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. As it nears the end of the 2025-2026 term, the court handed down rulings in five cases, leaving about 10 more to be announced in the next week. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can turn away asylum seekers who approach ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border, reversing a lower court decision that the policy likely violates federal law and international treaties.
"We hold that an alien who is standing in Mexico does not 'arrive in the United States' by attempting, and failing, to set foot in the country," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court's conservative majority. "An alien 'arrives in the United States' only when he crosses the border."
The 6-3 decision effectively allows border agents to shut the door to migrants fleeing violence and persecution, and deny them even the chance to seek refuge in the U.S.
Federal law says the opportunity to apply for asylum must be afforded to those who "arrive in" the country.
While the policy was voluntarily rescinded in 2021 after a surge of migrants had overwhelmed border crossings, the government now has the ability to reinstate it if necessary. Trump has so far invoked alternate legal authorities to support his current border crackdown.
"A running back does not arrive in the end zone when he reaches the 1-yard line," Alito wrote. "A guest does not arrive in a house when he knocks on the front door. An army does not arrive in a city by encamping outside its walls. And a letter does not arrive in a mailbox while it remains in the mail carrier's hand just inches away."
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said her colleagues were distorting the procedures set out by Congress to protect vulnerable people.
"The Court today holds that the Executive Branch may circumvent all these mandatory procedures by having U.S. immigration officers stand at the border and physically block noncitizens from setting a foot onto U.S. soil. They may do so even if the asylum seeker is at the threshold of a port of entry designated to receive all noncitizens who seek entrance into the country," she wrote. "Even if the asylum seeker is certain to be persecuted, or killed, if she is turned away."
Sotomayor invoked the history of the MS St. Louis from World War II, when European Jews sailed across the Atlantic seeking safety in the U.S., only to be turned away and sent back, where most were killed in the Holocaust. Congress enacted the 1980 Refugee Act, in part, to address that "mistake" of the past.
"The consequences of today's decision are predictable. More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not," she wrote. "More people will turn back and be subjected to violence because of something they cannot or should not have to change about themselves, such as their race, religious, nationality, or political opinion."
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on June 22, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge Thursday morning blocked part of President Donald Trump’s executive order on mail-in voting, marking the third time in less than a week that a federal judge has stymied the Trump administration’s attempt to increase federal oversight of elections.
Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued an injunction barring the Trump administration from creating a national list of approved voters eligible to receive mail-in ballots from the Postal Service, as well as new regulations intended to increase the Postal Service’s oversight of mail-in voting.
“[T]he Constitution reserves the power to determine voter eligibility to the States alone. ... Neither the Executive Branch nor Congress may interfere with this power,” Talwani wrote, in part.
Talwani said that the efforts included in Trump’s March 2025 executive order exceeded his authority as president and encroached on the right of states to oversee elections.
“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” Talwani further wrote. “The President ‘plays no direct role in the process’ of appointing electors, ‘nor does he have authority to control the state officials who do.’”
Neither the White House nor the postmaster general have yet commented publicly on the ruling.
A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked an executive order provision that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day. On Monday, another federal judge blocked a Trump administration voter-screening database, ruling that the government's "haphazard" system unlawfully consolidated "the private information of millions of Americans" in an effort to purge non-citizens from voter rolls.
Prior to Thursday's ruling, a different judge declined to issue an order blocking the mail-in voting policy because it had not yet been implemented. However, earlier this month, the Postal Service posted a proposed rule to enact part of the executive order, while Postmaster General David Steiner on Wednesday said that his agency would refuse to deliver ballots unless states turn over lists of voters.
Thursday's ruling effectively stops that policy in its tracks, though the Trump administration is expected to appeal.
“[N]o law enacted by Congress delegates authority to control mail-in voting to USPS. The voting-related guidance currently issued by USPS is not binding on the States, merely recommended,” Talwani's ruling Thursday said.
S. President Donald Trump attends a meeting with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office of the White House on June 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration can cancel the temporary protected status (TPS) for thousands of Haitians and Syrians, concluding that the Department of Homeland Security has broad discretion with little-to-no judicial oversight to decide when they must return home.
