Supreme Court blocks ruling that ordered New York to redraw its congressional maps
The U.S. Supreme Court as seen on February 24, 2026 in Washington. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court of the United States on Monday blocked a New York state court ruling that had ordered the Empire State’s congressional map redrawn ahead of the 2026 midterms.
A state judge in New York ruled earlier this year that New York must redraw its congressional map and cease using its current one because the current map’s 11th Congressional District violates the state’s Constitution and dilutes the votes of Black and Latino voters.
U.S. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, the Republican representing the district, had appealed the ruling initially in state court and later asked the Supreme Court to block the order, as did other Republicans.
The district currently covers Staten Island, along with several neighborhoods across the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge in Brooklyn.
In a statement posted on social media, Malliotakis praised the Supreme Court’s decision, arguing that it “helps restore the public’s confidence in our judicial system and proves the challenge to our district lines was always meritless.”
“The plaintiffs in this case attempted to manipulate our state’s courts to use race as a weapon to rig our elections. That was wrong and, as demonstrated by today’s ruling, clearly unconstitutional,” Malliotakis’ post said.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the state court order that knocked down New York’s current map “blatantly discriminates on the basis of race” and that the court had no choice but to step in — even so close the election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a sharply worded dissent, accused her colleagues of prematurely intervening in a state-law case, even before New York courts had fully resolved the appeals.
“By granting these applications, the Court thrusts itself into the middle of every election-law dispute around the country, even as many States redraw their congressional maps ahead of the 2026 election,” Sotomayor wrote. “It also invites parties searching for a sympathetic ear to file emergency applications directly with this Court, without even bothering to ask the state courts first.”
The ruling from SCOTUS allows appeals to play out in lower courts, but it means New York will not be redrawing its map for the 2026 election.
“This blatantly political case violated both the New York State and federal constitutions and, as Justice Alito stated, the lower court’s decision was a full-blown racial gerrymander,” New York Republican Party chair Ed Cox wrote in a statement Monday.
The construction for the ballroom on the White House’s East Wing as seen from the top of the Washington Monument, Nov. 17, 2025. (ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Thursday denied a request to impose a preliminary injunction that would have blocked construction of the White House ballroom.
While finding that the National Trust has raised “novel and weighty” arguments against the ballroom construction, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee, says he does not have the power to halt it under the arguments the group has raised.
Leon’s ruling suggests an amended complaint by the historic preservationists, raising so-called ultra vires claims — effectively, that Trump has operated outside the law — would be a better basis for a cause of action.
“Unfortunately, because both sides initially focused on the President’s constitutional authority to destruct and construct the East Wing of the White House, Plaintiff didn’t bring the necessary cause of action to test the statutory authority the President claims is the basis to do this construction project without the blessing of Congress and with private funds,” Leon said.
A statement from the National Trust expresses disappointment over the judge’s decision but adds that the group is “pleased” that Leon encouraged the organization to file an amended complaint claiming that Trump has acted beyond his legal authority. The group says it will do so “promptly.”
Leon pledged to “expeditiously consider” an amended complaint from the National Trust raising ultra vires claims. But until one is filed, he wrote he has “no choice but to deny” the group’s request for a preliminary injunction.
Not long after, Trump falsely claimed that a federal judge “completely erased” a lawsuit seeking to stop the construction of the White House ballroom.
“Great news for America, and our wonderful White House! The Judge on the case of what will be the most beautiful Ballroom anywhere in the World, has just thrown out, and completely erased, the effort to stop its construction,” Trump wrote in the post on Truth Social.
The president then continued to claim that “not one dollar” of taxpayers’ money is being used and that the project was “ahead of schedule, and under budget.”
At a hearing last month, the judge aired his sharp skepticism about what he called a “Rube Goldberg contraption” of raising private money to fund the ballroom construction, adding he believed it was designed to avoid congressional oversight.
The Trump administration preemptively asked Leon in early February to stay any injunction he might issue, warning that the project is “imperative for reasons of national security.”
The government’s filing also says halting the construction would “leave an unsightly excavation site in President’s Park indefinitely.”
