Politics

By Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff

GREENBELT, Maryland, June 26 (Reuters) – John Bolton, a former national security adviser for U.S. President Donald Trump who has since become one of his fiercest critics, pleaded guilty in federal court on Friday to mishandling classified information and faces up to five years in prison.

“I’m sorry for it,” Bolton told U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang during the hearing. 

Reuters previously reported that Bolton would plead guilty under a deal with prosecutors that included a sentencing range from no prison time to as many as five years behind bars, with the final sentence to be determined by a judge.

As part of the agreement, Bolton agreed to pay a $2.25 million fine. Bolton, 77, must make half that payment within five days of sentencing and the full payment within 90 days of sentencing.

He also committed to up to 100 hours of community service and to meet with intelligence and Justice Department officials for a debriefing. Bolton will also forfeit his government pension.

Chuang scheduled sentencing for October 28. 

The White House referred a request for comment to the Justice Department. 

Bolton is accused of sharing sensitive information with two relatives for possible use in a memoir he was writing, including notes on intelligence briefings and meetings with senior government officials and foreign leaders. Prosecutors said he shared more than 1,000 pages in the form of diary entries. He pleaded not guilty to 18 criminal charges last year.

The book detailed Bolton’s tenure as Trump’s national security adviser during his first term. In the book, Bolton described the president as unfit for office, sparking a public feud. But prosecutors said on Friday that no classified information was published in Bolton’s book, “The Room Where It Happened.”

Authorities said Bolton’s personal email was hacked by someone believed to be linked to Iran, which prosecutors reiterated on Friday.

Kelly O. Hayes, the U.S. attorney for the district of Maryland, told reporters after the hearing that that was exactly why it was dangerous to share classified information on personal accounts. 

“He put our national security at grave risk,” she said of Bolton. 

Abbe D. Lowell, Bolton’s lawyer, said in a statement after the hearing that his client was a “real leader” for taking responsibility for his actions, which Lowell called a mistake. 

“By contrast, President Trump thumbed his nose at the classified information laws, took actual classified documents to his Florida mansion, interfered with the investigation of that conduct, and has never accepted any accountability for his conduct,” he said, referring to a case in which Trump was indicted for mishandling classified documents. “Ambassador Bolton, whose offense was only keeping a diary which contained classified information, kept a record to preserve history, but Donald Trump kept secrets to serve himself.”

Bolton, who served as national security adviser during Trump’s first term in office, is one of several notable political opponents who have faced prosecution from Trump’s Justice Department, erasing longstanding norms that had separated law enforcement efforts from partisan considerations.

But unlike other cases brought against Trump critics, the Bolton investigation began before Trump returned to office in 2025 and had the backing of career federal prosecutors.

(Reporting by Dan Rosenzweig-Ziff and Joseph Ax; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Andrea Ricci)

source

By Andrew Chung

WASHINGTON, June 26 (Reuters) – Since Donald Trump returned to the presidency last year promising to aggressively crack down on immigration and pursue a campaign of mass deportation, the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court has, for the most part, smoothed the way. 

In case after case, the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has green-lighted the Republican president’s policies targeting both legal and illegal immigration with few exceptions, while its three liberal justices have objected to most of his actions. 

The latest examples came this week, when the court gave Trump and his administration three victories — all in cases decided along ideological lines — that make it easier to deport people, or refuse them entry, including those who have legal status in the United States. 

‘A RUBBER STAMP’

“The Trump administration has turned the immigration system into a deportation machine,” said Elora Mukherjee, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School in New York.

“In most cases, the Supreme Court has been a rubber stamp for Trump’s mass deportation agenda,” Mukherjee added. 

The court in a 6-3 decision on Thursday let the administration strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of their Temporary Protected Status. This humanitarian designation under U.S. law lets migrants from nations stricken by war or catastrophe live and work in the United States while it is unsafe for them to return to their home countries. 

Legal experts said the practical effect is grim for immigrants now losing their status as they face a choice of staying and risking detention, or returning to countries that the U.S. State Department warns against any travel to due to widespread violence, crime, terrorism and kidnapping. 

“These are not conditions to which people should be returned,” Tirana Hassan, CEO of the group Doctors Without Borders USA, said on Thursday, referring to Haiti. 

Ahilan Arulanantham, an immigration law expert at UCLA and lawyer for the Syrian plaintiffs in the TPS dispute, said, “The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against the rights of immigrant communities in important cases in the last several years, and this case fits that pattern.” 

