Walmart Recalls Ozark Trail 64 oz Water Bottles Due to Serious Impact and Laceration Hazards

The lid can forcefully eject, posing serious impact and laceration hazards, when a consumer attempts to open the capped bottles after food, carbonated beverages or perishable beverages, such as juice or milk, are stored inside over time.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water bottles and contact Walmart for a full refund. Consumers can bring the bottle to their nearest Walmart store for a refund.

Sold Exclusively At:Walmart stores nationwide and online at Walmart.com since 2017 for about $15.Importer(s):

Olympia Tools International Inc., of Covina, California and Walmart Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1752254959750.png" alt="Photo Consumer Product Safety Commission" />
 <figcaption>Photo Consumer Product Safety Commission</figcaption>
 </figure>Walmart Recalls Ozark Trail 64 oz Water Bottles Due to Serious Impact and Laceration HazardsHazard:The lid can forcefully eject, posing serious impact and laceration hazards, when a consumer attempts to open the capped bottles after food, carbonated beverages or perishable beverages, such as juice or milk, are stored inside over time.Remedy:Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled water bottles and contact Walmart for a full refund. Consumers can bring the bottle to their nearest Walmart store for a refund.Units:About&nbsp;850,000Sold Exclusively At:Walmart stores nationwide and online at Walmart.com since 2017 for about $15.Importer(s):Olympia Tools International Inc., of Covina, California and Walmart Inc., of Bentonville, Arkansas

Walmart recalls water bottles after 2 blinded by exploding caps

Record outbreak comes as vaccine skepticism increasingly gains a federal foothold.

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/thenderson/">Tim Henderson</a>

Measles cases have surpassed a recent 2019 record to reach the highest level since 1992, with at least 1,289 cases reported in 39 states.

The milestone comes as health officials are increasingly alarmed by vaccine skepticism gaining a voice in the Trump administration under U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Pediatricians and public health associations filed&nbsp;<a href="https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/FiledSuit.pdf?_gl=1*d9u6yb*_ga*MzQ4MDI4MjI0LjE3NTE5MTMxMTI.*_ga_FD9D3XZVQQ*czE3NTE5MTMxMTIkbzEkZzAkdDE3NTE5MTMxMTIkajYwJGwwJGgw" target="_blank">a federal lawsuit this</a>&nbsp;week challenging a May directive by Kennedy, claiming it “creates barriers” to vaccination for pregnant women and young children

“Because of his name and profile, Mr. Kennedy has been instrumental in increasing the levels of vaccine hesitancy and skepticism in this country,” the lawsuit states. “The Secretary’s dismantling of the vaccine infrastructure must end.”

The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html" target="_blank">reported Wednesday</a>&nbsp;that there were 1,288 cases in 38 states, surpassing the 2019 level of 1,274.&nbsp;<a href="https://dph.sc.gov/news/dph-confirms-measles-upstate-resident-0" target="_blank">South Carolina</a>&nbsp;later reported its own first case of the year, an unvaccinated international traveler in the northwestern Upstate area of the state.

<a href="https://health.wyo.gov/measles-case-confirmed-in-natrona-county/" target="_blank">Wyoming</a>&nbsp;reported its first measles case since 2010 on July 1, an unvaccinated child in Natrona County.

Other states recently joining the list:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ncdhhs.gov/news/press-releases/2025/06/24/first-case-measles-identified-north-carolina" target="_blank">North Carolina</a>&nbsp;reported its first case of the year June 24, in a child visiting Forsyth and Guilford counties from another country. And&nbsp;<a href="https://www.oregon.gov/oha/erd/pages/oregons-first-measles-case-of-2025-confirmed-in-multnomah-county.aspx" target="_blank">Oregon</a>&nbsp;reported a case the same day for a person identified only as an unvaccinated international traveler sickened in June after returning to the Portland area.

“We’re here to tell you that measles is now in Oregon, and if you’re not vaccinated, you are susceptible,” said Dr. Paul R. Cieslak, medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations at the Oregon Health Authority’s Public Health Division, in in a statement.

Measles is one of the most contagious diseases and can spread rapidly among unvaccinated people.

Utah reported&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2025/06/20/utah-measles-case-reported-utah/" target="_blank">its first case</a>&nbsp;June 20, an unvaccinated person with no recent travel out of state. The state&nbsp;<a href="https://epi.utah.gov/measles-response/" target="_blank">now has nine cases</a>, mostly in Utah County, where Provo is located.

Confirmed cases this year were also reported in these other states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.

Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:thenderson@stateline.org">thenderson@stateline.org</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1743085628490.png" alt="&nbsp;Photo by Tatiana Lanzieri Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.png" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;Photo by Tatiana Lanzieri Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.png</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Record outbreak comes as vaccine skepticism increasingly gains a federal foothold.</h2>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/thenderson/">Tim Henderson</a>Measles cases have surpassed a recent 2019 record to reach the highest level since 1992, with at least 1,289 cases reported in 39 states.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1752083381391.png" alt="87 cases of Measles in 11 counties in Kansas as of July 9. KDHE image" />
 <figcaption>87 cases of Measles in 11 counties in Kansas as of July 9. KDHE image</figcaption>
 </figure>The milestone comes as health officials are increasingly alarmed by vaccine skepticism gaining a voice in the Trump administration under U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.Pediatricians and public health associations filed&nbsp;<a href="https://downloads.aap.org/AAP/PDF/FiledSuit.pdf?_gl=1*d9u6yb*_ga*MzQ4MDI4MjI0LjE3NTE5MTMxMTI.*_ga_FD9D3XZVQQ*czE3NTE5MTMxMTIkbzEkZzAkdDE3NTE5MTMxMTIkajYwJGwwJGgw" target="_blank">a federal lawsuit this</a>&nbsp;week challenging a May directive by Kennedy, claiming it “creates barriers” to vaccination for pregnant women and young children“Because of his name and profile, Mr. Kennedy has been instrumental in increasing the levels of vaccine hesitancy and skepticism in this country,” the lawsuit states. “The Secretary’s dismantling of the vaccine infrastructure must end.”The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/measles/data-research/index.html" target="_blank">reported Wednesday</a>&nbsp;that there were 1,288 cases in 38 states, surpassing the 2019 level of 1,274.&nbsp;<a href="https://dph.sc.gov/news/dph-confirms-measles-upstate-resident-0" target="_blank">South Carolina</a>&nbsp;later reported its own first case of the year, an unvaccinated international traveler in the northwestern Upstate area of the state.<a href="https://health.wyo.gov/measles-case-confirmed-in-natrona-county/" target="_blank">Wyoming</a>&nbsp;reported its first measles case since 2010 on July 1, an unvaccinated child in Natrona County.Other states recently joining the list:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ncdhhs.gov/news/press-releases/2025/06/24/first-case-measles-identified-north-carolina" target="_blank">North Carolina</a>&nbsp;reported its first case of the year June 24, in a child visiting Forsyth and Guilford counties from another country. And&nbsp;<a href="https://www.oregon.gov/oha/erd/pages/oregons-first-measles-case-of-2025-confirmed-in-multnomah-county.aspx" target="_blank">Oregon</a>&nbsp;reported a case the same day for a person identified only as an unvaccinated international traveler sickened in June after returning to the Portland area.“We’re here to tell you that measles is now in Oregon, and if you’re not vaccinated, you are susceptible,” said Dr. Paul R. Cieslak, medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations at the Oregon Health Authority’s Public Health Division, in in a statement.Measles is one of the most contagious diseases and can spread rapidly among unvaccinated people.Utah reported&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sltrib.com/news/2025/06/20/utah-measles-case-reported-utah/" target="_blank">its first case</a>&nbsp;June 20, an unvaccinated person with no recent travel out of state. The state&nbsp;<a href="https://epi.utah.gov/measles-response/" target="_blank">now has nine cases</a>, mostly in Utah County, where Provo is located.Confirmed cases this year were also reported in these other states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:thenderson@stateline.org">thenderson@stateline.org</a>.

