The Supreme Court handed down several rulings, including on birthright citizenship and transgender athletes.

Long Island

Politics

USSCOTUSRULINGS_story gallery

Laura Figueroa Hernandez

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump suffered a defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday, when it struck down his executive order eliminating birthright citizenship, but the conservative-majority court provided him a series of legal victories this spring and summer that further expanded his executive powers, legal experts told&nbsp;Newsday. 
While the birthright citizenship case was one of the most widely anticipated rulings,&nbsp;other consequential opinions throughout the session upheld the president’s hard-line immigration policies, expanded the president’s authority to fill federal agencies with political supporters&nbsp;and gave a boost to his congressional redistricting efforts ahead of the midterm elections. 
"It was a very good session for the Trump administration — it was one that really continued the court's expansion of presidential power in really profound ways," said Jenny Breen, an associate professor of law at Syracuse Law School, who frequently writes about the Supreme Court. 
The court — stacked with six conservative justices including three appointed by Trump — ended its latest&nbsp;session Tuesday. 
<h3>Independent agencies</h3> 
Trump, and future presidents, will have more authority to fire political appointees serving on a number of independent federal regulatory agencies&nbsp;and fill the vacancies with allies after the court upheld Trump’s firing of Federal Trade Commission board member Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, Breen&nbsp;said. 
Slaughter was one of two Democrats Trump ousted last year from the panel meant to oversee the country’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. Slaughter, a Biden appointee, argued her firing was illegal in part because Trump never provided proper justification for her firing beforehand as required by federal law. 
But Trump, in the Trump v. Slaughter case, argued Slaughter’s positions were "inconsistent with [his] Administration's priorities" and as executive he should have the authority of placing members on the panel who would be accountable to the priorities he was elected to deliver. 
The court, in a separate 5-4 ruling, blocked Trump from firing Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook from her post, saying in part he never afforded the Democratic appointee due process before firing her in a social media post. But Breen said the&nbsp;6-3 ruling in the Slaughter case will ultimately have the most long-standing reverberations. 
"It really signals the end of independent agencies in government, which is something we've had blessed by the Supreme Court for nearly 100 years," Breen said. "It continues the trend of again, the court blessing the view that all of the executive power of the United States is held in the person of the president, which is a really formerly extreme view that's now being embraced by the Supreme Court." 
<h3>Immigration crackdown</h3> 
Several parts of Trump’s hard-line immigration policies were upheld in a series of court rulings that could spur more deportations, Georgetown Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman said. 
In Mullin v. Doe, the court in a 6-3 decision allowed the Trump administration to end the Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, designation for hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians seeking refuge in the United States, many of whom have been living and working in the country for decades. 
In a separate 6-3 ruling, in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the court also ruled migrants must be on U.S. soil to seek asylum, and any petitions while waiting on the Mexican side of the U.S. border&nbsp;are invalid, with no "legal entitlement" to asylum. 
"You have hundreds of thousands of people who've been here a very long time who are now going to be deported to countries that are not functioning, where their lives are going to be, at best, extremely difficult," said Seidman, the author of several books on the Supreme Court and the Constitution. 
<h3>Redistricting efforts</h3> 
Trump, who has been pushing Republican state legislatures to make their congressional maps more favorable to Republicans ahead of the midterm elections, received a boost to those efforts when the court, in a 6-3 decision, struck down Louisiana’s congressional district map. The court said&nbsp;the creation of a second Black-majority district in the state was not required by the Voting Rights Act. 
Legal experts contend the ruling in Louisiana vs. Callais weakens Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans voting laws and practices aimed at discriminating against voters. The ruling will make it harder for voters in minority communities to challenge redistricting maps they contend violate the act. 
Soon after the decision, state legislatures in Louisiana, Alabama and Tennessee voted on new congressional maps that eliminated at least one minority-majority district in each of those states. 
"It certainly encourages political gerrymandering, and we should expect to see more of that," Breen said. 
<h3>Voting patterns</h3> 
This year’s session, which started in October with the court hearing oral arguments and ended on the last day of June, reaffirmed that the court, led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, a conservative&nbsp;George W. Bush appointee, "truly is John Roberts’ court," said James Sample, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University. 
"Chief Justice Roberts was almost invariably in the majority in the term’s biggest cases," Sample said in a phone interview, adding Trump&nbsp;found unyielding support from conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who did not rule against the administration’s position in any of the Trump cases before the court. 
Trump's three appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett —&nbsp;each crossed ideological lines at least once during the session to side with liberals against Trump.&nbsp;Barrett and Gorsuch voted&nbsp;against the constitutionality of Trump launching his global tariffs without congressional approval.&nbsp;&nbsp; 
The court also declined to take up Trump's case seeking the dismissal of a $5.8 million legal settlement he was ordered to pay former magazine writer E. Jean Caroll as part of a&nbsp;2023 defamation lawsuit. 
Trump, in a CNBC interview Thursday, took aim at some of the conservatives who did not always side with him, noting the court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — tend to vote as a block. 
"I'm not saying it has to be a loyalty test, but it's much different — the three justices vote as a block," Trump said. "I think I can remember one time, but very, very seldom do they not vote as a block. Whereas our people, and we have six, but they move around a little bit, and they — for instance, birthright citizenship. I should have won that."

