博客

  • 国会因共和党反对司法部新基金推迟和解法案投票


    更新于:2026年5月21日 / 美国东部时间下午3:04 / 哥伦比亚广播公司(CBS)新闻

    华盛顿讯——在司法部新设的“反武器化”基金遭到共和党议员强烈反对后,众议院和参议院都将在阵亡将士纪念日休会期间离开华盛顿,不会就为联邦移民机构提供资金的和解法案进行投票。

    参议院原定于周四审议这项720亿美元和解法案的修订版,众议院则计划在周五跟进。但在共和党参议员与代理司法部长托德·布兰奇举行会谈后,相关计划泡汤。布兰奇此前被派往国会山,试图说服持怀疑态度的议员支持司法部基金。

    这笔17.76亿美元的基金是特朗普总统起诉国税局一案和解协议的一部分,而国税局由他本人掌控。支持特朗普的盟友,包括那些因参与1月6日国会山袭击事件而被起诉的人,已表示急于提交索赔申请。

    民主党批评这项安排公然腐败,对于资金分配方式以及受款人没有任何有意义的国会监督。多名共和党参议员也表示他们存在顾虑,并将努力在和解法案中为资金使用设置限制条款。民主党誓言将提出针对该基金的修正案。

    布兰奇与参议员们举行了近两小时的会谈。多名参会者会后未发表评论,这表明他们的担忧未得到充分解决。缅因州共和党参议员苏珊·柯林斯是参议院拨款委员会最高级别成员,此前曾明确反对司法部基金,她告诉哥伦比亚广播公司新闻,会谈后她对该基金并未感到更放心。

    司法部发言人在一份声明中表示,此次会谈包含“关于该和解协议的有益讨论”。
    “布兰奇明确表示,周一宣布的反武器化基金与和解法案毫无关系,事实上,总统在和解法案中寻求的资金一分钱都不会用于与该基金相关的任何用途,”该发言人说道,“我们将继续与参议院合作,推动关键的和解资金获得批准。”

    会谈结束后不久,共和党参议员表示,参议院将在周四会议结束后休会,不会审议和解法案。据一位知情人士透露,众议院领导层迅速取消了周四投票后留在华盛顿的计划,议长迈克·约翰逊与总统的会面也被取消。

    这一发展意味着,议员们几乎肯定无法赶上特朗普设定的最后期限:在6月1日前将和解法案提交至他的办公桌。这项法案将为移民海关执法局和边境巡逻队提供三年资金,其缘起于今年早些时候国土安全部的停摆。民主党反对为这些机构提供资金,促使共和党通过和解程序推动该法案,而和解程序在参议院不需要民主党议员的投票支持。

    本周早些时候,该法案就因包含1亿美元特勤局安保资金而遭遇阻碍,其中包括为总统改造东翼的计划,该计划要求建造一个大型宴会厅。参议院议事规则官员裁定,将该资金纳入法案违反了参议院关于和解法案可包含内容的规则,持怀疑态度的共和党议员曾预计该资金将在修订版法案中被删除。但新的修订版法案尚未公布。

    参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩表示,参议员们6月1日休会返回后,将“从我们中断的地方继续推进”。当被问及能否达成解决方案时,他回答说:“我正是指望如此。”

    图恩称该法案“本应是范围非常狭窄、目标明确、聚焦清晰、简洁直接的,但本周情况变得稍微复杂了一些”。当被问及是否对司法部新基金打乱资金计划感到沮丧时,图恩表示:“这让一切都变得比本该有的情况艰难得多。”

    一位获得匿名许可以便畅所欲言的资深共和党参议员助手将僵局归咎于本届政府。
    “政府制造了这个问题,需要由他们来解决。司法部本没必要在当时结案,也就没必要宣布这项和解协议,”该助手说道,“议员们理所当然地提出了疑问,而司法部迄今未能给出答复。参议员们仍专注于为移民海关执法局和边境巡逻队提供资金这一核心职能。”

    参议院的僵局发生之际,总统正瞄准在任共和党参议员。周二,他在得克萨斯州共和党参议员初选中支持肯·帕克斯顿,取代现任参议员约翰·康林。周六,在总统支持其共和党挑战者后,共和党参议员比尔·卡西迪在连任 runoff选举中未能晋级。

    当被问及这一动态是否在周四取消的计划中发挥了作用时,图恩表示,“很难将这里发生的任何事情与我们周围的政治氛围割裂开来”。

    这位多数党领袖表示,如果白宫就司法部基金咨询参议院共和党人“本会更好”,但他称此事“已是过去式”。
    “我们只能顺势而为,届时再做打算,”他说道,“但显然,这条路比我们此前预期的更加复杂和坎坷。”

    司法部基金和宴会厅资金也在众议院遭到反对。

    周三,宾夕法尼亚州共和党众议员布莱恩·菲茨帕特里克在致布兰奇的信中表达了对反武器化基金的“紧急担忧”,称其“代表着我们机构透明度和对美国纳税人承诺的危险倒退”。

    菲茨帕特里克还表示,他不会支持为宴会厅提供资金。

    一些众议院共和党议员已经公开支持将投票推迟到阵亡将士纪念日休会后进行。
    “如果他们拖拖拉拉,我们没有理由必须在阵亡将士纪念日假期前完成投票。我们可以回来后再处理,”众议院保守派团体“自由核心小组”主席、马里兰州共和党众议员安迪·哈里斯周四下午离开约翰逊办公室时对记者表示。
    “除了总统抛出的6月1日最后期限外,没有任何紧急理由必须在此之前推进该法案,”哈里斯说道。

    艾伦·何与贾拉·布朗为本报道撰稿。

    Congress delays votes on reconciliation bill amid GOP opposition to new DOJ fund

    Updated on: May 21, 2026 / 3:04 PM EDT / CBS News

    Washington — The House and Senate will both leave Washington for their Memorial Day recess without voting on a reconciliation package to fund federal immigration agencies, after the Justice Department’s new “anti-weaponization” fund earned strong pushback from Republican members.

    The Senate had been prepared to take up a revised version of the $72 billion reconciliation bill on Thursday, with the House set to do the same on Friday. But the plans fell apart after a meeting between GOP senators and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, who had been dispatched to the Hill to convince skeptical members about the DOJ fund.

    The $1.776 billion fund was established as part of a settlement of a suit by President Trump against the IRS, which he controls. Pro-Trump allies, including those charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, have said they are eager to submit claims.

    Democrats have criticized the arrangement as blatantly corrupt, with no meaningful congressional oversight of how the funds would be distributed or who would receive payouts. Several GOP senators also indicated they had reservations and would work to place guardrails around the use of the money in the reconciliation package. Democrats vowed to bring amendments targeting the fund.

    Blanche met with senators for nearly two hours. Several emerged from the meeting without commenting, a signal that their concerns had not been adequately addressed. GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the top appropriator in the Senate who has expressed opposition to the DOJ fund, told CBS News that she did not feel better about the fund after the meeting.

    In a statement, a Justice Department spokesperson said the meeting included “a healthy discussion on the settlement.”

    “[Blanche] made clear that the Anti-Weaponization Fund announced Monday has nothing to do with reconciliation, indeed not a single dime from the money the President is seeking in reconciliation would go toward anything having to do with the Fund,” the spokesperson said. “We will continue to work with the Senate to get critical reconciliation funds approved.”

    Soon after the meeting concluded, GOP senators said the Senate would adjourn after Thursday’s session without taking up the reconciliation package. House leaders quickly canceled their plans to remain in town after Thursday’s votes, and a meeting between Speaker Mike Johnson and the president was called off, according to a source familiar with the matter.

    The developments mean lawmakers will all but certainly miss a deadline imposed by Mr. Trump to get the reconciliation bill on his desk by June 1. The legislation, which would fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for three years, originated from the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security earlier this year. Democratic opposition to funding the agencies prompted Republicans to pursue the bill via reconciliation, which doesn’t require Democratic votes in the Senate.

    The plan had already hit a snag earlier in the week over the inclusion of $1 billion for Secret Service security funding, including for the president’s overhaul of the East Wing, which calls for the construction of a massive ballroom. The Senate’s parliamentarian ruled that including that funding violates the chamber’s rules for what can be in a reconciliation bill, and skeptical Republicans had been expecting the funding to be stripped in a revised version of the legislation. That new version has not yet been released.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the chamber “will pick up where we left off” when senators return from recess on June 1. Asked whether a resolution can be reached, he replied, “That’s what I’m counting on.”

    Thune said the package was “something that was supposed to be very narrow, targeted, focused, clean, straightforward, and it got a little bit more complicated this week.” Asked whether he was frustrated that the funding plan was derailed by the new DOJ fund, Thune said “it makes everything way harder than it should be.”

    One senior GOP Senate aide, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, laid the blame for the impasse at the administration’s door.

    “The administration created this problem, and it’s up to them to fix it. The DOJ didn’t need to settle the case when they did, which means they didn’t need to announce this settlement,” the aide said. “Members rightly have questions that so far the DOJ has failed to answer. Senators are still focused on the core functions of funding ICE and Border Patrol.”

    The breakdown in the Senate came against the backdrop of the president taking aim at sitting GOP senators. On Tuesday, he endorsed Ken Paxton in Texas’ GOP Senate primary, choosing him over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn. On Saturday, GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy failed to advance in a runoff for his seat after the president endorsed his Republican challenger.

    Asked whether that dynamic played a role in Thursday’s scrapped plans, Thune said that “it’s hard to divorce anything that happens here from what’s happening in the political atmosphere around us.”

    The majority leader said “it would have been nice” if the White House consulted Senate Republicans on the DOJ fund, but he called it “water under the bridge now.”

    “You play the hand you’re dealt, and we’ll sort it out from here,” he said. “But, you know, obviously it became a more complicated and bumpy path than we had hoped for.”

    The DOJ fund and ballroom money also ran into pushback in the House.

    In a letter to Blanche on Wednesday, GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania expressed “urgent concern” about the anti-weaponization fund, saying it “represents a dangerous backsliding in the transparency of our institutions and our commitment to the American taxpayer.”

