Federal Judge Orders Trump Restore Legal Status of CBP One App Migrants

A Federal Judge has Ruled that the Trump (R) Administration Unlawfully Pulled the Plug on nearly a Million Asylum-Seekers who were Temporarily Allowed to Live in the U.S., thanks to the Biden (D) Era CBP One App.

The App was used by Biden’s Administration beginning in 2023, to Allow Migrants to Schedule Appointments with Immigration Officials with Many of the Migrants being Paroled into the U.S. for up to Two years. On 3/31/2026, U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs Invalidated the Trump Administration’s Decision to End the Immigration Parole Status of Migrants who entered the Country under the Biden-era CBP Home policy.

Obama (D)-Appointed Judge, Allison Burroughs, Ruled Trump must Restore the Legal Status of over 985,000 Migrants Ordered to Leave through the CBP App. Burroughs said the Administration Acted “Unlawfully” when they sent a Notice on the App

In Her Ruling, Burroughs wrote, “When Defendants terminated the impacted noncitizens’ parole without observing the process mandated by statute and by their own regulations, they took action that was ‘not in accordance with law,'” the Judge added, “The regulations do not give the agency unfettered discretion to terminate parole.”

Under the CBP One system, more than 900,000 Migrants from Countries across the Globe were Allowed into the U.S. at Official Ports of Entry along the Southern Border. It’s Unclear how many of those Migrants will be Affected by Burrough’s Ruling, as some of them have already been Deported or Gained another Lawful Status since the Trump Administration Tepurposed the CBP One App a year ago, Allowing Paroled Migrants to Self-Deport.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Announced in April 2025, that it was Terminating the Parole Status of those Processed under the CBP One Program, Arguing that the Biden Administration did Not have Authority to Create such a Program.

DHS Officials, at that time, said that the App Violated U.S. Immigration Law by Allowing Hundreds of Thousands of Migrants to Enter the Country Outside of the Traditional Legal Immigration System.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Rules Trump's NPR and PBS Funding Cuts Violate First Amendment

A Federal Judge said the Trump (R) Administration Can't Enforce the President's Order to Ax Federal Funding for National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), saying in a 3/31/2026 Decision, that the White House can't "Extinguish Speech" Trump Dislikes under the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in His Ruling said Federal Agencies can't Enforce the "Unconstitutional" Executive Order Signed by Trump 5/2025, which Directed Agencies to Terminate Funding to NPR and PBS. It also Directed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) to Stop Funding the Networks, but the Corporation was Dissolved as of 1/2025.

The Executive Order Crossed-a-Line Drawn by the First Amendment, said Moss, who was Appointed to the Washington, DC, Federal Court in 2014 by President Barack Obama (D). The Judge Wrote the Executive Order Crossed a Legal Line, because it did Not use Neutral Criteria for Federal Funding.

"Instead, it singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs," Moss Wrote in a 62-page Order. The White House has Not Commented on whether it plans to Appeal, but Spokesperson Abigail Jackson (R) said in an email that the Administration "looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue."

"This is a ridiculous ruling by an activist judge attempting to undermine the law," Jackson said. "NPR and PBS have no right to receive taxpayer funds, and Congress already voted to defund them." An Aattorney Representing NPR, Theodore Boutrous, said the Ruling was "a significant victory for the First Amendment and for freedom of the press."

"As the court expressly recognized, the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — ‘to punish or suppress disfavored expression’ by others," Boutrous said in a Statement. "The Executive Order crossed that line."

It's Unknown whether the Judge's Order will Bear much Impact, since NPR and PBS Stations Already are Facing the Cnsequences of Funding Hits across the Country with Employee Layoffs or even Full Shutdowns, Especially Rural Stations that Relied on Federal Funding to Operate.

Across the country, stations have held funding drives and urged communities to make donations in order to stay afloat. But the impact has already started. It's unknown whether the judge's order will bear much impact, since NPR and PBS stations already are facing the consequences of funding hits across the country with employee layoffs or even full shutdowns, especially rural stations that relied on federal funding to operate.