The ruling is likely to have a sweeping impact on the approximately 1.3 million people who rely on TPS to live and work in the United States legally, and advocates said they fear it will have devastating and possibly deadly long term costs for those refugees.
Writing for the 6-3 majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that courts cannot override the federal government's determination about TPS status in most cases.
TPS status, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, provides work authorization and protection from deportation -- as long as the Homeland Security Secretary certifies that a foreign country is unsafe because of armed conflict, natural disaster, or "extraordinary and temporary conditions."
Alito concluded that the law establishing the TPS program did not give courts the authority to second guess the DHS's determinations about which countries merit the protected status, which was created to shield immigrants from countries ravaged by war or national disasters.
"The TPS statute plainly bars consideration of respondents' non-constitutional claims. It allows 'no judicial review of any determination ... with respect to the ... termination of a TPS designation," Alito wrote.
Though the ruling centered on the TPS of Haitians and Syrians, the ruling effectively gives the Trump administration the green light to carry out similar terminations, which they have already done for 13 countries.
James Percival, the Department of Homeland Security's General Counsel, praised Thursday's ruling.
"The T in TPS stands for TEMPORARY, yet many of these designations became de facto amnesty. This is a win for the rule of law and common sense," he said in a statement.
Attorneys for the Haitian plaintiffs said in a statement Thursday that the ruling "will directly result in thousands of innocent people dying violent, needless deaths."
"This decision will endanger Haitian TPS holders who fled their homeland in pursuit of what generations of immigrants yearned for when they made the painful decision to leave all they have known. to live in safety," Geoffrey Pipoly and Andrew Tauber told ABC News in a statement.
"It's a very sad day, not only for Haitian TPS holders but for anyone who believes, as we do, that immigrants are one of America's greatest strengths," they added. "The responsibility to save these lives is now with Congress--and we urge the Senate to pass the extension of TPS now pending in that chamber. "
It is unclear if Congress will vote on an extension, however, Trump has repeatedly called for the end of TPS protections and would not likely sign off.
The court's liberals also lambasted the decision, arguing that the statements made by President Donald Trump about some of the countries whose status was cancelled -- including making baseless claims that Haitians eat dogs and cats during the 2024 presidential race -- demonstrate that race played a role in the decisions.
"The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print," wrote Justice Kagan. "The references--of filth, disease, and primitiveness--are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes."
The court's liberals also argued that the statute creating TPS does allow courts to review if DHS carried out legally-required procedures to cancel the status -- something the plaintiffs allege did not happen.
"It does nothing to stop courts from reviewing things other than the Secretary's 'determination[s]' concerning TPS designations," Kagan wrote.
Immigrant advocacy groups have warned about the possible sweeping consequences of this ruling, saying it will open the door for an "astonishing human tragedy."
Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake in 2010 and has since been hit by subsequent natural disasters, political unrest following a presidential assassination, and waves of rampant gang violence.
More than 113,000 Haitian TPS holders work in Florida alone, which is home to a high proportion of America's seniors, according to the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
Syria devolved into civil war around 2011 and has been considered by the U.S. government a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades. A major earthquake in 2023 plunged the country into a deeper economic and humanitarian crisis.
"This is an awful harbinger for what we expect this administration to try to do for other TPS designations. Hundreds of thousands of people who have lived here for decades now see heartbreaking chaos ahead," FWD.us President Todd Schulte said in a statement Thursday.
Then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, in separate acts last year, moved to terminate TPS status for Haiti and Syria by certifying that, in her estimation, conditions on the ground in those countries were sufficiently safe for immigrants to return.
Those decisions were blocked by lower courts, which concluded that Noem did not follow proper procedures for cancelling TPS and may have also unlawfully discriminated against the immigrants on the basis of race.
Pastor Carl Ruby, a prominent community leader in Springfield, Ohio, who has sought to stand up for Haitians there after Trump's false comments about them eating pets rattled the community and preceded numerous bomb threats.
"This is the worst possible outcome," Ruby told ABC News through tears. "I had always held out hope that we would get a good decision and can't believe that we're here now."