“The decision hands to the administration, and to the far right wing of the anti-immigrant movement, an important victory that they have been unable to obtain through Congress for a number of years,” Arulanantham added.

The court also on Thursday ruled 6-3 to back the government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem U.S.-Mexico border crossings overburdened, by physically blocking them from entering the United States. Trump’s administration has said it may seek to revive the policy, known as “metering,” after it ‌was dropped by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.

On Tuesday, again in a 6-3 split, the court made it easier to remove lawful permanent residents — also known as green-card holders — ruling that border agents do not need to meet the high standard of “clear and convincing evidence” that such an individual has committed a crime before refusing to allow them back into the country after a trip abroad.

‘THE RULE OF LAW’

“These three rulings are all victories for the rule of law and common sense,” said Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival, adding that Temporary Protected Status “was always supposed to be temporary.” 

“Thanks to these decisions, we now have several more important tools to continue securing our borders,” Percival added. 

Since Trump returned to office in January 2025, the court has largely acceded to his demands to implement policies bolstering his drive to step up deportations when they have been impeded by lower courts, while legal challenges to them play out. 

These decisions have been issued on an emergency basis on the Supreme Court’s so-called shadow docket in which the justices can make highly consequential decisions outside their regular process, without extensive briefing or oral arguments. 

For instance, the court has let Trump deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, carry out aggressive immigration raids that can target individuals based on their race or language, and to end humanitarian protections including TPS and another form of protection called parole for hundreds of thousands of immigrants. 

Ashley Sanchez, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Notre Dame’s law school, said that while immigration laws have not substantially changed, Trump’s administration is choosing to apply them in a way to limit both legal and illegal immigration as much as possible. 

The court has had its current ideological makeup since October 2020, when Trump appointed conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The existence of this conservative supermajority has been pivotal in immigration rulings, Sanchez said.

“This more conservative group appears much more willing to side with the president,” Sanchez added.

Sanchez pointed to the court’s June 2020 decision, during Trump’s first term as president, to block his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants — often called “Dreamers” — who entered the United States illegally as children.

The court had a 5-4 conservative majority at the time, but conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court’s liberal members in the decision.

“It’s hard to imagine this current court coming to that same decision,” Sanchez said. 

The court has pushed back against Trump in some instances. In certain cases, for example, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution’s promise of due process.

Last year, the justices twice placed limits on the administration’s attempt to implement Trump’s invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP 

The court is almost at the end of its current term, but has not yet ruled in a major case involving perhaps the most audacious piece of Trump’s restrictive immigration agenda. Based on questions asked by the justices during arguments in the case in April, the court may hand Trump a defeat by ruling against his executive order that would deny birthright citizenship to hundreds of thousands of babies born each year on U.S. soil.

Trump’s order instructed U.S. agencies not to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States if neither parent is an American citizen or legal permanent resident, also called a “green card” holder. 

The lower court found Trump’s order to be inconsistent with the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which long has been interpreted as granting citizenship to virtually anyone born on U.S. ​soil, with some narrow exceptions including the children of foreign diplomats or members of an enemy occupying force.

The 14th Amendment’s provision at issue, called the Citizenship Clause, states: “All persons born or naturalized ⁠in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

A decision could come as soon as Monday.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)

source

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump signed an agriculture related executive order on Thursday, the White House said, adding the move was aimed at strengthening the security of the United States’ food supply.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward in Washington)

source

By Jody Godoy

June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Adam Candeub, the general counsel at the Federal Communications Commission, to take over as the Justice Department’s antitrust chief, a source familiar with the matter confirmed on Thursday.

Trump met with Candeub, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson and White House counsel David Warrington about the job this week, the source said.

A White House official declined to comment.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Omeed Assefi currently leads the division, which shares federal antitrust authority with the FTC. Assefi has been planning to step down later this month, according to a source familiar with his plans.

During Candeub’s tenure at the FCC, the broadcast regulator has opened an investigation into Disney’s diversity practices and is probing whether ABC daytime talk ​show “The View” violated equal-time rules for interviews with political candidates.   

Candeub authored the FTC chapter in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 policy platform, which laid out ways the consumer protection and antitrust agency could champion conservative causes. 

A longtime professor at Michigan State University, Candeub served in the Commerce Department and Justice Department during Trump’s first term.

(Reporting by Mrinmay Dey in Mexico City; additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington; Editing by Rod Nickel)

source

U.S. District Judge Glen H. Davidson ruled Wednesday that the plaintiffs in Harris v. DeSoto County did not provide enough evidence that DeSoto County district maps were drawn to intentionally dilute Black voting power.

