A federal judge in New York has blocked ICE agents from making most arrests at three Manhattan immigration court locations, forcing President Trump’s administration back into the narrow Biden-era restrictions that treated courthouses like sanctuary zones. The ruling covers 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street, and 290 Broadway in Manhattan. A federal judge tied the Trump administration's hands on ICE arrests at Manhattan immigration courts after government lawyers admitted making a 'material mistaken statement of fact' defending the policy. ICE must now revert to Biden-era restrictions on courthouse enforcement… pic.twitter.com/VeKj45p2sr — Fox News Politics (@foxnewspolitics) May 19, 2026 Under the order, ICE can only make arrests in limited circumstances, such as when someone poses a serious public safety threat or there is an imminent risk of flight that cannot be addressed any other way. In other words, illegal aliens who show up to their own immigration hearings are now largely shielded from the very enforcement system those hearings exist to serve. The judge’s ruling came after government lawyers reportedly made a material misstatement of fact during proceedings. The error gave the court an opening to impose the injunction. The administration’s lawyers handed the court an opening by relying on the wrong memo. The bigger problem is what happened next: the court used that opening to put a major enforcement tool back under Biden-era limits. Fox News reported the immediate impact of the ruling: ICE civil immigration arrests at the three Manhattan immigration court locations are temporarily blocked while the broader lawsuit continues. The ruling came after government lawyers acknowledged they had made a material mistaken statement of fact while defending the policy. That legal error gave U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel room to revisit the courthouse-arrest fight and put the old restrictions back in place for now. Practically, the ruling means ICE must revert to narrower Biden-era courthouse enforcement limits in these Manhattan immigration court settings. That is a major operational change because the administration had been using court appearances as predictable moments to locate people already inside the removal process. The plaintiffs argued that the policy turned mandatory immigration hearings into arrest operations. The administration’s problem now is that a process mistake in court has handed the left exactly the kind of enforcement limit it wanted. That matters because these are not random street stops. These are federal immigration court locations where the government already knows who is appearing, why they are appearing, and what stage of the removal process they are in. DHS has made the common-sense argument clear: nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them. Officials have expressed confidence they will ultimately be vindicated on the legal merits. The Epoch Times described the limits placed on ICE: The May 18 ruling bars federal agents from conducting arrests at three Manhattan immigration courts except in limited circumstances. The case came from a lawsuit filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and other groups on behalf of The Door and African Communities Together. Those groups challenged ICE policies that allow federal agents to arrest people in immigration courts. The judge said ICE agents may make immigration-court arrests only when there are serious threats of physical harm to public safety or similar urgent conditions. That is a very different standard from ordinary enforcement at a location where federal authorities already know a person is scheduled to appear. The ruling puts the government in the absurd position of knowing exactly where removable aliens will be at a specific time and being told it cannot act on that information unless the court-approved emergency box is checked. Think about what this actually means in practice. Someone enters the country illegally. They are placed into removal proceedings. They are ordered to appear at an immigration court at a specific address on a specific date. And now a federal judge says the government cannot arrest them there. Documented NY reported the local scope and the DHS response: The order applies to 26 Federal Plaza and two other Manhattan immigration courts, and it follows the government’s admission that a May 2025 guidance memo had been incorrectly used to justify immigration-court arrests. Under the order, ICE may make arrests at those court locations only under certain enumerated circumstances, including imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm. In ordinary cases, agents are now blocked from using the courthouse appearance itself as the enforcement point. Documented NY also reported that an unnamed Department of Homeland Security spokesperson defended the arrests as commonsense. The DHS position was straightforward: nothing prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them, and the department believes it will ultimately be vindicated. That statement is the core of the fight. The Trump administration sees a courthouse appearance as an obvious moment to enforce the law; the left sees it as a place where enforcement should be pushed back. The left frames this as protecting “access to justice.” The argument is that if people fear arrest at court, they will skip their hearings entirely. But that logic rewards noncompliance. It says the system should accommodate the possibility that someone might flee rather than simply enforcing the law against people who are already in the legal pipeline. President Trump’s administration has been clear from day one that immigration enforcement means removing people who are in the country illegally, including those cycling through an overburdened court system that takes years to resolve cases. Courthouse arrests are not random raids. They target people the government already knows are removable or have pending cases. The legal error that gave this judge his opening is frustrating, and the administration’s lawyers need to tighten up their process. But one mistaken statement should not become the foundation for gutting enforcement at three of the busiest immigration court sites in America. If showing up to immigration court makes someone removable, that should be the moment the law actually works. Not the moment enforcement backs off because a federal judge decided the courthouse door is a finish line for illegal aliens instead of a checkpoint.

