For the first time, federal prosecutors have charged a Sinaloa Cartel leader under the federal terrorism support statute — a direct consequence of the administration's designation of Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations. A prosecutorial era begins.
The administration's FTO designation of the Sinaloa Cartel now enables prosecutors to use 18 U.S.C. § 2339B — the same statute used against Al-Qaeda supporters
The Trump administration designated the Sinaloa Cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in early 2025. That designation transformed the legal landscape: providing "material support or resources" to the cartel now carries the same criminal charge as supporting Al-Qaeda or ISIS. Ibarra Felix is the first high-profile defendant charged under this theory.
From 2016 to 2026, Ibarra Felix allegedly supplied machineguns to the "Chapitos" — the sons of El Chapo who now control the cartel — and led an armed security force called FECH that engaged in armed conflict on the cartel's behalf. He also oversaw drug trafficking operations near Ahome, Mexico, importing methamphetamine and fentanyl into the United States.
Ibarra Felix remains at large in Mexico. An arrest warrant has been issued. The indictment was a collaboration between the Northern District of Illinois and the Southern District of California, signaling coordinated federal prosecution of cartel leadership.
Source: DOJ USAO-NDIL Press Release · CBS Chicago
Trump's Transportation Secretary "lacked the authority" to rescind New York's congestion pricing approval
In February 2025, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent New York a letter purporting to rescind the Federal Highway Administration's approval of the congestion pricing tolling program — the first of its kind in the United States, which took effect January 5, 2025. Duffy also threatened to withhold federal transit funding from New York if the state refused to shut the program down.
Judge Lewis Liman's 149-page opinion found both actions unlawful. The rescission letter was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act: the Secretary never identified any legal authority for the action, never provided the MTA an opportunity to respond, and never explained the change in agency position. The funding threat was separately unlawful as an unconstitutional condition on federal funds.
The Trump administration indicated it is reviewing legal options including a possible appeal to the Second Circuit. The MTA depends on congestion pricing revenue to fund capital improvements across the transit system.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts shall provide to Trustee Joyce Beatty all documents relating to the proposed renovation project, including construction plans, budget estimates, expert consultations, and information relating to the impact on artist and performance contracts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trustee Beatty shall be afforded a meaningful opportunity to voice her dissent at the Board meeting scheduled for March 16, 2026.
The administration's claim that renovation plans were too "preliminary" to share "borders on preposterous." The Board's recent rule change restricting ex officio voting rights "is likely void."
Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio is an ex officio board member of the Kennedy Center, appointed by then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi in 2019. The Trump administration's plan to close the center for a two-year, $200 million renovation and potential redesign prompted Beatty to sue after she was denied information about the project before the scheduled board vote.
Judge Cooper found that Beatty had a clear right to the information and a right to participate in the deliberative process. He stopped short of ordering that she be allowed to vote — ruling her ability to "speak and persuade colleagues" satisfied her immediate interests — but noted that the board's recent rule change eliminating ex officio member voting rights "is likely void."
The ruling signals that federal governance structures — including the boards of federally chartered institutions — carry legal obligations that courts can and will enforce, even against presidential preference.
Source: CNN Politics · New York Times
The Lower Duwamish Waterway Superfund consent decree — largest in the region — brings Boeing, Seattle, and King County together to clean a five-mile stretch of contaminated river
Watson v. Republican National Committee — The Court will define whether federal law requires mail ballots to be received by Election Day or merely cast by it
Mississippi's 2020 absentee ballot law allows mail ballots to be counted if postmarked by Election Day and received within five business days after. The Republican National Committee challenged it, and the Fifth Circuit struck it down — holding that federal statutes at 2 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 1 require ballots to be both cast and received by Election Day.
The Supreme Court will now resolve whether those federal statutes set a receipt deadline or only a casting deadline — a distinction that determines whether fifteen states can lawfully count late-arriving mail ballots. This is the first time the Court will formally define what federal law means by "Election Day" in the context of mail voting.
Source: SCOTUSblog — Watson v. RNC
"Whether an alien stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border 'arrives in the United States' within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act."
— Question Presented, No. 25-5
Noem v. Al Otro Lado — Does geography determine the right to asylum?
