An appeals court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border of the U.S., a key pillar of the Republican president's plan to crack down on migration.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can't circumvent that.

The court opinion stems from action taken by Trump on Inauguration Day 2025, when he declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an invasion of America and that he was "suspending the physical entry" of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over.

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under "procedures of his own making," allow him to suspend plaintiffs' right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

"The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA's mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals," wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden.

"We conclude that the INA's text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts," the opinion said.

The administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling or go to the Supreme Court.

The order doesn't formally take effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, said she had not seen the ruling but called it "unsurprising," blaming politically-motivated judges.

"They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens," she said.

Leavitt said Trump was taking actions that are "completely within his powers as commander in chief."

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice would seek further review of the decision. "We are sure we will be vindicated," she wrote in an emailed statement.

The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the ruling.

"President Trump's top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States," DHS said in a statement.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that previous legal action had already paused the asylum ban, and the ruling won't change much on the ground.

The ruling, however, represents another legal defeat for a centerpiece policy of the president.

"This confirms that President Trump cannot on his own bar people from seeking asylum, that it is Congress that has mandated that asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and the President cannot simply invoke his authority to sustain," said Reichlin-Melnick.

Advocates say the right to request asylum is enshrined in the country's immigration law and say denying migrants that right puts people fleeing war or persecution in grave danger.

Lee Gelernt, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said in a statement that the appellate ruling is "essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration's unlawful and inhumane executive order."

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, welcomed the court decision as a victory for their clients.

President Lyndon B. Johnson knew the legislation he was about to sign was momentous, one that took courage for certain members of Congress to pass since the vote could cost them their seats.

To honor that, he took the unusual step of leaving the Oval Office and going to Capitol Hill for the signing ceremony. It was Aug. 6, 1965, five months after the "Bloody Sunday" attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, gave momentum to the bill that became known as the Voting Rights Act.

In the six decades since, it became one of the most consequential laws in the nation's history, preventing discrimination against minorities at the ballot box and helping to elect thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives at all levels of government.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a major pillar of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. It was a decision that came more than a decade after the court undermined another key tenet of the law and led to restrictive voting laws in a number of states. Voting and civil rights advocates were left fearful of what lies ahead for minority communities.

"It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation," said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. "It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that's not exaggeration."

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office, said the court's steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday's decision, amounted to "burying it without the funeral."

The Supreme Court's ruling came in a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana after the state created a district that gave the state its second Black representative to Congress.

It found that map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander because it took race into account to draw the lines. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, called Section 2, was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.

Justice Elena Kagan in her dissent said the bar to show intentional discrimination is "an almost insurmountable barrier for challenges to any voting rights issues to prove discrimination."

Voting rights experts said the ruling leaves the Voting Rights Act only a shell of what it had been and will provide an open door for political mapmakers at every level — from local school districts to state legislatures to Congress — to undermine minority representation.

"We're witnessing the evisceration of America's greatest legislative landmark at the hands of a far right Supreme Court," Democratic U.S. Rep. Ritchie Torres of New York said.

Maria Teresa Kumar, president of Voto Latino, said the decision will allow more aggressive "cracking and packing" of populations to dilute their votes, "not just in congressional districts but also in state legislatures, county commissions, school boards and city councils."

Voting rights experts said there is no doubting the law's impact over the decades.

Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at Howard University and the former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said there were about 1,500 Black elected officials throughout the country in 1970. Today, that stands at more than 10,000.

"And it isn't because of the goodness of people's hearts," she said.

She said that success was a direct result of Black communities, civil rights activists and lawyers having the tools, through the Voting Rights Act, to file challenges to efforts to diminish the voting strength of Black and Hispanic voters. Most of the Section 2 cases have been over representation in local governments.

A U.S. special forces soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has been charged with using classified information about the mission to win more than $400,000 in an online betting market, federal officials announced Thursday.