A Kentucky House candidate has dropped out of his race after being caught removing a campaign flyer from a potential voter’s mailbox. Democrat Max Morley announced he would end his campaign for the Kentucky House District 30 seat. “District 30 deserves a Representative they can trust and believe in. After much reflection, I have decided to end my campaign for State Representative. Campaigns can be demanding and deeply personal, and along the way I lost sight of what mattered most: serving our community with the focus, judgment, and integrity it deserves. For that, I sincerely apologize to those I disappointed or let down,” Morley wrote on Facebook. “I am grateful to everyone who supported this campaign, volunteered their time, offered encouragement, and believed in me throughout this process. I am especially thankful for my family, and I am taking this time to focus on them and move forward privately. There are two strong candidates remaining in this race: Cassie Lyles and Mitra Subedi. Both care deeply about our community and its future. I will be casting my vote for Cassie Lyles, and I encourage voters to support the candidate they believe is best prepared to defeat Daniel Grossberg,” he continued. “Max Morley, a Democratic candidate for Kentucky House in Louisville, is seen on a home security camera taking a political advertisement out of a homeowner’s mailbox & putting it into his back pocket. Morley confirmed it was him, apologized & has dropped out of his primary race,” Spectrum News 1 Kentucky anchor Mario Anderson said. Watch below: #NEW | Max Morley, a Democratic candidate for Kentucky House in Louisville, is seen on a home security camera taking a political advertisement out of a homeowner's mailbox & putting it into his back pocket. Morley confirmed it was him, apologized & has dropped out of his primary… pic.twitter.com/jcylRhMiZ8 — Mario Anderson (@MarioAndersonTV) May 14, 2026 Spectrum News 1 noted: Cassie Lyles, Mitra Subedi and the incumbent Rep. Daniel Grossberg are all still in the race. A report from our partner, the Kentucky Lantern, states that Grossberg is facing renewed calls from within the Democratic Party to resign following recent allegations of sexual assault detailed in a newspaper report. The primary election will be held on Tuesday, May 19. “Stealing mail is a felony, but it’s unclear whether Morley will face any charges,” WLKY noted. Watch additional coverage below:

Donald Trump Jr. will marry Bettina Anderson over Memorial Day weekend in front of a small group of family and friends on a private island in the Bahamas, Page Six reports. Donald Trump Jr. and Bettina Anderson to wed over Memorial Day: source https://t.co/Xc0FTb1Ype pic.twitter.com/3LrDhkZrPv — New York Post (@nypost) May 19, 2026 A prior report by Page Six claimed Trump Jr. and Anderson were going to delay their wedding until the end of the Iran war, prompting a response from the president’s eldest son. News to me. — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) May 2, 2026 Page Six shared further: Now we’re told that instead of putting off the nuptials as the war drags on, they are simply opting for a much smaller wedding. Anderson held an Enchanted Garden-themed bridal shower at Mar-a-Lago in April attended by Ivanka Trump, Lara Trump, Tiffany Trump and Marla Maples. Trump Jr.’s daughter with ex-wife Vanessa Trump, Kai Trump, also stopped by, according to a spy. The fête was hosted by Palm Beach socialites Yaz Hernandez, Amy Phelan and Audrey Gruss. Other guests included Daphne Oz, Dina Powell McCormick, Dee Ocleppo Hilfiger, Andrea Wynn and Bret Baier’s wife, Amy Baier. Trump Jr. even gave a toast at the shower. “I can’t wait to spend the rest of my life with Bettina,” he said, according to one guest. “She is smart, loving and caring.” Page Six exclusively revealed in December that Trump Jr., 48, and Anderson, 39 — whose parents are philanthropists Harry Loy Anderson Jr. and Inger Anderson — were engaged. We also exclusively reported the businessman popped the question at Camp David on Dec.13 when the pair were celebrating Anderson’s birthday. “The shower was gorgeous,” one source told PEOPLE. “The event was held mostly inside and was lovely but there were guests hanging outside some of the time,” the source added. First Lady Melania Trump reportedly was not in attendance. Ivanka Trump celebrates future sister-in-law Bettina Anderson’s bridal shower https://t.co/gN1QrUSQ3y pic.twitter.com/5YfzlLc79Q — New York Post (@nypost) April 15, 2026 PEOPLE has more: Reflecting on the luxury affair on Instagram on Wednesday, April 15, Anderson wrote, “Still soaking in how beautiful and special Sunday was. To be surrounded by so many women I love and admire, and feel so grateful to have in my corner, meant more than I can say Thank you to my INCREDIBLE hostesses, Audrey, Amy, and Yaz, for creating such a thoughtful, elegant, and love-filled day…I’m still floating! @donaldjtrumpjr I cannot wait to marry you!” While some family members, including Tiffany Trump, have said “I do” at Mar-a-Lago, a political source told PEOPLE in April that the White House has also been considered as a potential ceremony venue for Don Jr. and Bettina. “This would set them up for future political roles, whether Don Jr. goes after the presidency or something else,” the source said. “This is a consideration.” Another Palm Beach source confirmed to PEOPLE that a White House wedding has been considered as an option, but added a caveat: “The ballroom probably has to be finished.”