Ruby contended that there was racial motivation behind the administration's actions.
"If you look at the history of the president's comments about Haiti and Haitians, it's clear that this wouldn't be happening if these were refugees from Norway. I just feel like we have failed as a country and I don't think I've ever been as disappointed in our country as I am right now," he said.
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican who has defended the Springfield community, said deporting Haitians "is a mistake."
"As a result of today's ruling, the over 10,000 Haitians who have been living in Ohio (mostly in the Springfield area) legally through TPS will now be here illegally and will be subject to immediate deportation," the governor said in a statement.
"This also means that while these Haitians were working and contributing to our community and economy yesterday, today it is now illegal to employ them," he added.
"The situation in Haiti could hardly be much worse. The violent gangs run most of the country. The government barely functions. And, the economy is in shambles," DeWine said.
-ABC News' Laura Romero, Armando Garcia and Ivan Pereira contributed to this report.
National Park Service employees and contractors use vacuums to remove green algae from the bottom of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on June 18, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- U.S. Park Police are seeking assistance in identifying a person wanted in connection to a "destruction of government property" investigation related to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Park Police posted on social media Wednesday a video of the alleged incident that shows a person reaching into the Reflecting Pool and appearing to pull something from the water. The video is somewhat blurry and shot from a distance. ABC News has reached out to National Park Service and Park Police about the source of the video.
The incident allegedly occurred at 3:36 p.m. ET on Friday, June 19. Park Police said anyone with information on the identity of the individual should contact their tip line.
The bulletin comes as President Donald Trump continues to blame vandals for alleged damage at the Reflecting Pool after his administration's $16 million renovation.
The White House has yet to provide evidence that shows the alleged vandalism to the site.
"The Reflecting Pool that you've heard so much about, which is so incredible, it's been gruesomely vandalized by thugs, bad people, but soon will be looking as beautiful as it looked just two weeks ago," Trump said on Wednesday night as he kicked off Freedom 250’s Great American State Fair with remarks on the National Mall.
"In fact, I looked at it just a little while ago, it looks perfect already," the president continued. "But we’re fixing it. The vandals got to it, they’ve largely been caught and are being prosecuted. We can't let that happen to our country."
The Interior Department and the U.S. Park Police, though a spokesperson earlier this week, confirmed there had been several arrests and federal citations for alleged vandalism. Trump said on Tuesday that six people had been arrested.
Trump also said earlier this week that the Reflecting Pool will be drained again for "permanent repair" around the Fourth of July.
Cherry blossoms at the Supreme Court on a windy morning in Washington, D.C. (John Baggaley/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that prohibits the carry of a firearm onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner gives express consent.
In a 6-3 decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the law imposed "severe restrictions on the daily activities" of lawful gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment.
"Rather than allowing all to enter private property open to the public unless specifically prohibited, these new laws provided that no one carrying a firearm may enter without express authorization," Alito wrote.
"The Hawaii law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms," the opinion said.
The ruling, which likely also invalidates similar laws in California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey, is a setback for gun control advocates that had argued the measures were necessary for public safety in places like shopping malls, bars, restaurants, theaters, farms, arenas and private beaches.
Hawaii had argued that there is no such thing as a right to armed entry onto private property without consent, pointing to a handful of historical examples of similar laws since America's founding.
But the court's conservatives concluded that those analogues were "outlier legal rules adopted in a few locales."
"Overwhelming evidence shows an enduring American tradition permitting public carry," Alito wrote.
While private property owners may still prohibit firearms on their premises, the onus now falls entirely on those owners to post signage banning guns. The default rule, in essence, is that lawful gun owners may carry their weapons unless told otherwise, according to the decision.
Forty-five states presume that it is okay to carry guns on private property open to the public unless property owners make their contrary wishes clear.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said the ruling "only further binds the hands of modern legislatures attempting to balance and protect their residents' interests."
"Today's decision makes one thing clear: The Court's objective is protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law," Jackson wrote.
The National Rifle Association, which backed the challenge to the Hawaii law, praised the majority decision in a statement on X.
"Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places," wrote NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford.