Across the country, stations have held funding drives and urged communities to make donations in order to stay afloat. But the impact has already started. This order comes at a time of increased pressure on media outlets from the Trump administration.

It came soon after another DC federal judge blocked a separate Trump administration order, which barred news reporters access to the Pentagon. In the lawsuit filed by The New York Times, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said the policy violated free speech and due process rights.

In mid-March, Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses for media coverage of the Iran war. Carr has also threatened to wield FCC power against ABC over an interview with Democratic Texas Rep. James Talarico on "The View."

Carr also appeared to threaten licensure of the Walt Disney-owned ABC stations if they didn't suspend Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show, after he faced criticism for comments he made on the deadly shooting of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

State Redistricting Updates

America’s Redistricting Crisis has been Building for Decades.

Florida: Recently Passed an Extreme Voter Identification Law, its Own Version of the SAVE Act, and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) has Called for a Special Legislative Session to Enact a Mid-Decade Redraw to Create a Congressional Map that would further Diminish the Voting Power of Communities of Color.

Louisiana: The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering Louisiana v. Callais, a Case that Will Ddetermine the Future of the Voting Rights Act, and could Lead to the Loss of Congressional Seats across the U.S. South, further Diluting the Power of Minority Voters Nationwide. Some State Legislators are already Proposing New Versions of the Congressional Map to Implement this Change.

Missouri: Voters are Fighting Back after an Extreme Gerrymander by Republicans, Mobilizing to Force a Statewide Vote in 11/2025, on the New Map, and taking a Case All the Way Up-To the Missouri Supreme Court.

Virginia: On 4/21/2026, Virginians will Vote in a Special Election to determine whether the State will Redraw its Maps to Counter Republican Power Grabs across the Country.

Utah: With Support from Trump (R), Republicans tried to Repeal a Law that Created the State’s Bipartisan Map Commission, now that a New, Fairer Map indicates that a Democrat might be able to Win a Congressional Seat. Voters recently were able to Stop this Effort from moving Forward, but We are Waiting to See what Republicans will try Next.

Wisconsin: On 4/7/2026, Wisconsin will Elect a New State Supreme Court Justice, in a Critical Race that will have a Lasting Impact on Fair Representation in this Critical Battleground State.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Trump Signs Order Limiting Mail-In-Voting

Trump (R) Signed an Executive Order 3/31/2026 Seeking to Crack Down on Mail-In Voting, an Effort to Exert Control Over the Nation’s Elections Ahead of a Midterm Battle where Republicans could Lose Control-of-Congress. “The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It’s horrible, what’s gone on. It’s very clearly covered … I think this will help a lot with elections,” Trump said at the Signing Ceremony in the Oval Office Today.

The Executive Order is a Major Escalation of Trump’s Desire to Change the way Americans Vote, and is sure to Draw a Court Challenges. Marc Elias, a Prominent Democratic Elections Lawyer, said He Plans to Sue Trump Over the Order. “If Trump signs an unconstitutional Executive Order to take over voting, we will Sue. I don’t bluff and I usually win,” Elias wrote on Social Media.

At the Signing Ceremony, Trump Dismissed any Potential Challenge, saying “I don’t know how it can be challenged." Since this is a Congress and State Process, it will be Challenged.

Trump’s Order comes as Midterm Elections Approach 2026, with Republicans Framing the Effort to Curb Mail-in-Voting as Necessary to Bolster Election Integrity and Democrats Warning it could Disenfranchise Eligible Voters.

The Order is Reminiscent of the GOP-backed SAVE America Act, which has Cleared the House, and remains under Consideration in the Senate. Trump has Insisted Congress Pass the Measure, which has Steep Approval Odds at the Moment. That Bill would Require Documentary Proof of Citizenship to Register, which is already done with the Real-ID Driver License or State ID to Vote, and Push States to more Aggressively Remove None-Citizens from Voter Rolls.