USSCOTUS260705

Trump got many wins at Supreme Court, despite losing on birthright citizenship

Supreme Court clears much of Trump's program, but not all of it

AIAudio - Trump got many wins at Supreme Court, despite losing on birthright citizenship


Copy Of USSCOTUS260705_photos

Billy House

WASHINGTON — Gov. Kathy Hochul and Long Island’s Democratic elected federal officials on Tuesday hailed the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of President Donald Trump's effort to undo guaranteed U.S. citizenship to virtually all children born on U.S. soil. 
But Island Republicans — one of them in Congress and another seeking to unseat a Democratic incumbent — expressed dissatisfaction. 
A third Republican, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of Bayport — who chairs the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security — sidestepped immediate comment, his office saying he was continuing to review the decision. 
"For generations, immigrants have come to New York in search of freedom and opportunity, helping build the strongest, most vibrant state in the nation," Hochul, a Democrat, posted on X. "As the granddaughter of Irish immigrants, I am heartened to see the Supreme Court's decision rejecting the Trump administration's cruel attack on birthright citizenship." 
But Rep. Nick LaLota (R-Amityville) said he was "deeply disappointed." He argued the birthright citizenship clause was intended to guarantee citizenship to the children of freed slaves — "not automatically grant U.S. citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or those who entered our country illegally." 
LaLota's Democratic challenger, Chris Gallant, of Amity Harbor, celebrated the ruling, saying “constitutional rights cannot be rewritten by executive order." 
“We need secure borders and an orderly immigration system, and we need leaders that respect the rule of law," Gallant said. "I'm glad to see the Supreme Court is finally starting to remember that.” 
But LaLota's dismay was echoed by fellow Republican Jeanine Driscoll, who hopes to unseat freshman Rep. Laura Gillen (D-Rockville Centre) in the fall elections. 
Several Democrats representing Long Island noted the Trump administration’s executive order to end birthright citizenship had threatened to rewrite more than a century of settled constitutional law and leave with legal uncertainty generations of children born to immigrants living in the country illegally and to temporary foreign residents. 
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-Brooklyn) said, "For 250 years, America has been a nation made stronger by immigrants." 
"Despite Trump’s best efforts to bully them, the Supreme Court just reaffirmed that if you are born in America, you belong in America," Schumer said. 
"Thank God the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship," said Rep. Tom Suozzi (D-Glen Cove) in a statement. The Court’s overturning birthright citizenship would have been "deeply damaging," he said. 
But Suozzi added there is much more to do — including for Congress and the president to work together to "repair our broken asylum system," and provide a path to legal status for the millions of people who have worked in the United States for decades. 
U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Brunswick) said, "The President tried to rewrite the Constitution with the stroke of a pen. The Court told him he could not." 
Had his order been upheld, Gillibrand said, "children born in our hospitals, in our communities, and on our soil could have been denied the basic recognition of their citizenship in the only country they have ever known." 
Gillen said, "The Constitution is clear that anyone born in the United States is an American citizen. This fundamental principle endured as the court reaffirmed the promise of the 14th Amendment." 
But Driscoll, the sitting Hempstead receiver of taxes and Village of Bellerose resident who is challenging Gillen this fall, sharply differed. She pointed to the so-called "birth tourism" industry, where foreign parents give birth to their children in U.S. soil as a way of making them naturalized citizens. 
"Ending the abuse of birthright citizenship is an important part of any comprehensive solution to our illegal immigration crisis," Driscoll said in a statement. As a potential member of Congress, she said, "I look forward to working with President Trump to enact new laws that stop the blatant exploitation of our asylum system and prevent birth tourism." 
While Garbarino was not offering immediate comment, his Democratic challenger, Patrick Halpin, of Oak Beach, said in a statement that "the fact that this case was ever brought to the Supreme Court is outrageous and un-American," and that he is relieved the court reaffirmed birthright citizenship. He added, "We must remain vigilant against those who would chip away at the freedoms that define America." 
LaLota — similar to House Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) reaction Tuesday — said the Supreme Court’s ruling "encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism," and "makes America a magnet for those seeking to exploit our immigration system." He said Congress should establish exceptions to birthright citizenship. 
But House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-Brooklyn) called the effort to overturn birthright citizenship "an unconstitutional attack launched by Donald Trump and his most sycophantic and xenophobic enablers." 
"On the eve of America’s 250th birthday, the far-right MAGA conservatives have failed in their quest to remake the United States, and American values have prevailed," he said.

USBIRTHRIGHT260701

NY lawmakers weigh in on Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling

