DANY BLOG

ATLANTA (AP) — Federal judges around the country are scrambling to address a deluge of lawsuits fromimmigrantslocked up under the Trump administration'smass deportationcampaign.

Under past administrations, people with no criminal record could generally request a bond hearing before an immigration judge while their cases wound through immigration court unless they were stopped at the border. PresidentDonald Trump's White House reversed that policy in favor ofmandatory detention.

Immigrants by the thousands have been turning to federal courts by using another legal tool: habeas corpus petitions. While the administration scoreda major legal victoryFriday, here's a look at how that's affecting federal courts and what some judges have done in response:

Judges are raising the alarm

In one federal court district in Georgia, the enormous volume of habeas petitions has created "an administrative judicial emergency," a judge wrote in a court order on Jan. 29. U.S. District Judge Clay Land in Columbus said the Trump administration was refusing to provide bond hearings to immigrants at Georgia's Stewart Detention Center despite his "clear and definitive rulings" against mandatory detention. Instead, the court had to order the hearing in each individual case, wrote Land, a nominee of Republican President George W. Bush.

In Minnesota, where the administration'simmigration enforcement surgecontinues, U.S. DistrictChief Judge Patrick Schiltzsaid in a Jan. 26 order Trump officials had made "no provision for dealing with the hundreds of habeas petitions and other lawsuits that were sure to result." The court had received more than 400 habeas petitions in January alone, according to a filing by the government in a separate case.

Schiltz, who was also nominated by Bush, said in a separate order two days later that the government since January had failed to comply with scores of court decisions ordering it to release or provide other relief to people arrested during Operation Metro Surge.

And in the Southern District of New York, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said in an opinion in December that the district had been "flooded" with petitions for relief from immigrants who posed no flight risk or danger but were nonetheless imprisoned indefinitely. Subramanian, who was nominated by President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and presides in New York City, granted a 52-year-old Guinean woman's habeas petition and ordered her release.

"No one disputes that the government may, consistent with the law's requirements, pursue the removal of people who are in this country unlawfully," he wrote. "But the way we treat others matters."

The administration defends its actions

TheDepartment of Homeland Securitysaid in a statement on Friday that the administration was "more than prepared to handle the legal caseload necessary to deliver President Trump's deportation agenda for the American people."

DHS and the Justice Department, which also emailed a statement, slammed the judiciary.

Advertisement

"If rogue judges followed the law in adjudicating cases and respected the Government's obligation to properly prepare cases, there wouldn't be an 'overwhelming' habeas caseload or concern over DHS following orders," the Justice Department statement said.

On Friday, a federal appeals court backed the administration's policy of detaining immigrants without bond. The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked a major legal victory for the government and countered a slew of recent lower court decisions that argued the practice was illegal.

Immigration attorneys accuse the administration of flouting a key court decision

In November, a federal judge in California ruled that the Trump administration's mandatory detention policy was illegal. U.S. District Judge Sunshine Sykes in Riverside, who was also nominated by Biden, later expanded the scope of the decision to apply to detained immigrants nationwide.

But plaintiffs' attorneys said the administration continued to deny bond hearings.

"This was a clear cut example of blatant defiance, blatant disregard of a court's order," Matt Adams, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Associated Press in January.

According to Sykes, the government argued her decision was "advisory" and told immigration judges, who work for the Justice Department and are not part of the judicial branch, to ignore it. The judge said she found the latter instruction "troubling."

In its statement, DHS said "activist judges have attempted to thwart President Trump from fulfilling the American people's mandate for mass deportations."

Judges are trying to find ways to ease the burden

Land, the federal judge in Georgia, directed other judges in his district to immediately order the government to provide bond hearings to immigrants who meet criteria established by two previous habeas cases.

Maryland District Court Chief Judge George L. Russell III has ordered the administration not to immediately remove any immigrants who file habeas petitions with his court, under certain conditions. Russell, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, said in an amended order in December that the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that "resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings."

In Tacoma, Washington, U.S. District Judge Tiffany Cartwright ordered the administration last month to give immigrants detained at a processing center in Tacoma notice of her ruling that the mandatory detention policy was illegal. Cartwright, who was also nominated by Biden, said the high volume of habeas filings had put a "tremendous strain" on immigration attorneys and the court.

Lawyers for the Venezuelan men who were sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador last year argued in court Monday that due process for their clients would mean giving them the immediate right to return to the U.S. for a court hearing, or have remote hearings about their cases.