Measles reaches highest level in 33 years, now in 39 states

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/danielle-j-brown/">Danielle J. Brown</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sam-gauntt/">Sam Gauntt</a>

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued a preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14210-implementing-the-presidents-department-government-efficiency" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1174_h3ci.pdf" target="_blank">a one-page order</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval.&nbsp; But she said the executive order and an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-agency-rif-and-reorganization-plans-requested-by-implementing-the-president-s-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative.pdf" target="_blank">implementing memo</a>&nbsp;from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay

Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RepRaskin/status/1942722560413601828" target="_blank">X post</a>&nbsp;that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a half-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

This article was originally published by&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/" target="_blank">Maryland Matters</a>, a part of States Newsroom.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2022/12/1672235865420.png" alt="Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States" />
 <figcaption>Supreme Court Credit: Fred Schilling, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/danielle-j-brown/">Danielle J. Brown</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sam-gauntt/">Sam Gauntt</a>The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued a preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-14210-implementing-the-presidents-department-government-efficiency" target="_blank">executive order</a>&nbsp;did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.The Supreme Court agreed in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1174_h3ci.pdf" target="_blank">a one-page order</a>&nbsp;Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval.&nbsp; But she said the executive order and an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-agency-rif-and-reorganization-plans-requested-by-implementing-the-president-s-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative.pdf" target="_blank">implementing memo</a>&nbsp;from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.A White House spokesperson called the decision “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stayGov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RepRaskin/status/1942722560413601828" target="_blank">X post</a>&nbsp;that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, especially given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a half-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.This article was originally published by&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/" target="_blank">Maryland Matters</a>, a part of States Newsroom.

Supreme Court opens door to large-scale federal layoffs

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1704330351229.png" alt="Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry" />
 <figcaption>Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry</figcaption>
 </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President Trump: &quot;Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?!?...I can&#39;t believe you&#39;re asking a question on Epstein at a time like this where we&#39;re having some of the greatest success and also tragedy with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/VlTGeEAfmC">pic.twitter.com/VlTGeEAfmC</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942623670423158984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥President Trump goes off on reporter for asking about Jeffrey Epstein

For the first time years, travelers no longer are required to take off their shoes during security screenings at U.S. airports.

For the first time years, travelers no longer are required to take off their shoes during security screenings at U.S. airports.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem (<a href="https://twitter.com/Sec_Noem?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Sec_Noem</a>): &quot;TSA will no longer require travelers to remove their shoes when they go through our security checkpoints.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/BlGmEJRcNY">pic.twitter.com/BlGmEJRcNY</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942696991298846746?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥TSA explains new no shoe removal policy at airport security

Hospitals stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars under the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/avollers/">Anna Claire Vollers</a>

The giant tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law over the weekend includes&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-would-be-affected-by-health-care-cuts-in-senate-version-of-trumps-budget-bill#:~:text=This%20would%20be%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20Medicaid%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20health%20care%20in%20history." target="_blank">the biggest health care spending cuts</a>&nbsp;in U.S. history. In response, states are scrambling to shield their hospitals from the looming loss of hundreds of millions in federal funding.

In Georgia,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/2025/06/georgia-hurries-to-amp-up-medicaid-hospital-funding-by-2-billion/" target="_blank">a key state panel late last month</a>&nbsp;took steps to send more state Medicaid money to hospitals, hoping to maximize federal matching dollars before the cuts take effect. Other states are considering new grant programs that would funnel additional money to rural hospitals. Some state legislatures likely will reconvene to discuss how to fill holes in their Medicaid budgets.

The tax and spending bill&nbsp;<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5375991-gop-tax-bill-health-cuts/#:~:text=The%20legislation%20would%20also%20cut%20federal%20spending%20on%20Medicaid%2C%20Medicare%20and%20ObamaCare%20by%20%241.1%20trillion%2C%20with%20more%20than%20%241%20trillion%20coming%20from%20Medicaid.%C2%A0" target="_blank">cuts more than $1 trillion</a>&nbsp;from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for people with low incomes that’s jointly funded by states and the federal government. Under the measure, payments to hospitals or nursing facilities would probably&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/reconciliation-language-could-lead-to-cuts-in-medicaid-state-directed-payments-to-hospitals-and-nursing-facilities/#:~:text=If%20Congress%20passes%20the%20reconciliation%20bill%20with%20the%20Finance%20Committee%E2%80%99s%20requirements%20for%20SDPs%2C%20the%20required%20payments%20to%20hospitals%20or%20nursing%20facilities%20would%20likely%20decrease%20in%2029%20states%2C%20and%20possibly%2C%20in%20more%20than%2031." target="_blank">decrease in at least 29 states</a>, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health policy group.

Facing such budget shortfalls, states may have to stop offering optional Medicaid benefits such as vision and dental, reduce the rates they pay providers — which could shrink access for Medicaid enrollees — and change eligibility requirements so that fewer people qualify for coverage.

State policymakers and health experts worry the loss of funding also will endanger hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, driving up uncompensated care and forcing them to cut services or close entirely.

“Ultimately, when these hospitals close, what happens? People have to now travel longer for care. They might not even make it,” Dr. Anahita Dua, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, told reporters last week during a news conference hosted by Defend America Action, a group launched to oppose Trump administration policies.

“This is ultimately not only going to affect the lives of the people that are not going to get the care, but also the majority of the hospitals that provide this care, and the people that are employed by those locations,” she said.

Earlier this month, an analysis by the State Health and Value Strategies program at Princeton University estimated that hospitals would lose 18% of their Medicaid funding,&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">nearly $665 billion over the next 10 years</a>.

Republicans have hailed the megabill — officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — as one that will cut waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs, secure the U.S. border and spur economic growth. The measure will&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5454598/the-gops-massive-bill-would-add-trillions-of-dollars-to-the-countrys-debt" target="_blank">add</a>&nbsp;at least $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and has been scored by some independent economists as likely having little impact on growth. Dollars diverted from Medicaid will go toward the tax cuts prioritized by Trump, along with new spending on immigration control and defense projects.

Health policy experts anticipate at least some states will have to pull their legislatures back into session to address gaping budget holes due to the Medicaid cuts.

States can expect to lose&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">3%-18%</a>&nbsp;of their federal Medicaid funding over 10 years under the law, according to the State Health and Value Strategies program report. Arizona, Kentucky and Virginia would see the largest shares of their Medicaid dollars evaporate.

Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/dust-barely-settled-colorados-2025-legislative-session-talk-special-session/#:~:text=Polis%20says%2C%20if%20Congressional%20Republicans%20follow%20through%20on%20proposed%20spending%20cuts%2C%20he%20will%20likely%20reconvene%20the%20legislature%20to%20deal%20with%20impacts%20to%20programs%20such%20as%20Medicaid%2C%20which%20covers%20about%20one%20in%20five%20Coloradans." target="_blank">has said</a>&nbsp;he’s likely to reconvene the legislature.

“Almost certainly if some of these big cuts to Medicaid go through … we would likely need to reconvene, depending on what Congress does,” Polis said at a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13k_fuNbbAA" target="_blank">news conference</a>&nbsp;in May.

Policymakers in some states have tried to get ahead of expected shortfalls.

In late June, the Georgia Department of Community Health’s advisory board held&nbsp;<a href="https://dch.georgia.gov/events/2025-06-27/dch-board-meeting-special-call" target="_blank">an emergency meeting</a>. In a unanimous vote, the board approved several measures aimed at increasing the state’s federal Medicaid reimbursement rate.

For example, the state wants to significantly increase Medicaid payments to hospitals that achieve certain goals, such as training Georgia doctors and delivering babies. The move would draw down an additional $2.1 billion per year in federal money.

“We’re doing our best to be responsive to the Medicaid conversations in Washington,” department Commissioner Russel Carlson told the board at the meeting. “Not overreacting in this 24/7 news cycle, but gathering the best information we can, reading the political environment the best we can, and acting responsibly.”

Other states have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/managed-care/guidance/state-directed-payments/approved-state-directed-payment-preprints?q=&amp;filter%5Bfield_review_type%5D%5Bin%5D%5B%5D=8271&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period_2%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;limit=10&amp;sort=field_approval_date%3Adesc" target="_blank">filed similar requests</a>&nbsp;with the federal Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, and received approval in recent months.

“Of all the Medicaid discussions happening in Washington,” Carlson said, “one of the policy decisions that could potentially, depending on how it ultimately lands, impact Georgians the most is the discussion surrounding directed payment programs.”