NY lawmakers weigh in on birthright citizenship ruling

AIAudio - NY lawmakers weigh in on Supreme Court's birthright citizenship ruling


Copy Of USBIRTHRIGHT260701_photos

Immigrant advocates across Long Island celebrated the U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday to uphold birthright citizenship as a victory not only for immigrant families but for American democracy. 
The Trump administration, through executive order in January last year, sought to repeal <a href="https://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-ei1ghyoj" target="_blank">birthright citizenship</a> to children born to certain noncitizens to eliminate an incentive for immigrants illegally entering the country. Several <a href="https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/birthright-citizenship-ruling-appeals-trump-immigration-j90524" target="_blank">lower courts</a> had blocked the restriction before the nation's highest court weighed in with a 6-3 decision. 
The court's majority ruled the executive order violated the 14th Amendment. 
Minerva Perez, executive director of OLA of Eastern Long Island, a Latino advocacy group that works closely with youth in East End communities and provides scholarships to students who will go on to pursue a variety of careers, said the pending birthright citizenship decision has been a “nonstop” conversation among community members. 
“Thank God that this prevailed,” she said in an interview shortly after the decision was announced. “It’s foundational to our country. It is literally our DNA and it’s the right decision.” 
Sister Janet Kinney, director of the Long Island Immigration Clinic based in Brentwood, said when she heard the news Tuesday morning, she felt “great joy” after many months of living with uncertainty. 
“For so many on Long Island and across the country, this has really destabilized families,” she said. 
She said it’s been “excruciating” for the immigrant population she serves. 
“Many people who come to our clinic have applied for asylum and it might take years to get their case heard," she said. "Meanwhile, you might have given birth and there’s a fear that while this is the only country that child has known, they would have to migrate to a country they do not know and where they might not be welcome." 
Oscar Michelen, past president of the Long Island Hispanic Bar Association and a civil rights attorney, said there’s “a big sigh of relief” in immigrant communities who have been worried about whether their American-born children would be retroactively denied their rights. 
“It gives peace to folks who had long understood that the children they bore here were American citizens. It takes away the fear that somehow that right and that privilege was going to be taken away from them — and I might add by executive order and not an act of Congress,” said Michelen, who has several clients’ seeking asylum with children and some who are expecting. 
He said the “drawback” is that the decision was not unanimous and that one-third of the judges believe that it’s possible to “reshape established law.” 
Research from the Migration Policy Institute and Pennsylvania State University’s Population Research Institute <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">last year found</a> that if the restrictive policy was enacted, an average of about 255,000 children born on U.S. soil each year would be denied citizenship. 
The effect would be creating “a self-perpetuating, multigenerational underclass,” the research said. 
James Sample, constitutional law professor from the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, said the ruling affirms the law is the same as it has been since 1868 and then again when it was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1898. 
"The president has no role to play in any of the processes related to the constitutional amendment process and much less a role to play acting on his own," he said. "You cannot rewrite the 14th Amendment by executive order." 
Ed Kubik, a Lynbrook resident and member of Pax Christi, a Catholic peace group, said the Supreme Court ruling was “absolutely the right decision.” 
“Anybody who's born in this country is a citizen and should be welcomed and taken care of and helped to grow and thrive,” Kubik said. He called Trump’s effort to throw out birthright citizenship part of an “effort to demonize, to some degree, immigrants and migrants.” 
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement that birthright citizenship “has been one of the clearest expressions of our American values” by guaranteeing everyone born in the country equal protection under the law. 
She vowed the NYCLU will continue fighting for immigrant rights. 
“While we can all breathe a little easier today, we know the Trump administration will keep trying to redefine citizenship and strip away everyone’s civil rights,” she said. 
Yaritza Mendez, deputy director for the advocacy group Make the Road New York, said in a statement birthright citizenship has "allowed the descendants of immigrants to put down roots and build loving families and vibrant communities." 
The Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a national organization based in New York, praised the decision for upholding the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, according to a statement from Bethany Li, the organization’s executive director. 
“For the families this order targeted, the fear ends today: Their children keep their place in the only country they have ever called home,” Li said. 
Newsday's Bart Jones contributed to this story.

POBIRTHREAX260701

'The fear ends today': Immigrant advocacy groups on Long Island and beyond hail birthright ruling

LI immigrant advocacy groups hail birthright citizenship ruling

AIAudio - 'The fear ends today': Immigrant advocacy groups on Long Island and beyond hail birthright ruling


Steve Hughes

ALBANY — The U.S. Supreme Court decision Tuesday allowing states to ban transgender athletes from girls' and women's sports will not have an impact on New York athletes because of the state's existing protections banning discrimination against transgender individuals. 
The ruling written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh upholds laws in Idaho and West Virginia banning transgender athletes from female sports teams.&nbsp;There are 27 states that have some ban on transgender athletes in girls’ and women’s sports. 
New York is not one of them.&nbsp;It is illegal in New York for schools to discriminate based on a student’s gender identity or expression. 
Robert Zayas, executive director of the New York State Public High School Athletic Association, said it will continue to follow the state’s anti-discrimination laws. 
"We have conducted this practice for more than a decade and have worked closely with state leadership to ensure that students are able to participate in accordance with all New York State laws," he said. 
The NCAA, which oversees college athletics across the country, did not respond to a request for comment. 
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said that while the ruling won't apply to New York, it will allow for discrimination against transgender athletes elsewhere and embolden politicians seeking to enact other anti-transgender policies.&nbsp; 
"The court’s decision is an attack on young transgender women and girls around the country who just want to participate in student athletics, compete on a team, have fun with their peers, and be treated with the same dignity and respect as anyone else," she said. 
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman&nbsp;celebrated the ruling, saying it "affirmed the constitutional rights of women and girls." 
Blakeman, the Republican&nbsp;nominee for governor, has sought to ban transgender athletes competing on female-only teams in Nassau County. 
"But while the Court stood up for our daughters, Kathy Hochul continues putting them in danger by forcing biological males onto their teams," Blakeman said in a statement. 
A spokesperson for the governor did not directly address the ruling in a statement, saying, "New York has always been a safe haven for the LGBTQ community and Governor Hochul will continue to follow New York State laws and protections." 
In 2024, Blakeman issued an executive order banning transgender athletes from participating in girls' and&nbsp;women's sports on county property. The Nassau County Legislature later passed a law codifying that ban. In October, a New York appeals court paused enforcement of the ban. 
Attorney General Letitia James, who sued to overturn Nassau County’s ban, said Tuesday the court ruling amounts to an abandonment of young transgender people. 
"So much of the conversation around transgender athletes forgets that there are real people impacted by these policies," James said in a statement. "Sports teams are essential settings for young adults to build camaraderie, friendships&nbsp;and life-long skills.

STTRANS260701

Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes won't impact New York State

Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes won't impact New York

AIAudio - Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes won't impact New York State


Copy Of Supreme Court

Advocates for transgender youth say the high court&rsquo;s ruling sends a message that goes far beyond the ballfields. NewsdayTV&#39;s&nbsp;Virginia Huie reports.&nbsp;

STTRANS260701_video

LIers react to Supreme Court ruling on transgender athletes

Newsday

'It has a huge human impact'

