By DAVID A. LIEB

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri judge has struck down a ballot summary for an anti-abortion amendment backed by Republican state lawmakers while concluding that it presented an unfair and insufficient description to voters.

Related Articles

Judge blocks USDA from collecting data about SNAP applicants in 21 states

Trump to sign proclamation imposing $100K fee for H-1B visa applications, White House official says

Trump appointee George Cook takes interim lead at Census Bureau amid new census push

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from Venezuelan migrants

Trump administration proposes selling nearly $6 billion in weapons to Israel

Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green ruled Friday that the ballot summary must be rewritten, but he rejected a request by abortion-rights advocates to block the proposed constitutional amendment from going to voters.

The judge said the summary prepared by Republican lawmakers failed to inform voters that the new measure would repeal an abortion-rights amendment adopted by voters last year. He directed the secretary of state’s office to write a new summary.

The ruling marks the latest in a series of twists and turns in Missouri’s abortion policies over the past three years.

When the U.S. Supreme Court ended a nationwide right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, that triggered a Missouri law to take effect banning abortions “except in cases of medical emergency.” But abortion-rights activists then gathered initiative petition signatures to put their own measure on the ballot.

Last November, Missouri voters narrowly approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion until fetal viability, generally considered sometime past 21 weeks of pregnancy. That measure, known as Amendment 3, also allows later abortions to protect the life or health of pregnant women and creates a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom” that includes birth control, prenatal and postpartum care and “respectful birthing conditions.”

In May, the Republican-led Legislature shut down Democratic opposition and approved a new referendum that would repeal Amendment 3 and instead allow abortions only for a medical emergency or fetal anomaly, or in cases of rape or incest up to 12 weeks of pregnancy. That proposed amendment also would prohibit gender transition surgeries, hormone treatments and puberty blockers for minors, which already are barred under state law.

Abortion-rights advocates had argued in a lawsuit that the entire measure should be stricken, alleging that the combination of abortion and transgender policies violated a constitutional requirement that amendments contain only one subject. But Green agreed with Republican lawmakers that both topics fit under the measure’s title of “reproductive health care.”

The proposed amendment will appear on the November 2026 ballot, unless Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe schedules the vote for sooner.

By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — A man accused of fatally shooting two staff members of the Israeli Embassy in Washington was wearing a body camera that captured video of the killings from his close-range perspective, prosecutors disclosed in a court filing on Friday.

Related Articles

Lawyers for Spanish-language journalist in ICE custody fear deportation after unfavorable ruling

Army says 4 soldiers died in a helicopter crash in Washington state this week

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from Venezuelan migrants

More than 400 arrests made in Chicago area operation so far, top immigration official says

Texas A&M president steps down but doesn’t say if controversial classroom video was a factor

Elias Rodriguez purchased the body-worn camera online and arranged for it to be delivered to the hotel where he was staying in Washington before the May 21 shootings, according to the filing. Prosecutors said the transaction demonstrates the premeditated nature of the crime.

Rodriguez was indicted in August on federal hate crime and murder charges in the killings of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim as they left an event at the Capital Jewish Museum.

Elias Rodriguez shouted “Free Palestine” during the shooting and then went inside the museum and said, “I did it for Palestine, I did it for Gaza, I am unarmed,” according to court documents.

Prosecutors haven’t announced if they will seek the death penalty for Rodriguez if he is convicted. They have described the killings as calculated and planned, saying Rodriguez flew to the Washington region from Chicago ahead of the museum event with a handgun in his checked luggage.

Defense attorneys are asking for more time to gather and present U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office with “mitigation evidence” that could weigh against seeking the death penalty in Rodriguez’s case. The department set an Oct. 20 deadline for that written submission, but Rodriguez’s lawyers want it extended to March 19.

“The investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence is of paramount importance in any capital-eligible case,” defense attorneys wrote. “After all, mitigating evidence can be the difference between a life sentence and a death sentence.”

The judge presiding over the case has scheduled a hearing next Wednesday on that defense request, which the government opposes.

“The decision whether and when to seek the death penalty is an executive prosecutorial function beyond the Court’s authority, and courts routinely decline requests to intrude into that exclusive executive prerogative,” prosecutors wrote,

A police officer’s body camera also recorded Rodriguez’s arrest inside the museum. Prosecutors have turned over copies of the video footage to his defense attorneys.

Milgrim was a U.S. citizen. Lischinsky was an Israeli citizen working in the U.S. The young couple were about to become engaged.

By TODD RICHMOND

The Trump administration is stepping into the legal fight over whether Enbridge can continue to operate an aging pipeline beneath a Great Lakes channel, arguing that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer interfered with U.S. foreign policy when she revoked the line’s easement almost five years ago.

Related Articles

Missouri judge strikes down ballot summary for anti-abortion measure backed by Republican lawmakers

Judge blocks USDA from collecting data about SNAP applicants in 21 states

Trump to sign proclamation imposing $100K fee for H-1B visa applications, White House official says

Trump appointee George Cook takes interim lead at Census Bureau amid new census push

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from Venezuelan migrants

The pipeline, known as Line 5, has moved crude oil between Superior, Wisconsin, and Sarnia, Ontario, since 1953. A 4.5-mile (6.4-kilometer) segment of the line runs under the Straits of Mackinac, a channel that links Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

Concerns about the line rupturing and causing a catastrophic spill in the environmentally sensitive area have been growing since 2017, when Enbridge revealed its engineers had known about gaps in its protective coating since 2014. A boat anchor damaged the segment a year later, further stoking fears of a spill.

Whitmer, a Democrat and possible 2028 presidential contender, ordered her regulators in November 2020 to revoke the easement allowing the segment to operate beneath the straits. Enbridge filed a federal lawsuit that same year seeking to invalidate the order. The pipeline has continued to operate as the litigation drags on.