Brady, a gun safety group, slammed the court's decision as "deeply dangerous" and one that "privileges guns over everything and all people in society."
"This common-sense law is what the people of Hawaii wanted, but the court has complete disregard for that community will. Ultimately, the court makes it clear that it cares little about the threat of gun violence posed to the American people," said Kris Brown, the group's president.
(WASHINGTON) -- Hours after President Donald Trump blasted Sen. Bill Cassidy for supporting a war powers resolution that narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday, Cassidy helped to deliver Trump a victory by voting with the majority of Republicans late Wednesday to block a separate resolution aimed at reining in the president's war powers in Iran from advancing.
The Senate voted 47-50-1 late Wednesday to block a war powers resolution led by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine from moving forward. The resolution, which aims to limit Trump's ability to wage war in Iran but does not have the force of law, had narrowly advanced in a previous procedural vote.
It was a remarkable departure for Louisiana Republican senator who, just hours previously, was in a shouting match with the president during a lunch between Trump and the GOP conference.
Cassidy said he later received a briefing from Vice President JD Vance and Special Envoy Steve Witkoff on Iran.
"I want to thank Vice President Vance and Special Envoy Witkoff for the thorough briefing this afternoon on Iran. I appreciate the quick invitation to the White House to address many of my concerns," Cassidy posted.
Cassidy wasn't the only Republican who changed his vote on the latest war powers vote.
Sen. Rand Paul voted 'present' instead of voting to support the resolution as he had previously been doing.
"Tonight I will vote present on the War Powers resolution. My opinion on the debate over war and executive power has not changed and I have voted that way several times," Paul posted on X ahead of the vote. "But since hostilities seem to be over and the President asked me to give consideration to his negotiating position, I will do so. My vote of present is a way to give the President more space and leverage to negotiate a lasting peace."
Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted in favor of the resolution, as they have in the past. All other Republicans voted against it.
Sen. John Fetterman was the only Democrat to vote against the resolution. All other Democrats voted for it. Sens. Mitch McConnell and Michael Bennet were absent during Wednesday night's vote.
Trump celebrated Wednesday's vote in a post on his social media platform.
"Wow! The Senate just changed its vote on Iran from 50-48 against, to 50-47 for," Trump said in the post. "Rand Paul and Bill Cassidy changed. Thank you to Leader John Thune, Lindsey Graham, Bernie Moreno, and all. This vote puts Iran on notice!
The earlier clash between Trump and Cassidy came as the president met with Republican senators on Capitol Hill.
At one point, Trump called Cassidy a "lunatic," according to multiple sources. Cassidy did not dispute that when asked by ABC News.
After the meeting, Cassidy acknowledged that he lost his temper with Trump.
"He asked why would anybody vote for the War Powers Act? As he continued, I said, 'is that a rhetorical question, or would you like to really know?' He said, 'I'd like to know.' I stood and said, 'You have not told the American people what's going on. It was supposed to last four weeks. It's lasted four months. Our original objectives have not been achieved, and I want to know what's going on,'" Cassidy said.
The White House had dismissed the earlier Senate vote on the resolution, saying it was of "no significance."
Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, during a hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, June 24, 2026. (Photographer: Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- Under a newly proposed rule, the U.S. Postal Service will refuse to deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand over a list of approved voters to the Trump administration, Postmaster General David Steiner told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday.
Democrats lambasted the proposed policy during the hearing, arguing the rule was unconstitutional and "another backdoor way of trying to influence this election."
"Yes or no -- if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list over to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?" asked Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich.
"Under our proposed regulation, no. We would tell the state that we need the manifest," Steiner said.
The proposed rule puts the Postal Service at the center of President Donald Trump's push to increase federal oversight of elections, though Steiner argued the policy is routine and an attempt to make sure ballots are delivered "securely, efficiently, and accurately."
According to the proposal, states would need to provide to the Postal Service the names, addresses and ballot barcode numbers for individuals to receive a mail-in ballot.
That list of information is less than what's included on a state's voter roll -- which often include voter registration data and other sensitive data -- but in line with an executive order Trump signed in March to increase federal oversight of elections.