MAH00012.mp4.00_00_06_37.Still001.jpg

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court that has expanded gun rights will consider whether bans on semiautomatic rifles, often called assault weapons, violate the Second Amendment. 
The justices said Tuesday they will hear appeals challenging bans on the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic firearms in Connecticut and the Chicago area.
Similar laws are in place in about a dozen states, covering major cities like New York, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Congress allowed a national assault weapons ban to expire in 2004, but Democrats have supported renewing it in response to a series of mass shootings. States have also continued to pass their own laws, including recent measures in Virginia and Rhode Island. 
It is the latest high-profile dispute over guns to reach the court since its conservative majority handed down a landmark ruling in 2022 that expanded Second Amendment rights and spawned challenges to firearm laws around the country. 
Arguments are expected to be heard in the fall. 
The Connecticut law was passed after a mass shooter used an AR-15 to kill 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012. The state says the guns are a preferred weapon of mass shooters, and they can be banned because they are similar to military-grade weapons. 
“These laws are critical public safety measures, and they are consistent with the Second Amendment," said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment litigation at the gun-control group Everytown Law.
Gun rights groups, on the other hand, argue it’s unconstitutional to ban semiautomatic rifles, which are legally owned by millions of Americans.
“The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard,” said Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Four conservative justices on the nine-member court, enough to grant review of a case, had signaled that it was only a matter of time before the court took up the issue.
The ban in Cook County, Illinois, was first passed in 1993. Lower courts have upheld both laws. 
“If the Second Amendment does not protect the most popular rifles in the country, it is hard to see how it protects any firearms at all,” aside from handguns kept in the home, the challengers wrote.
Attorneys for Cook County, on the other hand, say the measure does pass constitutional muster. "The trauma that assault weapon massacres have inflicted on the public at large has been staggering,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court backed Second Amendment rights in two cases this term, striking down gun carry restrictions in Hawaii and a broad federal ban on gun ownership by marijuana users. They've previously upheld some restrictions, though, including a law barring people under domestic-violence restraining orders from having guns.
Also Tuesday, the court rebuffed a series of cases over restrictions on guns for young adults under age 21, declining to hear an issue that's sharply divided lower courts in recent years.

News

Nation/World

AP-US-Supreme-Court-Weapons-Ban, 5th Ld-Writethru

Supreme Court will consider whether laws known as assault weapons bans violate the Second Amendment

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday erased limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with candidates for Congress and president, striking down a federal election law that is more than 50 years old.
Prodded by a Republican-led lawsuit that includes Vice President JD Vance, the court's six conservative justices were again in the majority of the latest decision that upended congressionally enacted limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited independent spending in federal elections.
The limits on party spending stem from a desire to prevent large donors from skirting caps on individual contributions to a candidate by directing unlimited sums to the party, with the understanding that the money will be spent on behalf of the candidate.
The Supreme Court had previously upheld the limits, in 2001.
But Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, said that decision was wrong and should be overruled. “In short, constitutional text, history and precedent establish that the political-party coordinated-expenditure limits violate the First Amendment,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan's dissent for the three liberal justices said the court “ushers in untold harm” by enabling parties to funnel large contributions to individual candidates, far in excess of what donors can give those candidates directly. 
National parties now will be able to make direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns,
The decision is likely to give Republicans at least a short-term boost because they maintain a sizable cash advantage over Democrats.
The Republican National Committee and its Senate and House campaign fundraising arms have dwarfed Democrats’ in the months before congressional elections where the GOP is defending narrow majorities in both houses.
At the end of May, the RNC reported having more than $125 million to spend, its highest-ever cash on hand total, according to its most recent Federal Election Commission filing in May. Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee had more than $48 million on hand in its most recent report and the National Republican Congressional Committee had more than $81 million.
In the same period, the Democratic National Committee had $14.4 million on hand, while the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee had roughly $37 million and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, roughly $73 million.
The Republican committees for House and Senate candidates filed the lawsuit in Ohio in 2022, joined by Vance, then a senator from Ohio, and then-Rep. Steve Chabot.
After President Donald Trump took office for his second term, the Federal Election Commission dropped its defense of the law and joined with Republicans in urging that it be overturned.
Democrats had called on the court to uphold the law, even though there is wide agreement that the spending limits have hurt political parties in an era of unlimited spending by other organizations.
Last year, the coordinated party spending for Senate races ranged from $127,200 in several states with small populations to nearly $4 million in California, the most populous state. For House races, the limits were $127,200 in states with only one representative and $63,600 everywhere else.
Entrenched divisions between liberal and conservative justices over campaign finance restrictions were on display when the court heard arguments in December. 
“Every time we interfere with the congressional design, we make matters worse,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a dissenter in Citizens United and the court’s other campaign money cases.
By contrast, Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the Citizens United majority, described the decision as “much maligned, I think unfairly maligned.” The effect of the decision was to ”level the playing field,” Alito said, by expanding the right to spend freely that had previously belonged only to media companies.
___
Associated Press writer Thomas Beaumont contributed to this report.

AP-US-Supreme-Court-Campaign-Finance, 3rd Ld-Writethru

Supreme Court strikes down limits on party spending in federal elections, backing Republican appeal