Gannon Ken Van Dyke was part of the operation to capture Maduro in January and used his access to classified information to make money on the prediction market site Polymarket, the federal prosecutor's office in New York said.

He has been charged by the Justice Department with unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and making an unlawful monetary transaction. He could face years in prison.

Van Dyke, 38, was involved in the planning and execution of capturing Maduro for about a month beginning Dec. 8, 2025, according to the federal prosecutor's office. Even though he signed nondisclosure agreements promising to not divulge "any classified or sensitive information" related to the operations, prosecutors say the Army soldier used this information to make a series of bets related to Maduro being out of power by Jan. 31, 2026.

"This involved a U.S. soldier who allegedly took advantage of his position to profit off of a righteous military operation," FBI Director Kash Patel said in a post to social media.

A telephone number listed for Van Dyke in public records was not in service. There was not yet an attorney listed for him in court documents.

Polymarket, one of the largest prediction markets in the world, said it had found someone trading on classified government information, alerted the U.S. Department of Justice and "cooperated with their investigation."

"Insider trading has no place on Polymarket," the company said in a statement.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates prediction markets, announced Thursday it had filed a parallel complaint against Van Dyke.

That complaint alleges that Van Dyke moved $35,000 from his personal bank account into a cryptocurrency exchange account on Dec. 26 — a little over a week before U.S. forces would fly into Caracas and seize Maduro.

Van Dyke used more than $32,500 to make a series of bets on when Maduro might be removed from power, according to the complaint. He placed those bets between Dec. 30 and Jan. 2, with the vast majority occurring the night of Jan. 2 — just hours before the first missiles would fall on Caracas.

In the early hours of Jan. 3, President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform a photo of the now-captured Venezuelan leader, wearing a gray sweatsuit, headphones and a blindfold.

The bets Van Dyke made on Maduro leaving power resulted in "more than $404,000 of profits," the complaint said. Bets on three other Venezuela-related contracts netted the solider more than $5,000, according to the document.

"The defendant was entrusted with confidential information about U.S. operations and yet took action that endangered U.S. national security and put the lives of American service members in harm's way," said Michael Selig, the commission's chairman.

The massive profits from the well-timed bets aroused public attention days after the raid and brought bipartisan calls for stricter regulation of the markets where people can wager on just about anything.

Officials allege that shortly after the operation, Van Dyke put most of the money he won in a foreign cryptocurrency vault and then into a new brokerage account. He also asked Polymarket to delete his account, saying he had lost access to his email associated with the account, according to the federal prosecutor's office.

Texas can require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday in a victory for conservatives who have long sought to incorporate more religion into classrooms.

The 9-8 decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a boost to backers of similar laws in Arkansas and Louisiana. Opponents have argued that hanging the Ten Commandments in classrooms proselytizes to students and amounts to religious indoctrination by the government.

In a lengthy majority opinion, the conservative-leaning appeals court in New Orleans rejected those arguments in Texas, saying the requirement does not step on the rights of parents or students.

"No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them, or affirm their divine origin," the ruling says.

The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups that challenged the Texas law on behalf of parents said in a statement that they anticipate appealing the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights," they said in the statement.

The mandate is one of several fronts in Texas that opponents have fought over religion in classrooms. In 2024, the state approved optional Bible-infused curriculum for elementary schools, and a proposal set for a vote in June would add Bible stories to required reading lists in Texas classrooms.

The decision over the Ten Commandments law reverses a lower federal court ruling that had blocked about a dozen Texas school districts — including some of the state's largest — from putting up the posters. The Texas law signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott took effect in September, marking the largest attempt in the nation to hang the Ten Commandments in public schools.

From the start, the law was met almost immediately by a mix of embrace and hesitation in Texas classrooms that educate the state's 5.5 million public school students.

The mandate animated school board meetings, spun up guidance about what to say when students ask questions, and led to boxes of donated posters being dropped on the doorsteps of campuses statewide. Although the law only requires schools to hang the posters if donated, one suburban Dallas school district spent nearly $1,800 to print roughly 5,000 posters.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, called the ruling "a major victory for Texas and our moral values."