    Fitzpatrick has also said he will not support funding for the ballroom.

    Some House Republicans were already open to pushing a vote past the Memorial Day recess.

    “If they drag their feet, there’s no reason we have to do it before the Memorial Day break. We can do it when we come back,” GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, the chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told reporters as he left Johnson’s office Thursday afternoon.

    “There’s no emergency about moving it by June 1, except the president has thrown it out there,” Harris said.

    Alan He and Jaala Brown contributed to this report.

  • 司法部向蓝州发出警告,移民海关执法局之争即将迎来下一场宪法对决


    2026-05-21T13:17:31-04:00 / 福克斯新闻

    信函警告缅因州、马萨诸塞州、华盛顿州和俄勒冈州州长:他们违反了至上条款

    作者:罗伯特·施马德 福克斯新闻
    发布于2026年5月21日美国东部时间下午1:17

    视频

    民主党要求移民海关执法局披露探员身份,批评者指出这会引发人肉搜索威胁

    福克斯新闻记者查德·珀格拉姆报道民主党呼吁透明化和问责制的相关动向,同时共和党人表达了对探员安全的担忧。

    NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻的文章了!

    美国司法部威胁就拒绝向移民海关执法局(ICE)探员发放卧底车牌一事起诉四个由民主党领导的州,在移民议题斗争中开辟了新的宪法战线。

    争议焦点在于,这些蓝州究竟只是拒绝协助ICE执行民事移民执法,还是拒绝提供保密车牌的行为干扰了联邦政府执行移民法的能力。

    传统基金会高级法律研究员查尔斯·“卡利”·斯蒂姆森表示,各州拒绝协助保护ICE探员是在玩“危险游戏”,但他也质疑司法部的至上条款论点是否如该部门所称那般直截了当。

    “当州法与至高无上的联邦法律冲突时,联邦法律优先于州法。一旦出现这种情况,州法将不再具有法律效力,”斯蒂姆森告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。“在我看来,没有任何法律与联邦法律相冲突。只不过是州政府官员拒绝发放这类车牌而已。”

    司法部要求庇护州立即终止“公然违法”的反ICE政策,称此事关乎生死存亡

    2026年1月21日,在ICE探员于1月7日枪杀蕾妮·妮可·古德后,移民执法行动持续开展期间,指挥官格雷格·博维诺团队的一名联邦探员在明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯的一个加油站停车时警戒。(塞斯·赫尔德/路透社)

    斯蒂姆森表示,司法部需要证明各州的所作所为不止是拒绝协助ICE。该部门可能需要证明车牌限制规定与某一具体联邦法律相冲突。

    “因此,尽管我认为司法部提出的论点看似合理,但我不认为这个论点有多少实质内容,”他继续说道。

    司法部民事 division 助理检察长布雷特·舒梅特在5月12日警告缅因州、马萨诸塞州、华盛顿州和俄勒冈州的州长,他们拒绝向移民执法官员提供可隐藏其联邦探员身份的车牌,这违反了美国宪法的至上条款——该条款规定联邦法律优先于冲突的州法。

    “俄勒冈州车辆管理局拒绝向包括联邦执法机构在内的联邦机构发放标准车牌和卧底车牌,却继续不受限制地向处境相似的州和地方机构发放此类车牌,这种针对联邦政府的歧视行为直接违反了至上条款,”舒梅特在致俄勒冈州州长蒂娜·科特克的信函中写道。

    他在致另外三位民主党州长的信函中使用了类似措辞。

    白宫与法院必须就各自的义务达成常识性共识

    2026年4月7日,代理司法部长托德·布兰奇在华盛顿特区司法部的新闻发布会上发言。(奇普·索莫德维拉/盖蒂图片社)

    马萨诸塞州州长办公室的一名官员告诉福克斯新闻数字频道,该联邦州确实会向联邦探员发放卧底车牌,但仅限他们在调查刑事犯罪时使用。移民执法通常涉及民事违规行为。

    该官员补充道,州和地方执法机构如果正在调查民事违规行为,也无法获得卧底车牌。他们还称,舒梅特提到的对ICE探员进行“人肉搜索”的担忧毫无根据,因为该州为ICE提供的非保密车牌只会显示车辆所属机构,而非探员个人姓名。

    ICE在2026年1月称,探员及其家属收到的死亡威胁数量增长了8000%。

    2026年1月13日,明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯南部一处住宅的突袭行动期间,一名联邦执法探员站在房屋外。(维克多·J·布鲁/彭博社)

    阻碍ICE合作加剧了明尼苏达州的动荡,官员警告弗吉尼亚州已扭转立场

    “马萨诸塞州不会允许动用州资源帮助ICE秘密行动,而他们正在侵犯民众权利,让我们所有人都更不安全,”州长办公室的一名发言人告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。“任何从事合法刑事执法工作的联邦、州或地方机构都可以获得保密车牌。我们都知道这不是ICE正在做的事情。这是一个连自己逮捕了谁、为什么逮捕都不肯告诉我们的机构。我们不会助长他们的策略。”

    不过,俄勒冈州和缅因州似乎全面暂停了向联邦机构发放卧底车牌。福克斯新闻数字频道周二联系俄勒冈州、缅因州和华盛顿州州长办公室置评,但均未得到回复。

    斯蒂姆森解释称,有一种潜在假设,即作为联邦的成员州,且根据宪法分权原则的隐含规定,各州将协助联邦政府执行法律。

    “这些州都是联邦的成员。我们假设当联邦政府执行联邦法律时,各州会予以配合,”斯蒂姆森说。“同时我们也假设,当各州执行州法时,如果遇到联邦探员,联邦政府会与各州合作。”

    2026年1月30日,华盛顿特区,副检察长托德·布兰奇在司法部公布与杰弗里·爱泼斯坦相关的文件、视频和图片期间会见记者。(J·斯科特·阿普尔怀特/美联社)

    联邦法院阻止纽瑟姆限制ICE的企图,特朗普在移民议题上获胜

    斯蒂姆森也对各州不发放卧底车牌的动机提出了质疑。

    “在移民议题上,因为他们不喜欢特朗普,也不喜欢ICE,尽管显然他们在奥巴马政府时期很喜欢ICE,他们正在玩这场非常危险的游戏。顺便说一句,这令人不齿,因为这会危及生命,不仅是他们试图抓捕的人的生命,还有探员自己的生命,”他告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。

    前ICE局长、现任支持特朗普的美国优先政策研究所高级研究员托尼·法姆认为,司法部完全有权利用至上条款迫使这四个州发放卧底车牌。

    反ICE“数字民兵”使用军用级监视手段对抗联邦政府

    2025年10月12日,俄勒冈州波特兰市美国移民海关执法局大楼外,联邦探员与反ICE抗议者发生冲突。(马蒂厄·刘易斯-罗兰/盖蒂图片社)

    “司法部的立场牢牢扎根于美国宪法的至上条款,该条款禁止各州歧视联邦政府或干预合法的联邦行动,”同时也是律师的法姆告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。

    “华盛顿州和马萨诸塞州联邦承认,在向各自的州和地方执法机构发放车牌时,确实存在合法的安全和行动需求,需要使用保密车牌,”法姆继续说道。“当他们的政策公开歧视联邦政府,拒绝联邦执法探员获得同样的保护时,就造成了不平等的标准,直接破坏了执行国会授权执法职责的联邦官员的工作。”

    舒梅特在致州长的信函中也提出了类似论点。周四记者联系置评时,司法部将福克斯新闻数字频道引述至助理检察长发布的信函。

    2025年7月24日,纽约州纽约市雅各布·K·贾维茨联邦大楼内的美国移民法庭,美国联邦移民和海关执法局探员拘留移民和寻求庇护者。(多米尼克·格温/中东图片社/法新社)

    “我不支持ICE”:加油站拒绝服务引发关于拒绝为联邦探员提供服务的辩论

    右翼智库曼哈顿研究所研究员拉斐尔·曼瓜尔拥有法学学位,他对蓝州划分民事和刑事执法的做法提出了质疑。

    “这些州试图在刑事和民事执法之间划清界限,以混淆基本现实;但他们完全清楚,许多会受到民事移民执法行动影响的个人,在其社区中也构成了真正的刑事威胁,”他说。“这一现实屡见不鲜,那些非法留在美国的人有时会犯下令人发指的罪行。让追踪和识别执法车辆变得更容易,会让在这些辖区执勤的联邦探员面临我们在明尼阿波利斯和芝加哥等地看到的那种骚扰,这会让所有相关人员都更不安全。”

    “诸如ICE和海关与边境保护局等联邦机构正在执行已经生效数十年的移民法,共和党和民主党政府都曾执行过这些法律,”他补充道。

    2026年2月5日,联邦探员在明尼阿波利斯开展移民执法行动。(美联社照片/瑞安·墨菲,资料图)

    致命的明尼阿波利斯枪击事件后,民主党在全国范围内推动反ICE法案

    卡托研究所(一个自由意志主义智库)的法律研究员迈克·福克斯对辩论双方都不感冒,称这不是“一方必胜的决定性案件”。

    “我认为这种案件的情况是,一方说我们显然是对的,另一方也说他们显然是对的,而我认为实际答案是他们双方都错了,”他告诉福克斯新闻数字频道。

    福克斯表示,在“州对联邦执法探员的运作方式施加条件”的案件中,比如加州试图禁止联邦探员隐藏身份,“显然违反了至上条款”。他说,国会可以而且应该强制探员表明身份,但州议会无权做出这类规则修改。

    “不过,这次的情况有所不同,我认为不同之处在于州政府发放车牌,对吧?”福克斯继续说道。“这不像州政府只给ICE发车牌却扣留其他人的。他们给你、我以及其他所有人都发车牌,而且大多数联邦执法人员,如果不是秘密行动的话,都会使用美国政府车牌。”

    “没有任何规定禁止ICE使用带有联邦车牌的车辆,”他补充道。

    点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用程序

    https://www.foxnews.com/video/6373951566112

    DOJ puts blue states on notice as ICE fight barrels toward next constitutional showdown

    2026-05-21T13:17:31-04:00 / Fox News

    Letters warn governors of Maine, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon they are violating the supremacy clause

    By Robert Schmad Fox News

    Published May 21, 2026 1:17pm EDT

    Video

    Democrats push ICE to unmask agents as critics cite doxxing threat

    Fox News’ Chad Pergram reports on Democrats’ calls for transparency and accountability as Republicans express safety concerns for agents.

    NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

    The Justice Department is threatening to sue four Democratic-led states for denying undercover license plates to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, opening a new constitutional front in the immigration fight.

    At issue is whether the blue states are simply refusing to help ICE carry out civil immigration enforcement, or whether withholding confidential plates interferes with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration law.

    Charles “Cully” Stimson, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said the states are playing a “dangerous game” by refusing to help protect ICE agents, but he also questioned whether DOJ’s supremacy clause argument is as straightforward as the department suggests.

    “Federal law preempts state law when state law conflicts with a supreme federal law. And when it does, the state law is preempted, meaning that the state law cannot be given legal effect in those instances of conflict,” Stimson told Fox News Digital. “There is no law in my mind that is conflicting with federal law. You simply have state actors refusing to issue these types of license plates.”

    DOJ DEMANDS SANCTUARY STATES END ‘BLATANTLY UNLAWFUL’ ANTI-ICE POLICY AS A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH

    A federal agent from commander Greg Bovino’s team looks on during a stop at a gas station in Minneapolis, Minn., on Jan. 21, 2026, amid ongoing immigration enforcement following the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent on Jan. 7.(Seth Herald/Reuters)

    Stimson said DOJ’s challenge is establishing that the states are doing more than just refusing to help ICE. The department would likely need to show that the plate restrictions conflict with a specific federal law.

    “So as much as I think that the DOJ is putting forth a plausible argument, I don’t think there’s a lot of ‘there’ there in this argument,” he continued.

    DOJ Civil Division Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate warned on May 12 that the governors of Maine, Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon that they were running afoul of the supremacy clause of the Constitution, which makes federal law supreme over conflicting state laws, by refusing to provide immigration enforcement officers with license plates that conceal their identities as federal agents.

    “By refusing to issue standard and undercover registrations and plates to federal agencies, including federal law enforcement agencies, while continuing to issue them to similarly-situated state and local agencies without restriction, Oregon’s DMV has directly run afoul of the supremacy clause by discriminating against the federal government,” Shumate wrote to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek.

    He used similar language in his letters to the three other Democratic governors.

    THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE COURTS MUST COME TO A COMMON SENSE UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR OBLIGATIONS

    Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche spoke during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., on April 7, 2026.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

    An official in the Massachusetts governor’s office told Fox News Digital that the commonwealth does issue undercover plates to federal agents, but only when they are investigating criminal offenses. Immigration enforcement typically involves civil infractions.

    The official added that state and local law enforcement are also barred from receiving undercover plates if they’re investigating civil offenses. They also claimed that fears of “doxing” of ICE officers, which were mentioned by Shumate, are unfounded, as non-confidential plates offered by the state to ICE only disclose that the agency owns the car, not the name of the individual agent.

    ICE claimed in January 2026 that agents and their families have experienced an 8,000% increase in death threats.

    A federal law enforcement agent stands outside a home during a raid in south Minneapolis, Minn., on Jan. 13, 2026.(Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg)

    BLOCKING ICE COOPERATION FUELED MINNESOTA UNREST, OFFICIALS WARN AS VIRGINIA REVERSES COURSE

    “Massachusetts is not going to allow state resources to be used to help ICE operate in secret while they are violating people’s rights and making us all less safe,” a spokesman for the governor’s office told Fox News Digital. “Any federal, state or local agency engaging in legitimate criminal law enforcement work can receive a confidential plate. We all know that’s not what ICE is doing. This is an agency that can’t and won’t even tell us who they are arresting and why. We are not going to enable their tactics.”

    Oregon and Maine, however, appear to have issued broader suspensions of the issuance of undercover plates to federal agencies. The governor’s offices of Oregon, Maine and Washington did not respond to requests for comment when reached by Fox News Digital on Tuesday.

    Stimson explained that there is an underlying assumption that, by virtue of being in the union and as implied under the Constitution’s separation of powers, states will help the federal government enforce laws.

    “Every one of these states is part of the union. It is assumed that when the federal government is enforcing federal law, the states are going to play ball,” Stimson said. “And it’s assumed when the states are enforcing state law, and it bumps up against federal agents, that the feds are going to cooperate with the states.”

    Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche meets with reporters as the Justice Department releases documents, videos and images related to Jeffrey Epstein in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 30, 2026.(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

    FEDERAL COURT BLOCKS NEWSOM’S BID TO SHACKLE ICE IN TRUMP IMMIGRATION WIN

    Stimson did also question the motivations of the states in not issuing undercover plates.

    “On immigration, because they don’t like Trump and they don’t like ICE, even though apparently they loved ICE in the Obama administration, they are playing this very dangerous game. And it’s despicable, by the way, because it puts lives in danger, not only of the people they’re trying to pick up, but the agents themselves,” he told Fox News Digital.

    Tony Pham, former ICE director and current senior fellow at the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute, believes the DOJ is well within its rights to compel the four states into issuing undercover plates using the supremacy clause.

    ANTI-ICE ‘DIGITAL MINUTEMEN’ USE MILITARY-GRADE SURVEILLANCE TACTICS AGAINST FEDS

    Federal agents clashed with anti-I.C.E. protesters at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland, Oregon, on Oct. 12, 2025.(Mathieu Lewis-Rolland/Getty Images)

    “The Justice Department’s position is firmly grounded in the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits individual states from discriminating against the federal government or interfering with lawful federal operations,” Pham, who is also a lawyer, told Fox News Digital.

    “The State of Washington and Commonwealth of Massachusetts admit to the legitimate safety and operational needs for confidential license plates when issuing them to their respective state and local law enforcement agencies,” Pham continued. “When their policies openly discriminate against the federal government, by denying federal law enforcement agents the same protections, this creates an unequal standard that directly undermines federal officers carrying out congressionally authorized law enforcement duties.”

    Shumate made similar arguments in his letters to the governors. When reached for comment on Thursday, the DOJ referred Fox News Digital to the letters posted by the assistant attorney general.

    U.S. federal agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detain immigrants and asylum seekers at the U.S. Immigration Court in the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York, N.Y., on July 24, 2025.(Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP)

    ‘I DON’T SUPPORT ICE’: GAS STATION REFUSAL IGNITES DEBATE OVER DENYING SERVICE TO FEDERAL AGENTS

    Rafael Mangual, a fellow at the right-of-center Manhattan Institute who holds a law degree, questioned the distinction between civil and criminal enforcement drawn by the blue states.

    “These states can try to draw distinctions between criminal and civil enforcement to obfuscate basic realities; but they know full well that many of the individuals who would be subjected to civil immigration enforcement actions also pose real criminal threats in their communities,” he said. “This reality is illustrated all too often by the stories of sometimes heinous offenses committed by those unlawfully present in the United States. Making it easier to track and identify law enforcement vehicles will expose federal agents on the ground in those jurisdictions to the kind of harassment we saw in jurisdictions like Minneapolis and Chicago, which makes all involved less safe.”

    “Federal agencies such as ICE and CBP are enforcing immigration laws that have been on the books for decades and enforced by both Republican and Democratic administrations,” he added.

    Federal agents conduct immigration enforcement operations in Minneapolis on Feb. 5, 2026.((AP Photo/Ryan Murphy, File)

    DEMOCRATS PUSH ANTI-ICE BILLS NATIONWIDE AFTER DEADLY MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTING

    Mike Fox, a legal fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, was unimpressed with both sides of the debate, remarking it’s not a “slam dunk for one side or the other.”

    “I think this is the type of case where you have one side that says we’re obviously right, and the other side that says we’re obviously right, and I think the answer is actually that they’re both wrong,” he told Fox News Digital.

    Fox said in cases where “the state’s imposing conditions on how federal law enforcement officers operate,” such as the attempted ban on masked federal agents in California, that “pretty clearly violates the supremacy clause.” Congress, he said, could and should mandate that agents identify themselves, but that such a rule-change is out of bounds for state legislatures.

    “This, though, is different, and the reason I think this is different is because the state issues license plates, right?” Fox continued. “It’s not like the state is only issuing license plates to ICE and are withholding them. They issue license plates to you and to me and to everyone else, and it’s also the case that most federal law enforcement, if they’re not operating, you know, undercover, they have U.S. government license plates.”

    “There’s nothing barring ICE from using vehicles with federal license plates,” he added.

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    https://www.foxnews.com/video/6373951566112

  • 田纳西州因难以找到静脉 中止死刑执行


    2026-05-21 19:51:34 UTC / 路透社

    作者:乔纳森·艾伦

    2026年5月21日 世界标准时间19:51 更新于2分钟前

    5月21日(路透社)——田纳西州监狱官员周四中止了对一名谋杀定罪男子的死刑执行尝试,原因是他们未能找到适合注射死刑的静脉。

    田纳西州州长比尔·李随后对57岁的托尼·卡拉瑟斯给予了为期一年的死刑缓期执行。卡拉瑟斯因1994年绑架并杀害三人被判死刑。

    通过《每日案卷》新闻简报将最新法律新闻直接发送至您的收件箱,开启您的清晨。点击此处订阅。

    据作为媒体证人到场的美联社记者透露,卡拉瑟斯被押解至纳什维尔一所最高安全级监狱的死刑室后,监狱官员花费了一个多小时尝试建立静脉输液通道,随后取消了行刑程序,将他送回牢房。

    田纳西州惩教部门在一份声明中表示,官员们成功建立了一条主要静脉输液通道,但难以按照该州死刑注射协议的要求搭建“备用通道”。

    “我授予托尼·冯·卡拉瑟斯临时缓期执行死刑一年,”李在一份声明中说道。

    废除死刑组织“缓刑”(Reprieve)的数据显示,卡拉瑟斯是美国至少第七位在死刑注射执行失败后幸存的死刑犯。

    “死刑注射被标榜为一种人道的‘医疗性’处决方式。类似此次血腥且耗时漫长的处决尝试,揭露了其令人毛骨悚然的真实面目,”该组织美国副主任马特·威尔斯在一份声明中说道。

    乔纳森·艾伦在纽约报道 比尔·伯克罗特编辑

    我们的准则:汤森路透信托原则。

    Tennessee aborts execution attempt after struggling to find vein

    2026-05-21 19:51:34 UTC / Reuters

    By Jonathan Allen

    May 21, 2026 7:51 PM UTC Updated 2 mins ago

    May 21 (Reuters) – Tennessee prison officials aborted their attempt to execute a man convicted of murders on Thursday ​after failing to find a suitable vein for ‌a lethal injection.