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday said the Federal Reserve, unlike any other agency in Washington, has a measure of independence from the presidency and day-to-day politics. But the court didn't define to what extent.
The case is the latest round in an unprecedented fight between the Fed and President Donald Trump. More political interference at the Fed could upend financial markets around the world, which closely follow its interest rate moves.
Trump has repeatedly demanded that the central bank cut its key interest rate to lower borrowing costs for homeowners, businesses, and even the government itself. Trump sought to fire a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, last August after accusing her of mortgage fraud — a charge she denies. Cook was appointed by former President Joe Biden and removing her would give Trump the opportunity to name a more amenable official in her place. 
In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the president cannot fire the seven members of the Fed's board of governors without a clear cause. The decision endorses the Fed's independent structure even as the court eliminated such protections for leaders of other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, whom the president can fire at-will.
“That’s a big deal,” said Scott Alvarez, the central bank's former top lawyer. "That’s one of the things that makes the Fed independent.”
While the decision is a boost for the Fed, it does leave Cook vulnerable to further attempts by the Trump administration to fire her. Trump said on his social media site, Truth Social, that “we will take appropriate action immediately” to remove Cook. But for now, she will keep her job while the case is fought in lower courts.
Here is what the court decided, and why the Fed's independence matters. 
<h2>The court said the Fed's independent structure is constitutional</h2>
In a separate case Monday, the justices ruled 6-3 that the Constitution allows the president to fire the heads of federal agencies that had previously been considered independent. But in the Cook case, the court carved out a clear exemption for the Fed. 
The Fed has a “unique historical status and role,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, similar to the First and Second Banks of the United States that existed in the early 1800s and that operated “at a deliberate remove from the ordinary political process.”
If the president could fire a Fed governor for any reason, it would undermine that official's ability to make decisions independently, Roberts wrote. 
“Nothing could be more corrosive of the independence that Congress sought to preserve,” the chief justice's opinion said.
The ruling provides some additional protection for new chair Kevin Warsh, who was nominated by Trump but has said that getting inflation back to the Fed's 2% target is his top priority. About half the Fed's policymakers support a rate hike to achieve that goal, while Trump has spoken out against hikes.
Still, Kathryn Judge, a law professor at Columbia University, said the justices' decision to strike down the independence of other agencies erodes the Fed's standing by leaving it as the only remaining such body in Washington. The principle of independent, non-political judgment has been undercut, she added.
“Fed independence lives on for another day, but is not as robust as it was prior to these decisions," she said. 
<h2>Cook and other governors are still vulnerable</h2>
And the court did not fully close the door on Trump's efforts to fire Cook. Trump's lawyers accepted that Trump could only fire her “for cause,” but they argued that the White House could define the cause and it couldn't be second-guessed by courts. 
The Supreme Court instead said that “for cause” likely involved serious misconduct that wasn't related to their professional duties, but didn't provide much detail. More importantly, they also threw out the higher standard that Cook's lawyers had pushed, which would have allowed governors to only be fired for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance on the job. Since the alleged mortgage fraud occurred before she joined the Fed, such a standard would have likely shut down the case. 
The court also said that Cook had to be given formal notice of her firing — the president only announced it last August on Truth Social — and an opportunity to formally respond, though the court did not specify what the process should look like. Indeed, Roberts included a footnote in his opinion noting that nothing forbids Trump from “trying again” to fire her, provided she is given proper notice and a chance to contest it.
Trump could seek to provide a bare-bones procedure while firing Cook again to bolster his case in the lower courts, legal experts said. 
"That’s an area of vulnerability still for the Federal Reserve and for Lisa Cook,” Alvarez said. 
<h2>Why the Fed's independence matters </h2>
The court battle will likely further define the boundaries of Fed independence. 
The Fed wields extensive power over the U.S. economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls — which it typically does when the economy falters — the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, accelerating growth and hiring. When it raises the rate — which it does to cool the economy and combat inflation — it can weaken the economy and cause job losses. 
Economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can more easily take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy a home, car, or appliances more expensive.
The importance of an independent Fed was cemented for most economists after the extended inflation spike of the 1970s and early 1980s. Former Fed Chair Arthur Burns has been widely blamed for allowing the painful inflation of that era to accelerate by succumbing to pressure from President Richard Nixon to keep rates low heading into the 1972 election. Nixon feared higher rates would cost him the election, which he won in a landslide. 
Paul Volcker was eventually appointed chair of the Fed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and he pushed the Fed's short-term rate to the stunningly high level of nearly 20%. (It is currently 3.6%.) The eye-popping rates triggered a sharp recession, pushed unemployment to nearly 11%, and spurred widespread protests. 
Yet Volcker didn't flinch. By the mid-1980s, inflation had fallen back into the low single digits. Volcker's willingness to inflict pain on the economy to throttle inflation is seen by most economists as a key example of the value of an independent Fed. 
Most investors prefer an independent Fed, partly because it typically manages inflation better without being influenced by politics, but also because its decisions are more predictable. A Fed swayed by politics would be harder to anticipate, and investors could demand higher yields on Treasurys before buying them. That would raise borrowing costs throughout the economy.
<h2></h2>

Business

AP-US-Federal-Reserve-Trump-Independence, 1st Ld-Writethru

What the Supreme Court's ruling in the Cook case means for Federal Reserve independence

Copy Of Banks Stress Test

States that allow mail ballots to be counted after Election Day reacted with relief Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican effort to outlaw the practice.
A decision favoring the state of Mississippi over the Republican National Committee delivered an immediate reprieve to the 14 states with grace periods for regular mail ballots, as well as heading off what was expected to be a scramble to alter the practice and inform voters just months ahead of the midterm elections.
At least one state, Ohio, had preemptively changed its law in anticipation of a different result from the high court, and 15 other states have such grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters.
Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said the ruling means "the thousands of voters whose ballots are postmarked on time but received after Election Day still have their voices heard.”
Mail ballots, also called absentee ballots, have been the source of conspiracy theories from President Donald Trump, who groundlessly blames them for his loss in the 2020 election. The RNC and Libertarian Party had sued to overturn a Mississippi law that permits the counting of mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and arrive up to five days later, on grounds that it violated federal law.
 Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote for the majority that the practice is legal.
"Nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day,” she wrote, adding that the court considered that very narrow question without wading into more sweeping declarations about absentee voting in general or the authority of Congress versus states over election law.
In Illinois, where mail-in ballots accounted for up to a quarter of this year's primary vote, the state elections board had budgeted $300,000 for a television and radio ad campaign to educate voters about potential changes to the mail ballot deadline. Spokesman Matt Dietrich said that campaign will be called off after the court's ruling. Illinois allows mail ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within 14 days.
“Anytime you have a change in the administration of elections that affects voters, it is a big challenge to us to make sure that voters understand what that change is,” he said.
California, which has a seven-day grace period, has been a regular target of Trump and other Republicans who criticize the state's slow-counting of late-arriving ballots and have used the gap to spread conspiracy theories about voter fraud.
California Secretary of State Shirley Weber called Monday's ruling "a win for voters, for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy.”
Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson called the decision a victory for states' rights, including the ability to set election rules as long as they don't conflict with federal law.
In addition to California, Illinois and Mississippi, the other states that count regular mail ballots received after Election Day are Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.
Data shows that mail ballots are popular options across all 50 states for both Republican and Democratic voters.
Although the RNC was party to the case and not the Trump administration itself, national party committees of a sitting president’s party typically operate in concert with the president’s political strategies. Trump also has effectively taken over operations of the RNC, the GOP's main fundraising and political operation.
Calling Monday's ruling “a tremendous loss,” Trump used it as a way to push his sweeping election law bill that has stalled on Capitol Hill despite Republican control in both chambers of Congress.
In a Truth Social post, the president declared it “more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” his name for legislation that would require voters nationally to document their U.S. citizenship to register to vote, show certain photo identification to cast ballots and limit who can vote with a mail ballot. RNC Chairman Joe Gruters issued a statement aligning with Trump, saying Monday's ruling was justification to pass the congressional proposal.
Lower federal courts have issued rulings blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to impose new restrictions on mail ballots and to create a national voter list, among other proposed changes. Judges in those cases have consistently said the Constitution vests authority for setting election rules with Congress and the states, not the president.
While Barrett framed Monday’s opinion on the narrower question of the mail ballot deadline, the decision could bolster hopes among Democrats that the high court will look skeptically on the president’s assertion of power over elections if other cases land before it.
Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin said he was relieved because the ruling was a potential sign that other cases could go Democrats' way. But he accused the president and RNC of trying to disenfranchise voters and said he was alarmed by the narrow 5-4 decision in the case.
“What’s troubling was that so many of the other justices were willing to sacrifice the rights of voters,” said Galvin, a Democrat.
Perhaps nowhere was the case being watched more closely than Alaska, where Native and rural communities dotted across a vast landscape rely on the state's grace period to ensure their ballots get counted. Planes are often the only way ballots can get from polling locations to counting locations.
Jacqueline De León, a senior staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, was among the attorneys who filed a brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of Alaska Native and Native American groups. The brief highlighted the challenges they face, in particular where many communities are accessible only by air or water and rely on air service for mail.
“For many Native communities, voting by mail is shaped by long distances to election offices, no home mail delivery, unreliable postal service, lack of access to transportation, and the realities of living in rural and remote areas,” she said. “Ballots cast by election deadlines should not be discarded simply because substandard service or weather delays cause them to arrive after Election Day.”

