All Eyes
on Trump.

The changes apply to goods entered for consumption or withdrawn from warehouses beginning at 12:01 a.m. EDT on October 30. They do not repeal the broader Canada tariff program: covered products remain subject to the additional 50% duty, and the proclamation says those duties apply on top of applicable Section 232 tariffs. Reuters reported that Maine Senator Susan Collins had urged the White House to address tariffs affecting businesses and farmers in her state and praised the relief; her Democratic opponent Troy Jackson criticized the tariff policy. Canada's trade minister said Ottawa was assessing the change and remained willing to work toward a mutually beneficial relationship. The signed proclamation says the modification follows information and recommendations from senior executive-branch officials and serves the public interest. It does not say that the November 3 election or Collins's campaign motivated the action, so the political-timing context is attributed to Reuters rather than stated as a finding.

The majority said the government failed to make the two threshold showings required to rely on § 12406(3): authority to execute the laws with regular military forces and inability to do so with those forces. It also held that conditions in Los Angeles did not support a colorable determination of a rebellion or danger of rebellion under § 12406(2). The panel therefore affirmed the order barring deployment in Los Angeles and directing return of Guard control to Governor Gavin Newsom. Judge Eric Miller, a Trump appointee, joined Judge Jennifer Sung's majority opinion; Judge Mark Bennett dissented, arguing that the panel should not have resolved the appeal in its procedural posture and disputing the majority's ultra vires and Tenth Amendment analyses. A related order denied the administration's request to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of the initial-federalization injunction but granted dismissal of a separate appeal concerning later extension orders. California officials praised the decision. The White House did not immediately respond to the San Francisco Chronicle. The administration may seek rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court review; no such later order was identified during the Ledger's review.

The majority said the petitioners received the process Congress provided for applicants for admission and that dangerousness and flight risk do not determine whether detention is authorized under § 1225(b)(2)(A). It also held that the detention duration presented no constitutional issue warranting habeas relief on the records before it. The court ordered the mandate to issue immediately. Judge Leslie Southwick, joined by five judges, dissented and argued that people who have lived in the country for years retain a due-process right to seek release; Judge Catharina Haynes separately agreed with Southwick's basic points while limiting her analysis to people like the three petitioners. Separate dissents led by Judges Dana Douglas and Stephen Higginson challenged the majority's constitutional and statutory analyses. Reuters reported that the Department of Homeland Security called the decision a victory for mandatory detention, while an attorney for the petitioners said it could result in unnecessary confinement. The ruling controls the three consolidated appeals and is binding within the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Reuters reported that the Supreme Court has agreed to consider a related statutory question; that is distinct from the constitutional question decided here. Later rehearing or Supreme Court review remains possible, but no later order was identified during the Ledger's review.

The panel reversed the district court's denial of the organizations' preliminary-injunction motion and sent the motion back for further consideration. It did not decide whether the administration's policy violates the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the Administrative Procedure Act, and it did not itself impose an injunction or restore the prior sensitive-locations guidance. Judge Florence Pan, joined by Judge Robert Wilkins, wrote the majority opinion. Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the organizations had not clearly shown that restoring earlier guidance would change enforcement practices and therefore had not established redressability. The Justice Department had argued that the organizations needed specific evidence of an imminent operation at an individual congregation. The administration may continue contesting standing and the merits in further proceedings; no later district-court injunction or appellate order was identified during the Ledger's review.

Trump said he had not taken sides, described Lula as someone he likes and gets along with, and criticized the tabulation and two-hour extension. Reuters reported his allegation as unsupported by evidence. The same report says Bolsonaro had not commented publicly after his party recognized the result and agreed to comply with a federal-police order to surrender his passport. Bolsonaro's initial annulment demand therefore remains a political statement, not a granted motion or judgment. On Reuters' earlier investigation, the White House declined comment and State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott defended U.S. counter-narcotics and free-speech actions without answering the specific questions about alleged election-related directives. Public records confirm the sanctions, tariffs and gang designations but do not establish Reuters' reported internal electoral purpose.