The men, who were detained by federal immigration authorities, were held for four months in the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, aSalvadoran megaprisonknown for its harsh conditions. They were sent back to Venezuela in July as part of a prisoner swap between the two nations, andhave said they suffered physical and psychological abuse while imprisoned in CECOT.

In December, a federal judge ruled the Trump administration should not have sent the 137 Venezuelan men to CECOT after invoking the Alien Enemies Act, finding that the men were denied due process.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the federal government to either facilitate the return of the men to the United States or otherwise follow due process and provide them with hearings. The men are now living in Venezuela or in nearby countries.

Lee Gelernt, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who is representing the plaintiffs in this case, argued Monday that his clients who have made it out of Venezuela and to a third country should have the immediate right to either return to the U.S. for a hearing, have a remote hearing, or at the very least be able to file habeas claims on paper.

For those still in Venezuela, a paper filing is probably the best place to start given the turmoil in the South American country, the lawyer said.

Boasberg asked Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis why the 137 men shouldn't be treated the same asKilmar Abrego Garciaand returned to the U.S., especially because the Supreme Court previously ordered Abrego returned to the same condition he was in before he was mistakenly deported.

"Obviously, if the court ordered that, we could do that," Davis said. He said trying to coordinate remote hearings, for legal, jurisdictional, and practical reasons, would be the "worst" option.

Davis said the Trump administration would prefer if any of the 137 individuals arrived at a U.S. port of entry or had boarding letters, saying "that is the least problematic" pathway here.

Gelernt and Davis both agreed that these individuals, if they were to present themselves at a port of entry, would not be allowed into the U.S. freely. They would be taken into U.S. custody and their individual immigration proceedings would continue from there, Davis said.

Boasberg said he would rule on how the government is to proceed within the next week or so.

The men were sent to CECOT in March after Trumpinvoked the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law,declaring the Venezuelan gangTren de Aragua an invading force.Their removal to El Salvador cameeven as Boasberg, in a ruling at the time,blocked the deportations and ordered any flights carrying migrants subject to the presidential invocation to return to the United States.

Trump said heinvoked the Alien Enemies Actto target members of the gang, which the administration deems a foreign terrorist organization and accuses of engaging in "mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens." By invoking the law, Trump was able to swiftly detain and remove immigrants he claimed were members of the gang at the time.

The men who spoke to NBC News,as well as the families of former detainees and their attorneys,strongly denied any ties to gangs and said they were unfairly targeted because oftattoos that may be popular in Venezuela and are unrelated to Tren de Aragua.

A New York Times investigation, which relied on interviews with prosecutors and law enforcement officials as well as court documents and media reports in multiple countries, found that most of the men sent to CECOT did not have criminal records in the United States or in the region. It found at least 32 of the more than 200 men sent to CECOT, including the 137 under the Alien Enemies Act, faced serious criminal accusations or convictions in the United States or abroad. Very few of them appeared to have any documented evidence connecting them to Tren de Aragua.

Three of the Venezuelan men told NBC Newsafter their release from CECOT and return to Venezuela that they experienced physical and psychological torture, including one man's allegation that he was sexually assaulted at the prison.

After what's felt like weeks of the same old weather, a pattern shift will bring some changes this week. Here's what we have our eye on.

1. Warmth Finally Spreads

The West and Plains have been enjoying the warmth recently, while the Midwest, Southeast and East have been shivering. We should finally see some relief from the cold in the Midwest and Southeast. Last weekend, Florida saw below freezing temperatures. But this week, they're forecast to see 70s and 80s. Much of the South will see highs in the 60s or 70s, while parts of the lower Midwest could see high temperatures in the 40s, 50s, even 60s.

2. Welcomed Mountain Snow Returns To The West

While the Northeast and Midwest, and even the South, have gotten their fair share of snow this season, theWest is still far behind their average snowfall totals. Fortunately for them, that will change this week. While accumulations will be modest, much of the Mountain West should at least see their first fresh snowfall in some time.

3. Valentine's Weekend Concerns?

In a very broad sense, computer forecast models are suggesting an increased chance of rain, perhaps thunderstorms in the South late in the week into Valentine's weekend. But they're currently far apart on the details, including where the rain and storms may be, and if there may be any strong to severe storms.

They're also not clear if any moisture will stream north into colder air to produce any ice, sleet or snow next Friday into the weekend.

It's fairly common for forecast models to struggle in winter this far out in time. So, check back with us at weather.com for updates to this forecast in the days ahead.