President Trump’s administration is tightening the screws on Cuba’s communist regime. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced Monday that the State Department has designated 11 Cuban government officials and three security agencies for sanctions. The targets include Cuba’s Directorate of Intelligence, the Revolutionary National Police, and the Ministry of Interior. @SecRubio says he has designated 11 Cuban regime elites & 3 government organizations, including government officials and military figures associated with Cuba’s security apparatus, for their responsibility in repressing the Cuban people. — Hiba Nasr (@HibaNasr) May 18, 2026 The Associated Press reported on the new designations: The State Department imposed a new layer of sanctions on several Cuban government agencies. The targeted agencies included the Interior Ministry, the National Police, and the Intelligence Directorate as the Trump administration ratchets up pressure against the island. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Monday he had also designated 11 Cuban government officials for sanctions. Those officials included the ministers of justice, energy and mines, and communications. The list also included the chief of staff of the Cuban army and the chief of staff of military counterintelligence. The sanctions block any assets that they may have or that come into contact with the U.S. financial system. Many of those designated had already been subject to U.S. sanctions. The new action adds the Cuba-focused sanctions authority to a larger pressure campaign. “These sanctions advance the Trump administration’s comprehensive campaign to address the pressing national security threats posed by Cuba’s communist regime and to hold accountable both the regime and those who provide it material support,” Rubio said in a statement. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on May 18 new sanctions against several Cuban government agencies and senior officials to address “repression in Cuba and threats to U.S. national security.” “I designated 11 Cuban regime elites and three government organizations,… pic.twitter.com/zHZ1xTOsh2 — The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) May 19, 2026 The sanctioned officials include some of the most powerful figures in the Cuban security state. Local 10 detailed who made the list: President Donald Trump’s administration announced new sanctions on Monday against a group of top Cuban Communist Party officials. The U.S. State Department announced designating 11 “regime-aligned elites” associated with Cuba’s security apparatus. The move also targeted three Cuban government bodies: the Directorate of Intelligence of Cuba, also known as DGI or G2; the Revolutionary National Police of Cuba, or PNP; and the Ministry of Interior of Cuba, or MININT. The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control also released the list. It included Eugenio Armando Rabilero Aguilera, Raul Cuba Villar Kessel, and Joaquin Quintas Sola. The list also included Jose Miguel Gomez Del Vallin, Cuba’s chief of staff of military counterintelligence. The others sanctioned were Vicente de la O Levy, Cuba’s minister of energy and mines; Rosabel Gamon Verde, Cuba’s minister of justice; and Mayra Arevich Marin, the minister of communications. Juan Esteban Lazo Hernandez, the president of Cuba’s National Assembly, and Dr. Roberto Tomas Morales Ojeda, secretary of the party’s Organization of the Central Committee, were also listed. A State Department spokesperson signaled more pressure is ahead. “The United States will continue to take action to counter the Cuban regime, those furthering its goals, and those abroad enabling the elites to profit while the Cuban people suffer,” the spokesperson said. Cuba’s communist dictatorship sits 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Rubio is signaling that more designations are coming as the Trump administration targets the regime’s security and intelligence apparatus. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.

