misleading investors when he bought millions of dollars in Twitter stock in 2022, prior to his acquisition of the company.
The SEC brought the case against Musk on Jan. 14 in the waning days of the Biden administration, and a representative of the SEC served Musk with the complaint and a summons earlier this month — though Musk contests the validity of the service.
Under the terms of the agreement, Musk’s lawyers will file a response to the complaint by June 6, pending approval from the court.
“The parties respectfully submit that this compromise is reasonable and will conserve judicial resources,” the filing said.
Monday’s filing marks the first time a deadline for Musk to respond to the complaint has been raised by either party.
Musk’s lawyers could not immediately be reached for comment by ABC News.
“They spend their time on s— like this when there are so many actual crimes that go unpunished,” Musk said on X in January in response to the SEC’s suit.