In ruling for DeSoto County, Davidson wrote, “plaintiffs cannot prove their claims for vote dilution pursuant to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and judgment must be awarded to defendants.”

Davidson’s ruling comes after hearing arguments in the case in March.

The federal lawsuit, filed in September of 2024, alleged that the 2022 DeSoto County electoral map diluted Black voting power in county office elections. The plaintiffs sought a new redistricting plan and special elections for positions on the boards of supervisors and education and for the election commission, plus the offices of constable and justice court judge.

The ruling comes in the wake of the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Louisiana v Callias. The decision weakened the federal Voting Rights Act’s protections against racially discriminatory redistricting.

The ruling triggered protests and political battles over redistricting and the future of voting rights across the country.

The ACLU of Mississippi released a stateme nt calling the decision in the DeSoto County case “deeply disappointing.”

“The (recent U.S. Supreme Court) Callais opinion pretends to adhere to the text of the Voting Rights Act and only updates the test for proving vote dilution,” the statement read. “In reality, the Supreme Court is directing federal courts to close their eyes and ignore the clear results of discriminatory maps.”

Mike Hurst, state Republican Party chairman, represented DeSoto County in the case. Hurst told MPB the case was nothing more than, “Democrats are mad they can’t win an election in DeSoto County because it’s a Republican county.”

DeSoto County, located just south of Memphis in northwest Mississippi, has been one of the state’s fastest growing counties for years. The Black population of DeSoto also has been growing and now represents more than 30% of the total population of 190,000.

None of the 25 county offices determined by the map is held by a Black person. However, DeSoto County does have a Black sheriff elected countywide, Democratic Black state legislators elected from majority-Black districts and a Black Republican House member elected from a majority-white district. The lawsuit did not address legislative districts.

___

This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

source

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will host a summit on July 15 that will include dozens of countries to discuss ways to counter a resurgence in political violence, a State Department official said on Thursday.

The “ministerial on resurgence of political terrorism” will be held in Washington and Rubio plans to invite representatives of more than 60 countries from regions including the Western Hemisphere, Europe and Asia, the official said.

The summit follows President Donald Trump’s counterterrorism strategy, which he signed in May, focused on identifying and neutralizing what the White House called “violent, secular political ​groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically transgender or anarchist, such as Antifa.”

The State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the global threat has not been adequately addressed in the past.

“Our counterterrorism operating system needs an update to deal with the reality of such threats, to protect American citizens and U.S. national security and interests,” the official said.

U.S. efforts target activity that meets the definition of terrorism: assassinations, kidnapping, violent threats to government, facilities, and law enforcement as well as attacks on critical infrastructure and military personnel, the official said.

After the assassination in September ​of conservative ⁠activist Charlie Kirk, White House aides called for a coordinated effort against unnamed left-wing groups accused of promoting violence.

The White House said the U.S. strategy would also focus on ⁠right-wing groups ​that foment violence.

(Reporting by Steve Holland; Editing by Christopher Cushing)

source

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson said on Thursday he will transmit the housing bill to the White House following his meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, an Axios reporter said in a post on X.

Johnson’s comments come after Trump on Wednesday canceled a planned signing of the bipartisan legislation aimed at speeding up the construction and availability of more affordable housing in an effort to pressure lawmakers to enact the SAVE America Act.

A source briefed on the matter earlier on Thursday told Reuters that Trump and Johnson were expected to have a conversation related to a pathway for the SAVE America Act and also rescheduling the signing ceremony for the housing bill.

(Reporting by Costas Pitas, Daphne Psaledakis and Steve Holland; Editing by Christian Martinez)

source

By Nate Raymond and David Shepardson

BOSTON, June 25 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Boston on Thursday blocked implementation of U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order aiming to tighten rules ‌for mail-in voting, preventing it from taking effect ahead of November elections that will decide control of Congress.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani sided with a coalition of Democratic-led states that argued that the Republican president is trying to unlawfully interfere with the states’ administration of federal elections.

The judge declared key parts of Trump’s order unconstitutional as she found that Trump had exceeded his authority in trying to overhaul procedures for elections, which since the republic’s founding in 1789 have been run by states and local governments.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” wrote Talwani, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama.

She said the president lacked any authority to direct the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to compile voter eligibility lists for each state to use and that the U.S. Postal Service had no statutory authorization to adopt any binding regulations on mail-in voting.