Some of the biggest federal savings in the new law come from limiting states’ use of a financing tool,&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/2025/05/27/republicans-target-a-tax-that-keeps-state-medicaid-programs-running/">known as a provider tax</a>, that enables them to draw down more federal dollars. States use the extra money to boost reimbursement rates for hospitals and to expand coverage.

Some congressional Republicans have decried the maneuver as a “<a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-statement-house-passage-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-0#:~:text=Froze%20the%20state%20provider%20taxes%20to%20ensure%20states%20don%E2%80%99t%20grow%20their%20money%20laundering%20schemes." target="_blank">money laundering scheme</a>,” but lowering provider taxes will likely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/upshot/medicaid-cuts-republicans-senate.html#:~:text=Cutting%20provider%20taxes%20would%20probably%20mean%20funding%20shortfalls%20of%20hundreds%20of%20billions%20of%20dollars%20for%20states%20over%20the%20next%20decade%2C%20leaving%20them%20with%20budget%20holes%20to%20fill." target="_blank">punch big holes</a>&nbsp;in state Medicaid budgets.

Meanwhile, some state legislatures are looking at alternate ways to shore up funding for hospitals. A bipartisan bill still under consideration in Pennsylvania would&nbsp;<a href="https://penncapital-star.com/government-politics/general-assembly/grant-program-for-rural-hospitals-advances-in-pa-house/" target="_blank">create a rural health care grant program</a>&nbsp;to help pay off student loans for rural doctors, nurses and dentists.&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/HB1274/2025" target="_blank">Indiana</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB2754/2025" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>&nbsp;also considered bills this session to create grant programs for rural hospitals.

In April, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott announced the state would release&nbsp;<a href="https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-over-6-million-in-grant-funding-for-rural-hospitals" target="_blank">more than $6 million</a>&nbsp;in grants to support struggling rural hospitals.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:avollers@stateline.org">avollers@stateline.org</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751996899942.png" alt="Google image" />
 <figcaption>Google image</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Hospitals stand to lose hundreds of millions of dollars under the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.</h2>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/author/avollers/">Anna Claire Vollers</a>The giant tax and spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law over the weekend includes&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/who-would-be-affected-by-health-care-cuts-in-senate-version-of-trumps-budget-bill#:~:text=This%20would%20be%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20Medicaid%2C%20in%20fact%2C%20the%20biggest%20cut%20to%20health%20care%20in%20history." target="_blank">the biggest health care spending cuts</a>&nbsp;in U.S. history. In response, states are scrambling to shield their hospitals from the looming loss of hundreds of millions in federal funding.In Georgia,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ajc.com/news/2025/06/georgia-hurries-to-amp-up-medicaid-hospital-funding-by-2-billion/" target="_blank">a key state panel late last month</a>&nbsp;took steps to send more state Medicaid money to hospitals, hoping to maximize federal matching dollars before the cuts take effect. Other states are considering new grant programs that would funnel additional money to rural hospitals. Some state legislatures likely will reconvene to discuss how to fill holes in their Medicaid budgets.The tax and spending bill&nbsp;<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5375991-gop-tax-bill-health-cuts/#:~:text=The%20legislation%20would%20also%20cut%20federal%20spending%20on%20Medicaid%2C%20Medicare%20and%20ObamaCare%20by%20%241.1%20trillion%2C%20with%20more%20than%20%241%20trillion%20coming%20from%20Medicaid.%C2%A0" target="_blank">cuts more than $1 trillion</a>&nbsp;from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for people with low incomes that’s jointly funded by states and the federal government. Under the measure, payments to hospitals or nursing facilities would probably&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/reconciliation-language-could-lead-to-cuts-in-medicaid-state-directed-payments-to-hospitals-and-nursing-facilities/#:~:text=If%20Congress%20passes%20the%20reconciliation%20bill%20with%20the%20Finance%20Committee%E2%80%99s%20requirements%20for%20SDPs%2C%20the%20required%20payments%20to%20hospitals%20or%20nursing%20facilities%20would%20likely%20decrease%20in%2029%20states%2C%20and%20possibly%2C%20in%20more%20than%2031." target="_blank">decrease in at least 29 states</a>, according to an analysis by KFF, a nonprofit health policy group.Facing such budget shortfalls, states may have to stop offering optional Medicaid benefits such as vision and dental, reduce the rates they pay providers — which could shrink access for Medicaid enrollees — and change eligibility requirements so that fewer people qualify for coverage.State policymakers and health experts worry the loss of funding also will endanger hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, driving up uncompensated care and forcing them to cut services or close entirely.“Ultimately, when these hospitals close, what happens? People have to now travel longer for care. They might not even make it,” Dr. Anahita Dua, a vascular surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital and Southern New Hampshire Medical Center, told reporters last week during a news conference hosted by Defend America Action, a group launched to oppose Trump administration policies.“This is ultimately not only going to affect the lives of the people that are not going to get the care, but also the majority of the hospitals that provide this care, and the people that are employed by those locations,” she said.Earlier this month, an analysis by the State Health and Value Strategies program at Princeton University estimated that hospitals would lose 18% of their Medicaid funding,&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">nearly $665 billion over the next 10 years</a>.Republicans have hailed the megabill — officially titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — as one that will cut waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs, secure the U.S. border and spur economic growth. The measure will&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/07/02/nx-s1-5454598/the-gops-massive-bill-would-add-trillions-of-dollars-to-the-countrys-debt" target="_blank">add</a>&nbsp;at least $3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and has been scored by some independent economists as likely having little impact on growth. Dollars diverted from Medicaid will go toward the tax cuts prioritized by Trump, along with new spending on immigration control and defense projects.<h2>Reconvening legislatures</h2>Health policy experts anticipate at least some states will have to pull their legislatures back into session to address gaping budget holes due to the Medicaid cuts.States can expect to lose&nbsp;<a href="https://shvs.org/resource/senate-passed-h-r-1-updated-estimates-on-impact-to-state-medicaid-coverage-and-expenditures-hospital-expenditures-including-impacts-by-congressional-district/" target="_blank">3%-18%</a>&nbsp;of their federal Medicaid funding over 10 years under the law, according to the State Health and Value Strategies program report. Arizona, Kentucky and Virginia would see the largest shares of their Medicaid dollars evaporate.Colorado Democratic Gov. Jared Polis&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/dust-barely-settled-colorados-2025-legislative-session-talk-special-session/#:~:text=Polis%20says%2C%20if%20Congressional%20Republicans%20follow%20through%20on%20proposed%20spending%20cuts%2C%20he%20will%20likely%20reconvene%20the%20legislature%20to%20deal%20with%20impacts%20to%20programs%20such%20as%20Medicaid%2C%20which%20covers%20about%20one%20in%20five%20Coloradans." target="_blank">has said</a>&nbsp;he’s likely to reconvene the legislature.“Almost certainly if some of these big cuts to Medicaid go through … we would likely need to reconvene, depending on what Congress does,” Polis said at a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13k_fuNbbAA" target="_blank">news conference</a>&nbsp;in May.Policymakers in some states have tried to get ahead of expected shortfalls.In late June, the Georgia Department of Community Health’s advisory board held&nbsp;<a href="https://dch.georgia.gov/events/2025-06-27/dch-board-meeting-special-call" target="_blank">an emergency meeting</a>. In a unanimous vote, the board approved several measures aimed at increasing the state’s federal Medicaid reimbursement rate.For example, the state wants to significantly increase Medicaid payments to hospitals that achieve certain goals, such as training Georgia doctors and delivering babies. The move would draw down an additional $2.1 billion per year in federal money.“We’re doing our best to be responsive to the Medicaid conversations in Washington,” department Commissioner Russel Carlson told the board at the meeting. “Not overreacting in this 24/7 news cycle, but gathering the best information we can, reading the political environment the best we can, and acting responsibly.”Other states have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/managed-care/guidance/state-directed-payments/approved-state-directed-payment-preprints?q=&amp;filter%5Bfield_review_type%5D%5Bin%5D%5B%5D=8271&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_approval_date%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period%5D%5Bgte%5D=&amp;filter%5Bfield_state_rating_period_2%5D%5Blte%5D=&amp;limit=10&amp;sort=field_approval_date%3Adesc" target="_blank">filed similar requests</a>&nbsp;with the federal Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, and received approval in recent months.“Of all the Medicaid discussions happening in Washington,” Carlson said, “one of the policy decisions that could potentially, depending on how it ultimately lands, impact Georgians the most is the discussion surrounding directed payment programs.”<h2>Grants for hospitals</h2>Some of the biggest federal savings in the new law come from limiting states’ use of a financing tool,&nbsp;<a href="https://stateline.org/2025/05/27/republicans-target-a-tax-that-keeps-state-medicaid-programs-running/">known as a provider tax</a>, that enables them to draw down more federal dollars. States use the extra money to boost reimbursement rates for hospitals and to expand coverage.Some congressional Republicans have decried the maneuver as a “<a href="https://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-statement-house-passage-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-0#:~:text=Froze%20the%20state%20provider%20taxes%20to%20ensure%20states%20don%E2%80%99t%20grow%20their%20money%20laundering%20schemes." target="_blank">money laundering scheme</a>,” but lowering provider taxes will likely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/upshot/medicaid-cuts-republicans-senate.html#:~:text=Cutting%20provider%20taxes%20would%20probably%20mean%20funding%20shortfalls%20of%20hundreds%20of%20billions%20of%20dollars%20for%20states%20over%20the%20next%20decade%2C%20leaving%20them%20with%20budget%20holes%20to%20fill." target="_blank">punch big holes</a>&nbsp;in state Medicaid budgets.Meanwhile, some state legislatures are looking at alternate ways to shore up funding for hospitals. A bipartisan bill still under consideration in Pennsylvania would&nbsp;<a href="https://penncapital-star.com/government-politics/general-assembly/grant-program-for-rural-hospitals-advances-in-pa-house/" target="_blank">create a rural health care grant program</a>&nbsp;to help pay off student loans for rural doctors, nurses and dentists.&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/IN/bill/HB1274/2025" target="_blank">Indiana</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://legiscan.com/OK/bill/HB2754/2025" target="_blank">Oklahoma</a>&nbsp;also considered bills this session to create grant programs for rural hospitals.In April, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott announced the state would release&nbsp;<a href="https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-announces-over-6-million-in-grant-funding-for-rural-hospitals" target="_blank">more than $6 million</a>&nbsp;in grants to support struggling rural hospitals.Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at&nbsp;<a href="mailto:avollers@stateline.org">avollers@stateline.org</a>.