At least five lawsuits have challenged that executive order, but some of those cases have stalled because the policy has not yet been enacted. The comment period for that proposed rule is open for the next week.
"It really is trying to help the state make sure that the ballots that they send to the voters actually get there and get to those voters, and so it's strictly a manifest for us to make sure that the right ballots are going to the right people," said Steiner, an attorney who previously served as the CEO of Waste Management.
However, Senate Democrats argued the policy is a veiled attempt to increase federal control over the election.
"Just because President Trump wants to do this does not make it law, doesn't make it right, doesn't make it constitutional. There is certainly a massive difference between general mail requirements and regulating elections," Peters said.
"The U.S. Postal Service is now part of this bigger story of this president desperate to federalize our elections. He has tried every which way to say that if he and his party don't win in these November elections, they were rigged," said Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.
When pressed on whether the Postal Service would refuse to send ballots to states that refuse to turn over that information, Steiner repeatedly deflected but acknowledged that under the proposed rule, the Postal Service would withhold the ballots.
"If you don't get Michigan's voter rolls for the general election in November, will you move those ballots in your mailboxes?" asked Slotkin.
"Remember, right now we only have a proposed rule, so there are no new rules," Steiner answered. "We will move those ballots in accordance with whatever rule is in effect at that point in time."
A U.S. Army National Guard troop stands watch at the Lincoln Memorial on June 08, 2026, in Washington, DC. Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has been partially re-filled after the bottom of it was repainted as part of President Donald Trump's effort to repair Washington landmarks in for preparation the country’s 250th birthday this summer. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee sent letters Wednesday to the contractors overseeing the renovation at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on the National Mall, requesting information such as contracts and water quality records.
The Reflecting Pool has been plagued with algae and peeling paint in the days since the Trump administration completed its renovation, which cost taxpayers more than $16 million.
Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., sent separate letters to the company hired to paint the reflecting pool and the company hired to remove the algae that later appeared in the pool.
"Donald Trump's disastrous renovation of our national reflecting pool is his latest failed vanity project," Garcia said in a statement. "The President should be focused on making life more affordable for the American people, not rewarding his loyalists with government contracts and wasting taxpayer money on failing projects. We're demanding answers straight from the contractors about the project's failures."
The ranking member requested information by July 8, 2026, including the scope of the work, contract performance standards, communications with the National Park Service and amounts invoiced or paid.
Democrats, who are in the minority, do not have subpoena power to compel these contractors to hand over information or even respond.
Trump said this week the Reflecting Pool will be drained again for "permanent repair" around the Fourth of July and said that six people have now been arrested for alleged damage to the site. No charges had been filed in the alleged arrests.
The Interior Department and the U.S. Park Police have not responded to multiple outreaches for evidence of the alleged vandalism.
President Donald Trump holds an executive order he signed during an Ambassador Meeting in the Cabinet Room of the White House on March 25, 2025.(Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge on Wednesday permanently blocked the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order signed last year that required proof of citizenship to register to vote and demanded mail-in ballots be received by Election Day.
Judge Denise Casper ruled that the president lacks the authority to oversee elections and rejected the Trump administration's unsupported claims of "widespread illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error."
"While the Constitution vests the President with 'executive Power' and commands him to 'take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,' it does not grant the President any specific powers over elections," Judge Casper wrote.
The decision is more than a year in the making, with a group of state attorneys general last April filing a lawsuit in Boston to block Trump's first executive order on voting. That order sought to require proof of citizenship to register to vote as well as impose an Election Day deadline for mail-in ballots, and Judge Casper last June issued a preliminary injunction blocking the policy.
In a 59-page ruling issued Wednesday, Judge Casper made that decision permanent on largely the same legal basis as her decision last year. In addition to finding that Trump overstepped his authority with the order, the judge said the Department of Justice failed to demonstrate the alleged fraud that purportedly justified the order, and the policy would have disenfranchised thousands.
"There is no evidence in this record of widespread 'illegal voting, discrimination, fraud, and other forms of malfeasance and error' within American elections, which the Executive Order purports to safeguard against," she wrote.