(MAPS:Daily US Forecast Rain, Snow)

Why This Is Happening

All these changes are due to a shift in the upper-level pattern. This week, a trough dominates the East, while a ridge dominates the West. That will shift this week, with a trough in the West and a ridge in the East.

This pattern shift in the upper level brings a change in wind directions. The Midwest and South will see winds coming from warmer temperatures further south, including bringing moisture from the Gulf into the Southeast.

Meanwhile, the West will see colder air coming from the North, as well as a low pressure system associated with rain and snow.

Miriam Guthrie graduated from the Georgia Institute of Technology with an undergraduate degree in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and is now a meteorology intern with weather.com while working toward her master's.

A small plane collided with several cars after making a crash landing on Feb. 9 in Georgia, local authoritiesannounced. Two people were taken to the hospital in connection with the incident.

The pilot made an emergency landing in the middle of a roadway in Gainesville, Georgia, after the plane experienced a mechanical failure, according to Gainesville Fire spokesperson Joshua Sheridan. The pilot and a passenger onboard were uninjured. The two motorists were taken to a local hospital as a precaution, Sheridan said.

Videoof the emergency landing shows the plane hit the ground in the middle of the roadway and twist at high speed into traffic. Photossharedby police show the single-engine plane stopped between a Pizza Hut and Golden Corral.

The front of the plane appeared dented in the video, and a propeller blade was twisted. An SUV in one of the photos from the scene had its front bumper knocked off.

USA TODAY has reached out to Gainesville police for more information.

The crash happened near the intersection of Browns Bridge Road and Pearl Nix Parkway in Gainesville, about 50 miles northeast of Atlanta, police said. The city ofnearly 50,000is the seat of Hall County.

Two people were taken to the hospital with minor injuries after a small plane crashed into cars while making an emergency landing on a road in Gainesville, Georgia, police said.https://t.co/Wk2ww5qZ9kpic.twitter.com/eHe8xolzRY

— ABC News (@ABC)February 9, 2026

ABC News shared footage of the crash on social media.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Small plane crashes into vehicles after emergency landing on roadway

NEW YORK (AP) — One year after the Trump administration took control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the consumer watchdog has largely retreated from enforcement and regulatory work, changes that consumer advocates and Democrats now estimate have cost Americans at least $19 billion in financial relief.

In a report provided to The Associated Press ahead of its release by the office of Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday, the authors say the CFPB harmed consumers by abandoning major consumer protections, stalling investigation and dismissing a number of lawsuits.

"Trump's attempt to sideline the CFPB has cost families billions of dollars over the last year alone," said Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, as well as one of the bureau's fiercest defenders in Congress.

The administration and congressional Republicans have argued that the bureau needed to be downsized and reined in because it had grown too large and overreaching.

The administration assumed control of the CFPB in February 2025 after Rohit Chopra, the bureau's director under President Joe Biden, resigned, leaving White House budget director Russell Vought as acting director. Since then, few new investigations have been opened,many employees have been ordered not to workand several pending enforcement actions against financial companies have been dropped.

The White House announced in April that it wanted to reduce the Bureau's staff from 1,689 positions to 207 positions, but that move has beenblocked by courts. Even if the employees' union does succeed in its lawsuit against Vought, Congress cut the bureau's budget by roughly half in Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It's unlikely that all of those employees will still have their jobs once all litigation is settled.

"The CFPB may still be standing, but it's essentially on life support," said Chuck Bell, advocacy program director at Consumer Reports, in a statement. Consumer Reports put out its own data Monday that arrives at similar conclusions as Warren's office.

A spokeswoman for the CFPB did not respond to a request for comment.

One form of relief the report said consumers were denied was a limit on overdraft fees, which the Biden CFPB finalized in 2024 but the Republican-led Congress overturned last year. That would have saved consumers $5 billion a year, according to the Bureau's estimates at the time.

The bureau also tried to cap the amount of money consumers pay to credit card companies when they pay their bills late. That would have saved Americans roughly $10 billion, according to Bureau estimates when the rule was proposed. The regulation was blocked by a federal court last year, and the bureau, under the control of the Trump administration, decided not to fight the lawsuit in court.

Another roughly $4 billion in consumer relief would have come from a series of lawsuits or settlements that were dismissed by the bureau under Acting Director Vought. For example, the bureau sued Capital One in January 2025 for $2 billion, days before President Trump was to be sworn into office, alleging that Capital One has misrepresented the interest rate paid on its savings accounts to customers. That lawsuit was dismissed.