States scramble to shield hospitals from GOP Medicaid cuts

<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President Trump: &quot;I&#39;m not happy with Putin. I can tell you that much right now because he&#39;s killing a lot of people and a lot of them are his soldiers.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/QK7ENcQKvg">pic.twitter.com/QK7ENcQKvg</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942621038908489905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">President Trump: &quot;We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He&#39;s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/VMnXSTuCiK">pic.twitter.com/VMnXSTuCiK</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942621413250121955?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 8, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥 President Trump shows anger about Putin during Cabinet meeting

LINCOLN&nbsp;— Today, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced that the State of Nebraska has filed a lawsuit against General Motors LLC and OnStar LLC for unlawfully collecting, processing, and selling sensitive driving data from Nebraskans without their knowledge or consent. The lawsuit, filed in Lancaster County District Court, alleges that GM engaged in deceptive and unconscionable business practices in violation of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

According to the lawsuit, GM installed telematics systems in its vehicles that tracked a wide array of data points, including speed, seatbelt usage, driving habits, and location. GM then packaged and sold that data to third-party data brokers, who used it to create “Driving Scores” for millions of drivers. These scores were later sold to insurance companies and used to raise rates, deny coverage, or cancel policies, all without Nebraska drivers ever knowing such data was being collected or used against them.

“Nebraskans deserve to work with companies that are truthful and honest about what they are doing,” Attorney General Hilgers said. “That is not what happened here, and we filed this lawsuit because one large company decided that it wouldn’t honestly tell Nebraskans that their data was going to be used to impact their insurance rates. This is wrong. Our office will hold companies that mislead Nebraskans accountable, no matter how large.”

LINCOLN&nbsp;— Today, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced that the State of Nebraska has filed a lawsuit against General Motors LLC and OnStar LLC for unlawfully collecting, processing, and selling sensitive driving data from Nebraskans without their knowledge or consent. The lawsuit, filed in Lancaster County District Court, alleges that GM engaged in deceptive and unconscionable business practices in violation of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act and Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.According to the lawsuit, GM installed telematics systems in its vehicles that tracked a wide array of data points, including speed, seatbelt usage, driving habits, and location. GM then packaged and sold that data to third-party data brokers, who used it to create “Driving Scores” for millions of drivers. These scores were later sold to insurance companies and used to raise rates, deny coverage, or cancel policies, all without Nebraska drivers ever knowing such data was being collected or used against them.Among the key allegations:<ul>
 <li>GM deceived consumers at the point of sale by misrepresenting the nature and scope of the OnStar-connected services.</li><li>Consumers were often misled into believing enrollment in OnStar was mandatory to access basic safety features.</li><li>GM failed to adequately disclose that enrollment in its mobile apps or Connected Vehicle Services would allow the company to collect and sell detailed personal data.</li><li>Dealership employees were incentivized to enroll customers without proper disclosure and, in some cases, without any consent at all.</li>
 </ul>“Nebraskans deserve to work with companies that are truthful and honest about what they are doing,” Attorney General Hilgers said. “That is not what happened here, and we filed this lawsuit because one large company decided that it wouldn’t honestly tell Nebraskans that their data was going to be used to impact their insurance rates. This is wrong. Our office will hold companies that mislead Nebraskans accountable, no matter how large.”

Attorney General Mike Hilgers Files Lawsuit Against General Motors for Deceptive Collection and Sale of Nebraskans’ Driving Data

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>&nbsp;

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill signed on Friday has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown, helping fulfill the president’s 2024 campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.

The measure, passed by the House 218-214, would fulfill several of Trump’s key immigration priorities, such as bolstering border security, increasing immigration detention capacity and adding fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.

While most of the immigration-related provisions in the massive bill would vastly expand immigration enforcement, it also aims to limit benefits currently extended to some immigrants with legal status.

Immigrants with a lawful status, including asylum, under the bill would be ineligible to receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Immigrants without legal status or authorization to be in the country are already ineligible for SNAP benefits, which roughly 42 million people rely on.

The bill could also cut off tax benefits from mixed-status families, in which family members have different immigration statuses.

For example, while Republicans would raise the child tax credit to $2,200 per eligible child, the bill would exclude that benefit to U.S. citizen children who are born to immigrant parents without legal status. The proposal would require that the parent applying for the child tax credit also have a Social Security number.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">870-page</a>&nbsp;megabill was passed by the Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00372.htm" target="_blank">51-50&nbsp;</a>on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote.

Here’s an overview of what else the bill will do:

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, at nearly $30 billion through September 2029.

Those funds would go toward hiring 10,000 ICE officers within five years. The money would also pay for retention bonuses, transportation of immigrants, upgrades of ICE facilities, detainment of families, and the hiring of ICE immigration lawyers for enforcement and removal proceedings in immigration court.

An ICE signing bonus would be given to those hired after the bill is signed into law, and as a retention bonus if an ICE agent has five years of service specifically dealing with immigration enforcement. The bill does not specify how much a signing bonus or retention bonus should be.

The Senate’s version provides ICE with added flexibility in which areas to allocate the nearly $30 billion.

Separately from ICE, the bill would include $1 billion for the Department of Defense to deploy military personnel for border-related operations, construction and temporary detention on military installations.

<a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/military-border-2/" target="_blank">Trump in April&nbsp;</a>directed several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border as he continues to intertwine the U.S. military with his administration’s immigration crackdown.

Created was a military buffer zone along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico. It means that any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, and therefore allows active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.

<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-reported-consider-expanding-military-role-along-southern-border" target="_blank">National and military experts have raised concerns&nbsp;</a>that militarizing that strip of land could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.

Additionally, the Trump administration last month&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-keeps-control-california-national-guard-la-now-after-appeals-court-order" target="_blank">deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles</a>, amid major protests that arose after immigration agents began targeting day laborers at Home Depots for immigration enforcement.

The bill sets aside $45 billion for building new centers to detain immigrants, from single individuals to families. It’s a more than 300% increase from ICE’s fiscal year 2024 budget for detaining immigrants, which was about $9 billion.&nbsp;

Building new detention centers takes time, so private prison companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group are likely to enter into more contracts with ICE.