The Immigration and Nationality Act grants persons who "arrive in the United States" at a port of entry the right to seek asylum. Under the Trump administration's "metering" and "turnback" policies, officers at southern border ports of entry physically stopped asylum seekers from crossing onto U.S. soil — keeping them on the Mexican side of the boundary line.
Al Otro Lado, an immigrant rights organization, and individual asylum seekers argue that people who approach a port of entry and are physically prevented from crossing have nonetheless, in law, "arrived in the United States" — because the purpose of the statute is to prevent the government from using its own physical obstruction as a tool to deny the statutory right to apply for asylum.
The Ninth Circuit agreed. The Supreme Court will decide whether that reading holds — or whether geography (the precise location of a person's feet relative to a legal boundary) can be used to extinguish federal statutory rights. The decision will affect millions of current and future asylum seekers at all U.S. ports of entry.
The Supreme Court prepares to rule on birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
An executive order signed in January 2025 directed federal agencies to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are both present without legal authorization or on temporary visas. Multiple federal courts immediately enjoined the order; appeals courts affirmed those injunctions.
The Supreme Court will hear the case on April 1 and must resolve two questions: (1) does the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause guarantee birthright citizenship to children born to undocumented parents? and (2) may lower courts issue nationwide injunctions blocking a presidential executive order?
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi — The full Court establishes clearer standards for federal courts reviewing asylum adjudications
A Salvadoran family sought asylum based on threats from a hired hitman targeting them. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied the claim. The case reached the Supreme Court on the question of what standard federal courts should apply when reviewing whether harm rises to the level of "persecution" under U.S. asylum law — and whether the specific harm threatened here could constitute persecution.
The Court's unanimous decision affirmed the rejection of the family's claim while establishing cleaner standards for judicial review of asylum adjudications going forward. The ruling clarifies which questions courts review de novo and which they defer to agency expertise — making future litigation more predictable for immigration practitioners.
Source: CIS Analysis
Asif Merchant, a trained operative of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, convicted of murder-for-hire targeting U.S. politicians
Asif Merchant traveled to the United States in April 2024 having been trained by Iranian intelligence to arrange assassinations of U.S. government officials, including senior political figures. Merchant recruited individuals who, unbeknownst to him, were cooperating with U.S. law enforcement. He was arrested before any assassination could be carried out.
Federal prosecutors characterized the case as part of an ongoing IRGC campaign to eliminate American officials on U.S. soil. The conviction under federal murder-for-hire and terrorism statutes sends a signal that foreign state-sponsored assassination plots will be prosecuted to the maximum extent of U.S. criminal law.
Source: DOJ via Global Security
Seven federal indictments charge 18th Street Gang leadership with racketeering, murder, extortion, and drug trafficking in L.A.'s MacArthur Park area
Keiko Marie Gonzalez, known as "Moms" and alleged to be the gang's second-in-command, is among those charged. The indictments allege the MacArthur Park faction of the 18th Street Gang — one of the largest street gangs in the United States — operated as a criminal enterprise engaging in murder, extortion, and large-scale drug distribution. Six defendants remain at large.
The racketeering charges (18 U.S.C. § 1962) allow prosecutors to hold gang leadership accountable for the organization's full pattern of criminal activity — not just individual acts. Coordination between the FBI Los Angeles Field Office, LAPD, and federal prosecutors drove the multi-year investigation.
Source: Culver City Observer · Fox 11 LA
Three imminent moments that will define the next chapter of federal law
The response to the administration's emergency application (No. 25A999) is due. With 350,000 Haitian nationals' status at stake, the Court could act immediately after — or schedule full briefing. The entire TPS structure for other nationalities awaits this ruling as a template.
The Court hears argument on whether federal election-day statutes preempt state laws allowing mail ballots to be received after Election Day. Fifteen states and millions of voters are directly affected by the outcome. The question of what "Election Day" legally means in federal law will finally be answered.
The most constitutionally consequential case of the term. The Court will hear argument on both the substance — whether the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to children born to undocumented parents — and procedure: whether courts may issue nationwide injunctions against presidential executive orders.