    Tennessee Governor Bill Lee later granted a one-year reprieve from execution to Tony Carruthers, 57, who was sentenced ​to death after he was found guilty of ​kidnapping and murdering three people in 1994.

    Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

    After Carruthers ⁠was taken to the execution chamber at a maximum-security ​prison in Nashville, prison officials spent more than an hour ​trying to establish an intravenous line before calling off the execution and returning him to his cell, according to an Associated ​Press reporter present as a media witness.

    Prison officials were ​able to set up a primary intravenous line, the Tennessee Department ‌of ⁠Correction said in a statement, but struggled to establish a “backup line” required by the state’s lethal injection protocol.

    “I am granting Tony Von Carruthers a temporary reprieve from ​execution for one ​year,” Lee ⁠said in a statement.

    Carruthers becomes at least the seventh man to survive his execution ​date in the U.S. after a botched ​lethal injection ⁠attempt, according to the abolitionist group Reprieve.

    “Lethal injection is touted as a humane, ‘medical’ method of execution. Bloody and prolonged ⁠execution ​attempts like this one expose ​the gruesome reality,” Matt Wells, Reprieve’s U.S. deputy director, said in a ​statement.

    Reporting by Jonathan Allen in New York Editing by Bill Berkrot

    Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

  • 反武器化基金如何从2024年特朗普竞选构想变为现实


    2026-05-21T19:29:03.599Z / 美国有线电视新闻网(CNN)

    据两名知情人士向CNN透露,2023年末唐纳德·特朗普筹划重返白宫之际,他的一批竞选顾问开始着手制定一项计划,旨在赔偿那些他们认为遭到联邦政府不公平 targeting 的政治盟友。

    该团队在特朗普当选前的数月里一直在完善这项提案,但遇到了一个重大障碍:他们找不到可行的资金来源来支付赔偿款。于是,顾问们暂时搁置了该计划。

    随后,特朗普针对美国国税局(IRS)提起的100亿美元诉讼陷入困境,这项搁置已久的竞选构想突然被重新提起。作为该诉讼和解的一部分,本届政府推出了一项前所未有的法律举措,可将近18亿美元的纳税人资金拨付给特朗普的朋友和支持者。

    “这个构想一直都在,但问题始终在于资金来源,”其中一名知情人士表示,“但这起诉讼出现后,我们就想,哎,等一下,资金不就有着落了吗。”

    美国司法部的这笔基金现已准备好向那些被认定为“法律战和武器化”受害者的人发放巨额款项,对于合格申请人范围以及可认定的侵权行为,似乎几乎没有限制。该基金将从一个鲜为人知的账户中拨款,该账户最初由财政部官员设立,用于支付针对政府提起的诉讼和解金。

    据熟悉筹划过程的消息人士透露,该举措已经引发了强烈反对,甚至来自共和党同僚——这一发展是政府官员未充分预料到的。

    特朗普盟友可能获得巨额收益的可能性,已经在总统核心圈子里引发了争论,焦点在于谁应该优先获得赔偿——或是彻底被排除在外。在私下讨论中,一些顾问推动设置明确的资格限制,担心2021年1月6日国会大厦骚乱中被判袭击警察的骚乱者会获得赔偿。

    但另一些人则主张扩大覆盖范围,将1月6日的骚乱者囊括进来,据熟悉讨论的消息人士透露,包括已故保守派活动家查理·柯克在内的人士持此观点,特朗普及其身边部分人士将这些骚乱者视为其“让美国再次伟大”(MAGA)阵营的核心组成部分。代表众多因国会大厦骚乱被起诉者的律师、长期支持特朗普的彼得·蒂金表示,目前已有数百名参与国会大厦骚乱的特朗普支持者接到申请赔偿的通知。

    特朗普的亲密顾问和助手也可能基于多年前针对俄罗斯干预2016年大选调查中受到的联邦审查而符合资格。周二,前特朗普官员迈克尔·卡普托援引该调查,提交了已知的首笔基金申请,他在信中写道,“政府机器显然被政治武器化,针对我的家人”。

    “尽管如此,我们从未停止信任总统;我们知道他绝不会容忍这种不公,”卡普托在申请270万美元赔偿金的信中补充道。

    特朗普的助手和盟友为该基金辩护,称这是一项迟来的努力,旨在弥补那些在他们看来出于政治动机的联邦调查中遭受个人和经济损失的人。他们坚称,无论政治派别如何,任何人都可以被纳入考虑范围。一些人还认为,这兑现了特朗普在竞选期间许下的誓言,即为“那些遭受不公和背叛的人”寻求“报复”。

    尽管如此,该举措还是在政府内部一些部门引发了不安,尤其是随着反对声浪愈演愈烈。批评人士将其视为总统利用国家法律机构实现政治目的的最新且最大胆的尝试,就连国会山上的特朗普盟友也呼吁对赔偿款设置限制。

    据一名知情人士透露,美国国税局从一开始就认为特朗普对该机构的诉讼站不住脚,可能在法庭上遭到质疑。该人士表示,国税局法律顾问办公室的律师起草了一份辩护备忘录,列出了该案的重大缺陷,包括诉讼时效和管辖权问题。

    “司法部甚至都不想看这份备忘录或这些论点,”该人士说。目前尚不清楚司法部是拒绝接收该备忘录,还是在财政部发送后置之不理。

    该人士补充说,该案原本不太可能在法庭上成立:“基本上,从一开始就被司法部操纵了。”美国国税局未回应置评请求。

    随后匆忙设立该基金作为诉讼和解的一部分,引发了两党连日来的严密审查。这让一些政府官员担心,在选民自身经济困境加剧之际,这项可能让人脉广泛的特朗普盟友获利的举措会带来政治后果。

    与此同时在国会山,多名共和党议员对该举措引发的越来越多的反对声感到震惊,他们公开反对该基金,或承诺在其付诸实施前将其彻底扼杀。由于在如何限制该基金的问题上存在激烈分歧,参议院周四突然取消了一项重大移民执法法案的投票并休会。

    “我们必须彻底弄清这到底是什么、资金来源是什么,才能阻止或逆转它,”宾夕法尼亚州共和党众议员布莱恩·菲茨帕特里克周三表示。他随后在给代理司法部长托德·布兰奇的一封信中抨击该基金“严重削弱了我们机构的透明度,违背了对美国纳税人的承诺”。

    白宫将有关该基金的问题转交司法部处理。司法部发言人拒绝就“特朗普总统可能或不可能讨论过的任何基金”置评,转而援引司法部的一份情况说明书,称该基金“旨在为所有遭受法律战和武器化伤害的美国人寻求问责”。

    布兰奇在周三接受CNN采访时驳斥了对该举措的批评。

    “没有什么值得愤怒的,”他说,“愤怒是因为我们做了一件完全合法、符合法律规定且以前也曾做过的事情。”

    尽管如此,据知情人士透露,即便在司法部内部,该基金的起源也仍是一个谜,大多数工作人员都被排除在流程之外,直到该计划被公开报道后才得知此事。

    关于1月6日骚乱者的资格问题并非唯一悬而未决的争议。另一名知情人士表示,其他人质疑负责该基金的五人委员会将由谁来任命,以及他们可以在多大程度上独立运作。司法部的协议条款允许特朗普随时解雇委员会成员。

    本周,该基金的其他不寻常细节和潜在利益冲突也在华盛顿法律辩护界引发了关注。设立该基金的文件由副司法部长斯坦利·伍德沃德签署,他此前曾代表多名1月6日骚乱被告以及因阻碍国会定罪入狱的白宫顾问彼得·纳瓦罗。

    一些曾代理可能符合该基金资格的被告的律师表示,他们不明白该基金如何能通过法律审查。但他们也质疑,鉴于司法部的设立结构,寻求废除该基金的联邦诉讼是否可行——该基金完全属于行政部门管辖范围,委员会的决定没有额外的复审途径。

    不过,一些人还是发起了挑战:两名在1月6日保卫国会大厦的执法人员周三就该基金提起诉讼。他们要求华盛顿联邦法院阻止司法部设立该基金,阻止财政部将联邦资金用于该基金,并禁止任何赔偿款支付。该诉讼仍处于最初阶段。

    为换取特朗普撤回对国税局的100亿美元诉讼而匆忙设立该基金的决定,也引发了内部警报;负责该案的法官已经质疑该诉讼的合法性,并暗示她计划做出不利于总统的裁决。据报道,财政部首席律师布莱恩·莫里西在该基金宣布当天辞职,但他未就辞职原因公开置评。

    布兰奇周三坚称,索赔申请将受到严格审查,并明确表示,寻求赔偿的1月6日骚乱者的行为将被纳入考量。

    “这不是一个‘你会发财’的流程,”他说。

    尽管如此,特朗普官员还是拒绝阻止哪怕是国会大厦骚乱中的暴力参与者提出申请。总统本人本周为该基金辩护,尽管他声称对该基金知之甚少,并再次抱怨拜登政府,这也是他广泛的报复运动的核心诉求。