Those companies have begun expanding detention capacity. CoreCivic last month acquired a 736-bed facility in Virginia and GEO this month purchased a 770-bed facility in western California.

The bill would allocate $46.6 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to construct a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, as well as make any repairs. That would be more than three times what the first Trump administration spent on barriers at the southern border, at roughly $15 billion.

Some of the technology that would be added on the border includes cameras, lights, sensors, and other detection improvements. The funds would be used beginning in fiscal year 2025 until Sept. 30, 2029.

Another $4.1 billion would go toward hiring CBP personnel, until the end of September 2029. Another $2 billion would go toward retention and bonuses for CBP personnel.

The bill would also set aside $855 million for the repair of vehicles that CBP officers use. Republicans included $5 billion for upgrades and repairs at CBP facilities.

Additionally, $6.1 billion would go toward buying nonintrusive equipment to detect illicit narcotics at ports of entry along the southwest, northern and maritime borders.

Also, any immigrant without legal authorization and who is apprehended at a port of entry would be subject to a $5,000 fine.

There is currently a civil fine ranging from $50 to $250. Asylum-seekers typically surrender themselves at ports of entry.

Legal immigration pathways, application fees

The bill would give the Department of Justice roughly $3.3 billion for the Executive Office for Immigration Review to prosecute immigration matters, such as noncitizen voting – something that is extremely rare – and violations of the Alien Registration Act.

<a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/immigrant-document/" target="_blank">In April, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced</a>&nbsp;that immigrants in the country without legal authorization were required to register with the agency or face jail time and a fine of up to $5,000.

The bill would also provide funding for the hiring of immigration judges, but will cap the number of judges at 800. There are roughly 700 now, amid a 3.5 million case backlog in immigration court,&nbsp;<a href="https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/" target="_blank">according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC</a>.

The bill would also overhaul immigration fees and application fees for immigrants seeking legal pathways, both permanent and temporary.

For the first time, there would be a fee to apply for asylum, set at $100. There are no fee waivers for nearly every new fee set or increased by the bill, except for applications dealing with unaccompanied minors. All fees would also be subject to adjustment for inflation.&nbsp;

Asylum-seekers who want to apply for initial work permits would also have to pay another fee of $550, something that is currently free.

For an asylum applicant wanting to renew work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, where it is currently $470 to renew online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.

For immigrants on Temporary Protected Status, meaning the DHS secretary has deemed the immigrant’s home country too dangerous to return to, the fee to apply would be $500. It’s currently $50.

The fee to apply for humanitarian relief would increase to $1,000, where it is currently $630.

The bill would slightly increase the initial work application fee for TPS holders and those with humanitarian status to $550, up from a $470 fee for submitting online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.

To renew those work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, down from $470 for online and $520 for mail.

The nonimmigrant visa, which is currently free and handled by the State Department, would now cost $250 under the bill. This visa is typically used for international students, agricultural workers and other special skilled immigrant labor.

Some of the $2 billion in funding for DHS would go toward removing unaccompanied children under certain circumstances. That includes if the child is found by a port of entry, is not a victim of human trafficking, and does not fear returning to their home country.

The bill would also provide a $300 million fund for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which handles unaccompanied children, to conduct background checks and home studies on any potential sponsor of an unaccompanied child.

There would also be funding to check children in ORR custody for their potential criminal and gang history. Those 12 and older would be subject to examinations “for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings,” according to the bill.

The special juvenile immigrant visa, which is for immigrant children who are either abandoned or abused by a parent, and allows them to apply for lawful permanent resident status,&nbsp;would now cost $250 under the bill, but the fee could be waived. It’s currently free.

The bill would also give some states $450 million for the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.homelandsecuritygrants.info/Grant-Details/gid/21875" target="_blank">Operation Stonegarden Grant Program,</a>&nbsp;which gives funding to states and local governments that participate in border enforcement.

The bill would help states that are hosting major sporting events such as the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028.

The bill allocates $625 million for security and other costs related to the FIFA World Cup and $1 billion for security and planning costs for the Olympics,<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/amid-la-protests-senators-raise-questions-about-safety-olympics-world-cup" target="_blank">&nbsp;which Los Angeles is hosting in 2028.&nbsp;</a>