A violent teen brawl inside a Chipotle restaurant in Washington, D.C.’s Navy Yard neighborhood went viral over the weekend, and U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro wasted no time using it as Exhibit A in her escalating crackdown on teen takeovers in the nation’s capital. Video from Friday night showed teens throwing punches and hurling furniture inside the packed restaurant while ordinary customers were trapped nearby with nowhere to go. Massive brawl broke out Friday night at a Chipotle in the Navy Yard area. pic.twitter.com/xqZTliXWvK — Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 17, 2026 The brawl happened just days after Pirro announced on May 15 that her office would take a more aggressive enforcement approach to the teen mob gatherings plaguing D.C. neighborhoods and businesses. By Monday, she was back on camera with a sharper message aimed directly at parents. Fox News reported that the chaotic Chipotle brawl was part of a growing pattern of teen disorder in the capital, tying the incident directly to Pirro’s plan to prosecute parents of lawbreaking juveniles involved in takeovers. The brawl went viral after video showed teens fighting and throwing furniture inside the restaurant while customers were stuck nearby. The footage showed the kind of scene that makes the phrase “teen takeover” sound too polite for what ordinary families and workers are actually facing. Fox tied the Navy Yard incident directly to Pirro’s new plan to prosecute parents of lawbreaking juveniles. That timing matters because Pirro had announced the enforcement push just days earlier. Her warning was that D.C. could no longer treat these gatherings as harmless youth activity when assaults, robberies, fights, and disorderly conduct keep following them. The Chipotle video gave her office a fresh and graphic example. It was not an abstract policy debate about curfew language or council procedure. It was a restaurant full of people forced to watch teens throw punches and furniture in a public place where families should be able to eat without wondering whether a brawl is about to break out. The disorder is no longer hidden in police logs or neighborhood complaints. It is showing up on video inside ordinary businesses, with customers and workers caught in the middle. Pirro did not mince words on Monday. She told parents that every curfew violation by their child could mean a $500 fine, and that contributing to the delinquency of a minor carries up to six months behind bars. Washington Examiner reported that Pirro warned parents who fail to supervise minors involved in violent mob gatherings, curfew violations, truancy, drug use, and other criminal activity could face prosecution under Washington’s contributing-to-the-delinquency statute. Pirro said parents are not bystanders in this crisis. According to the Washington Examiner, she warned that parents who fail to supervise minors involved in violent mob gatherings, curfew violations, truancy, drug use, and other criminal activity could face prosecution under Washington’s contributing-to-the-delinquency statute. The warning was not limited to a lecture about responsibility. Pirro put numbers and consequences behind it: $500 fines for curfew violations, possible criminal prosecution, and possible jail time when the facts show an adult enabled or failed to stop a minor from joining the chaos. The Examiner placed those comments in the immediate aftermath of the Navy Yard Chipotle brawl. That is why the Monday message landed harder than the original May 15 announcement. Pirro was no longer talking only about future prevention. She was pointing to a viral incident and telling parents that the federal prosecutor’s office is ready to follow the facts back home. The warning also put D.C. leaders on notice. If the city will not stop repeat teen takeover scenes before they erupt, Pirro is signaling that her office will look for accountability after the fact. .@USAttyPirro: "If your teen, parents, is a curfew violator, you’re subject to a $500 fine each and every time—and if there are crimes, under contributing to the delinquency of a minor, you face up to 6 months in prison, and I am not shy about looking for jail time." https://t.co/gIReSJZCVH pic.twitter.com/9v5l4KjPWD — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 18, 2026 The Justice Department laid the groundwork for the escalation in its May 15 release, where Pirro announced the new enforcement posture and spelled out the scope of the problem. The Justice Department said Pirro was responding to teen takeover gatherings that have disrupted neighborhoods, forced businesses to close temporarily, and diverted law enforcement resources away from residents. The release said these incidents have become increasingly common in areas such as Navy Yard and NoMa. The department also said the gatherings are often accompanied by criminal conduct, including assaults, robberies, fights, and other disorderly behavior. Pirro argued that even with Mayor Muriel Bowser enforcing the juvenile curfew, more action was needed immediately. Pirro put the blame squarely on local leaders who have refused to move fast enough. She said the D.C. Council’s lack of action creates an extremely dangerous situation for residents and teens alike. Her office would look at parents and adults who enable, facilitate, or permit minors to engage in delinquent acts. That official posture is what turned the weekend Chipotle video into more than another viral crime clip. Under D.C.’s Juvenile Curfew Act, citywide curfew hours for those under 18 run from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. every day. Adults who violate the act can face a fine of up to $500 or community service. But the city’s curfew enforcement tools are not fully in place. Axios reported that Pirro and Mayor Muriel Bowser urged the D.C. Council to reinstate youth curfew zones with immediate effect following the Navy Yard fight. Pirro and Bowser were both pushing the D.C. Council to reinstate youth curfew zones with immediate effect. The pressure came after the Navy Yard Chipotle fight went viral and after Pirro promised to prosecute parents of troublemakers when the facts support it. Youth curfew zones were not in effect because the council had not approved an emergency version of the law. That left the city arguing over enforcement tools while another public brawl became national news. Pirro told residents to contact council members and demand a curfew tool. That turned the issue from a closed-door city government argument into a public-pressure campaign aimed at leaders who have not kept pace with the disorder residents are watching on video. The pressure is unusually direct because Bowser and Pirro are not normally interchangeable voices. When the mayor and President Trump’s top federal prosecutor in D.C. are both pushing for a stronger curfew tool, the council’s inaction becomes harder to defend. That is the governing problem the viral video exposed. Residents are watching another violent youth gathering spill into a business, while the city still has not settled the basic enforcement authority officials say they need. The dynamic here is telling. President Trump’s DOJ, through Pirro, is doing the work that D.C.’s own elected leaders have refused to do for years. Teens are brawling inside fast-food restaurants, customers are cowering behind tables, and the D.C. Council still has not passed emergency curfew authority. Pirro is making it clear that if local government will not protect the city, the federal government will, and the bill is going to parents first. This is a Guest Post from our friends over at WLTReport. View the original article here.