A lawyer for Mahmoud Khalil, the first noncitizen activist arrested in the Trump administration crackdown on pro-Palestinian speech, called his client’s immigration proceedings “preordained and a complete sham” after it was revealed that the case was prioritized to be fast-tracked.

“These revelations make clear that this case has been controlled from day one by higher-ups in the administration,” said Marc Van Der Hout, an attorney on Khalil’s legal team, in a statement. “The immigration judge was hand-picked and the Board of Immigration Appeals decision was predetermined. We will continue to fight for Mahmoud in every court we can.”

In April, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a “final” administrative removal order for Khalil in an abnormally quick decision after multiple judges reportedly recused themselves from the case. The BIA is a part of the US justice department but is required by law to consider cases independently. However, internal board documents obtained by The New York Times indicated that the case had been flagged as a high priority and expedited – leading to accusations from Khalil’s team that the Trump administration put its thumb on the scale to make an example of him.

Khalil’s removal order came within nine days of final briefing; such appeals decisions typically take years.

“This story proves that the Trump administration’s treatment of my case has always been corrupt and retaliatory,” Khalil said on X after the New York Times report. “They put me through a sham immigration process while guaranteeing the outcome in advance.”

On a separate legal track, in January, a split panel of the third circuit court of appeals overturned the district court ruling that freed Khalil from detention last year. That lower court decision found that Khalil’s detention and attempts to deport him, on grounds that his activism while a student at Columbia University posed a threat to US foreign policy interests, were likely unconstitutional.

The appeals court ruling did not weigh in on constitutional issues, but held that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the case. Khali’s attorneys asked the full appeals court to reconsider the decision, and are awaiting a ruling.

Depending on the outcome of the third circuit case, Khalil could be expelled from the US, even if his attorneys ask the supreme court to weigh in.

Khalil, who was raised in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, is a legal US permanent resident married to a US citizen. He was arrested in New York in March 2025 for his advocacy at Columbia for Palestinian rights and swiftly sent to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Louisiana, where he was held for 104 days. During that time, his wife gave birth to their first child – who is now one year old.

He was released in June last year, after a federal judge ruled his detention unconstitutional, finding that Khalil was neither a flight risk nor a community threat. Donald Trump called Khalil a “Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student” and a “terrorist sympathizer” and Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, said that Khalil’s presence in the US would have “adverse foreign policy consequences”. After his detention and amid public outcry, the Trump administration also claimed that his green card application contained ommisions. Earlier this year, the administration claimed he would be deported to Algeria.

In another lawsuit that scrutinized the administration’s policy to deport pro-Palestinian scholars for their views, a federal judge last year accused the government of “an unconstitutional conspiracy to pick off certain people” that violated the first amendment to the US constitution.

Donald Trump has once again nominated Cameron Hamilton to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) after Hamilton was previously fired for publicly opposing plans to abolish the agency.

Hamilton was dismissed last year from his role as acting administrator of the disaster relief agency after testifying before a House appropriations subcommittee. During the hearing, he said: “I do not believe it is in the best interests of the American people to eliminate the Federal Emergency Management Agency.”

Since returning to office last January, Trump has repeatedly moved to cut the agency, while vowing to shift greater responsibility for disaster preparedness to state and local governments. Kristi Noem, then homeland security secretary who oversaw a broad restructuring of Fema, echoed that approach, saying: “I think the president recognizes that Fema should not exist the way that it always has been.”

However, recent shifts suggest the administration may be backing away from its earlier vows to abolish Fema entirely. Following Noem’s ouster over the summer and the appointment of Markwayne Mullin as new homeland security secretary, more than a dozen Fema employees who had previously criticized the Trump administration and its cuts were reinstated last month.

Hamilton previously led the agency from January to May of last year and, if confirmed, would return to oversee a significantly reduced workforce amid growing staff frustration over the administration’s decisions.

In a statement on Monday, Shana Udvardy, senior climate resilience policy analyst at Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), said: “President Trump is revealing his chaotic governing style by nominating a candidate who was fired last year and who lacks the experience and qualifications for the job as required under law.”