"The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it's important that students learn from them every single day," he said.

Tuesday's ruling comes after the appeals court heard arguments in January in the Texas case and a similar case in Louisiana. In February, the court cleared the way for Louisiana to enforce its law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms.

Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said the Texas ruling "adopted our entire legal defense" of the law in her state. In Alabama, Republican Gov. Kay Ivey also signed a similar law earlier this month.

"Our law clearly was always constitutional, and I am grateful that the Fifth Circuit has now definitively agreed with us," Murrill said in a statement posted to social media.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson, in a dissenting opinion joined by four others on the court, wrote that the framers of the Constitution "intended disestablishment of religion, above all to prevent large religious sects from using political power to impose their religion on others."

"Yet Texas, like Louisiana, seeks to do just that, legislating that specific, politically chosen scripture be installed in every public-school classroom," Higginson wrote.

A Canadian man facing murder charges for allegedly selling lethal substances online to people at risk of self-harm has agreed to plead guilty to 14 counts of counseling or aiding suicide, his lawyer said on Saturday.

In turn, Canadian prosecutors will withdraw all 14 murder charges filed against Kenneth Law, lawyer Matthew Gourlay told The Associated Press in a email.

"The plea will be to the charges of aiding suicide," he said in an email. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation first reported the plea.

Law will make a virtual appearance by Zoom before a Newmarket, Ontario, court on Monday afternoon for the purpose of further scheduling, Gourlay said. The plea and the sentencing will take place at a later date.

Calls to Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General weren't immediately answered.

Canadian police say Law, from the Toronto area, used a series of websites to market and sell sodium nitrite, a substance commonly used to cure meats that can be deadly if ingested. They say he is suspected of sending at least 1,200 packages to more than 40 countries.

Authorities in the United States, Britain, Italy, Australia and New Zealand also have launched investigations.

It is against the law in Canada for someone to recommend suicide, although assisted suicide has been legal since 2016 for people aged at least 18. Any adult with a serious illness, disease or disability may seek help in dying, but they must ask for assistance from a physician.

Law has been in custody since his arrest at his Mississauga, Ontario, home in May 2023.

According to the Canadian Criminal Code, abetting suicide carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. A murder conviction automatically means life in prison, with no chance of parole for at least 25 years.

Two U.S. families went to Italy's highest court Tuesday to challenge the scope of a year-old law passed by Giorgia Meloni's government limiting citizenship claims to Italian descendants removed by more than two generations.

Their lawyer, Marco Mellone, argued before the Cassation Court that the law should apply only to people born after it took effect, potentially opening a pathway to citizenship for millions of people living in the United States and parts of Latin America. Another lawyer represented Italian descendants from Venezuela.

A decision by an expanded panel, which makes the ruling binding in lower courts, is expected in the coming weeks.

A decree by the conservative government in March 2025 put the brakes on previous rules allowing anyone who could prove ancestry after Italy's formation in 1861 to seek citizenship. Italy's constitutional court last month ruled the new law is valid, but Mellone said the supreme court has the power to clarify the scope of the law.

"The families involved in this case are simply descendants ... from an Italian ancestor who emigrated in the late 19th century to the United States, like millions of other people, of other Italians," Mellone said before the hearing. "Today they are invoking their right to Italian citizenship."

Mellone's case would clarify the citizenship rights of the descendants of some 14 million Italians who emigrated between 1877 and 1914, according to Foreign Ministry statistics, and beyond.

While Mellone's case involves two families, another dozen people whose citizenship claims were stopped by the law were present outside the courthouse in solidarity.

Karen Bonadio said she hopes one day to move to Italy on the strength of her ancestry. She brought photos of her as a young girl alongside her Italian-born great-grandparents, who emigrated from Basilicata in southern Italy to upstate New York, along with their birth certificates.