Trump initially said in July that the $400 million ballroom project would not interfere with the existing White House structure. Later, when crews began tearing down the East Wing, an official said the “entirety of the East Wing will be modernized” as the massive 90,000 square foot ballroom is built.
Earlier in February, the Commission of Fine Arts voted to approve Trump’s design plan.
The panel, made up entirely of new members appointed by Trump, did so near unanimously without further review over the “vast, vast majority” of public comments opposing the project.
A security contractor hired by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), checks the mouth of a Honduran immigration detainee from Honduras before a deportation flight to San Pedro Sula, Honduras on February 28, 2013 in Mesa, Arizona. (John Moore/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Trump administration’s deportations to third countries last year are estimated to have cost taxpayers “upward of $40 million,” with some third-country migrants costing more than $1 million each, according to a Democratic congressional report released Friday.
The 30-page report is the result of a ten-month review by Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who examined third-country deportations undertaken by the administration.
In particular, the report found that over $32 million was sent directly to Equatorial Guinea, Rwanda, El Salvador, Eswatini, and Palau — with some funds sent before any third-country national arrived.
“The total costs of the Trump Administration’s third country deportations through January 2026 are unknown but are likely upward of $40 million,” the report said.
Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, did not comment directly on the figures used in the report.
“Contrary to what they might have hoped, this report only underlines much of the unprecedented work that the Trump administration has done to enforce our immigration laws. Astonishingly, some in Congress still want to go back to a time just 14 months ago when cartels had free rein to poison Americans and our border was open,” he said in a statement.
The report analyzed the sums in comparison to the number of third country nationals actually received, and concluded that the administration “paid at least one country more than $1 million per third country national received.”
For example, the report found that the administration paid the Rwandan government $7.5 million “in exchange for agreeing to accept third-country nationals.” As of Jan. 2026, Rwanda received seven third-country nationals, with each migrant costing approximately $1.1 million, the report said.
El Salvador was found to have received the most migrants, with approximately 250 third country nationals costing $20,755 per migrant. The majority of those people deported to El Salvador were Venezuelan nationals who were then sent onward to Venezuela several months later, according to administration officials.
The findings also show that Palau had not received any third-country nationals as of January, yet they have already received $7.5 million from the U.S.
According to a U.S. official quoted in the report, deportation deals with some countries were intended to communicate a “threat” to migrants.
“With countries like Palau or Eswatini, the point is that the Administration can threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere,” the U.S. official allegedly said.
“The point is to scare people,” he allegedly added.
The Democrats’ report also homes in on the high sums of money dedicated to transporting migrants from the U.S. to third countries, with the administration “frequently using military aircraft that can cost more than $32,000 per hour.”
At times, the administration paid “twice” for migrants’ travel — “once to remove them to a third country and then again to fly them to their home country,” the report said.
This occurred due to a lack of sufficient notice provided to migrants’ home countries, the report said, arguing that this is “needlessly wasting taxpayer funds.”
Despite these significant costs, the report found that a “relatively small number of migrants” were ultimately removed to third countries, therefore leaving “little measurable impact on [the administration’s] deportation agenda.”
The report also highlights an apparent lack of oversight in terms of monitoring foreign governments’ compliance, especially with countries that have historically high records of human rights violations and corrupt governments.
“Without oversight, it is unknown whether U.S. funds are facilitating corruption or other abuses,” the report said.
It is also “challenging” for the State Department to track such funds, the report said, alleging that the administration sends such money directly to foreign governments rather than utilizing “trusted third-party implementing partners.”
“In at least one country, U.S. officials told [Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] that Trump Administration officials instructed them not to follow up on how deportees were being treated,” the report alleged, adding that many of the agreements rely on “blanket language” for assurances.
The report criticizes the administration for making “secret deals” with foreign countries in order to establish agreements about accepting third-country nationals.
“Dozens” of other countries are currently being pursued to agree to deals, the report said.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, slammed the administration for engaging in policy that she calls the “epitome” of “fraud, waste and abuse.”