    特朗普去年采取的多项行动,是由竞选顾问与他们的赔偿基金提案共同制定的,当时他们正在制定一项“反武器化”议程。其中包括:特朗普赦免数千名1月6日骚乱者,以及对一系列政治对手展开调查,这些调查涉及过去对俄罗斯干预大选的调查以及特朗普本人试图推翻2020年大选的行为。

    蒂金表示,尽管如此,为受助者争取赔偿的呼声仍作为一项首要目标在特朗普盟友中不断升温。过去一年里,蒂金和其他代表1月6日骚乱支持者的律师经常向官员们提出这一想法。现任美国赦免律师埃德·马丁在竞选期间也在基金讨论中发挥了核心作用,他在入职司法部后仍在推动此事。

    就职典礼前几天在海湖庄园的一次活动中,由已故保守派活动家柯克领导的一群盟友直接向特朗普提出了这一诉求。据一名熟悉讨论的人士透露,柯克表示,那些听从他的呼吁在1月6日前往华盛顿的支持者受到了虐待,权利遭到侵犯,现在他们理应获得“赔偿”。

    参会的其他人也对这一想法表示支持。特朗普没有立即表明态度,但到那时,盟友们已经就该基金的具体细节思考了数月。两名知情人士透露,一些保守派律师甚至找到了一项奥巴马时期的先例,他们认为这可以使该想法合法化并赋予其法律地位。

    近一年半后,司法部高级官员在起草这项18亿美元基金的细节时,援引了同一先例——即“凯普西格尔案和解协议”。批评人士表示,这两项基金完全不同,指出针对部落组织的凯普西格尔基金源于更传统的集体诉讼和解,处于法官监督之下。

    尽管如此,据熟悉讨论的人士透露,特朗普政府官员认为这项举措比凯普西格尔案更完善,因为条款规定任何剩余资金都将返还给纳税人。凯普西格尔案和解协议涉及针对美国政府歧视原住民农民的指控,并没有这样的条款。最初6.8亿美元和解金中的3.8亿美元未被提起诉讼的农民群体认领,于是为第三方组织设立了一项基金。

    据消息人士透露,特朗普政府官员对反武器化基金引发的反对声感到措手不及。布兰奇周三坚称,向那些“武器化”受害者——可能失去工作或支付了高昂律师费的人——支付赔偿的想法应该会广泛受到纳税人的欢迎。

    “我认为美国民众对此没有意见,”他说,“恰恰相反,我认为他们确实希望将税款用于这类事情。”

    CNN记者勒内·马什、凯特琳·波兰茨和蒂尔尼·斯尼德为本报道撰稿。

    How the anti-weaponization fund evolved from a 2024 Trump campaign idea into a reality

    2026-05-21T19:29:03.599Z / CNN

    As Donald Trump plotted his return to the White House in late 2023, a group of campaign advisers began working on a plan to compensate political allies they believed were unfairly targeted by the federal government, two people familiar with the deliberations told CNN.

    The team spent months on the proposal in the lead-up to Trump’s election. But there was a major roadblock: they couldn’t find a viable funding source for the payouts. So, the advisers shelved the plan.

    Then Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against his own IRS started to flounder and the long-dormant campaign idea was suddenly revived. As part of the settlement of that suit, the administration created an unprecedented legal initiative that could funnel nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to Trump friends and supporters.

    “The concept was always there, but the question mark was the funding,” said one of the people familiar with the deliberations. “But along comes this case and it’s like, hey wait a minute, there it is.”

    The Justice Department’s fund is now poised to dole out hefty sums to those deemed victims of “lawfare and weaponization,” with few apparent limits on who is eligible and for what perceived offenses. It will draw on money from an obscure account that officials located within the Treasury Department originally meant for settling lawsuits filed against the government.

    The initiative has already sparked fierce blowback, even from fellow Republicans — a development administration officials had not adequately anticipated, sources familiar with the planning said.

    The potential for Trump allies to reap significant windfalls has already touched off wrangling within the president’s circle over who should be first in line — or be cut out completely. In private discussions, some advisers have pushed for clear eligibility limits, over fears that rioters in the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack who were convicted of assaulting police officers will secure payouts.

    But others — including conservative activist Charlie Kirk before his death last year, according to a source familiar with the discussions — have pushed for casting a wide net that includes the January 6 rioters who Trump and some around him view as an essential element of his MAGA base. Now, hundreds of Trump supporters who participated in the Capitol attack have already been advised to apply for compensation, said Peter Ticktin, a lawyer and longtime Trump ally who represents many of those who were prosecuted for their roles in the riot.

    Close advisers and aides to Trump may also qualify based on federal scrutiny they received as part of a years-old investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. On Tuesday, former Trump official Michael Caputo cited that probe in filing the first known claim to the fund, writing that “the machinery of government was clearly politically weaponized against my family.”

    “Despite this, we never stopped trusting the President; we knew he would never let this injustice stand,” Caputo added in a letter seeking $2.7 million in restitution.

    Trump aides and allies have defended the fund as a long-overdue effort to make amends with people who suffered personally and financially from federal investigations they view as politically motivated. They’ve insisted that anyone can be considered, regardless of their political affiliation. And, some argued, it’s the fulfillment of Trump’s campaign-trail vow to seek “retribution” for “those who have been wronged and betrayed.”

    Still, it’s sparked unease within some corners of the administration, especially as the backlash has grown more severe. Critics view it as the president’s latest and most audacious attempt to use the nation’s legal apparatus to accomplish his political aims, and even Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill are calling for guardrails on the payouts.

    The IRS believed from the outset that the president’s lawsuit against the agency was weak and could be challenged in court, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. Lawyers in the IRS counsel’s office prepared a defense memorandum outlining significant flaws in the case, including statute of limitations and jurisdictional issues, that person said.

    “DOJ didn’t even want to see the memo or the arguments,” the source said. It’s unclear whether DOJ declined to receive the memo or ignored it after Treasury sent it.

    The case likely would not have held up in court, that person added: “Basically, it was fixed from the start by DOJ.” The IRS did not respond to a request for comment.

    The subsequent rush to create the fund as a settlement to that lawsuit has prompted days of intense scrutiny on both sides of the aisle. That’s left some administration officials bracing for political fallout over an initiative that could enrich well-connected Trump allies at the same time voters’ own financial struggles are intensifying.

    On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers alarmed by the widening blowback over the initiative are publicly opposing the fund or pledging to simply kill it before it can get off the ground. The Senate abruptly canceled votes on a major immigration enforcement package and recessed Thursday due to heated disagreements over how to rein in the fund.

    “We gotta unpack exactly what it is, what the source of the funding is, in order to stop it and/or reverse it,” GOP Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania said Wednesday. He later blasted the fund in a letter to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche as “a dangerous backsliding in the transparency of our institutions and our commitment to the American taxpayer.”

    The White House referred questions about the fund to the Justice Department. A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on “any discussions President Trump may or may not have had about any fund,” pointing instead to a DOJ fact sheet that described the fund as “about seeking accountability for all Americans who were victims of lawfare and weaponization.”

    In a CNN interview on Wednesday, Blanche dismissed criticism of the initiative.

    “There’s nothing to be outraged about,” he said. “The outrage is [over] us doing something that is completely legal, allowed under our laws, and has been done before.”

    Still, the fund’s origins remained a mystery on Thursday even to staffers within the Justice Department, most of whom were cut out of the process and only learned about the scheme when it was publicly reported, sources familiar with the matter said.

    The disagreement over the eligibility of certain January 6 rioters isn’t the only unsettled issue. Others have questioned who will staff the five-member commission in charge of the fund and how independently they’ll be allowed to run it, a source familiar with the matter said. The terms of the Justice Department’s deal allow Trump to fire commission members at any time.

    And other unusual details and potential conflicts of interest surrounding the fund have also raised eyebrows across Washington’s legal defense community this week. Documents creating the fund were signed by associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who previously represented both several former January 6 riot defendants and White House adviser Peter Navarro, who was convicted of obstruction of Congress and served time in prison.

    Some attorneys who had represented defendants who might be eligible for the fund said they didn’t understand how it could pass legal muster. But they also questioned whether federal lawsuits seeking to dismantle the fund could be viable given how DOJ structured it — it falls solely under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and the commission’s decisions have no avenue for additional review.

    Some are mounting challenges anyway: Two law enforcement officers who defended the Capitol on January 6 sued over the fund on Wednesday. They asked the federal court in Washington to block the Justice Department from establishing the fund, prevent the Treasury Department from allowing federal money to be used for it and prohibit any payments. The lawsuit is in its earliest stage.

    The hasty decision to create the fund in exchange for Trump dropping a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS has also raised internal alarms; the judge in the case had already questioned the suit’s validity and signaled she planned to rule against the president. And Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s top lawyer, reportedly resigned the day the fund was announced, though he has not publicly commented on his reasoning.

    Blanche on Wednesday insisted that claims would be closely scrutinized — and specified that the conduct of Jan. 6 rioters seeking compensation would be taken into consideration.

    “This is not a ‘you’re going to get rich’ process,” he said.

    Trump officials have nevertheless declined to discourage even violent participants in the Capitol attack from applying. The president himself defended the fund this week even as he claimed to know little about it, reiterating complaints about the Biden administration that have driven his wide-ranging retribution campaign.

    Several actions Trump has taken in the last year were developed by campaign advisers alongside their proposal for a compensation fund as they built out an “anti-weaponization” agenda. Among them: Trump’s pardoning of thousands of Jan. 6 rioters and investigations into a range of political foes related to past probes into Russian election interference and Trump’s own attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

    Through it all, though, the push for payouts continued to percolate among Trump’s allies as a top objective. Ticktin and other lawyers representing January 6 supporters had frequently raised the idea with officials over the last year, Ticktin said. Ed Martin, the current US pardon attorney, also played a central role in discussions on the fund during the campaign. He continued pushing for it once installed within the Justice Department.

    In one episode at Mar-a-Lago just days before inauguration, a group of allies led by Kirk, the assassinated conservative activist, brought the pitch directly to Trump. The supporters who heeded his call to come to Washington on Jan. 6 had had been mistreated and had their rights abused — and now they deserved “reparations,” as Kirk put it, according to a person familiar with their discussion.