Trump’s Order Directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in Conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA), to create an Approved List of Absentee Voters. The U.S. Postal Service would be Directed to Only send Mail-in-Ballots to Voters on that List.

The Order also Directs Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) to Investigate Anyone Wrongfully Distributing Mail-in-Ballots, and Threatens to Withhold Federal Funds to States who Don’t Comply with the Order.

In NYC, they also do a Facial Image and Signature Match to Vote. They also Track Mail-in-Ballots. the Voter has the Option to Cancel that Vote and Vote again, and can't vote Twice.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Rules Trump Unlawfully Terminated Legal Status of Some Immigrant's

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Overstepped its Authority when it Terminated the Legal Status of Thousands of Migrants who Entered the U.S. using a Biden (D) Era Program, a Federal Judge has Ruled. Roughly 900,000 Migrants who Entered at the Southern Border using the App, CBP One, were generally Allowed to Remain in the U.S. for Two Years and given "Parole" from Immigration Laws to Work in the Country Legally.

Trump's (R) Administration in 2025 Ended the Parol Program and began to use the App for "Self-Deportations". 3/31/2026 Ruling Restores Status to Individuals Nationwide who Received-an-email, or similar Notification, from DHS Cancelling their Parole. The Trump Administration may Seek to Appeal the Ruling, as they have Frequently Done in Cases Challenging their Immigration Policies.

From 2023, under President Joe Biden (D), the DHS began Requiring many Asylum Seekers to Use the App in an Effort to Better Manage the Southern Border. Last April, Individuals who had Entered the U.S. at the Southern Border through the CBP One App received Emails: "It is time for you to leave the United States".

The email also Stated that if they did Not Leave, they could be Deported Unless they "have otherwise obtained a lawful basis to remain here". Their Work Authorisations were also Revoked.

The Biden Administration "abused the parole authority to allow millions of illegal aliens into the US which further fuelled the worst border crisis in US history", DHS told the BBC at the Time. On 3/31/2026, Judge Allison Skye Borroughs of the U.S. District of Massachusetts, Wrote in Her Decision that "the parole terminations exceeded the agency's statutory authority and contradicted the procedures set forth in its own regulations".

Trump has Reversed many of His Predecessor's Immigration Policies and Overseen Sweeping Crackdowns on Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S. DHS has Urged Undocumented People to "Self Deport", or Risk Detention and Deportation. Skye Perryman of "Democracy Forward", One of the Organisations Representing the Plaintiffs, said that the "ruling is a clear rejection of an administration that has tried to erase lawful status for hundreds of thousands of people with the click of a button".

The "Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts", and Three Women Impacted by the Reversal, Sued the Trump Administration Over the Policy Change. They Alleged the Termination was Unlawful and Violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The Loss of the CBP One Programme meant that "they went from living in the United States legally to being deemed 'illegal aliens' Overnight," their Lawsuit stated. "For many Venezuelan families, this decision brings long-awaited relief after months of fear and uncertainty," Carlina Velásquez, President of the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts, said in a statement."

That Era Program Policy only Granted People Two Years of Parole while they Applied for Asylum, meaning that Some of the Individuals may have already Passed that Deadline, while Others will see their Status Expire in the coming Months. Migrants who used Biden-Era App were told to Leave U.Ss 'Immediately'.










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Judge Halts White House Ballroom Construction

A Federal Judge on 3/31/2026 Halted Construction on Trump’s (R) White House Ballroom Project. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon said that No Statute “comes close” to Granting Trump the Authority He Claims He has to Execute the $400 Million Project, Barring Construction from Continuing, until Congress Authorizes its Completion.

“The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families,” Leon wrote. “He is not, however, the owner” Trump began Demolishing the East Wing in 10/2025 to make Room for His New Ballroom, a Nearly 90,000-square-foot Space for State Dinners, Galas and Other Events. It’s Slated for Completion by 2028 and is Primarily being Funded by Private Donors, According to Trump.