“This report outlines the troubling practice by the Trump Administration of deporting individuals to third countries — places where these people have no connection — at great expense to the American taxpayer and raises serious questions,” she said in a statement.
Bill Clinton speaks onstage during the Clinton Global Initiative 2025 Annual Meeting at New York Hilton Midtown on September 25, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by JP Yim/Getty Images for New York Hilton Midtown)
(WASHINGTON) — Former President Bill Clinton, in his historic deposition with the Republican-led House Oversight Committee on Friday, denied any knowledge of the crimes committed by convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, going on to say the subpoena of his wife Hillary Clinton “was simply not right.”
In his opening statement, he stated that he will often say, “I do not recall” throughout his questioning because the events were “all a long time ago.”
“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said, according to a release of his opening statements.
The former president is facing questions from the committee as part of its investigation into Epstein in Chappaqua, New York — marking a historic moment for a former president. Friday’s deposition is the first time a former president has appeared in front of a congressional panel since former President Gerald Ford in 1983.
He is facing questions under oath about his relationship with Epstein and photos that show the former president with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for sex trafficking and other crimes.
In her deposition Thursday, Hillary Clinton said she did not know Epstein, could not recall ever encountering him and never visited him on his island or at his home or office.
Hillary Clinton, on Thursday, also gave a preview of how her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will handle his own deposition.
“I think it is fair to say that the vast majority of people who had contact with him before his criminal pleas in ’08 were like most people — they did not know what he was doing. And I think that that is exactly what my husband will testify to tomorrow,” she said.
Hillary Clinton said after her deposition that the committee asked her over and over if she knew Epstein. She said there were also questions that were off subject — about UFOs and the debunked “Pizzagate” conspiracy.
“So if they are going to fulfill their responsibilities to literally investigate the investigations, which is what they originally said was the scope of their work, I think they could have spent the day more productively,” she said.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing and both deny having any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes.
No Epstein survivor or associate has ever made a public allegation of wrongdoing or inappropriate behavior by the former president or his wife in connection with his prior relationship with Epstein.
“No one is accusing, at this moment, the Clintons of any wrongdoing,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said Thursday morning ahead of Hillary Clinton’s deposition. “They’re going to have due process, but we have a lot of questions, and the purpose of the whole investigation is to try to understand many things about Epstein.”
Bill Clinton’s association with Epstein was first noted publicly in 2002 after reporters learned of the former president’s flight that year on Epstein’s jet for a humanitarian mission to multiple African nations.
Bill Clinton told New York Magazine through a spokesperson at the time that “Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of 21st century science.”
Maxwell said in a recorded interview last year with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, that it was she, not Epstein, who had a friendship with Bill Clinton, and that she was the one who suggested and organized his trips on Epstein’s aircraft.
The Clintons were subpoenaed to appear under oath in front of the committee for a deposition in January, but failed to comply, arguing the subpoenas were without legal merit. Rather, they proposed a four-hour transcribed interview instead.
David Kendall, the Clintons’ lawyer, argued that the couple has no information relevant to the committee’s investigation of the federal government’s handling of investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, and should not be required to appear for in-person testimony.
Kendall contended the Clintons should be permitted to provide the limited information they have to the committee in writing.
Comer had long threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt if they failed to appear before the committee, so when they didn’t, a contempt resolution was drafted and put to a vote.
The Oversight Committee passed the contempt resolution with nine Democrats voting in favor of it, teeing it up for a full House vote.
At the last minute, just before the resolution was to be voted on in the House, the Clintons agreed to sit for a deposition, postponing further consideration of a contempt vote.
Democrats on the committee said they hope this week’s testimony from the Clintons spark Republican committee members to investigate more of Epstein’s ties to President Donald Trump.
Trump has repeatedly denied any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes and has said that he cut off contact with his former friend more than 20 years ago.
While the Clintons have agreed to speak with the committee behind closed doors, they have still pushed for public hearings as part of the committee’s investigation.
“I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court by a Republican Party running scared,” Bill Clinton wrote in a lengthy post on X. “If they want answers, let’s stop the games & do this the right way: in a public hearing, where the American people can see for themselves what this is really about.”