    Others at the table also expressed support for the idea. Trump didn’t immediately indicate how he felt, but by that time allies had ruminated on the specifics of such a fund for months. Some conservative lawyers even identified an Obama-era precedent they believed could legitimize the idea and give it legal standing, two people familiar with the matter said.

    Nearly a year-and-a-half later, top Justice Department officials cited the same precedent, known as the Keepseagle settlement, as they drew up details of the $1.8 billion fund. Critics have said the two funds are completely different, noting that the Keepseagle fund for tribal organizations sprung out of a more traditional settlement for a class action suit that fell under a judge’s oversight.

    Still, Trump administration officials thought this effort had improved on Keepseagle because the terms stated any extra money would be sent back to the taxpayers, according to a source familiar with the discussions. The settlement in the Keepseagle case — which concerned allegations of government discrimination against Native American farmers — had no such terms. Instead, a fund was created for third-party organizations when $380 million of the original $680 million settlement went unclaimed by the class of farmers that brought the suit.

    Trump administration officials were largely caught off guard by the blowback to the anti-weaponization fund, sources said. Blanche insisted Wednesday that the idea of payouts to people who were “victims” of “weaponization” — who might have lost a job or had to pay exorbitant legal fees — should be broadly popular with taxpayers.

    “I don’t think the American people have an issue with that,” he said. “To the contrary, I think they do want their tax dollars spent on things like that.”

    CNN’s Rene Marsh, Katelyn Polantz and Tierney Sneed contributed to this report.

  • 伊朗与阿曼讨论建立霍尔木兹海峡长期收费系统


    2026年5月22日 00:01 / 联合早报

    5月21日,伊朗阿巴斯港附近霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 (路透社)

    伊朗正与阿曼讨论建立某种永久性收费体系,以正式确立对霍尔木兹海峡海上通行的控制。

    伊朗驻法国大使穆罕默德·阿明-内贾德(Mohammad Amin-Nejad)星期三(5月20日)在巴黎接受彭博采访时说:“伊朗和阿曼必须调动所有资源,才能做到既提供安全服务,又能以最适当的方式管理航运。”

    他通过翻译用波斯语说:“这中间肯定涉及成本,这是不言而喻的,希望从这条航道获益的人必须承担自己的份额。该体系将是透明的。如果今天人们希望局势改善,就必须找到解决问题的办法。”

    阿曼政府暂未回应置评请求。

    霍尔木兹海峡北接伊朗、南临阿曼,连接波斯湾与印度洋,平时承担全球约五分之一的石油和液化天然气运输量,同时也是铝和化肥等大宗商品的重要运输通道。

    阿明-内贾德坚称,海峡通行并未完全中断,他还在未提供证据的情况下声称,在伊斯兰革命卫队协助下,星期二至星期三总计有26艘油轮及其他船只完成通行。

    这一数字对近几周而言已属异常高位,但仍远低于战前日均约135艘船的水平。

    阿明-内贾德将通行减少归咎于高昂的保险成本,但航运公司指出,真正的问题在于导弹和无人机袭击风险,以及触碰水雷的危险。多数航运公司称,在战争结束前不会派船穿越海峡。

    阿明-内贾德淡化了伊朗与阿拉伯联合酋长国和沙特阿拉伯之间的紧张关系。彭博此前报道称,在停火前,这两个国家曾分别秘密袭击伊朗,反击伊朗向它们以及卡塔尔、巴林等国发射数千架无人机和导弹的行为。

    阿明-内贾德说:“对我们而言,最痛苦、最艰难的时刻是我们别无选择、不得不打击那些位于此类国家境内的军事基地时。一旦战争结束,长期积累的误解很容易得到解决。”

    伊朗与阿曼讨论建立霍尔木兹海峡长期收费系统

    2026年5月22日 00:01 / 联合早报

    5月21日,伊朗阿巴斯港附近霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 (路透社)

    伊朗正与阿曼讨论建立某种永久性收费体系,以正式确立对霍尔木兹海峡海上通行的控制。

    伊朗驻法国大使穆罕默德·阿明-内贾德(Mohammad Amin-Nejad)星期三(5月20日)在巴黎接受彭博采访时说:“伊朗和阿曼必须调动所有资源,才能做到既提供安全服务,又能以最适当的方式管理航运。”

    他通过翻译用波斯语说:“这中间肯定涉及成本,这是不言而喻的,希望从这条航道获益的人必须承担自己的份额。该体系将是透明的。如果今天人们希望局势改善,就必须找到解决问题的办法。”

    阿曼政府暂未回应置评请求。

    霍尔木兹海峡北接伊朗、南临阿曼,连接波斯湾与印度洋,平时承担全球约五分之一的石油和液化天然气运输量,同时也是铝和化肥等大宗商品的重要运输通道。

    阿明-内贾德坚称,海峡通行并未完全中断,他还在未提供证据的情况下声称,在伊斯兰革命卫队协助下,星期二至星期三总计有26艘油轮及其他船只完成通行。

    这一数字对近几周而言已属异常高位,但仍远低于战前日均约135艘船的水平。

    阿明-内贾德将通行减少归咎于高昂的保险成本,但航运公司指出,真正的问题在于导弹和无人机袭击风险,以及触碰水雷的危险。多数航运公司称,在战争结束前不会派船穿越海峡。

    阿明-内贾德淡化了伊朗与阿拉伯联合酋长国和沙特阿拉伯之间的紧张关系。彭博此前报道称,在停火前,这两个国家曾分别秘密袭击伊朗,反击伊朗向它们以及卡塔尔、巴林等国发射数千架无人机和导弹的行为。

    阿明-内贾德说:“对我们而言,最痛苦、最艰难的时刻是我们别无选择、不得不打击那些位于此类国家境内的军事基地时。一旦战争结束,长期积累的误解很容易得到解决。”

  • 伊朗与阿曼讨论建立霍尔木兹海峡长期收费系统


    2026年5月22日 00:01 / 联合早报

    5月21日,伊朗阿巴斯港附近霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 (路透社)

    伊朗正与阿曼讨论建立某种永久性收费体系,以正式确立对霍尔木兹海峡海上通行的控制。

    伊朗驻法国大使穆罕默德·阿明-内贾德(Mohammad Amin-Nejad)星期三(5月20日)在巴黎接受彭博采访时说:“伊朗和阿曼必须调动所有资源,才能做到既提供安全服务,又能以最适当的方式管理航运。”

    他通过翻译用波斯语说:“这中间肯定涉及成本,这是不言而喻的,希望从这条航道获益的人必须承担自己的份额。该体系将是透明的。如果今天人们希望局势改善,就必须找到解决问题的办法。”

    阿曼政府暂未回应置评请求。

    霍尔木兹海峡北接伊朗、南临阿曼,连接波斯湾与印度洋,平时承担全球约五分之一的石油和液化天然气运输量,同时也是铝和化肥等大宗商品的重要运输通道。

    阿明-内贾德坚称,海峡通行并未完全中断,他还在未提供证据的情况下声称,在伊斯兰革命卫队协助下,星期二至星期三总计有26艘油轮及其他船只完成通行。

    这一数字对近几周而言已属异常高位,但仍远低于战前日均约135艘船的水平。

    阿明-内贾德将通行减少归咎于高昂的保险成本,但航运公司指出,真正的问题在于导弹和无人机袭击风险,以及触碰水雷的危险。多数航运公司称,在战争结束前不会派船穿越海峡。

    阿明-内贾德淡化了伊朗与阿拉伯联合酋长国和沙特阿拉伯之间的紧张关系。彭博此前报道称,在停火前,这两个国家曾分别秘密袭击伊朗,反击伊朗向它们以及卡塔尔、巴林等国发射数千架无人机和导弹的行为。

    阿明-内贾德说:“对我们而言,最痛苦、最艰难的时刻是我们别无选择、不得不打击那些位于此类国家境内的军事基地时。一旦战争结束,长期积累的误解很容易得到解决。”

    伊朗与阿曼讨论建立霍尔木兹海峡长期收费系统

    2026年5月22日 00:01 / 联合早报

    5月21日,伊朗阿巴斯港附近霍尔木兹海峡的船只。 (路透社)

    伊朗正与阿曼讨论建立某种永久性收费体系,以正式确立对霍尔木兹海峡海上通行的控制。

    伊朗驻法国大使穆罕默德·阿明-内贾德(Mohammad Amin-Nejad)星期三(5月20日)在巴黎接受彭博采访时说:“伊朗和阿曼必须调动所有资源,才能做到既提供安全服务,又能以最适当的方式管理航运。”

    他通过翻译用波斯语说:“这中间肯定涉及成本,这是不言而喻的,希望从这条航道获益的人必须承担自己的份额。该体系将是透明的。如果今天人们希望局势改善,就必须找到解决问题的办法。”

    阿曼政府暂未回应置评请求。

    霍尔木兹海峡北接伊朗、南临阿曼,连接波斯湾与印度洋,平时承担全球约五分之一的石油和液化天然气运输量,同时也是铝和化肥等大宗商品的重要运输通道。

    阿明-内贾德坚称,海峡通行并未完全中断,他还在未提供证据的情况下声称,在伊斯兰革命卫队协助下,星期二至星期三总计有26艘油轮及其他船只完成通行。

    这一数字对近几周而言已属异常高位,但仍远低于战前日均约135艘船的水平。

    阿明-内贾德将通行减少归咎于高昂的保险成本,但航运公司指出,真正的问题在于导弹和无人机袭击风险,以及触碰水雷的危险。多数航运公司称,在战争结束前不会派船穿越海峡。

    阿明-内贾德淡化了伊朗与阿拉伯联合酋长国和沙特阿拉伯之间的紧张关系。彭博此前报道称,在停火前,这两个国家曾分别秘密袭击伊朗,反击伊朗向它们以及卡塔尔、巴林等国发射数千架无人机和导弹的行为。