The "National Trust for Historic Preservation" Sued the Trump Administration in 12/2025) to Stop the Project until the White House Abides by Federal Law and Rules like Obtaining Congressional Approval, going through Multiple Independent Reviews and a Public Comment Period. Leon said that the Case is, in Essence, about whether Trump may Build a Ballroom on White House Grounds with Private Funds and Without seeking Congress’s Approval.

The Judge said that the Constitution Establishes Congress’s Authority over Federal Property, Spending, and the District of Columbia. The Trump Administration has Declined to Argue it has “any inherent constitutional authority” to Build the Ballroom, meaning it must point to some Law that Lends Trump the Power to do so.

Yet, “no law comes close to giving the President this authority,” He said. Under Trump’s Reading, any Change to the White House could be Dubbed an “Alteration” or “Improvement,” including Tearing it Down Wholesale and Building a Modern Skyscraper. “As Defendants have argued it, so long as the White House grounds are ‘developed’ or ‘occupied by buildings and structures,’ the President has complete authority to engage in whatever construction activity he sees fit,” He continued. “How grand!”

Trump Appeared to Rail Against the Ruling, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, in a TruthSocial Post Shortly after the Ruling became Public, saying they should have Set their Sites on the Fed Renovation. “So, the White House Ballroom, and The Trump Kennedy Center, which are under budget, ahead of schedule, and will be among the most magnificent Buildings of their kind anywhere in the World, gets sued by a group that was cut off by Government years ago, but all of the many DISASTERS in our Country are left alone to die,” Trump said.

Leon previously Declined to Halt the Construction of the Ballroom. He Ruled 2/2026 that the Preservationists did Not Properly Challenge the Renovations, Offering the Organization a Chance to Amend its Complaint so He could Reconsider. Lawyers for the Preservationists have Suggested that the Government was giving the Court the Run-Around Regarding, Who was Leading the Project to Complicate Legal Review, as Construction Continued to Progress.

When the East Wing was Torn Down, the Decision was Met with Fury from Preservationists, Historians, and Democratic Lawmakers, who Accused the Trump Administration of Bypassing the Traditional Process for such Changes. “Where does this leave us?

"Unfortunately for defendants, unless and until Congress blesses this oroject through statutory authorization, construction has to stop!” Leon wrote.

But it’s Not All Bad News, the Judge said. Trump could go to Congress “at any time” to Seek Authorization to Resume Construction. The Legislative Branch could even Appropriate Funding for the Ballroom, or at Least Greenlight another Funding Scheme, He Noted.

“Either way, Congress will thereby retain its authority overthe nation’s property and its oversight over the Government’s spending,” Leon said. “The National Trust’s interests in a constitutional and lawful process will be vindicated. And the American people will benefit from the branches of Government exercising their constitutionally prescribed roles."










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker

Medicaid Cuts Threaten Hospitals

More than 400 Hospitals across the U.S. are at High Risk of Closing or Cutting Services because of the Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s (R) “big, beautiful bill,” according to an Analysis from the Progressive Watchdog Group Public Citizen. The Fallout could make it Harder for Millions of People to get Care and put Thousands of Health Care Workers’ Jobs at Risk as Hospitals Lose a Key Source of Federal Funding. Medicaid Covers about a Fifth of All Hospital Spending.

The Medicaid Cuts come in Phases, with more Significant Changes, including Work Requirements, in 2027 and Limits on How States Raise Funds in 2028. Overall, the Law is Expected to Reduce Federal Medicaid Funding by roughly $1 trillion over the Next Decade.

“We’re seeing hospitals that are already under severe financial strain having to make decisions about how to stay financially solvent,” said Eileen O’Grady, a Researcher in Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division and the Report’s Author. “That has pretty clear implications for people who live in that community. It also has ripple effects on other hospitals in those communities.”