AP-US-Supreme-Court-Mail-Ballots-States, 2nd Ld-Writethru

Supreme Court ruling gives a reprieve to states with grace periods for receiving mail ballots

Copy Of Supreme Court Mail Ballots States

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a push by President Donald Trump to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.
The high court declined to take up the case in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. There were no noted dissents. Trump also plans to appeal another $83.3 million verdict awarded to Carroll by a different jury after a second defamation trial, his lawyers have said.
The decision comes as the court hands down its biggest opinions, including a ruling that expands his firing power over the federal bureaucracy with the exception of the Federal Reserve. 
Trump called the decision to pass on the Carroll case “surprising” in a social media post, and he said he would continue to fight the defamation claims. “This Case is really against the United States of America, and all it stands for,” he wrote. 
Trump’s lawyers had argued that allegations leading to the verdict were propped up by “highly inflammatory” evidentiary rulings, including those that allowed the testimony of two other women who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago. Trump has denied all three women’s allegations.
Trump's attorneys argued the judge broke federal evidence rules in the case. They framed it as a distraction from Trump’s unique duties as president, though the verdict came before his return to the White House. 
“This mistreatment of a President cannot be allowed to stand,” Attorney Justin D. Smith wrote in court documents. Trump, a Republican, has since nominated Smith to be an appeals court judge. His lawyers called the case “Liberal Lawfare" in a statement on Monday. 
Carroll's lawyers had urged the justices to pass on the case. They argued that the women's testimony was relevant because the allegations were similar and that Judge Lewis Kaplan’s decisions were in line with others around the country. “This question is not worthy of review,” wrote attorney Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to the judge. 
Monday's decision affirms the jury's verdict will stand, she said in a statement Monday. “His multiple efforts to appeal that verdict have all failed and today’s ruling ends his quest to avoid accountability for his actions,” she said. 
Carroll, a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host, testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly encounter in spring 1996 into a violent attack in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan. The jury also found Trump liable for defaming Carroll when he denied her allegation in 2022. 
The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.
Trump has successfully fended off other hefty court judgments, including a New York civil fraud penalty of over $500 million thrown out by a New York appeals court. The Supreme Court also granted him broad immunity from criminal prosecution in 2024, though it later narrowly rejected his bid to halt sentencing in his New York hush money case. 
___
Associated Press writers Jennifer Peltz in New York and Michelle Price in Washington contributed to this report.

AP-US-Supreme-Court-Trump, 9th Ld-Writethru

Supreme Court rejects Trump's push to toss $5 million verdict in E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse case