The ruling is the latest setback in the Trump administration's attempt to reshape federal elections, with courts blocking multiple efforts to impose federal oversight on elections.
U.S. President Donald Trump arrives for a working session on promoting economic growth with G7 leaders and G7 outreach partners as German Chancellor Friedrich Merz looks on, during the G7 Summit on June 17, 2026 in Evian-les-Bains, France. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) --President Donald Trump said he is putting off signing a bipartisan housing reform bill until Congress passes his signature election and voting reform legislation, the SAVE America Act.
Trump was slated to sign the legislation at noon on Wednesday on Capitol Hill, but he abruptly canceled the event just hours before it was due to start, announcing his ultimatum on social media.
"Today's Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency," the president wrote in a post.
Trump has insisted since March that he will not sign any legislation until the SAVE America Act is sent to his desk. In a social media post on March 8, Trump wrote that it "supersedes everything else."
The SAVE America Act would make significant election and voting reforms, including requiring photo ID at polling places and proof of citizenship before a person could register to vote. It has been rejected by Democrats. Trump has pushed Republicans in the Senate to eliminate or modify the filibuster to get the bill through, though Majority Leader John Thune has maintained Republicans don't have the votes to do so.
The housing legislation, The 21st Century Road to Housing Act, passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate. Once signed into law, big investors will be limited from buying up single-family homes and some building regulations will be loosened in an attempt to increase supply and ease the nationwide shortage.
Trump earlier Wednesday, in a separate social media post, said the housing bill is "of minor importance" compared to lower interest rates, the reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the SAVE America Act.
He also criticized the legislation as "Warren centric," referring to Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who is a co-sponsor.
Warren reacted to Trump's cancellation of the signing ceremony, writing on X: "Huge bipartisan majorities in Congress passed a bill to lower housing costs. But at the 11th hour, Donald Trump is refusing to sign it into law. His policies have made your costs go up -- and he doesn't care."
If a president doesn't sign a bill or veto it, it becomes law after 10 days while Congress is in session. But if Congress were to adjourn before the 10-day period is up, the bill could languish indefinitely -- a maneuver to effectively kill legislation known as a "pocket veto."
ABC News asked the White House whether Trump intends to try to veto the bill, but the White House did not respond to the question, only referring to the president's post cancelling the signing. The housing bill passed with veto-proof majority in both chambers.
ABC's Alexandra Hutzler contributed to this report.
Gen. Chris Donahue assumed command of U.S. Army Europe and Africa in December 2024. (U.S. Army)
(WASHINGTON) -- One of the Army’s most seasoned and high-profile officers is abruptly relinquishing command next week, according to the service.
Gen. Chris Donahue has spent the past 18 months leading U.S. Army Europe and Africa, the command responsible for Army operations across both continents. He will relinquish command halfway through what is normally a three-year assignment.
"Gen. Christopher Donahue, commanding general of U.S. Army Europe and Africa and commander of NATO’s Allied Land Command, will relinquish command on July 2, 2026," an Army spokesperson said in a statement. "The Army thanks Gen. Donahue for his leadership of U.S. Army Europe and Africa."
His departure comes as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth presses ahead with a sweeping overhaul of the Pentagon’s senior ranks, firing or sidelining large numbers of top officers with little public explanation, including the Army’s top officer Gen. Randy George.
The command Donahue now leads is also set to be downgraded from a four-star command to a three-star post, according to another U.S. official, part of Hegseth’s broader push to shrink the number of generals across the force.
Officers serving as four-star generals are only eligible to hold a position of that rank. If there are no other slots available, then the only option left for them is to retire.
The Atlantic first reported Donahue’s expected departure.
Lt. Gen. Kevin Admiral, the current commander of the Army’s III Armored Corps, is expected to be nominated to take over the role, according to a U.S. official.
Donahue’s resume includes command of the Army’s elite Delta Force and the famed 82nd Airborne Division, along with extensive combat experience across two decades of war. Inside the Army, he has long been viewed as one of its top officers and a potential future Army chief of staff.
