Over 70 million Americans on alert for severe weather, tornadoes
ABC News
(NEW YORK) — Destructive, long-track tornadoes are possible from Arkansas to Ohio on Friday as over 70 million Americans prepare for potential severe weather.
Strong tornadoes, destructive winds in excess of 75 mph and very large hail the size of baseballs are possible.
More than 300,000 customers are without power on Friday afternoon, including over 200,000 in Michigan, with severe weather moving through the Midwest overnight.
One or two tornadoes may become a high-end, long-track twister.
There is a moderate risk — level 4 of 5 — for significantly severe storms Friday, from southeast Missouri through southern Illinois, western and central Kentucky and southern Indiana. After storms move through in the morning, the majority of the afternoon will be dry and sunshine is expected. However, this will work to re-energize the atmosphere, especially considering the extremely warm air mass creating record high temperatures for surrounding areas.
Around 3 to 4 p.m. Central time, storms will begin popping up over eastern Missouri and central Illinois, which may turn severe quickly.
There will be storms over Paducah, Kentucky, and Little Rock, Arkansas, around 6 p.m. CT.
The storms will reach Indianapolis around 7 p.m.
The storms will then hit Cincinnati; Louisville, Kentucky; and Jonesboro, Arkansas, at 8 p.m. CT before hitting Memphis, Tennessee, at 9 p.m. They will reach Nashville, Tennessee, from 10 to 11 p.m.
Strong storms are possible in the Mid-Atlantic on Friday afternoon as the energy from the morning system reach the area. Strong winds and some hail are the main risks for the East Coast.
Saturday’s risk area is mainly centered over Texas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, where damaging wind, large hail and a few tornadoes are possible. These storms are expected in the evening and overnight hours.
(LOUISIANA) — An immigration judge ruled Friday that Columbia University activist Mahmoud Khalil can be deported on grounds that he threatens foreign policy, as alleged by the Trump administration.
The stunning move may have repercussions on hundreds of other international students who have been targeted by the administration.
The Louisiana judge has given Khalil’s lawyers a deadline of April 23 to file applications for relief to stop his deportation. The judge said if they failed to make the deadline she would file an order of removal to either Syria or Algeria.
The ruling stunned supporters in the court as the judge issued it. Some supporters in the courthouse began to weep as she agreed with the government’s assertion that they did not have to provide any evidence in addition for the administration’s main claim against Khalil.
Khalil, a green card holder and permanent legal resident who is married to an American citizen, addressed the court after the hearing was adjourned and spoke to the judge directly, referring to a previous comment she made about due process and “fundamental fairness.”
“I would like to quote what you said last time that there’s nothing that’s more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness. Clearly what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process. This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family. I just hope that the urgency that you deemed fit for me are afforded to the hundreds of others who have been here without hearing for months,” he said.
Judge Jamee Comans’ decision to remove Khalil fell in line with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assertion that his continued presence and actions in the country poses “adverse foreign policy consequence.”
The deportation hearing played out as a federal court case in New Jersey remains active. A judge in that case has ruled that Khalil cannot be deported while the proceedings are ongoing.
“Today, we saw our worst fears play out: Mahmoud was subject to a charade of due process, a flagrant violation of his right to a fair hearing, and a weaponization of immigration law to suppress dissent. This is not over, and our fight continues,” Marc van der Hout, an attorney for Khalil, said in a statement Friday. “If Mahmoud can be targeted in this way, simply for speaking out for Palestinians and exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech, this can happen to anyone over any issue the Trump administration dislikes. We will continue working tirelessly until Mahmoud is free and rightfully returned home to his family and community.”
The immigration court has several limits on discovery and power to subpoena witnesses, as the judge mentioned several times on Friday.
The judge had given the government a deadline earlier this week to present evidence to back up several allegations it made against Khalil as grounds to deport him from the U.S., including that he misrepresented information on his green card application.