    阿明-内贾德说:“对我们而言,最痛苦、最艰难的时刻是我们别无选择、不得不打击那些位于此类国家境内的军事基地时。一旦战争结束,长期积累的误解很容易得到解决。”

  • 第七、八位法官驳回司法部获取选民名册请求,此次涉及缅因州和威斯康星州


    2026年5月21日 / 美国东部时间下午3:19 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻

    华盛顿讯——美国司法部周四在从二十多个州获取敏感选民信息的行动中遭遇第七起和第八起败诉,联邦法官驳回了司法部要求获取缅因州和威斯康星州选民名册的诉讼。

    在缅因州案件中,美国首席地区法官兰斯·沃克批准了驳回司法部诉讼的请求,该诉讼试图迫使州政府官员交出缅因州完整的选民登记名单,其中包括出生日期、驾照号码和部分社保号码。

    沃克是第七位驳回特朗普政府获取各州选民名册行动的法官。但美国地区法官詹姆斯·彼得森很快成为第八位,他同意驳回司法部针对威斯康星州获取选民信息的诉讼。

    司法部试图获取亚利桑那州、加利福尼亚州、马萨诸塞州、密歇根州、俄勒冈州和罗得岛州选民登记名单的行动也均告失败。

    在长达22页的判决书中,由特朗普首任任期内任命的沃克写道,司法部无权强制获取缅因州的选民名册。他驳回了政府声称《民权法案》以及两项选举法案——《帮助美国投票法》和《全国选民登记法》要求该州将选民名册移交给司法部的主张。

    沃克表示,上述选举法案“并未考虑向司法部长提交未经编辑的电子化名单,以便他能够监督州选举官员并指出并要求纠正名单中的不准确之处”。

    《帮助美国投票法》和《全国选民登记法》要求各州维护准确且最新的全州电子化选民登记名单。

    该法官还表示,将《民权法案》解释为“隐含赋予美国政府随时获取每一份全州选民登记名单的权利,以便对州政府遵守《帮助美国投票法》和《全国选民登记法》的情况进行全面、逐行审计”,这将“彻底破坏国会最初要求各州创建并维护在册选民电子化名单时所确立的权力平衡”。

    司法部去年首次向缅因州和威斯康星州索要选民登记名单,以核实其是否遵守《帮助美国投票法》和《全国选民登记法》。

    但在两州官员拒绝提供未经编辑版本的选民名册后,特朗普政府提起诉讼,指控这两州违反了上述两项选举法案以及《民权法案》的一项条款。在州政府官员拒绝移交选民名册后,司法部总共已对30个州和哥伦比亚特区提起诉讼。

    在驳回针对缅因州的司法部诉讼时,沃克写道,如果接受政府对民权法案的解释,他将不得不“对传统的联邦制原则以及这些原则如何在美国选举中体现——也就是国会制定《全国选民登记法》和《帮助美国投票法》的背景——视而不见”。

    在威斯康星州案件中,由前总统巴拉克·奥巴马任命的彼得森表示,选民登记名单并非必须根据《民权法案》提交的文件。

    司法部获取各州选民名册的行动似乎是特朗普计划加强联邦对选举控制的一部分。这位总统曾多次声称美国选举存在广泛舞弊,但未提供任何证据。

    7th and 8th judges rebuff Justice Department’s attempts to get voter rolls, this time from Maine and Wisconsin

    May 21, 2026 / 3:19 PM EDT / CBS News

    Washington — The Justice Department on Thursday suffered its seventh and eighth losses in its efforts to obtain sensitive voter information from more than two dozen states, with federal judges dismissing its lawsuits seeking access to Maine’s and Wisconsin’s voter rolls.

    In the Maine case, Chief U.S. District Judge Lance Walker granted requests to toss out the Justice Department’s suit, which sought to force state officials to hand over Maine’s complete voter registration list, including birth dates, driver’s license numbers and partial Social Security numbers.

    Walker was the seventh judge to reject the Trump administration’s efforts to obtain states’ voter rolls. But U.S. District Judge James Peterson soon became the eighth when he agreed to dismiss the Justice Department’s lawsuit seeking voter information from Wisconsin.

    Attempts to secure voter registration lists from Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island have also been unsuccessful.

    In his 22-page decision, Walker, who was appointed by President Trump in his first term, wrote that the Justice Department cannot compel access to Maine’s voter rolls. He rejected the administration’s claim that the Civil Rights Act and two voting laws, the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act, required the state to turn over its voter rolls to the Justice Department.

    The voting laws, Walker said, “do not contemplate production of the unredacted computerized list to the Attorney General so that he might loom over the shoulder of the state election official to point out and demand the correction of inaccuracies in the list.”

    The Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act require states to maintain computerized statewide voter registration lists that are accurate and current.

    The judge also said that construing the Civil Rights Act “to implicitly provide the United States a right to every [statewide voter registration list] on demand for purposes of conducting a comprehensive, line-by-line audit of the state’s compliance with HAVA and the NVRA would take a sledgehammer to the balance Congress struck when it required states to create and maintain computerized lists of registered voters in the first place.”

    The Justice Department first sought a copy of Maine and Wisconsin’s voter registration lists last year to ensure compliance with the Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act.

    But after officials from the two states refused to share unredacted versions of their voter rolls, the Trump administration sued, alleging violations of the two voting laws and a provision of the Civil Rights Act. The Justice Department has filed lawsuits against 30 states in all and the District of Columbia after state officials declined to turn over their voter rolls.

    In dismissing the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Maine, Walker wrote that accepting the government’s interpretation of the civil rights law would require him to “turn a blind eye to traditional principles of federalism and how those principles have found expression in American elections — the backdrop against which Congress enacted the NVRA and HAVA.”

    In the Wisconsin case, Peterson, appointed by former President Barack Obama, said that voter registration lists are not documents that must be produced under the Civil Rights Act.

    The attempts to secure states’ voter rolls appear to be part of Mr. Trump’s plan to assert more federal control over elections. The president has repeatedly raised allegations of widespread fraud in U.S. elections, though without offering any evidence.

  • 美国最高法院就古巴没收资产案对邮轮运营商作出不利裁决


    2026-05-21 14:27:40 / reuters.com

    2026年5月18日,美国最高法院预计将在华盛顿特区发布待决上诉案件的裁决结果。路透社/伊夫林·霍克斯坦/资料图

    • 摘要
    • 相关企业
    • 邮轮运营商面临总计4.4亿美元的联合赔偿判决
    • 它们被指控使用了被卡斯特罗领导的古巴政府没收的码头
    • 裁决发布之际正值美古关系的敏感时刻

    华盛顿5月21日电 —— 美国最高法院周四对四家美国邮轮运营商作出不利裁决,这些运营商此前对总计4.4亿美元的联合赔偿判决提出上诉,理由是它们被指控非法使用古巴前领导人菲德尔·卡斯特罗领导的共产党政府于1959年没收的码头。

    大法官们以8比1的投票结果,推翻了下级法院驳回对嘉年华邮轮(CCL.N)、挪威邮轮控股公司(NCLH.N)、皇家加勒比邮轮(RCL.N)和地中海邮轮公司的赔偿判决的裁定。这四家邮轮运营商被一家名为哈瓦那码头公司的美国企业起诉,该公司曾在古巴革命前建造了这些港口设施。

    通过《每日案卷》新闻简报接收每日最新法律资讯,直达您的收件箱。点击此处订阅

    哈瓦那码头公司依据《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》提起诉讼。这项1996年通过的法律允许在古巴拥有财产的美国国民起诉任何“在1959年1月1日或之后被古巴政府没收的财产进行交易的人”。

    周四的裁决发布之际,美古关系正处于格外敏感的时期。美国周三宣布对古巴前总统劳尔·卡斯特罗——菲德尔的弟弟——提起谋杀指控,这是唐纳德·特朗普总统对古巴共产党政府施压运动的一次重大升级。

    在特朗普执政期间,美国实际上对古巴实施了封锁:威胁对向古巴提供燃料的国家实施制裁,导致古巴断电,并加剧了该国数十年来最严重的危机。

    哈瓦那码头公司于20世纪初在哈瓦那港口建造了码头,并一直要求邮轮公司赔偿,因为它们的船只使用了被没收的码头设施。该公司曾从古巴政府获得为期99年的哈瓦那港口码头建设和运营特许权。

    上台后不久,卡斯特罗将包括哈瓦那码头公司在内的美国企业所持有的财产收归国有并予以没收。古巴从未向哈瓦那码头公司支付过任何赔偿。

    虽然《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》最初主要授权针对古巴政府及其国有企业提起诉讼,但它也为像美国邮轮公司这类在古巴开展业务的国际企业设定了潜在的法律责任。

    特朗普掀起诉讼浪潮

    两党的美国总统都曾选择暂停《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的一项关键条款,这意味着私人诉讼无法推进。但特朗普在2019年第一任期内取消了这项暂停令,掀起了美国法院针对古巴国有企业和少数被指控在没收财产交易中违规的美国企业的诉讼浪潮。

    这四家邮轮运营商从2016年到2019年使用了这些码头,此前巴拉克·奥巴马总统放宽了对古巴的旅行限制。这些公司在联合法庭文件中表示,要求它们“为遵循行政部门重启对古巴旅行的政策而支付数亿美元赔偿”是违背常识的。

    美国一名法官在2022年裁定,邮轮公司的船只停靠该码头的行为构成财产交易违规,并对四家公司各自判处超过1亿美元的赔偿判决。

    总部位于亚特兰大的美国第十一巡回上诉法院去年驳回了这些赔偿判决,理由是哈瓦那码头公司的特许权已于2004年到期,远早于邮轮公司使用这些设施的时间。

    “当该特许权在2004年到期时,哈瓦那码头公司凭借该特许权拥有的任何财产权益都随之终止,”第十一巡回法院写道。该法院补充道,因此邮轮公司在2016年至2019年的行为并不构成对哈瓦那码头公司没收财产的交易。

    保守派大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯代表最高法院撰写判决意见称,第十一巡回法院的裁决与《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》的明确文本相悖。