Talwani barred the administration from enforcing Trump’s order ahead of the November 3 midterm elections that are set to decide whether Republicans ​can retain control of Congress and ordered it to submit a report by next week describing steps it has taken to comply with her ruling.

Democratic state attorneys general hailed the ruling. They had argued that allowing Trump’s order to stand would force their states to rush to overhaul election systems, causing chaos and likely disenfranchising eligible voters.

“This right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and today’s decision protects that foundation from another unlawful attack,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, said in a statement.

An appeal is likely. The administration had recently convinced a different judge in Washington, D.C., to not block enforcement of Trump’s order at this time, given that agencies had yet to fully implement it.

“The president’s executive order lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

SERIES OF TRUMP ACTIONS TARGETING ELECTIONS

The ruling came a day after another judge in Boston permanently blocked parts of an earlier executive order Trump had signed that would overhaul federal elections by requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote and barring states from counting mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

That 2025 order along with the more recent mail-in voting one he signed on March 31 followed a years-long campaign by Trump to undermine faith in U.S. elections, including the false claim that his 2020 election defeat was the result of widespread voter fraud.

Trump has made winning approval in Congress of a divisive package of voting restrictions called the SAVE America Act his top priority and on Wednesday stunned lawmakers by abruptly cancelling a signing ceremony where they hoped to showcase newly passed bipartisan legislation to address housing costs.

His mail-in ballot order directed DHS to compile and transmit to the states a list of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote in each state, derived from citizenship and naturalization records and other federal databases.

Talwani, in siding with a group of 23 states and the District of Columbia that had sued over Trump’s order, said any list the DHS compiled of citizens would necessarily be incomplete due to privacy restrictions governing the sharing of sensitive personal data collected by government agencies.

Trump’s order also required the USPS to only deliver ballots to voters on each state’s approved mail-in ballot list. USPS recently moved to implement Trump’s directive by issuing new proposed rules requiring states to provide the names and ​barcodes tied to their mail-in ballots.

U.S. Postmaster ‌General David Steiner told Congress on Wednesday that under its proposal USPS would not deliver ballots in states where officials refuse to provide lists of voters who received mailed ballots, but said he would comply with any court order blocking restrictions. 

Trump’s order also directed the U.S. Department of Justice to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of state and local election officials who issue federal ballots to people deemed “not eligible” to vote.

But Talwani said Trump lacked authority under the U.S. Constitution to create new criminal offenses and attempt through his order “to intimidate local election officials to use the necessarily incomplete confirmed citizenship lists as a resource, lest they face criminal prosecution.”

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston and David Shepardson in Washington; additional reporting by Luc Cohenl Editing by David Bario, Nia Williams and Mark Porter)

source

By Nate Raymond

June 25 (Reuters) – A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing a new rule that would impose lower federal student loan limits for people pursuing graduate degrees in nursing and other healthcare-related fields.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in Washington, D.C., late on Wednesday sided with eight trade organizations, including the American Association of Nurse Practitioners and the PA Education Association that sought to block the rule from taking effect on July 1.

Skye Perryman, whose liberal legal group Democracy Forward represented the plaintiffs, in a statement said the ruling would benefit students pursuing careers in nursing, public health, education, and marriage and family therapy.

“These are key services that the federal government should be supporting by welcoming those who wish to enter them, not creating barriers to vital support,” she said.

The Education Department in a statement said it is reviewing the decision and will take “appropriate action.” It has previously defended the caps as necessary to encourage universities to control costs.

The trade associations sued after the department published the rule on May 1 in order to implement new federal student loan caps the Republican-led Congress adopted in July 2025 when it passed President Donald Trump’s tax and spending bill known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

That law scaled back a federal loan program for students pursuing graduate degrees, eliminating one type of loan that allowed students to borrow up to the full cost of attendance and imposing new caps on another type of loan.

Under those new limits, borrowing for students enrolled in professional degree programs, such as law schools and medical schools, is capped at $50,000 per year and $200,000 total while students pursuing other graduate degrees are limited to $20,500 per year and up to $100,000 overall.

The Education Department’s rule altered an earlier regulatory definition of what constitutes a “professional degree” to cover only certain degrees in 11 fields, including law, medicine, dentistry and theology.

But Howell, who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, said that when Congress enacted the 2025 law, it expressly adopted a longstanding regulatory definition for those degrees that the department had been using since 2007.