"The new law says, 'all these great-grandchildren didn't know their great-grandparents.' This is from 1963, I think I was 3 1/2," she said, showing the photograph.

At least one of Mellone's cases had been rejected in lower courts before the new law, hinging partially on rulings that Italian emigrants who took on another citizenship before having children cannot pass on Italian citizenship.

Jennifer Daley's case has been working its way through the Italian bureaucracy for nearly a decade. Her grandfather, Giuseppe Dalfollo, immigrated to the U.S. in 1912 from the northern province of Trento when it was under Austro-Hungarian control. He later married an Italian woman and brought her over, and at some point became a naturalized U.S. citizen.

Daley said she always had a strong Italian identity that transcended her last name anglicized by U.S. immigration officials. She petitioned for citizenship because "it is truly a recognition of who I am, where I am from. It's so much more than citizenship. It's everything," Daley, a historian, said by phone from Salina, Kansas.

Outside the courthouse, Alexis Traino said great-grandparents on both her maternal and paternal sides had come from Italy, where she now lives, mainly in Florence.

"My entire life, I grew up knowing — and my parents always emphasized — that I was Italian. I had a very, very strong connection with Italy," said Traino, 34, who was waiting for documents from Italy and the U.S. when the law passed, blocking her case.

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the Defense Department is violating his earlier order to restore access to the Pentagon for reporters, a setback in the administration's efforts to impede the work of journalists.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman sided with The New York Times for the second time in a month. He had earlier said the Pentagon's new credential policy violated journalists' constitutional rights to free speech and due process. On Thursday, he said Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's team had tried to evade his March 20 ruling by putting in new rules that expel all reporters from the building unless guided by escorts.

"The department simply cannot reinstate an unlawful policy under the guise of taking 'new' action and expect the court to look the other way," Friedman wrote. Friedman had ordered Pentagon officials to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times reporters and stressed that his decision applies to "all regulated parties." The Pentagon building serves as the headquarters for U.S. military operations.

Defense Department spokesperson Sean Parnell said it disagrees with the ruling and intends to appeal. Parnell said in a social media post that the department has "at all times" complied with judge's orders, reinstating journalists' credentials and issuing "a materially revised policy that addressed every concern" identified by the judge.

"The Department remains committed to press access at the Pentagon while fulfilling its statutory obligation to ensure the safe and secure operation of the Pentagon Reservation," he wrote.

Times attorney Theodore Boutrous said Thursday's ruling "powerfully vindicates both the Court's authority and the First Amendment's protections of independent journalism."

In October, reporters from mainstream news outlets walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules. The Times sued the Pentagon and Hegseth in December to challenge the policy.

President Donald Trump has fought against the press on several levels since returning to his second term, suing The Times and Wall Street Journal, and cutting funding for public radio and television because he did not like their coverage. At the same time, he frequently talks to the media and responds to reporters who call him on his cell phone.

In a series of briefings on the Iran War, Hegseth has frequently ignored or insulted legacy media reporters let in to cover the events, while concentrating on questions from friendly conservative media.

Times attorneys accused the Pentagon of violating the judge's March 20 order, "both in letter and spirit" with its revised policy. The newspaper said that Pentagon was also trying to impose unprecedented rules dictating when reporters can offer anonymity to sources.

Friedman said that the access the Pentagon made available to permit holders "is not even close to as meaningful as the broad access" they previously had.

Government lawyers said the Pentagon's revised policy fully complies with the judge's directives. Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell has said the administration would appeal Friedman's March 20 decision.

The Pentagon Press Association, which includes Associated Press reporters, said the Pentagon's interim policy preserves provisions that Friedman deemed to be unconstitutional while also adding new restrictions on credential holders.

"In effect," Justice Department attorneys wrote, "Plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the Order to prohibit the Department from ever addressing the security of the Pentagon through a press credentialing policy with conditions that may address similar topics or concerns as the enjoined conditions. The Order does not say that, and this Court should not read it to say that."