The bureau also sued Early Warning Systems, the company that runs the money transfer service Zelle, in December 2024 for $870 million alleging that the EWS and the banks that operate Zelle were negligent in protecting consumers from fraud and scams. That lawsuit was also dismissed last year.

There's also been a slowdown in the number of complaints resolved by the bureau as well. The CFPB runs its own consumer complaint database, where a consumer can allege wrongdoing by their bank or financial services company and the bureau will act as intermediary between the consumer and financial company to resolve the complaint. Under the Biden CFPB, roughly half of all consumer complaints were resolved with relief for the consumer, whereas under the Trump CFPB, that figure has dwindled to less than 5%.

The independent Government Accountability Office made public a separate report Monday outlining its attempts to keep track of the Trump administration's reorganization and restructuring of the CFPB. The GAO said it received no cooperation from the White House or the bureau, and the GAO needed to rely on mostly public records to produce its report. In a response to the GAO, the CFPB cited ongoing litigation between its employees and management as the primary reason why it could not cooperate.

The GAO's report largely matches what has been documented in news reports that the bureau has cancelled dozens of enforcement actions against alleged wrongdoers, unwound rules and regulations that previous bureau management said would protect consumers or bring them financial relief. There have been even rules and regulations enacted during President Trump's first term that have been targeted by the bureau's current management.

Mark Paoletta, the bureau's chief legal officer and effectively its deputy director under Vought, called the GAO's report "biased and flawed" in a letter to the agency did not raise any specific issues with its conclusions, other than to say the GAO was working with incomplete information.

LONDON (AP) — King Charles III is ready to "support'' UK police examining claims that the former Prince Andrew gave confidential information to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Buckingham Palace said on Monday.

The statement came after Thames Valley Police said Monday that they were"assessing" reports that theformer prince, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor,sent trade reports to Epstein in 2010. The department, which serves an area west of London that includes Mountbatten-Windsor's former home, previously said it was evaluating allegations that Epstein flew a young woman to Britain to have sex with Andrew, also in 2010.

"The King has made clear, in words and through unprecedented actions, his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor's conduct,'' the palace said in a statement. "While the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley Police we stand ready to support them as you would expect.''

The statement is just the latest effort by the palace to distance the royal family from Mountbatten-Windsor as the U.S. Justice Department's release of more than 3 million pages of documents from its investigation into Epstein reveal more embarrassing details about the relationship between the two men. Earlier in the day, Prince William and Princess Catherine released their own statement saying they have been "deeply concerned" by recent revelations.

The palace also reiterated Charles and Queen Camilla's concern for the victims of Epstein's abuse.

"As was previously stated, Their Majesties' thoughts and sympathies have been, and remain with, the victims of any and all forms of abuse,'' the palace said.

The jeopardy faced by the royal family could be seen Monday when Charles visited Lancashire, in northwest England. While most of the crowd clapped, cheered and waved flags, one person shouted, "How long have you known about Andrew?"

Concerns about Mountbatten-Windsor's links to Epstein have dogged the royal family for more than a decade.

The late Queen Elizabeth II forced her second son to give up royal duties and end his charitable work in 2019 after he tried to explain away his friendship with Epstein during a catastrophic interview with the BBC. After more details about the relationship emerged in a book published last year, Charles stripped him of the right to be called a prince and ordered him to move out of a royal residence close to Windsor Castle.

But the Justice Department documents have brought new attention to Mountbatten-Windsor as reporters home in on dozens of email exchanges between Epstein and the former prince, many of which took place after the financier was convicted of soliciting a minor for prostitution in 2008.

Correspondence unearthed in recent days appear to show that Mountbatten-Windsor sent Epstein copies of his reports from a 2010 tour of Southeast Asia, which he undertook as Britain's envoy for international trade. An earlier email appears to show Andrew sharing his itinerary for the two-week trip to Hanoi, Saigon, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong with Epstein.

"We can confirm receipt of this report and are assessing the information in line with our established procedures," Thames Valley police said in a statement released on Monday.

Adding to the storm, a U.S.-based attorney said on Feb. 1 that he represented a woman who alleges Epstein flew her to Britain to have sex with Mountbatten-Windsor. The encounter took place at Royal Lodge, the former prince's longtime home in Windsor, the attorney said in an interview with the BBC.

Police previously said they were assessing this report.