Despite Khalil’s team presenting evidence that went against the administrations’ narrative of their client, including interviews where he had denounced antisemitism, the judge did not rule on that rebuttal or information and instead agreed that she need not go further than a two-page memo Rubio penned and submitted to the court this week.
“Today’s ruling is a rush to judgement on baseless charges that the government presented no evidence to substantiate because no evidence exists. Our client, Mr. Khalil, has been unlawfully detained in direct retaliation of his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights,” said Amol Sinha, executive director of the ACLU-NJ, which is also representing Khalil. “This finding of removability is a dangerous departure from the fundamental freedoms at the bedrock of our nation that protect free speech under the First Amendment. We will continue to advocate for Mr. Khalil’s rightful release, and we are confident he will prevail.”
While a student at Columbia University, Khalil was part of a leadership group protesting the war in Gaza. Khalil took part in negotiations with school administrators demanding the institution cut ties with Israel and divest from Israeli companies. Khalil finished his graduate studies at Columbia in December and is set to graduate in the spring.
Khalil — who’s wife is about to give birth to his first child — was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at his Columbia housing in March.
The government on Thursday entered into evidence the memo signed by Rubio saying that he found Khalil’s presence in the U.S. “would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”
Attorneys for Khalil argued in a press conference on Thursday that the government — which entered the letter and other documents into evidence Wednesday — did not present evidence that Khalil’s presence in the U.S. poses an adverse foreign policy consequence.
The government has argued, under an obscure 1952 federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act, that it believes migrants are deportable “if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Attorneys for Khalil argued that determination is for a judge to make, after the government presents evidence.
The memo signed by Rubio also makes the case that another person, whose name is redacted, should be deportable under the same law.
Rubio wrote that Khalil should be deported because of his alleged role in “antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
Marc Van Der Hout, one of Khalil’s attorneys, sharply criticized the memo during a Zoom press conference on Thursday.
Rubio “talks about First Amendment activity in the United States and the effect on people in the U.S. His ‘determination’ has absolutely nothing to do with foreign policy,” Van Der Hout said.
Khalil’s attorneys said the government did not present evidence as to the alleged misrepresented information Khalil made on his green card application.
(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted raids targeting businesses in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, sources confirmed to ABC News.
A coalition of activists had warned delivery drivers and restaurants of the planned enforcement one day prior.
“I have heard those reports, I’ve been getting them all morning. I am disturbed by them,” Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser told reporters on Tuesday. “It appears that ICE is at restaurants or even in neighborhoods, and it doesn’t look like they’re targeting criminals. It is disrupting.”
She also emphasized that the Metropolitan Police Department was not involved.
Multiple sources told ABC News that federal law enforcement officials visited dozens of restaurants, carry-out spots and bars across several neighborhoods in Washington, including U Street, 14th Street, Chinatown, Dupont Circle and Mount Vernon Triangle. The visits spanned a wide range of establishments, from fast-casual spots to fine-dining restaurants and luxury cocktail bars, reflecting the breadth of the operation.
At many restaurants, agents distributed information and pamphlets requesting to see I-9 forms to verify the identities and employment authorizations for all employees dating back to one year ago. Some restaurants were told that federal officials would return in three days.Following Tuesday’s visits, some restaurant owners chose to close preemptively.
George Escobar, chief of programs and services at CASA, an organization geared toward improving the quality of life for the working class, told ABC News on Tuesday that the organization regularly receives tips about planned raids — but that this one was different.
“This one, to be honest, alarmed us a little bit because it was really specific,” Escobar said.
The organization has run a 24-hour tip hot line since the first Trump administration.
“We’re experienced. We don’t get alarmed by, like, you know, any old threat because, you know, they’re frequent, right? And they come in all different types of forms,” he said.
“We received notice about a specific kind of operation on how they were going to be conducted: what the pretense of maybe entering some of these small businesses were going to be, the fact that they were looking specifically at food businesses and possibly delivery workers,” he explained.
ABC News reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE for comment but did not receive a response.