He rose to wider public attention as the last U.S. service member to leave Afghanistan during the 2021 withdrawal, photographed in night vision boarding a C-17 when he was commanding the 82nd Airborne Division.
Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie, deputy commander, U.S. Army Europe and Africa, will serve as acting commander, according to the Army.
Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on March 04, 2026 in New York City. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from arresting migrants at immigration courts, saying that officials violated the Administrative Procedures Act in enacting the policy.
U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts of the Northern District of California wrote in a blistering 71-page decision Tuesday that policies by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Executive Office of Immigration Review were "arbitrary and capricious" and violated the APA, and he issued nationwide injunction blocking the practice across the United States.
"Because the record before the Court demonstrates ICE and EOIR failed to provide reasoned explanations for their actions, the Court concludes that each of the challenged policies is arbitrary and capricious in contravention of the APA," he wrote in his decision.
The Justice Department attempted to curtail the request to only the Northern District of California instead of a nationwide block.
Scenes of migrants being arrested at immigration courts across the country, including notably in New York City, drew scrutiny from local lawmakers and advocacy organizations, who said migrants were often arrested after their deportation cases were dismissed.
Deportation hearings in immigration court are legal proceedings initiated by the Department of Homeland Security in which an immigration judge determines whether a migrant should be removed from the United States. Often, an immigration judge will dismiss a case to allow the individual to pursue legal relief by seeking asylum, according to attorneys. Other times, DHS attorneys will request dismissals if the individuals are not a priority for removal.
In most cases, when a deportation case is dismissed, it is a positive outcome for a migrant. Immigration attorneys ABC News spoke with said the Trump administration has been using dismissals to detain people at immigration courts and place them into expedited removal without allowing them to fight their cases.
In previous years, ICE has prioritized conducting courthouse arrests of people who were considered risks to the public or were convicted or accused of certain crimes.
The Trump administration had argued that an executive order issued by President Donald Trump allowed for the agencies to enact the policy, but Judge Pitts disagreed.
"It is now clear that the lack of connection between ICE's stated rationales for the 2025 courthouse-arrest policies and the expansion of arrests at immigration courthouses results not from merely unreasoned decision making but a complete lack of decision making. As the government recently revealed, contrary to its prior representations, ICE's 2025 courthouse arrest policies do not cover immigration courthouses at all," he wrote.
That is a reference to a case in New York, in which the DOJ notified a judge that it had been erroneously relying on an ICE memo to justify arrests at immigration courts, according to a court filing. In fact, the ICE memo does not apply to civil immigration enforcement actions in or near immigration courts, the DOJ told the judge in that case.
James Percival, the DHS general counsel, said Tuesday's ruling is "anti-American."
"When a judge sentences a defendant, the defendant is taken into custody. If an alien is ordered removed by an immigration judge, the same should happen," he said in a post on X. "A district judge ordering otherwise is naked judicial activism in service of an anti-American, open borders agenda."
An exterior view of the U.S. Capitol on September 9, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Bonnie Cash/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- The House on Tuesday followed the Senate in passing a sweeping housing reform package and sent the bipartisan measure to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.
The vote in the House was 358-32. The 21st Century Road to Housing Act was brought up under suspension and reached the required two-thirds majority threshold for passage. The 32 no votes were all Republicans while all Democrats present voted in favor.
The Senate voted 85-5 to pass the bill a day earlier.
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.
What is in the bill?
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.
What's next for the bill?
The bill must go to the desk of President Donald Trump to become law.
Trump was slated to sign the legislation at noon on Wednesday on Capitol Hill.
He canceled the event a few hours before it was due to start, announcing his ultimatum on social media.
"Today’s Housing News Conference and Signing is hereby cancelled until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency," the president wrote in a post.
Trump has insisted since March that he will not sign any legislation until the SAVE America Act is sent to his desk. In a social media post on March 8, Trump wrote that it "supersedes everything else."
What did the bill's supporters say about the housing act?
"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."
What did the bill's opponents say about it?
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, saying he can't see how the government can 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."
ABC News' Michelle Stoddart contributed to this report.