She added: “Hamilton is now back as a nominee to lead an agency that has been depleted by thousands of job cuts, unstable leadership and resource reductions, leaving Fema less prepared to confront more frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-fueled disasters. Congress should press him for answers that the American public needs, with the safety and well-being of communities on the line.”

Amazon said it plans to stop selling certain high-speed electric bicycles in California after a string of high-profile incidents and a consumer alert that the state attorney general issued last month.

In April an 81-year-old man in Orange county died after a teenager illegally riding an e-motorcycle struck him. The teen’s mother, Tommi Jo Mejer, has since been charged with involuntary manslaughter in Ed Ashman’s death as officials say she was warned it was illegal for her son to operate the vehicle.

Just before that incident, state attorney general Rob Bonta and several county district attorneys put forth a consumer alert about the safety laws related to ebikes. Vehicles with two wheels that can exceed 28mph using pedal assistance or can exceed 20mph with throttle assistance are considered mopeds or motorcycles rather than ebikes, the alert stated.

The alert warned that retailers were marketing two-wheeled vehicles as electric bicycles when they did not qualify as such. Mopeds and motorcycles have age limits and require special licensing.

“Sometimes, what looks like an ebike or is marketed as an ebike is not a bike at all. We are seeing a surge of safety incidents on our sidewalks, parks and streets,” Bonta said.

Amazon said the retailer is working to remove listings for ebikes or e-motorcycles that do not comply with California regulations.

KCRA 3 reported finding vehicles listed as ebikes that could exceed 40mph(65km/h). The outlet said that after contacting Amazon, the company removed the listings and said it would require third-party companies selling ebikes to follow state laws and company policy.

Todd Spitzer, the Orange county district attorney who charged Mejer, praised the development and noted in a statement that last week a 13-year-old boy died after crashing an e-motorcycle he was riding.

“More than 100 deaths across the United States have resulted from ebike and E-motorcycle crashes and injuries have increased 430% in the last four years in southern California,” Spitzer said.

Virginia Democrats asked the US supreme court on Monday to revive a congressional map designed to boost their party’s chances in November’s midterm elections, turning to the court as Republicans – including allies of Donald Trump – seek to preserve narrow control of Congress.

The case thrusts Virginia into an unusual, mid-decade redistricting showdown, as courts weigh whether lawmakers can remake House districts outside the normal post-census cycle – with control of a narrowly divided Congress potentially hanging in the balance.

Virginia’s top court on 8 May threw out a new electoral map that had been crafted to flip four Republican-held US congressional seats to Democrats, dealing a setback to Democratic hopes of retaking the US House. Republicans also hold a majority in the US Senate.

In a four-three decision, the Virginia supreme court rejected a Democratic-backed ballot measure approved by voters in April that reconfigured the state’s US House map for partisan advantage.

Ruling in favor of a Republican challenge, the court’s majority found that Democratic lawmakers had not followed proper procedure last year when they rushed to approve the referendum in time to reach the ballot ahead of the November vote.

The Virginia Democrats, led by Don Scott, the Democratic speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, told the justices in a filing that the state court’s ruling has “deprived voters, candidates, and the Commonwealth of their right to the lawfully enacted congressional districts”.

The lawmakers cited a 2023 supreme court ruling that warned that state courts “may not transgress the ordinary bounds of judicial review such that they arrogate to themselves the power vested in state legislatures to regulate federal elections”.

In a process called redistricting, the boundaries of legislative districts across the US are reconfigured to reflect population changes as measured by the national US census every 10 years. Redistricting traditionally has been carried out by state legislatures at the start of each new decade.

In the unusual mid-decade redistricting fight, Republicans now hold a clear advantage. The tit-for-tat battle began last year when Trump pushed Texas Republicans to rip up their electoral map and draw new district lines that aim to flip up to five Democratic-held seats to Republicans.

Democrats suffered a major blow when the US supreme court’s conservative six-three majority gutted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republican-led southern states to dismantle Democratic-held majority-Black and majority-Latino districts. Black and Latino voters tend to support Democratic candidates.