“If ICE wants to snatch up every single immigrant working in food service and delivery, then the entire industry will collapse,” Amy Fischer, a core organizer with Migrant Solidarity Mutual Aid Network, which supports migrants arriving in the capital, said in a statement.
The Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington, which represents the more than 60,000 restaurant workers in the area, said in a statement shared with ABC News that it is “deeply concerned” by the reports of ICE raids and drop-ins across Washington, D.C.
RAMW said it urges “policymakers on a local and federal level to consider the real-world impact on local businesses and communities.”
“Immigrants make up a significant portion of our workforce at all levels. From dishwashers to executive chefs to restaurant owners, immigrants are irreplaceable contributors to our most celebrated restaurants and beloved neighborhood establishments,” it added. “The immigrant workforce has been essential to sustaining and growing our local restaurant industry and has been a major contributor to our local economy.
“At a time when our economy is already fragile, losing even one staff member at a single establishment has a profound impact on the operations of a restaurant and its ability to serve patrons,” RAMW added. “Disrupting restaurant staffing across the industry can create a damaging ripple effect felt immediately throughout the entire local economy.”
(WASHINGTON) — A second federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds from schools that participate in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Hours after a New Hampshire judge issued a similar order on Thursday, a federal judge in Maryland appointed by Trump issued a broader ruling that prohibits the Department of Education from using federal funding to end DEI initiatives within public schools.
“This Court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue here are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair,” wrote U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of Maryland. “But this Court is constitutionally required to closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. The government did not.”
Judge Gallagher wrote that the group that brought the lawsuit — the American Federation of Teachers, American Sociological Association and a public school in Oregon — successfully proved they would be irreparably harmed and the Education Department letter at issue likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
“This Court ends where it began—this case is about procedure,” she wrote. “Plaintiffs have shown that the government likely did not follow the procedures it should have, and those procedural failures have tangibly and concretely harmed the Plaintiffs. This case, especially, underscores why following the proper procedures, even when it is burdensome, is so important.”
Earlier, a judge in New Hampshire said the Trump administration’s attempt to make federal funding to schools conditional on them eliminating any DEI policies erodes the “foundational principles” that separates the United States from totalitarian regimes.
In an 82-page order, U.S. District Judge Landya McCafferty partially blocked the Department of Education from enforcing the memo issued earlier this year that directed any institution that receives federal funding to end discrimination on the basis of race or face funding cuts.
“Ours is a nation deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned,” Judge McCafferty wrote, adding the “right to speak freely and to promote diversity of ideas and programs is…one of the chief distinctions that sets us apart from totalitarian regimes.”
“In this case, the court reviews action by the executive branch that threatens to erode these foundational principles,” she wrote.
Judge McCafferty stopped short of issuing a nationwide injunction, instead limiting the relief to any entity that employs or contacts with the groups that filed a lawsuit challenging the DOE’s memo.
Education groups sued the Department of Education in February after the agency warned all educational institutions in a letter to end discrimination based on race or face federal funding consequences.
The lawsuit criticized what it said was an unlawful “Dear Colleague” letter which will “irreparably harm” schools, students, educators, and communities across the country.
“This vague and clearly unconstitutional memo is a grave attack on students, our profession and knowledge itself,” American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said in a statement at the time.
In justifying her preliminary injunction Thursday, Judge McCafferty called out the DOE for taking a position on DEI that flatly contradicts its own policies from a few years ago.
“Prior to the 2025 Letter, the Department had not indicated a belief that programs designed to promote diversity, equity, or inclusion constituted unlawful discrimination. Nor had it taken the position that schools necessarily behave unlawfully when they act with the goal of increasing racial diversity. In fact, the Department had taken the opposite position,” the judge wrote.
In addition to finding the policy is likely unconstitutional and illegal, Judge McCafferty also criticized the Department of Education for making funding conditional on DEI programming, though the judge said the memo “does not even define what a DEI program is,” pointing to “vague and expansive prohibitions” in the DOE’s letter from February.
The Department of Education has not yet commented on the rulings.