The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool continues to show signs of an algae bloom on the National Mall on June 22, 2026, in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump said that another round of repairs to the iconic basin will begin immediately after paint started peeling following the completion of a recent $14 million no-bid restoration project. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) -- President Donald Trump said Tuesday the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool will be drained again for "permanent repair" around the Fourth of July, and said that six people have now been arrested for alleged damage to the site.
The Reflecting Pool has been plagued with algae and peeling paint in the days since the Trump administration completed its renovation, which cost taxpayers more than $16 million.
Trump said in a social media post that "large areas of grass are being replaced" around the pool and that the administration "will drain some of the water, either immediately before or after the Fourth of July, to do the permanent repair." Trump has blamed the Reflecting Pool's issues on vandals, though has yet to offer evidence.
"Six people have been arrested, and seven people have been cited, for the damage they did to our Country's now beautiful Reflecting Pool," Trump wrote in the post.
"The 350 foot gash, made by a very sharp knife or razors, is actually numerous slashes over a very long 350 foot length. It was purposefully and criminally done, and somebody had to work very hard, probably in the dark of night, to create such a condition. Likewise, the small area at the bottom of the Pool was cut and powerfully lifted off the surface leaving very jagged, uneven edges," Trump wrote.
On Monday, during an Oval Office event, Trump directed reporters to the Interior Department and the Parks Department for information on ongoing investigations into alleged damages but provided no evidence himself.
The Interior Department and the U.S. Park Police have not responded to multiple outreaches for evidence of the alleged vandalism.
Trump's post comes after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, during a Fox News interview on Monday night, said the number of vandalism-related arrests had risen to six.
Earlier on Monday afternoon, an Interior Department spokesperson said there had been five arrests for vandalism, five federal citations and 14 vandalism-related police reports.
Algae and leaks have long plagued the Reflecting Pool, which was constructed in the 1920s. Former President Barack Obama made his own attempt at renovations during his administration and spent roughly $35 million on the changes.
(WASHINGTON) -- The Senate on Tuesday adopted a House-passed Iran war powers resolution by a 50-48 vote in a symbolic, yet rare, rebuke of President Donald Trump.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
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.
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.
At issue in the case was the Religious Land Use and Incarcerated Persons Act of 2000, which requires states that receive federal funding for their prisons to accommodate the sincere religious beliefs of inmates and allow them to bring lawsuits seeking "appropriate relief."
Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the court's opinion, said the law did not allow individual prison officials to be held personally liable since they were not technically part of the financial "contract" between the federal government and the state.
"Under the Spending Clause, Congress's power to spend money does not include the power to regulate," Gorsuch wrote of the Constitution's provision that allows Congress to put conditions on funds sent to states. "Spending Clause statutes can bind only those who voluntarily and knowingly undertake obligations by agreement with the federal government."
"That essential element is missing here," Gorsuch concluded.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, accused her colleagues of "pulling a rabbit out of the hat" and ignoring decades of precedent.
"The Court reduces some of Congress's greatest legislative achievements--federal laws that secure civil rights, environmental stability, healthcare, and more--to nothing more than the wheelings-and-dealings of an especially wealthy private party," Jackson wrote.
"Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons -- no matter how blatant -- will often be left remediless," Jackson said in dissent. "And encroachments on prisoners' statutory rights are likely to happen with fair frequency, as state-empowered prison officials will have little incentive to abide by federal law, even if it is handed to them on a piece of paper."
The American Civil Liberties Union, which had supported Landor in the case, called the decision a "devastating blow to the religious freedom and dignity of incarcerated people."
"This decision sends a dangerous message that prison officials may escape accountability even for egregious violations of federal law," said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Richard Garnett, a Notre Dame Law professor and expert on religious rights, said the ruling highlights the Constitution's limits on Congress' ability to regulate states by offering money with strings attached.
"Our fundamental constitutional commitment to religious freedom for all does and should extend to those being punished for crimes. Today's ruling, and its understanding of federal-state relations, make it all the more important for state governments to respond by putting in place policies, and remedies, that will protect vulnerable inmates from abuses like the one suffered by Mr. Landor," Garnett said in a statement.
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.
.jpg)