The king last week forced Mountbatten-Windsorto move out of Royal Lodge months ahead of schedule. Anger over Mountbatten-Windsor's living arrangements had grown amid concern that he was still reaping rewards from his status as a royal even though he is no longer a working member of the royal family.

Mountbatten-Windsor is now living on theking's Sandringham estate in eastern England. He will live temporarily at Wood Farm Cottage while his permanent home on the estate undergoes repairs. Unlike Royal Lodge, which is owned by the crown and managed for the benefit of taxpayers, Sandringham is owned privately by the king.

Thames Valley Police began its latest inquiry after Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchy group Republic, reported Mountbatten-Windsor for suspected abuse of public office and violations of Britain's Official Secrets Act.

Smith, whose group seeks to replace the king with an elected head of state, compared Mountbatten-Windsor's correspondence with Epstein to earlier revelations about Peter Mandelson, Britain's former ambassador to the U.S., who is already the subject of a police investigation into whether he shared sensitive information with Epstein. Those communications were also revealed in the Justice Department documents.

"I cannot see any significant difference between these allegations and those against Peter Mandelson," Smith said on social media.

NEW YORK (AP) — Nurses and two major hospital systems in New York City have reached a deal to end anearly monthlong strikeover staffing levels, workplace safety, health insurance and other issues.

The tentative agreement announced Monday by the nurses' union involves the Montefiore and Mount Sinai hospital systems. Nurses remain on strike at NewYork Presbyterian.

The walkout began Jan. 12, prompting the hospitals to scramble to hire legions of temporary nurses to fill in duringa demanding flu season.

The union said members at Montefiore and Mount Sinai hospitals will vote this week on whether to ratify the contracts and return to work.

The three-year deal affects roughly 10,500 of the some 15,000 nurses on strike at some of the city's biggest private, nonprofit hospitals.

"For four weeks, nearly 15,000 NYSNA members held the line in the cold and in the snow for safe patient care," Nancy Hagans, president of the New York State Nurses Association, said in a statement. "Now, nurses at Montefiore and Mount Sinai systems are heading back to the bedside with our heads held high."

The nurses union said the tentative agreement calls for a 12% pay raise over the life of the contract, as well as maintains nurses' health benefits with no additional out-of-pocket costs.

In addition, the proposed pact includes new protections against workplace violence, including specific protections for transgender and immigrant nurses and patients, as well as provisions addressing artificial intelligence in hospitals, the union said.

Nurses at Montefiore and Mount Sinai hospitals will vote to ratify their contracts starting Monday, the union said. If the tentative contract agreements are ratified, nurses will return to work on Saturday.

Advertisement

Mount Sinai said it would comment later on the deal while a Montefiore spokesperson declined to comment other than to say its nurses are expected to vote Wednesday.

Meanwhile, NewYork-Presbyterian said it agreed over the weekend to a proposal presented by mediators that includes pay raises, preserves nurses' pensions, maintains their health benefits and increases staffing levels. The union reiterated that the strike remains in effect at NewYork-Presbyterian hospitals.

The affected hospitals have insisted theiroperations are running smoothlyduring the walkout, with organ transplants, cardiac surgeries and other complex procedures largely uninterrupted. Many of the medical centers, however, canceled scheduled surgeries, transferred some patients and discharged others ahead of the strike.

The striking nurses priorities vary by hospital, but staffing has generally been a central issue. Nurses complained of being overworked, saying the hospitals held out for weeks on committing to more manageable patient loads. The union said Monday that the tentative agreements would increase staffing and otherwise address those concerns.

The hospitals and nurses also have been at odds over benefits, and the union sought workplace security upgrades and restrictions on the use ofartificial intelligence. Hospital staffers' longstanding security concerns flared into public view when agunman entered Mount Sinaiin November and a manholed up in a Brooklyn hospitalwith a sharp object last month. Police killed both men.

The hospitals said the union's demands were exorbitant. They say unionized nurses' salaries already average $162,000 to $165,000 a year, not including benefits.

The nurses and their political allies, including New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, countered that top hospital executivesmake millions of dollars a year.

Not every hospital in the three health care systems was affected by the strike, nor were any city-run public hospitals. Other private hospitals reached last-minute deals with the union.

Nurses staged a three-day strike in 2023 in the Mount Sinai and Montefiore systems. They ultimately inked contracts that raised pay 19% over three years and sought to make staffing improvements enforceable by allowing for extra pay if nurses worked short-handed.