Copy Of Supreme Court Trump

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to end legal protections that permitted hundreds of thousands of Haitians and Syrians to live in the United States sent shock waves across Long Island, a hub of Haitian American life. 
Nassau County Legis.&nbsp;Carrié Solages, a Democrat from Valley Stream who is Haitian American, said his office started to get phone calls from worried constituents minutes after the court’s decision was announced. "People have been calling my office asking for legal advice," he said. "These are people without information, without hope. ... I am begging the administration to exercise its power in the most discrete way that will have the least negative impact." 
More than 40,000 people of Haitian descent and 1,300 of Syrian descent&nbsp;live on Long Island, census figures show.&nbsp;Some were granted temporary protected status, or TPS, after a devastating 2010 earthquake in Haiti and that legal immigration status&nbsp;was later renewed because of political violence, gang wars and human rights abuses in the island nation. 
Phillip Connor, a research fellow at Princeton University's Center for Migration and Development, estimated there were 53,000&nbsp;Haitian TPS holders&nbsp;in the New York City metropolitan area, which includes portions of New Jersey and Connecticut. 
Most Haitian TPS holders in New York State live in New York City, Rockland County and Long Island. They are now exposed to potential loss of work authorization and deportation after a 6-3 decision overturned lower court orders, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to terminate TPS without judicial review. 
DHS did not answer&nbsp;a question about the department’s next steps. But a department spokesman, James Percival, said in an email that the Supreme Court "vindicates DHS yet again. 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." 
Solages called the decision "a victory for the administration but a complete loss for our economy and for Long Island. Many Haitian TPS holders on Long Island work in hospitality and healthcare, industries that already faced worker shortages. "These individuals will be forced to seek employment off the books," he said. 
In a Manhattan news conference with immigration advocates, union leaders, Gov. Kathy Hochul and other elected officials, including Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of New York Immigration Coalition, said New Yorkers with TPS from Haiti and Syria would lose legal status starting in about 30 days. <a class="p-smartembed" data-attr-caption="New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at the Manhattan offices of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East about the Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to terminate temporary protected status for thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals. " data-attr-credit="" data-attr-has-caption="true" data-attr-has-credit="true" data-attr-q="0.3" data-attr-w="400" data-onecms-id="contentid/bdf7b3ce-6f97-449a-9d41-b212cc9d30a6" data-onecms-type="image" href="javascript:window.parent.actionEventData({$contentId:'contentid/bdf7b3ce-6f97-449a-9d41-b212cc9d30a6', $action:'view', $target:'work'})" polopoly:contentid="contentid/bdf7b3ce-6f97-449a-9d41-b212cc9d30a6"><img src="/image-service/alias/contentid/bdf7b3ce-6f97-449a-9d41-b212cc9d30a6/20260625-_DSC2289.jpg?w=400&amp;q=0.3">New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at the Manhattan offices of 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East about the Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump administration to terminate temporary protected status for thousands of Haitian and Syrian nationals. </a> 
Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose wife is Syrian, said his office would be issuing advice to residents at risk of losing TPS. "You are not going to face this alone," he said. 
Hochul warned that the decision would "cripple our healthcare system." 
Some Haitian Americans on Long Island echoed that Thursday. Marie Sonia Saint Rose-Bienvil, a public health practitioner from Uniondale who is president of <a href="https://shaligroup.wixsite.com/shali">Solidarite Haitiano-Americaine de Long Island</a>, a community group, said the decision could have particularly acute impacts for home care aides. "They work with patients, those who are sick or stay at home, who depend on those people to come and care for them." 
Bill Van Slyke, a spokesman for Home Care Association of New York State, wrote in an email that the trade group was "concerned that the implications of the ruling specific to TPS status will exacerbate current workforce shortages, especially in the metro New York region. We are hopeful the administration will be judicious in its actions moving forward to ensure that we don't interrupt services for the more than one million New Yorkers who rely on home-based clinical care every day." 
In an email, David Dyssegaard Kallick, director of Immigration Research Initiative, a nonpartisan think tank, wrote that Haitian TPS holders add an estimated $800 million in annual economic contributions to the state economy, along with $280 million in federal, state and local taxes. 
Mimi Pierre Johnson, a community organizer, said the court decision’s impacts would ripple beyond home care. She said Haitians on Long Island "have businesses. They have children in education. They work in nursing homes, hospitals, restaurants, and now you have made them all illegal. ... Not because of something they did wrong, but because our government did that to them. We are all going to be affected." 
She described the plight of a Haitian acquaintance who owned a business there but moved her family to Long Island after being threatened by a gang. The gang later took over the woman’s house, Johnson said. "Do you think she wants to go back? They are going to recognize her. She has nothing to go back to," she said. 
The Rev. Onick Bouquet, who leads a mostly Haitian congregation in Hauppauge whose members include TPS recipients, said the decision would accelerate a retreat from public life for some that began last year at the start of the federal immigration crackdown. "They are scared and they cannot go out, even for church," he said. "We try to do online service, but that is not the way it is supposed to be." 
Bouquet said some Haitians on Long Island would be "happy" to return to Haiti if conditions there were better. But&nbsp;he said, "The condition of living in Haiti now is very hard. ... We don’t have war, but gangs trying to control some parts of Haiti." 
According to the United Nations, at least 26 armed gangs control up to 90%&nbsp;of the capital city of Port-au-Prince and surrounding areas, practicing "summary executions, extortion and kidnappings for ransom and preventing commerce by blocking the free flow of goods." At least 2,300 people have been killed since the start of the year, though a UN-backed Gang Suppression Force has begun patrols. 
Alexander Holtzman, director of the Deportation Defense Clinic and assistant clinical professor of law at Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, said DHS would likely "move quickly to effectuate the termination of TPS, and at that point, thousands of Haitian and Syrian TPS holders will then lose their status." 
Immigration lawyers will now turn to "damage control, figuring out when TPS expires, when employment authorizations expire and what, if anything, we can do to help." Some clients may be eligible to make applications for asylum in the United States, he said. For the rest, the advice might be more basic: "Know your rights. Don’t open the door to your residence without a judicial warrant. Remain silent. It’s a really challenging time for the immigration community on Long Island." 
Assemb. Michaelle Solages (D-Elmont), the sister of the Nassau legislator, said she anticipated "chaos" as a result of the decision, with many Haitians choosing a life "in the shadows" as undocumented workers in the United States over a return to Haiti. 
Solages, like her brother, said she’d fielded scores of calls in recent months from constituents worried about the Supreme Court decision. "Not a day goes by that somebody doesn’t tap me in the shoulder and say, ‘I don’t know what I’m going to do.’ ” 
She has given cold comfort: "I tell people, ‘Don’t fall for scams.’ There are going to be lawyers and other entities that are going to sell them a dream or give them false hope. ... There are unscrupulous people who are going to take advantage of us, because there is very little hope in our community." 
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, at senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy organization for immigrants, said it was unclear how the administration might proceed, not least because the Federal Aviation Administration barred flights to Port-Au-Prince last year after a Spirit Airlines flight was shot at while landing. But TPS holders who lose work authorization will have to quit their jobs and will be vulnerable to arrest by ICE, which can place them in removal proceedings, he said. 
The case also will have implications for other foreign nationals living in the United States under TPS, who total about 1.3 million from 17 countries, he said, because it frees the government to end designations for those nations with minimal judicial oversight. “The Trump administration has terminated every single TPS that has come up for review so far,”&nbsp;Reichlin-Melnick said. 
In a statement, Rep. Laura Gillen, (D-Rockville Centre) said she would push for passage of a bill to reinstate protected status for nearly 350,000 Haitian nationals living in the United States. That legislation passed the House but faces an uncertain future in the Senate and then possible veto by the president. “Haitian TPS recipients are a part of the fabric of our daily lives and pillars of our economy and faith communities. They are a fundamental part of our vibrant identity on Long Island.” 
Newsday's Billy House and Tiffany Cusaac-Smith contributed to this story.

