Trump Says No Decision on Major Iran Strikes as U.S.-Tehran Talks Intensify 
Trump Signals More Iran Strikes While Leaving Door Open to Nuclear Deal 
US-Mexico USMCA Talks Advance as Auto Rules Remain Major Sticking Point 
New Mexico AG Accuses DOJ of Delaying Jeffrey Epstein Ranch Investigation 
Judge Approves Anthropic’s $1.5 Billion AI Copyright Settlement With Authors 
Iran Condemns Ukrainian Attack on Commercial Ship as Zelenskiy Alleges Russia Aids Tehran 
Kyiv Hit by Russian Missile Attack as Fires Erupt Across Multiple Districts 
Troy Jackson Wins Maine Democratic Senate Nomination, Sets Up High-Stakes Race Against Susan Collins 
Trump Threatens Iran With 'Major Military Punishment' as Red Sea Attacks Push Oil Above $100 
DOJ Refuses to Release Unredacted Jeffrey Epstein Files to New Mexico Investigation 
Appeals Court Rejects Trump Bid to Reinstate $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee 
EEOC Drops Penn Subpoena in Antisemitism Probe, Investigation Continues 
Canada Vows Trade Fight as Trump Imposes 50% Tariffs 
Maduro U.S. Drug Trafficking Trial Set for June 2027 as Immunity Defense Looms 
Israel Arrests Dozens in West Bank After Deadly Settler-Palestinian Shootout 
A federal appeals court has refused to let President Donald Trump's administration enforce key parts of his executive order tightening mail-in voting rules in 23 states, dealing another legal setback to the administration ahead of the November midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.
In a 2-1 decision on Saturday, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined the Justice Department's request to pause a lower court injunction issued on June 25. The ruling keeps the restrictions on hold while the administration continues its appeal.
The Justice Department argued that the lawsuit was premature because federal agencies had not yet finalized policies to implement Trump's March executive order. However, the appeals court agreed with U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani that the states already faced immediate pressure to prepare for new election procedures before the September and November elections.
The judges said the executive order imposed strict deadlines requiring states to coordinate with federal agencies and adjust election procedures, leaving them with little choice but to respond before the rules officially took effect.
The Trump administration has indicated it could ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., previously rejected a separate Democratic challenge on procedural grounds.
Trump signed the executive order in March as part of his broader effort to strengthen election security and tighten mail-in voting rules. The order directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile lists of confirmed U.S. citizens eligible to vote using federal databases. It also instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to voters listed on each state's approved mail-in ballot rolls and encourages the Department of Justice to prioritize investigations involving allegedly ineligible voters.
Talwani ruled that the president lacked legal authority to require DHS to create voter eligibility lists for states or authorize USPS to establish binding mail-in voting regulations. She also found that directing federal prosecutors to prioritize cases against local election officials could improperly pressure state election administrators.
The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of 23 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, led by California, Massachusetts, Nevada and Washington, which argued that the executive order exceeded presidential authority and violated the Constitution.