Trump attorneys say Michigan interfering with foreign policy, 1977 treaty

The Trump administration isn’t a party in the case. But U.S. Justice Department attorneys filed a brief on Sept. 12 arguing that Whitmer’s order amounted to an attempt to “globalize” Michigan’s regulatory authority and clash with the federal government’s goal of maintaining the flow of energy between the U.S. and Canada.

They also contend that the revocation clashes with executive orders President Donald Trump issued this year declaring that an abundant, reliable energy supply is key to protecting national security.

“Shutting down Line 5 could disrupt the energy supply chain, increase domestic prices, and enhance the economic and political power and leverage of malign foreign actors worldwide,” the attorneys wrote. “Such outcomes conflict with our nation’s foreign policy goals.”

They argue, too, that only the federal government can regulate pipeline safety and allowing states to enter that arena would lead to a untenable patchwork of regulations. A 1977 treaty between the U.S. and Canada prohibits authorities from impeding the flow of energy through pipelines running between the two counties, they add.

Whitmer’s attorneys say the state has authority to revoke the easement under the public trust doctrine, the legal principle that natural resources belong to the public and the state therefore has a duty to protect them.

Danny Wimmer, a spokesperson for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is defending the revocation, said in an email Friday that Nessel plans to file a response in October. He pointed to earlier filings in which she argues that revoking the easement doesn’t impose or continue any safety regulations and is actually a pipeline routing decision within the state’s authority. The filings also contend that private parties such as Enbridge can’t bring a federal lawsuit to enforce the treaty with Canada.

The Trump administration’s arguments largely mirror those of Enbridge. Asked for comment on the administration’s filing, company spokesperson Michael Barnes in an email Friday pointed again to treaty provisions that he said prevent states and judges from unilaterally shutting down the pipeline.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker has scheduled a hearing on a Enbridge motion for summary judgment on Nov. 12.

Trump’s decision to take a stance in the case is a setback for Whitmer as she tries to protect her state’s interests without incurring the president’s wrath. She has stepped lightly around Trump, convincing him to meet with her three times since January. In April, Trump called her a “very good person.”

Enbridge says tunnel would protect Line 5

Enbridge has proposed encasing the straits segment in a protective concrete tunnel, at an estimated cost of at least $500 million. Construction would destroy wetlands and bat habitat but the tunnel would eliminate the chance of another anchor rupturing the line, according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Michigan regulators approved permits for the tunnel in December 2023. Enbridge needs only Army Corps’ approval before construction can begin. The Corps fast-tracked the permit in April after the Trump administration identified the tunnel for expedited emergency permitting.

Environmental groups and Native American tribes have sued the Michigan Public Service Commission, arguing the panel didn’t consider the overall need for the pipeline when weighing whether to grant the tunnel permits. The Michigan Supreme Court announced Friday that it would hear the case.

More legal sparring

Nessel filed her own lawsuit seeking to void the straits easement in 2019. The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing whether the case belongs in federal or state court.

The pipeline is at the center of a yet another legal dispute, this time in Wisconsin. A federal judge in Madison last summer gave Enbridge three years to shut down part of Line 5 that runs across the Bad River Band of Lake Superior’s reservation. The company has proposed rerouting the pipeline around the reservation and has appealed the shutdown order to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On a separate legal track, environmental groups and the Bad River Band have asked a judge to void state permits for the reroute. Hearings in that matter are scheduled to stretch into October.

By REBECCA BOONE

A judge has temporarily barred the federal government from collecting personal information about residents enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in 21 states and Washington, D.C.

Related Articles

Trump to sign proclamation imposing $100K fee for H-1B visa applications, White House official says

Trump appointee George Cook takes interim lead at Census Bureau amid new census push

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to strip legal protections from Venezuelan migrants

Trump administration proposes selling nearly $6 billion in weapons to Israel

More than 400 arrests made in Chicago area operation so far, top immigration official says

U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney in California issued the temporary restraining order against the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday, and said a hearing would be held next month to determine if a longer-term prohibition is necessary.

Chesney found that states were likely to succeed in their argument that the personal data can only be used for things like administering the food assistance program, and that it generally can’t be shared with other entities. The states said they feared that the data would be used to aid mass deportation efforts.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is a social safety net that serves more than 42 million people nationwide. Under the program formerly known as food stamps, the federal government pays 100% of the food benefits, while the states determine who is eligible for the benefits and then issue them to enrollees.

The Trump administration has worked to collect data on millions of U.S. residents through various federal agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, sharing the information with the Department of Homeland Security to support deportation efforts. The USDA warned states in July that if they failed to turn over the information about people enrolled in the federal food assistance program, SNAP funding would be cut off.

In response, the coalition of states sued, saying they feared the data would be used to aid mass deportations. They told the judge that the federal SNAP Act requires states to safeguard the information they receive from SNAP applicants, only releasing it for limited purposes related to administering or enforcing the food assistance program.

In Thursday’s ruling, Chesney said the states’ argument was likely to succeed, and that the USDA had already announced it planned to share the data with other entities and use it for purposes not allowed by the SNAP Act.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 20 directing agencies to ensure “unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs” as part of the administration’s effort to stop “ waste, fraud and abuse by eliminating information silos.”

The case is at least the second lawsuit filed over the USDA’s attempt to collect SNAP information. Privacy and hunger relief groups and a handful of people receiving food assistance benefits filed a similar lawsuit in Washington, D.C., in May, but the federal judge in that case declined to issue a preliminary injunction to stop the data collection.

Some states have already turned over the data.

Associated Press reporter Kimberly Kindy contributed.