The Analysis Draws on Hospital Financial Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2022 through 2024, covering about 95% of U.S. Hospitals. The Group Defined At-Risk Hospitals as those in which Medicaid and Other Low-Income Government Programs made up at least 20% of Revenue and that have been Operating at a Loss in recent years. The Report doesn’t Estimate when Hospitals could Close or Cut Services.

“Closure is the worst-case scenario, but it also doesn’t preclude hospitals from having to make really tough decisions about cutting services that might be essential to those communities but are just no longer financially viable,” O’Grady said. Across the Country, Hospitals have already made Statements Warning they may need to Lay Off Staff or Scale Back Care, including Maternity and Mental Health Care, because of the Medicaid Cuts. For many Patients, Hospitals are the Last Place to Turn when there are Few or Nno other Options for Care.

“When hospitals close, patients have less access to the care that they need,” said Gideon Lukens, Director of Research and Data Analysis on the Health Policy Team at the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities", a Nonpartisan Research Group. “They have to travel further or wait longer in other hospitals that become overcrowded. That additional time can be the difference between success and failure of time-sensitive, potentially life-saving treatments.”

The Closures also add Strain to the Hospitals that take on the Extra Patients. O’Grady said Doctors end up having “less patience, less time, less capacity to provide the highest quality care. It can be very dangerous for hospitals to be under this kind of strain,” She said.

The Analysis found a Total of 446 At-Risk Hospitals, with at least One At-Risk Hospital in 44 States and Washington, D.C. About 60% of the At-Risk Hospitals, 267 Facilities, are in Urban areas, even as much of the Debate around Medicaid Cuts has Focused on Rural Hospitals. Black and Latino People Stand to be the most Affected by the Cuts.

The Hospitals Span both Democratic and Republican-led States, though the States with the Largest Nnumber of At-Risk Hospitals are California, Illinois, New York, and Washington. Republicans also Represent several Congressional Districts with the Highest Number of At-Risk Hospitals. House Republicans who Voted for the Medicaid Cuts have 196 At-Risk Hospitals in their Districts, while Senate Republicans, all of whom Back the Ccuts, represent 146 At-Risk Hospitals in their States, According to the Analysis.

The Cuts could Lead to a Worsening Crisis, Especially for Rural Hospitals, said Zachary Levinson, the Project Director of the KFF Project on Hospital Costs. He said that by His Estimates, Trump’s Law Sets Aside $50 billion to Support Rural Communities, but could Reduce Federal Medicaid Spending in Rural Areas by far more, about $137 billion Over a Decade.

James Jackson, the CEO of Alameda Health System in Oakland, California, said the Medicaid Cuts represent an “existential threat.” Alameda Health System, which gets 60% of its Revenue from Medicaid Payments, Announced in 12/2025 that it would Lay Off nearly 300 Employees and Lose more than $100 million Annually by 2030. (The health network was not included on Public Citizen’s at-risk list, though the report notes its financial troubles.)

The Layoffs, started in 3/2026 have since been Delayed. Proposed Cuts included Mental Health Services, Care for Patients with Chronic Conditions and an Ambulatory Plastic Surgery Program. Jackson said Closing Hospitals is Not on the Table, but the System has continued to look at Scaling Back Services.

“I don’t think the impact is going to be a positive one,” He said. “We are often the provider of last recourse, so if we’re not able to provide a service, there will be a delay in receiving care at one of the other systems in the area or they may not provide it at all.” Trinity Health, a Michigan-based Hospital System with Facilities in other States, said it’s Projected to Lose $1.5 billion Due to “recent and future government policy changes.”

In 1/2026, it said it was Laying Off 10.5% of its Billing Staff. One of its Hospitals, St. Mary’s Sacred Heart Hospital in Rural Northeast Georgia, announced 3/2025 it was Closing its Maternity Unit.

In a Statement, a Trinity Health Spokesperson Shared a Previous Statement that said In-Part that “More Reductions” are being Considered by the Federal Government and It’s “not possible to simply absorb such a significant financial impact without making thoughtful, forward-thinking changes.”










NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote! Michael H. Drucker