“By adopting the preexisting definition as it was in effect on a specific date, Congress removed any discretionary authority the Department may have had to narrow the definition for the purpose of determining federal loan caps,” she wrote.

The judge said as a result, the rule ran afoul of the Administrative Procedure Act and had to be set aside before it could take effect.

But she declined to go even further by preventing the new loan caps from being enforced until a new rule is issued, saying she could not remedy the plaintiffs’ “primary frustration” over the decision by Congress to eliminate uncapped borrowing.

(Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Aurora Ellis)

source

By John Kruzel

WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a victory on Thursday by backing the federal government’s authority to turn away asylum seekers when officials deem U.S.-Mexico border crossings too overburdened to handle additional claims.

The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative justices, overturned a lower court’s finding that the policy violated federal law. The Republican president’s administration has said it may seek to revive the policy, known as “metering,” after it was dropped by Trump’s Democratic predecessor Joe Biden.

The ruling was one of two in immigration-related cases issued by the court on Thursday backing Trump.

The metering policy allowed U.S. immigration officials to stop asylum seekers at the border and indefinitely decline to process their claims. It is separate from a sweeping policy to deny entry to asylum seekers at the border that Trump announced after returning to the presidency last year. That policy also faces an ongoing legal challenge.

Under U.S. law, a migrant who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by a federal immigration official. The legal issue in the current case is whether asylum seekers who are stopped on the Mexican side of the border have arrived in the United States.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito, who authored Thursday’s ruling, wrote that the answer is “no.”

“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city or a country — before the person enters that place,” Alito wrote. “The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading.”

‘MORE PEOPLE WILL DIE’

Alito read a summary of his opinion from the bench, as is customary. Justice Sonia Sotomayor then read a lengthy summary of her dissenting opinion from the bench — an action that signals a justice’s strong opposition to a ruling.

Sotomayor, in a dissent that was joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that Thursday’s ruling authorizes U.S. immigration officers to refuse to consider asylum applications by “physically blocking (applicants) from stepping foot onto U.S. soil.”

“The consequences of today’s decision are predictable,” Sotomayor wrote.

“More people will die. More people will attempt to cross the border illegally, and some will make it while others will not. More people will be forced to walk along the U.S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them. 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, religion, nationality or political opinion,” Sotomayor wrote.

In an unusual move, Alito then responded from the bench to Sotomayor with an additional defense of the ruling, saying there was much more he would have included in his opinion summary had he known that Sotomayor intended to air her dissent in court.

The other immigration-related ruling issued on Thursday also was authored by Alito. In that one, the court cleared the way for the Trump administration to strip hundreds of thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants of a humanitarian status that protects them from deportation. At issue was Temporary Protected Status for more than 350,000 people from Haiti and 6,100 from Syria.

‘AN IMPORTANT TOOL’

James Percival, general counsel at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, welcomed Thursday’s ruling, saying it “opens up an important tool to continue securing our southern border.”

“We had to go all the way to SCOTUS to vindicate the principle that an alien is not ‘in the United States’ until he is, in fact, in the United States,” Percival said, using shorthand for the Supreme Court of the United States. “We have yet AGAIN been vindicated by the Supreme Court.”

Melissa Crow, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling “should sound the alarm for anyone who cares about human rights and the rule of law.”

The ruling, Crow said, “suggests the president may unilaterally override decades of established law and trample on people’s legal rights if doing so suits his political agenda.”

A MIGRANT SURGE

U.S. immigration officials began turning away asylum seekers at the border in 2016 under Democratic former President Barack Obama amid a migrant surge. The metering policy was formalized in 2018 during Trump’s first term in office, with border officials authorized to decline processing asylum claims when the government decides it is unable to handle additional applications. Biden rescinded the policy in 2021.

The Trump administration has said it likely would resume metering “as soon as changed border conditions warranted that step,” without ⁠providing specifics. Trump has pursued hardline immigration policies since his return to office last year.

The advocacy group Al Otro Lado launched the long-running legal challenge in 2017. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024 ruled that federal law requires border agents to inspect all asylum seekers who “arrive” at designated border crossings, even if they have not yet crossed into the United States, and the metering policy violated that obligation.

The Supreme Court also backed Trump in several immigration-related rulings issued on an emergency basis since his return to the presidency, including allowing him to deport migrants to countries other than their own and to revoke temporary legal status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants.

The court is expected to rule by around the end of June on the legality of Trump’s directive to restrict birthright citizenship in the United States.

(Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

source