By MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is seeking to abandon a rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution, arguing that the Biden administration did not have authority to set the tighter standard on pollution from tailpipes, smokestacks and other industrial sources.

The action follows moves by the administration last week to weaken federal rules protecting millions of acres of wetlands and streams and roll back protections for imperiled species and the places they live. In a separate action, the Interior Department proposed new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems.

The Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule last year that imposed strict standards for soot pollution, saying that reducing fine particle matter from motor vehicles and industrial sources could prevent thousands of premature deaths a year.

Twenty-five Republican-led states and a host of business groups filed lawsuits seeking to block the rule in court. A suit led by attorneys general from Kentucky and West Virginia argued that the EPA rule would raise costs for manufacturers, utilities and families and could block new manufacturing plants.

In a court filing this week, the EPA essentially took the side of the challengers, saying the Biden-era rule was done “without the rigorous, stepwise process that Congress required” and was therefore unlawful.

Related Articles

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson leaves hospital after treatment for neurological disorder

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

New limits for a rent algorithm that prosecutors say let landlords drive up prices

“EPA now confesses error and urges this Court to vacate the Rule” before Feb. 7, the agency said in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Vacating the Biden-era rule would revert the soot standard to a level established a dozen years ago under the Obama administration. The Trump EPA is set to propose its own rule early next year.

Environmental groups said the agency’s action — which follows a pledge by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to roll back the soot rule and dozens of other environmental regulations — threatens public health and undermines its obligations under the Clean Air Act.

“EPA’s motion is a blatant attempt to avoid legal requirements for a rollback, in this case for one of the most impactful actions the agency has taken in recent years to protect public health,” said Hayden Hashimoto, an attorney at the nonprofit Clean Air Task Force.

The 2024 rule set maximum levels of 9 micrograms of fine particle pollution per cubic meter of air, down from 12 micrograms established under former President Barack Obama. The rule sets an air quality level that states and counties must achieve in the coming years to reduce pollution from power plants, vehicles, industrial sites and wildfires.

“An abundance of scientific evidence shows that going back to the previous standard would fail to provide the level of protection for public health required under the Clean Air Act,” Hashimoto said.

EPA said in creating the rule that the new standard would avoid 800,000 cases of asthma symptoms, 2,000 hospital visits and 4,500 premature deaths, adding up to about $46 billion in health benefits in 2032. Then-EPA head Michael Regan said the rule would especially benefit children, older adults and those with heart and lung conditions, as well as those living near highways, factories and power plants.

“Walking away from these clean-air standards doesn’t power anything but disease,” said Patrice Simms, vice president of healthy communities at Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm that represents environmental groups in the legal case.

President Donald Trump “has made it clear that his agenda is all about saving corporations money,” Simms said, adding under Zeldin, the EPA “has nothing to do with protecting people’s health, saving lives or serving children, families or communities.”

Soot, made up of tiny toxic particles that lodge deep in the lungs, can result in severe health harms, including premature death, and comes from sources such as vehicle exhaust pipes, power plants, and factories.

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The Rev. Jesse Jackson has been released from a Chicago hospital where he was treated for a rare neurological disorder, his son said Tuesday.

The 84-year-old civil rights leader was discharged Monday from Northwestern Memorial Hospital, his son and family spokesperson Yusef Jackson said.

Related Articles

Trump EPA moves to abandon rule that sets tough standards for deadly soot pollution

FBI seeks interviews with Democratic lawmakers who urged US troops to defy illegal orders

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

New limits for a rent algorithm that prosecutors say let landlords drive up prices

In 2013, Jackson, who now receives round-the-clock care at home, was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The diagnosis was changed last April to progressive supranuclear palsy, or PSP, a neurodegenerative disorder which can have similar symptoms to Parkinson’s.

Yusef Jackson thanked “the countless friends and supporters who have reached out, visited and prayed for our father,” as well as the medical and security staff at Northwestern Memorial Hospital.

“We humbly ask for your continued prayers throughout this precious time,” Yusef Jackson said.

A protégé of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., the two-time presidential candidate and internationally known founder of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition was hospitalized Nov. 14.

Visitors included former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, fellow civil rights leader the Rev. Al Sharpton and television court arbitrator Judge Greg Mathis.

After announcing his Parkinson’s diagnosis in 2017, Jackson continued to work and make public appearances, including at the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. In 2023, he stepped down as leader of Rainbow/PUSH, which he began as Operation PUSH in 1971, but continued going to the office regularly until a few months ago.

His family says that Jackson uses a wheelchair, struggles to keep his eyes open and is unable to speak. Relatives, including his sons, Illinois U.S. Rep. Jonathan Jackson and Jesse Jackson Jr., a former Illinois congressman seeking reelection, have been caring for him in shifts.

By JOEY CAPPELLETTI and MIKE HOUSEHOLDER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic lawmakers who appeared in a social media video urging U.S. troops to defy “illegal orders” say the FBI has contacted them to begin scheduling interviews, signaling a possible inquiry into the matter.

It would mark the second investigation tied to the video, coming a day after the Pentagon said it was reviewing Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona over potential violations of military law. The FBI and Pentagon actions come after President Donald Trump accused the lawmakers of sedition “punishable by DEATH” in a social media post.

“President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass Members of Congress,” a group of four Democratic House members said in a statement Tuesday. “Yesterday, the FBI contacted the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms requesting interviews.”