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>&nbsp;WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s massive tax and spending cut bill signed on Friday has as its centerpiece $170 billion for the administration’s immigration crackdown, helping fulfill the president’s 2024 campaign promise of mass deportations of people without permanent legal status.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">If you are in this country illegally: LEAVE NOW and self-deport using the CBP Home app. If you don’t, you will face the consequences. The CBP Home app is now available in English, Spanish, Haitian Creole, Simplified Chinese, and Hindi. <a href="https://t.co/zRcQr3ujef">https://t.co/zRcQr3ujef</a> <a href="https://t.co/v265tKUvKN">pic.twitter.com/v265tKUvKN</a>&mdash; Homeland Security (@DHSgov) <a href="https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1940793844221858020?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 3, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The measure, passed by the House 218-214, would fulfill several of Trump’s key immigration priorities, such as bolstering border security, increasing immigration detention capacity and adding fees to legal pathways for immigration, among other things. Thousands more Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are slated to be hired.While most of the immigration-related provisions in the massive bill would vastly expand immigration enforcement, it also aims to limit benefits currently extended to some immigrants with legal status.Immigrants with a lawful status, including asylum, under the bill would be ineligible to receive food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Immigrants without legal status or authorization to be in the country are already ineligible for SNAP benefits, which roughly 42 million people rely on.The bill could also cut off tax benefits from mixed-status families, in which family members have different immigration statuses.For example, while Republicans would raise the child tax credit to $2,200 per eligible child, the bill would exclude that benefit to U.S. citizen children who are born to immigrant parents without legal status. The proposal would require that the parent applying for the child tax credit also have a Social Security number.The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">870-page</a>&nbsp;megabill was passed by the Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1191/vote_119_1_00372.htm" target="_blank">51-50&nbsp;</a>on Tuesday, with Vice President JD Vance casting a tie-breaking vote.Here’s an overview of what else the bill will do:<h2>Immigration enforcement</h2>The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement would be the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, at nearly $30 billion through September 2029.Those funds would go toward hiring 10,000 ICE officers within five years. The money would also pay for retention bonuses, transportation of immigrants, upgrades of ICE facilities, detainment of families, and the hiring of ICE immigration lawyers for enforcement and removal proceedings in immigration court.An ICE signing bonus would be given to those hired after the bill is signed into law, and as a retention bonus if an ICE agent has five years of service specifically dealing with immigration enforcement. The bill does not specify how much a signing bonus or retention bonus should be.The Senate’s version provides ICE with added flexibility in which areas to allocate the nearly $30 billion.<h2>DOD funding</h2>Separately from ICE, the bill would include $1 billion for the Department of Defense to deploy military personnel for border-related operations, construction and temporary detention on military installations.<a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/military-border-2/" target="_blank">Trump in April&nbsp;</a>directed several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border as he continues to intertwine the U.S. military with his administration’s immigration crackdown.Created was a military buffer zone along the U.S.-Mexico border in Arizona, California and New Mexico. It means that any migrant crossing into the United States would be trespassing on a military base, and therefore allows active-duty troops to hold them until U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive.<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-administration-reported-consider-expanding-military-role-along-southern-border" target="_blank">National and military experts have raised concerns&nbsp;</a>that militarizing that strip of land could violate the Posse Comitatus Act, an 1878 law that generally prohibits the military from being used in domestic law enforcement.Additionally, the Trump administration last month&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-keeps-control-california-national-guard-la-now-after-appeals-court-order" target="_blank">deployed 4,000 National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles</a>, amid major protests that arose after immigration agents began targeting day laborers at Home Depots for immigration enforcement.<h2>Detention</h2>The bill sets aside $45 billion for building new centers to detain immigrants, from single individuals to families. It’s a more than 300% increase from ICE’s fiscal year 2024 budget for detaining immigrants, which was about $9 billion.&nbsp;Building new detention centers takes time, so private prison companies such as CoreCivic and GEO Group are likely to enter into more contracts with ICE.Those companies have begun expanding detention capacity. CoreCivic last month acquired a 736-bed facility in Virginia and GEO this month purchased a 770-bed facility in western California.<h2>Border security</h2>The bill would allocate $46.6 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to construct a wall along the U.S. Mexico border, as well as make any repairs. That would be more than three times what the first Trump administration spent on barriers at the southern border, at roughly $15 billion.Some of the technology that would be added on the border includes cameras, lights, sensors, and other detection improvements. The funds would be used beginning in fiscal year 2025 until Sept. 30, 2029.Another $4.1 billion would go toward hiring CBP personnel, until the end of September 2029. Another $2 billion would go toward retention and bonuses for CBP personnel.The bill would also set aside $855 million for the repair of vehicles that CBP officers use. Republicans included $5 billion for upgrades and repairs at CBP facilities.Additionally, $6.1 billion would go toward buying nonintrusive equipment to detect illicit narcotics at ports of entry along the southwest, northern and maritime borders.Also, any immigrant without legal authorization and who is apprehended at a port of entry would be subject to a $5,000 fine.There is currently a civil fine ranging from $50 to $250. Asylum-seekers typically surrender themselves at ports of entry.<h2>Legal immigration pathways, application fees</h2>The bill would give the Department of Justice roughly $3.3 billion for the Executive Office for Immigration Review to prosecute immigration matters, such as noncitizen voting – something that is extremely rare – and violations of the Alien Registration Act.<a href="https://lailluminator.com/2025/04/11/repub/immigrant-document/" target="_blank">In April, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem announced</a>&nbsp;that immigrants in the country without legal authorization were required to register with the agency or face jail time and a fine of up to $5,000.The bill would also provide funding for the hiring of immigration judges, but will cap the number of judges at 800. There are roughly 700 now, amid a 3.5 million case backlog in immigration court,&nbsp;<a href="https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/https://tracreports.org/phptools/immigration/backlog/" target="_blank">according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC</a>.The bill would also overhaul immigration fees and application fees for immigrants seeking legal pathways, both permanent and temporary.For the first time, there would be a fee to apply for asylum, set at $100. There are no fee waivers for nearly every new fee set or increased by the bill, except for applications dealing with unaccompanied minors. All fees would also be subject to adjustment for inflation.&nbsp;Asylum-seekers who want to apply for initial work permits would also have to pay another fee of $550, something that is currently free.For an asylum applicant wanting to renew work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, where it is currently $470 to renew online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.For immigrants on Temporary Protected Status, meaning the DHS secretary has deemed the immigrant’s home country too dangerous to return to, the fee to apply would be $500. It’s currently $50.The fee to apply for humanitarian relief would increase to $1,000, where it is currently $630.The bill would slightly increase the initial work application fee for TPS holders and those with humanitarian status to $550, up from a $470 fee for submitting online and $520 to mail in the paperwork.To renew those work permits, the bill would lower the cost to $275, down from $470 for online and $520 for mail.The nonimmigrant visa, which is currently free and handled by the State Department, would now cost $250 under the bill. This visa is typically used for international students, agricultural workers and other special skilled immigrant labor.<h2>Unaccompanied immigrant children</h2>Some of the $2 billion in funding for DHS would go toward removing unaccompanied children under certain circumstances. That includes if the child is found by a port of entry, is not a victim of human trafficking, and does not fear returning to their home country.The bill would also provide a $300 million fund for the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which handles unaccompanied children, to conduct background checks and home studies on any potential sponsor of an unaccompanied child.There would also be funding to check children in ORR custody for their potential criminal and gang history. Those 12 and older would be subject to examinations “for gang-related tattoos and other gang-related markings,” according to the bill.The special juvenile immigrant visa, which is for immigrant children who are either abandoned or abused by a parent, and allows them to apply for lawful permanent resident status,&nbsp;would now cost $250 under the bill, but the fee could be waived. It’s currently free.<h2>State grants, World Cup and Olympics</h2>The bill would also give some states $450 million for the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.homelandsecuritygrants.info/Grant-Details/gid/21875" target="_blank">Operation Stonegarden Grant Program,</a>&nbsp;which gives funding to states and local governments that participate in border enforcement.The bill would help states that are hosting major sporting events such as the World Cup in 2026 and the Olympics in 2028.The bill allocates $625 million for security and other costs related to the FIFA World Cup and $1 billion for security and planning costs for the Olympics,<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/amid-la-protests-senators-raise-questions-about-safety-olympics-world-cup" target="_blank">&nbsp;which Los Angeles is hosting in 2028.&nbsp;</a>

How the megabill allows Trump to expand mass deportations, curb immigrant benefits

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelcie-moseley-morris/">Kelcie Moseley-Morris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>

Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.

Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.

The<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;complaint</a>, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">&nbsp;page 597</a>&nbsp;of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.

While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.

“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a<a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-planned-parenthood-league-of-massachusetts-and-planned-parenthood-association-of-utah-sue-over-congressional-action-defunding-planned-parenthood-health-centers" target="_blank">&nbsp;public statement</a>.

The organization<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-risk-closing-hundreds-clinics-drastically-limiting-abortion-access" target="_blank">&nbsp;identified 200 of its clinics</a>&nbsp;in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.

The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close.&nbsp;

Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights.&nbsp;

“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”

The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.

According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.

“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”

“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”

Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says

Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”

Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.

In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.

“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.

In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.

The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.

“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751969293370.png" alt=" Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)" />
 <figcaption> Planned Parenthood has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of a provision in the massive budget bill signed by President Donald Trump last week. (Photo by McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch)</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelcie-moseley-morris/">Kelcie Moseley-Morris</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a>Days after President Donald Trump signed a massive budget bill, attorneys for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its state members in Massachusetts and Utah filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a provision they say will affect more than 1 million patients who use their clinics across the U.S.Planned Parenthood says if the defund provision stands, those targeted will be patients who use Medicaid as their insurance at its centers for services including birth control and cancer screenings. The organization says it only uses federal Medicaid funding for abortion in the very narrow cases allowed, including rape, incest, and to save a pregnant person’s life.The<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">&nbsp;complaint</a>, filed in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts against U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Medicaid and Medicare administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz, challenges a provision on<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">&nbsp;page 597</a>&nbsp;of the reconciliation bill. It prohibits Medicaid funding from going to any sexual and reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023. That prohibition will last one year from the date the bill was signed.While there may be a few independent clinics with operating budgets that high, it effectively singles out Planned Parenthood clinics. The entire organization has about 600 clinics in 48 states, and according to their calculations, more than 1.1 million patients could lose access to care because of the change in the law.“This case is about making sure that patients who use Medicaid as their insurance to get birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment can continue to do so at their local Planned Parenthood health center, and we will make that clear in court,” said Planned Parenthood Federation of America president and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson in a<a href="https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/planned-parenthood-federation-of-america-planned-parenthood-league-of-massachusetts-and-planned-parenthood-association-of-utah-sue-over-congressional-action-defunding-planned-parenthood-health-centers" target="_blank">&nbsp;public statement</a>.The organization<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-risk-closing-hundreds-clinics-drastically-limiting-abortion-access" target="_blank">&nbsp;identified 200 of its clinics</a>&nbsp;in 24 states that are at risk of closure with the cuts, and said nearly all of those clinics — 90% — are in states where abortion is legal. In 12 states, approximately 75% of abortion-providing Planned Parenthood health centers could close. Because of that, some reproductive health advocates have called it a backdoor nationwide abortion ban.The nonprofit also warned that eliminating Planned Parenthood centers from the Medicaid program would likely also impact patients who use other forms of insurance, if centers are forced to cut their services or close.&nbsp;Planned Parenthood argued this section of the bill is unconstitutional because it specifies and punishes them, saying it violates equal protection laws and qualifies as retaliation against free speech rights.&nbsp;“The Defund Provision is a naked attempt to leverage the government’s spending power to attack and penalize Planned Parenthood and impermissibly single it out for unfavorable treatment,” the complaint says. “It does so not only because of Planned Parenthood members’ long history of providing legal abortions to patients across the country, but also because of Planned Parenthood’s unique role in advocating for policies to protect and expand access to sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion.”The complaint also details numerous instances when Trump said he was committed to defunding Planned Parenthood in 2016 and 2017, during his first presidential term, and it highlighted the provisions of Project 2025 that called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood. Project 2025 is the blueprint document drafted by the conservative Heritage Foundation, and the administration has followed many of its directives so far.According to the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood members have “structural independence,” meaning no member “has control over the operations or decision-making processes of another.” It’s argued in the complaint that 10 members, including plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, don’t meet the definition of prohibited entity under the new law, because they do not provide abortion services or did not receive over $800,000 in Medicaid funds during fiscal year 2023. They say these members are not “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics” of any prohibited entity because they are separately incorporated and independently governed.“But these Non-Qualifying Members can take no comfort in the plain text of the statute,” reads the lawsuit. “Defendants will willfully misinterpret the statute to disqualify them from receiving federal Medicaid funding, based solely on their association with PPFA and other Planned Parenthood Members.”“As the Trump administration guts our public health care system, we know millions will suffer and struggle to get care. We will not tolerate these attacks,” said Shireen Ghorbani, interim president of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, in a statement. “For over 55 years, we have proudly cared for generations of Utahns, and we will always find ways to meet the health care needs of our communities. Here in Utah, we are used to politicians trying to strip away our rights for political gain. We haven’t backed down before, and we won’t now.”<h2>Defunding will harm general wellness, not abortion care, Arizona clinic owner says</h2>Planned Parenthood also noted in its complaint that the harms could be especially devastating because “even where alternative providers are theoretically available, those providers, who are already stretched to capacity, often do not offer the same comprehensive sexual and reproductive health service options, have long wait times for patients, and cannot accommodate the huge influx of patients who would need to find a new provider of care.”Some clinics that operate independently of Planned Parenthood will be affected by the law as well. George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said they receive nearly $2 million from Medicaid funds (MaineCare) on a yearly basis, and about half of their patients are enrolled in some form of Medicaid. Hill said they plan to sue as well, but the timing is uncertain at this point. Abortion care makes up about 15% of their overall services, while the rest is routine gynecological and preventative health care, he said.In the meantime, Hill plans to solicit as much support as possible from individual donors to keep the doors to their 19 clinics open and serving Medicaid patients.“Whether or how long we’ll be able to do that is another question,” Hill said.In Arizona, Dr. DeShawn Taylor operates the independent clinic Desert Star Institute for Family Planning. About 75% of the services at Desert Star are abortion related, and while Medicaid (AHCCCS in Arizona) dollars can’t be used for the procedure, Taylor said they could often at least get the initial consultation appointment covered by Medicaid.The cuts that are coming, Taylor said, will not stop people from obtaining an abortion somehow. But there will be other downstream effects.“People are already economically depressed,” she said. “What we’re going to see is people are still going to do what’s necessary to get (abortion) care, but what’s going to fall off is their ability to get their preventative care, their contraception, their wellness exams, those types of things.”