LITPS260626

Copy Of liTPS260626_photos

Supreme Court decision revoking TPS status alarms Haitian community, as governor says ruling will 'cripple' healthcare system

Haitian community reeling at Supreme Court decision revoking TPS status

AIAudio - Supreme Court decision revoking TPS status alarms Haitian community, as governor says ruling will 'cripple' healthcare system


Key SCOTUS rulings: Latest updates

onecms:dc8a1785-baec-4dd6-80b2-7900457f9688

Most Popular

Latest videos

Politics video slot

Newsday NYS correspondent Keshia Clukey gives insight on what local governments are asking from New York State.

Local governments say they will override 2% tax cap

The law would require businesses to have proper state licensing, prove that their employees are paid and ban staff from living at the spas or sleeping there overnight. Repeat offenders could face penalties up to $25,000. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has more.

'It's personal to me'

The county executive had not shown his hand as a state law banning cooperation agreements went into effect. NewsdayTV's Andrew Ehinger reports.

'This law is completely misguided'

President and CEO of Nassau University Medical Center Thomas Stokes explains the problems caused by the aging infrastructure within the hospital. Newsday Associate Editor Joye Brown reports.

'You could have a catastrophic failure'

Sign up for the Politics newsletter

Politics newsletter widget

Long Island Article Bottom Module

A judge ruled that the Village of Garden City lacked standing to sue.

LI village loses challenge over casino zoning

Suozzi touted a plan to address affordability, a key issue this election season.

Suozzi launches reelection, targets GOP efforts tying him to far left

On Long Island, a total of 75 cities, towns, villages and fire and school districts said they planned to override their tax levy cap in fiscal 2026.

Many local governments in NYS, LI plan to bust 2% property tax cap

The family had sought $25 million from the county.

Suffolk OKs $2.1M settlement with family of sword-wielding man killed by police

Labor Day is the traditional milepost for when political campaigns accelerate.

What to know as Hochul, Blakeman campaigns enter last 2 months

The county executive discussed affordability, public safety and infrastructure projects during his speech.

Romaine delivers his third State of the County address

Politics Video Playlist

Nassau is one of two counties in the state that have refused to come into line with the law. NewsdayTV's Virginia Huie reports.

'Likely that the issue will wind up in court'

During a tour of the public hospital's campus, CEO Thomas Stokes said upgrades to aging infrastructure would cost "hundreds of millions of dollars." But there aren't yet plans to replace it. Newsday Associate Editor Joye Brown reports.

'It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars'

The 90-mile electric cable project could take five years to complete. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has more.

'Our communities should not be collateral damage'

Nassau Republicans awarded over $1 million in taxpayer-funded legal contracts to the one-man law firm of Sheharyar Ali, a longtime GOP ally. Ali's father is an adviser to Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman. NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa and Newsday Nassau County politics reporter Bahar Ostadan have the story.

'Democrats say this is a misuse of taxpayer funds'

Political observers said the GOP nominee for governor needs to show some "daylight" between himself and the president. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has more.

'Going to speak to a broad base of voters'

"They're not allowing that time and access for folks to really present their case," said one advocate, describing "mega master" immigration hearings. NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa reports.

'Serious fundamental due process concerns'

Newsday associate editor Joye Brown spoke with political strategist Michael Dawidziak about Republican gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman's use of AI-generated campaign ads.

'It's politics as usual, but fueled by brand-new technology'

There is a new push to look into the effect of screen time in classrooms. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn spoke to Newsday state reporter Keshia Clukey and other experts on the topic.

'I don't advocate for one blanket policy'

Homepage Trending

2026 NFL season preview

9/11 anniversary complete coverage

LI high school football preview

Wallet Watch

TRUMP'S IMPACT ON LI

A Newsday data analysis shows that ICE agents detained just 72 immigrants in Nassau and Suffolk counties in July, down from 322 in January. Newsday data reporter Anastasia Valeeva explains.

'They have been steadily going down'

Brentwood, where voter support for Trump doubled over the last three elections, has become one of the biggest targets for ICE arrests. NewsdayTV's Doug Geed and Newsday Nassau County politics reporter Bahar Ostadan have more.

'This is the new normal'

President Donald Trump gave an hourlong speech at the Nassau County Police training facility touting crime fighting and blasting Dems. Protesters had other thoughts. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn has the story.

'Really rallying the base'

Long Island's Head Start programs are facing financial headwinds. NewsdayTV's Virginia Huie reports.

'Not knowing how important this program is'

Advocates say they are seeing signs that U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement agents are becoming more active on Long Island. NewsdayTV's Shari Einhorn reports.

'They will come and get you'

Highly rated nursing homes, including those on Long Island, could face "streamlined" and less time-consuming inspections under a new nationwide "risk-based survey" process. Newsday reporter Robert Brodsky explains.

'So few nursing homes can meet this criteria'

<a href="https://www.newsday.com/video/newsdaytv-top-stories">Get more on these and other NewsdayTV stories</a>

Newsday TV

NewsdayTV Top Item

Home health aides owed millions ... Chick-Fil-A drops plans ... Plenty of sunshine today ... 9/11: The children left behind

Home health aides owed millions ... Gentlemen's club sex trafficking lawsuit ... 9/11: The children left behind

App Nativo Ad Unit Slot

Politics - megaslot

Follow Long Island and NYS politics from local elections and races to legislation to reaction to national events.

Most Popular

Latest videos

TRUMP'S IMPACT ON LI

Stay logged in.