Related Articles

Dismissal of Comey, James cases won’t be the final word. Here’s what the path ahead may look like

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

Senator Jim Justice of West Virginia agrees to pay nearly $5.2M in overdue personal taxes

Trump allows more foreign ag workers, eases off ICE raids on farms

Trump spares turkeys — but not his political opponents — at annual pardoning ceremony

Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, one of the six Democratic lawmakers in the video, told reporters Tuesday that “last night the counterterrorism division at the FBI sent a note to the members of Congress, saying they are opening what appears to be an inquiry against the six of us.” She said Trump “is attempting to use the FBI to scare us.”

“Whether you agree with the video or don’t agree with the video, the question to me is: is this the appropriate response for a president of the United States to go after and seek to weaponize the federal government against those he disagrees with?” said Slotkin.

The FBI declined to comment Tuesday, but Director Kash Patel, in an interview with journalist Catherine Herridge, described it as an “ongoing matter” in explaining why he could not discuss details.

Asked for his reaction to the video, Patel said, “What goes through my head is the same thing that goes through my head in any case: is there a lawful predicate to open up an inquiry and investigation, or is there not? And that decision will be made by the career agents and analysts here at the FBI.”

Householder reported from Inkster, Michigan. Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington also contributed to this report.

By ERIC TUCKER and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge’s dismissal of criminal cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney Letitia James, two political foes of President Donald Trump, won’t be the final word on the matter.

The Justice Department says it plans to immediately appeal a pair of rulings that held that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. It also has the ability to try to refile the cases, though whether it can successfully secure fresh indictments through a different prosecutor is unclear, as is whether any new indictments could survive the crush of legal challenges that would invariably follow.

A look at the possible next steps:

What exactly did the rulings say?

At issue is the slapdash way the Trump administration raced to put Halligan in charge of one of the Justice Department’s most elite offices. A White House aide with no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, Halligan was named interim U.S. attorney in September after the veteran prosecutor who held the job, Erik Siebert, was effectively forced out amid Trump administration pressure to charge Comey and James.

U.S. attorneys, top federal prosecutors who oversee regional Justice Department outposts across the country, are typically nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, though attorneys general do have the authority to directly appoint interim U.S. attorneys who can serve in the job for 120 days.

But lawyers for Comey and James argued that the law empowers only one such temporary appointment and that, after that, federal judges in the district have say over who fills the vacancy until a Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney can be installed.

Since Halligan replaced an interim U.S. attorney who had already served for more than 120 days, the lawyers said, her appointment was invalid and the indictments she secured must be dismissed as a result.

U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie overwhelmingly agreed. Currie, an appointee of President Bill Clinton who was assigned to hear the dispute despite serving in South Carolina, not only dismissed the cases but also concluded that Halligan had been serving illegally in her position since the day she was sworn in.

Could the Justice Department appeal?

Yes, and Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated that the department would do exactly that.

Any appeal would first be considered by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but theoretically could go all the way up to the Supreme Court and present a fresh constitutional test about the Justice Department’s appointment authority.

Interestingly, Currie implied that her interpretation of the law might be well-received by at least one current conservative member of the Supreme Court.

In a footnote, she cited a 1986 legal memo from Samuel Alito, then a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, that concluded that the Justice Department could not make another temporary appointment after a first 120-day period expired.

Can the cases be filed again?

Since the cases were dismissed “without prejudice,” the Justice Department is clearly able to seek a new indictment against James using a different prosecutor with lawful authority to present to the grand jury.

The question, however, is much trickier in Comey’s case. It’s complicated by the fact that the five-year statute of limitations — or the limited time in which charges can be filed — expired at the end of the September, just days after Halligan raced to present to the grand jury.

Federal law allows prosecutors to return a new indictment within six months of dismissal even after the statute of limitations has passed. But Comey’s lawyers said they will argue the judge’s ruling makes the indictment “void,” and therefore “the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment.”

The judge noted in her ruling that the deadline had passed and suggested that the statute of limitations is not tolled — or paused — in the case of an “invalid indictment.” Quoting from an earlier ruling, the judge wrote that “if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which” to extend the deadline.

Regardless, the Justice Department in either case would have to convince a new grand jury to return new indictments, and that may be harder given the intense publicity around the cases. Widespread media coverage of the allegations and the defense claims of improper conduct by prosecutors could make it more difficult to find grand jurors who can view the cases impartially.

What happens to the other challenges to the indictments?

For now, those arguments are all moot as the Justice Department labors to salvage the indictments.

But in the event prosecutors do succeed in getting new indictments, they’ll likely have to fend off some of the same challenges that Comey and James had already raised and that remain pending as of Monday’s rulings.

Related Articles

Some DACA recipients have been arrested in the Trump’s immigration crackdown

Senator Jim Justice of West Virginia agrees to pay nearly $5.2M in overdue personal taxes

Trump allows more foreign ag workers, eases off ICE raids on farms

Turkey pardons offer holiday ritual during precarious moment for Trump

Rights groups slam Trump administration for ending Myanmar deportation protection as civil war rages

Comey is charged with lying to Congress about whether he authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source for the news media. James was charged with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a home purchase in Norfolk, Virginia, in 2020.

Both have pleaded not guilty and had urged judges to throw out their indictments on grounds that the prosecutions were illegally vindictive and emblematic of a Justice Department that’s been weaponized to pursue the president’s adversaries. Those arguments would presumably be revived in the event of any new indictments.

Comey, for his part, has challenged a series of irregularities in Halligan’s presentation to the grand jury after a different judge who reviewed a record of the proceedings said he had identified a series of flaws — including the fact that the prosecutor apparently suggested to the panel that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right to not testify at trial.

He has also said that the testimony he gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee that underpins his criminal case was truthful and that, in any event, the question he was responding to was so vague and ambiguous as to make a false statement prosecution a legal impossibility.