    自由派大法官埃琳娜·卡根在异议意见中写道,她的同僚们才是误读了该法案的文本。

    卡根写道,“哈瓦那码头公司所拥有的只是允许其在特定期限内使用这些码头的财产权益”,而周四的裁决将“允许原告就并非属于其所有的财产的交易索赔”。

    哈瓦那码头公司和邮轮运营商要么没有立即回复置评请求,要么拒绝置评。

    第十一巡回法院的裁决是美国法院为《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》索赔设置障碍的案例之一。大多数此类案件都因管辖权或程序原因被驳回。

    最高法院于2月听取了该案件的辩论。同一天,大法官们还就另一桩涉及《赫尔姆斯-伯顿法案》诉讼的案件听取了辩论——埃克森美孚(XOM.N)起诉古巴国有企业Corporación CIMEX,要求赔偿卡斯特罗1959年没收该美国能源公司在古巴全部油气资产造成的损失。

    最高法院预计将于下月底前对埃克森美孚案作出裁决。

    简·沃尔夫报道;威尔·邓纳姆编辑

    US Supreme Court deals setback to cruise operators over Cuba confiscations

    2026-05-21 14:27:40 / reuters.com

    The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue orders in pending appeals, in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 18, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo

    • Summary
    • Companies
    • Cruise operators face $440 million in combined judgments
    • They were accused of using docks seized by Castro’s Cuba
    • Ruling comes at sensitive moment in US-Cuba relations

    WASHINGTON, May 21 – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a setback on Thursday to four American cruise operators that contested $440 million in combined judgments after being accused of unlawfully using docks in Cuba ​that were seized in 1959 by former leader Fidel Castro’s communist government.

    The justices, in an 8-1 ruling, set aside a lower court’s decision to throw out the ‌judgments against Carnival

    CCL.N, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings

    NCLH.N, Royal Caribbean Cruises

    RCL.N
    and MSC Cruises. The cruise operators were sued by a U.S. company called Havana Docks Corporation that had built the port facilities before the Cuban revolution.

    Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

    Havana Docks filed suit under the Helms-Burton Act, a 1996 law that allows U.S. nationals who owned property in Cuba to sue anyone who “traffics in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government on or after January 1, 1959.”

    Thursday’s ruling was ​issued at a particularly sensitive time in U.S.-Cuban relations. The United States on Wednesday announced murder charges against former Cuban President Raúl Castro, Fidel’s younger brother, in a major escalation in ​President Donald Trump’s pressure campaign against Cuba’s communist government.

    Under Trump, the United States has effectively imposed a blockade on Cuba by threatening sanctions on countries ⁠supplying it with fuel, triggering power outages and exacerbating its worst crisis in decades.

    Havana Docks built docks in Havana’s port during the early 20th century, and has sought compensation from the cruise ​lines because their ships have used the seized terminal. The company had a 99-year concession from Cuba’s government for the construction and operation of piers at the port of Havana.

    Shortly after coming to power, ​Castro nationalized and expropriated property held by U.S. companies including Havana Docks. Cuba has never paid any compensation to Havana Docks.

    While the Helms-Burton Act primarily authorized lawsuits against Cuba’s government and its state-owned enterprises, it also created potential liability for international businesses like the U.S. cruise lines that have done business in Cuba.

    TRUMP UNLEASHED WAVE OF LAWSUITS

    U.S. presidents of both parties opted to suspend a key provision of the Helms-Burton Act, meaning private lawsuits could ​not go forward. But Trump lifted that suspension in 2019 during his first term in office, unleashing a wave of litigation in U.S. courts against Cuban state-owned entities and a few American ​companies that were accused of trafficking in confiscated property.

    The four cruise operators used the docks from 2016 to 2019, after President Barack Obama had eased travel restrictions on Cuba. In a joint court filing, the companies ‌said it defies ⁠common sense that they “should pay hundreds of millions of dollars for following the executive branch’s lead in reopening travel to Cuba.”

    A U.S. judge in 2022 ruled that the cruise lines had engaged in trafficking by having their ships dock at the terminal and imposed judgments of more than $100 million against each of the four.

    The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out those judgments last year, focusing on the fact that the Havana Docks concession would have expired in 2004, well before the cruise lines used the facilities.

    “When that concession expired in 2004, any property interest that Havana Docks ​had by virtue of that concession ended,” the ​11th Circuit wrote. Thus, the conduct of ⁠the cruise lines from 2016 to 2019 did not constitute trafficking in the confiscated property of Havana Docks, it added.

    Writing for the Supreme Court, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas said the 11th Circuit’s decision was in conflict with the plain text of the Helms-Burton Act.

    In a dissent, liberal Justice Elena Kagan ​wrote that it was her colleagues who had misconstrued the statute’s text.

    Kagan wrote that “what Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing ​it to use those docks ⁠for a specified time,” and that Thursday’s decision will “allow plaintiffs to recover for trafficking in property that was not theirs.”

    Havana Docks and the cruise lines either did not immediately respond to requests for comment or declined to comment.

    The 11th Circuit’s decision was one of several from U.S. courts that have created barriers for Helms-Burton Act claimants. Most of these cases have been dismissed on jurisdictional or procedural grounds.

    The Supreme Court ⁠heard arguments ​in the case in February. On the same day, the justices also heard arguments in another case involving Helms-Burton Act litigation – ​ExxonMobil’s

    XOM.N
    lawsuit seeking compensation from Cuban state-owned firm Corporación CIMEX in light of Castro’s confiscation of all of the U.S. energy company’s oil and gas assets in Cuba in 1959.

    The Supreme Court is expected to rule in the Exxon case by ​the end of next month.

    Reporting by Jan Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham

  • 新闻


    【视频】李资政参访上海机器人孵化器 体验导盲机器人

    2026年5月21日 23:17 / 联合早报

    国务资政李显龙(左三),星期四(5月21日)下午参观上海人形机器人创新孵化器时,亲自体验机器人的导盲功能。 (海峡时报)

    正在中国访问的国务资政李显龙,星期四(5月21日)下午到访上海人形机器人创新孵化器,了解中国机器人初创企业最新发展。

    这个孵化器成立于2024年,是中国首家垂直人形机器人赛道的专业孵化平台,目前入驻孵化器的初创企业达32家。

    在约一个小时的参访中,李资政在孵化器董事长汪兵的陪同下,了解不同细分领域机器人的应用情况,并与机器人互动。

    国务资政李显龙(左一)对着摄像头摆出手势,体验灵巧手操作。(海峡时报)

    https://www.zaobao.com.sg/163ae169-2011-4036-b74d-24b7d5c7fd7c

    其中,一款名为AILOOK的导盲机器人引起李资政关注。他详细询问机器人如何识别方向、是否已投入量产、预计何时上市以及售价等情况,并亲自体验机器人导盲功能。

    开发这款机器人的盲人工程师朱清毅介绍,产品预计今年8月上市,售价约六七千美元(约7680新元至8960新元)。李资政听后笑着说:“价格不算高,比导盲犬更划算。”

    盲人工程师朱清毅(左一)举起导盲机器人,向国务资政李显龙(右三)展示它如何通过多传感器融合感知周围环境。机器人随后语音播报前方人群的衣着与外貌特征,引得现场一阵笑声。(海峡时报)

    李资政也详细了解孵化器的运营模式,询问入驻企业如何筛选、是否需缴纳租金、可获得哪些补助,以及扶持资金主要来自哪些机构等。

    上海人形机器人创新孵化器董事长汪兵(前排右一)向国务资政李显龙(前排右二)介绍一个人形机器人展开后的316个零部件。(海峡时报)

    李资政上一次访问上海是在2024年11月。此次访沪期间,他还将与上海市长龚正会面。李资政将于星期五(22日)傍晚结束访华行程,返回新加坡。

    【视频】李资政参访上海机器人孵化器 体验导盲机器人

    2026年5月21日 23:17 / 联合早报

    国务资政李显龙(左三),星期四(5月21日)下午参观上海人形机器人创新孵化器时,亲自体验机器人的导盲功能。 (海峡时报)

    正在中国访问的国务资政李显龙,星期四(5月21日)下午到访上海人形机器人创新孵化器,了解中国机器人初创企业最新发展。

    这个孵化器成立于2024年,是中国首家垂直人形机器人赛道的专业孵化平台,目前入驻孵化器的初创企业达32家。

    在约一个小时的参访中,李资政在孵化器董事长汪兵的陪同下,了解不同细分领域机器人的应用情况,并与机器人互动。

    国务资政李显龙(左一)对着摄像头摆出手势,体验灵巧手操作。(海峡时报)

    https://www.zaobao.com.sg/163ae169-2011-4036-b74d-24b7d5c7fd7c

    其中,一款名为AILOOK的导盲机器人引起李资政关注。他详细询问机器人如何识别方向、是否已投入量产、预计何时上市以及售价等情况,并亲自体验机器人导盲功能。

    开发这款机器人的盲人工程师朱清毅介绍,产品预计今年8月上市,售价约六七千美元(约7680新元至8960新元)。李资政听后笑着说:“价格不算高,比导盲犬更划算。”

    盲人工程师朱清毅(左一)举起导盲机器人,向国务资政李显龙(右三)展示它如何通过多传感器融合感知周围环境。机器人随后语音播报前方人群的衣着与外貌特征,引得现场一阵笑声。(海峡时报)

    李资政也详细了解孵化器的运营模式,询问入驻企业如何筛选、是否需缴纳租金、可获得哪些补助,以及扶持资金主要来自哪些机构等。

    上海人形机器人创新孵化器董事长汪兵(前排右一)向国务资政李显龙(前排右二)介绍一个人形机器人展开后的316个零部件。(海峡时报)

    李资政上一次访问上海是在2024年11月。此次访沪期间,他还将与上海市长龚正会面。李资政将于星期五(22日)傍晚结束访华行程,返回新加坡。

  • 新闻


    请您提供需要翻译的英文新闻文章,我会按照要求进行精准翻译。

    No English content available