Planned Parenthood sues Trump admin. over ‘defunding’ provision in budget bill

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751933748288.png" alt="Image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presents President Trump with a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize <a href="https://t.co/JUzpU2ZPYz">pic.twitter.com/JUzpU2ZPYz</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1942366276329914397?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Surprise: Israeli PM nominates Trump for Nobel Peace Prize 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1704330351229.png" alt="Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry" />
 <figcaption>Jeffrey Epstein New York Sex Offender Registry</figcaption>
 </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/pdoocy?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@pdoocy</a>: What happened to the Epstein client list that the Attorney General said she had on her desk? .<a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@PressSec</a>: She was saying the entirety of all of the paper work all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein&#39;s crimes, that&#39;s what the Attorney General was referring to. <a href="https://t.co/tarThtKDCX">pic.twitter.com/tarThtKDCX</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1942280181890023756?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 7, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥White House responds to DOJ report Epstein 'client list' doesn't exist

Lincoln, NE – July 7, 2025 – The Nebraska Lottery recently distributed among its beneficiary funds $10,477,004, derived from a share of Scratch and Lotto ticket sales for the previous three months.

A total of $1,037,288,734 has been distributed in quarterly transfers since the Nebraska Lottery began operation on September 11, 1993. The latest transfer, made the week of June 27, was distributed among beneficiaries in the following manner:

<a href="https://link.mediaoutreach.meltwater.com/ls/click?upn=u001.qkacV-2FUEFnhDrHGFtQlhVEnIH45fIlzPrWWESD4G8SueUWbK-2Byo2WIT-2BmC-2BrQcWL9icRYkTm1CodCITKMHU5xUbZsdXhcAndRZwFR7el0s8-3DSGyW_zp2viNv8WmCDmvKbS8g-2FumCH-2BSIkHTUhcISA1gweg93LIwGEu7Eu0ohNOhpJ1nCtJT3xXLcGnwndj0t64QaXbVDk0wvL65KD1iN4vYB7rKAhKu1l-2FBLlTpj0KgRYXUJnHNzVa-2B-2FBIIXR-2FSg114OfvsAYZZl1u8bObQBYq-2F0IYVsBzxVd-2FkPdFqhBK62sH-2F2Mz9p7oNlKYGJX7cfKY1mZ79BgwTFxbFSNC8pVs9Ga73OEsvNLliDQdQVFdwx3eEtEon-2FsTG0ZupooyN0oN7kAZ-2BuOJx7gf2tAKdGkuHw4KwpccaaISTFDGf0J3uX5C8T8kO7D0gGliuSSOxrEDAvVDgftfmYpwKHQGWs3cnVLezb6hfDmFG5JTH50JKreOYbX2pAi4AVToOHgQurd8gRYBQ-3D-3D" target="_blank">Education as directed by the Legislature</a>, $4,662,267;Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund, $4,662,267;Nebraska State Fair Support and Improvement Fund, $1,047,700; andCompulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, $104,770.

Amendment 4 passed by Nebraska voters in November of 2004 established the following distribution formula: Education as directed by the Legislature (44.5 percent); Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund (44.5 percent); Nebraska State Fair (10 percent); and the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund (1 percent, plus the first $500,000 in fund proceeds each fiscal year).

The funds' respective totals to date are:

Education as directed by the Legislature, $20,113,372Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund, $445,993,750;Nebraska State Fair Support and Improvement Fund, $80,681,351; andCompulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, $22,697,891.

Prior to July 1, 2024, the Nebraska Education Improvement Fund received proceeds totaling $169,189,056.

Prior to July 1, 2016, the Education Innovation Fund received proceeds totaling $174,222,842, and the Nebraska Opportunity Grant Fund received proceeds totaling $100,929,476.

Prior to July 1, 1997, the Solid Waste Landfill Closure Assistance Fund received proceeds totaling $18,460,996. In 2004, the Legislature directed that a one-time transfer of $5 million be made to the State General Fund.

Criteria for proceeds distribution are established by the beneficiary funds in accordance with legislative mandates. Every county in Nebraska has received service through grants funded with Nebraska Lottery proceeds.

The Nebraska Lottery marked $1 billion in beneficiary transfers (since 1993) in September 2024.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751914809857.jpeg" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>Lincoln, NE – July 7, 2025 – The Nebraska Lottery recently distributed among its beneficiary funds $10,477,004, derived from a share of Scratch and Lotto ticket sales for the previous three months.A total of $1,037,288,734 has been distributed in quarterly transfers since the Nebraska Lottery began operation on September 11, 1993. The latest transfer, made the week of June 27, was distributed among beneficiaries in the following manner:<a href="https://link.mediaoutreach.meltwater.com/ls/click?upn=u001.qkacV-2FUEFnhDrHGFtQlhVEnIH45fIlzPrWWESD4G8SueUWbK-2Byo2WIT-2BmC-2BrQcWL9icRYkTm1CodCITKMHU5xUbZsdXhcAndRZwFR7el0s8-3DSGyW_zp2viNv8WmCDmvKbS8g-2FumCH-2BSIkHTUhcISA1gweg93LIwGEu7Eu0ohNOhpJ1nCtJT3xXLcGnwndj0t64QaXbVDk0wvL65KD1iN4vYB7rKAhKu1l-2FBLlTpj0KgRYXUJnHNzVa-2B-2FBIIXR-2FSg114OfvsAYZZl1u8bObQBYq-2F0IYVsBzxVd-2FkPdFqhBK62sH-2F2Mz9p7oNlKYGJX7cfKY1mZ79BgwTFxbFSNC8pVs9Ga73OEsvNLliDQdQVFdwx3eEtEon-2FsTG0ZupooyN0oN7kAZ-2BuOJx7gf2tAKdGkuHw4KwpccaaISTFDGf0J3uX5C8T8kO7D0gGliuSSOxrEDAvVDgftfmYpwKHQGWs3cnVLezb6hfDmFG5JTH50JKreOYbX2pAi4AVToOHgQurd8gRYBQ-3D-3D" target="_blank">Education as directed by the Legislature</a>, $4,662,267;Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund, $4,662,267;Nebraska State Fair Support and Improvement Fund, $1,047,700; andCompulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, $104,770.Amendment 4 passed by Nebraska voters in November of 2004 established the following distribution formula: Education as directed by the Legislature (44.5 percent); Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund (44.5 percent); Nebraska State Fair (10 percent); and the Compulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund (1 percent, plus the first $500,000 in fund proceeds each fiscal year).The funds' respective totals to date are:Education as directed by the Legislature, $20,113,372Nebraska Environmental Trust Fund, $445,993,750;Nebraska State Fair Support and Improvement Fund, $80,681,351; andCompulsive Gamblers Assistance Fund, $22,697,891.Prior to July 1, 2024, the Nebraska Education Improvement Fund received proceeds totaling $169,189,056.Prior to July 1, 2016, the Education Innovation Fund received proceeds totaling $174,222,842, and the Nebraska Opportunity Grant Fund received proceeds totaling $100,929,476.Prior to July 1, 1997, the Solid Waste Landfill Closure Assistance Fund received proceeds totaling $18,460,996. In 2004, the Legislature directed that a one-time transfer of $5 million be made to the State General Fund.Criteria for proceeds distribution are established by the beneficiary funds in accordance with legislative mandates. Every county in Nebraska has received service through grants funded with Nebraska Lottery proceeds.The Nebraska Lottery marked $1 billion in beneficiary transfers (since 1993) in September 2024.

$10.4 Million in Proceeds Raised for Nebraska Lottery Beneficiaries

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/laurenlifke/">Lauren Lifke</a>

A federal judge gave Justice Department lawyers until noon Tuesday to confirm, in writing, the administration’s plans for implementing an executive order on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted nationwide injunctions on the order Friday.

Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg said at a hearing in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt on Monday that the Trump administration does not plan to begin acting on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/" target="_blank">the order</a>&nbsp;— which would deny citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. if neither parent was a citizen — for another four weeks. That’s the grace period set in the Supreme Court’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank">Friday ruling</a>.

But U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman was looking for more than verbal assurances.

“I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order, and who are not plaintiffs or members of the plaintiff’s organization,” Boardman said.

She ordered Rosenberg to submit in writing, by noon Tuesday, the government’s view of what it can do under the executive order. She also gave Rosenberg until next Monday to respond to the motion by immigrant parents and soon-to-be parents to turn the case into a class action lawsuit — the reason for Tuesday’s hearing.

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Boardman and judges in two other districts in the U.S. could only block the executive order against plaintiffs that brought the respective cases, but said the district judges did not have the authority to impose nationwide injunctions.

But the ruling, as well as a concurring and a dissenting opinion, all said “that courts may award injunctive relief beyond the named parties when the case is brought as a class action.”

So attorneys for pregnant immigrants were back in court Monday, seeking to turn&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CASA_v_Trump_Amended_Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">the case</a>&nbsp;into a class action for “all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by Executive Order 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship, and their parents.”

<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CASA_v_Trump_Motion_for_Class_Certification_.pdf" target="_blank">That class</a>&nbsp;involves thousands of babies who have been born since Feb. 19, the day President Donald Trump’s executive order was scheduled to take effect, and thousands more who will be born while the case is decided, as well as their parents, the motion said.

A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">recent study</a>&nbsp;by the Migration Policy Institute estimated that eliminating birthright citizenship could affect up to 250,000 babies a year.

The attorneys also asked Boardman to grant a&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CASA_v_Trump_Motion_for_TRO_and_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf" target="_blank">preliminary injunction</a>&nbsp;against Trump’s order immediately, to prevent any harm to their clients while the requst for class certification proceeded.

“Removal is not the only irreparable harm that we’re concerned about,” said William Powell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, during Monday’s hearing. “We’re obviously also concerned about other potential ways in which the order could be enforced to deprive newborns of potential rights.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/7/1751473648646.png" alt=" Demonstrators march past a Southeast Baltimore Royal Farms, where immigrant advocacy group CASA said that ICE activity has been observed. (Christine Condon/ Maryland Matters)" />
 <figcaption> Demonstrators march past a Southeast Baltimore Royal Farms, where immigrant advocacy group CASA said that ICE activity has been observed. (Christine Condon/ Maryland Matters)</figcaption>
 </figure>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/laurenlifke/">Lauren Lifke</a>A federal judge gave Justice Department lawyers until noon Tuesday to confirm, in writing, the administration’s plans for implementing an executive order on birthright citizenship after the U.S. Supreme Court lifted nationwide injunctions on the order Friday.Justice Department attorney Brad Rosenberg said at a hearing in U.S. District Court in Greenbelt on Monday that the Trump administration does not plan to begin acting on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-meaning-and-value-of-american-citizenship/" target="_blank">the order</a>&nbsp;— which would deny citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. if neither parent was a citizen — for another four weeks. That’s the grace period set in the Supreme Court’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank">Friday ruling</a>.But U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman was looking for more than verbal assurances.“I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order, and who are not plaintiffs or members of the plaintiff’s organization,” Boardman said.She ordered Rosenberg to submit in writing, by noon Tuesday, the government’s view of what it can do under the executive order. She also gave Rosenberg until next Monday to respond to the motion by immigrant parents and soon-to-be parents to turn the case into a class action lawsuit — the reason for Tuesday’s hearing.The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Boardman and judges in two other districts in the U.S. could only block the executive order against plaintiffs that brought the respective cases, but said the district judges did not have the authority to impose nationwide injunctions.But the ruling, as well as a concurring and a dissenting opinion, all said “that courts may award injunctive relief beyond the named parties when the case is brought as a class action.”So attorneys for pregnant immigrants were back in court Monday, seeking to turn&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CASA_v_Trump_Amended_Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">the case</a>&nbsp;into a class action for “all children who have been born or will be born in the United States on or after February 19, 2025, who are designated by Executive Order 14,160 to be ineligible for birthright citizenship, and their parents.”<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CASA_v_Trump_Motion_for_Class_Certification_.pdf" target="_blank">That class</a>&nbsp;involves thousands of babies who have been born since Feb. 19, the day President Donald Trump’s executive order was scheduled to take effect, and thousands more who will be born while the case is decided, as well as their parents, the motion said.A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">recent study</a>&nbsp;by the Migration Policy Institute estimated that eliminating birthright citizenship could affect up to 250,000 babies a year.The attorneys also asked Boardman to grant a&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/CASA_v_Trump_Motion_for_TRO_and_Preliminary_Injunction.pdf" target="_blank">preliminary injunction</a>&nbsp;against Trump’s order immediately, to prevent any harm to their clients while the requst for class certification proceeded.“Removal is not the only irreparable harm that we’re concerned about,” said William Powell, an attorney for the plaintiffs, during Monday’s hearing. “We’re obviously also concerned about other potential ways in which the order could be enforced to deprive newborns of potential rights.”Potential members of the class are also documenting stress and anxiety, Powell said. He shared an anecdote about a plaintiff who is experiencing a more stressful and difficult pregnancy because she fears what will happen once her child is born.“It is confusing to them exactly what these things mean,” Powell said. “We can’t really assure them the order is fully blocked, because it’s not.”President Donald Trump issued the order on Jan. 20, his first day back in office. It claimed that citizenship does not automatically extend to everyone born in the U.S., excluding mothers who are here illegally or on a temporary visas unless the father has citizenship or is here with permanent legal resident status.Rosenberg argued against class certification, which he said would be “prejudicial” to the government, and noted that the plaintiffs could have moved for class certification before Friday.The case filed by CASA and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project includes 15 women — some under pseudonyms because of their legal status — in nine states, including Maryland, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Washington. Some are in the U.S. without documentation, some are here on visas, many have asylum or other immigration applications pending in various stages.This article was originally published by&nbsp;<a href="https://marylandmatters.org/" target="_blank">Maryland Matters</a>, a part of States Newsroom.