In Arkansas next month, two supreme court justices are seeking re-election, sort of—neither is running for the seat they currently hold, but rather for each other’s seat on the bench.

Nick Bronni and Cody Hiland were both appointed to the state supreme court in late 2024 by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Technically, both were barred from running to keep their place on the court this year since the Arkansas constitution forbids officials who were appointed to fill a vacancy to then run for that position when it next appears on the ballot. But luckily for them, the timing of their appointments offered Bronni and Hiland a solution: Since they each faced this same predicament at the same time this year, they could just trade spots.

This game of musical chairs, while legal, has the effect of circumventing the constitution’s ban, which typically prevents gubernatorial appointees from reaping the benefits of incumbency before they’ve earned it from voters.

That provision was part of a constitutional amendment ratified by Arkansas voters in 1938. Known as Amendment 29, the measure followed several governors’ controversial appointments—including then-Governor Junius Marion Futrell’s 1933 appointment of a close political ally who rankled the legal establishment and then ran to keep his seat as chief justice.

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled House voted Wednesday to pass the SAVE America Act, a sweeping election bill that President Donald Trump is pushing Congress to enact.

The vote was 218-213, with Republicans unanimously voting in favor and all but one Democrat voting against it. The one Democrat voting yes was Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Texas.

The 32-page legislation would require states to obtain documentary proof-of-citizenship “in person,” such as an American passport or birth certificate, from someone in order to register them to vote in a federal election.

The bill, which was revised from an earlier version to include new demands from Trump, also requires voters to show photo identification in order to cast a ballot in person. And it slaps new rules for mail-in ballots, requiring voters to submit a copy of an eligible ID when requesting and casting an absentee ballot.

“It’s just common sense. Americans need an ID to drive, to open a bank account, to buy cold medicine, to file government assistance,” Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters. “So why would voting be any different than that?”

The House on Wednesday voted to block President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada, with six Republicans joining the Democrats in the symbolic rebuke.

The resolution to disapprove of the national emergency Trump declared to raise tariffs on Canada, was approved 219-211. Republican Reps. Kevin Kiley of California, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsyvania, Will Hurd of Texas and Dan Newhouse of Washington voted against the tariffs. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democrat to vote against the measure.

The resolution now goes to the Senate, where it could pass — the upper chamber has already approved two similar resolutions on Trump’s Canada tariffs with the support of four Republicans. But the president would certainly veto it, and Congress is unlikely to muster the two-thirds majority in both chambers needed to overturn a veto.

Even so, House Speaker Mike Johnson tried to block the vote from happening at all, fearing the political fallout for his GOP members. Trump’s tariffs have proven politically unpopular over the past year — a POLITICO poll even found that self-identified MAGA Republicans are split on them — and Democrats have overperformed in off-year and special election campaigns that have focused on affordability.

Republican leadership urged members to wait to weigh in on tariffs until the Supreme Court determines whether Trump overstepped his authority by implementing the tariffs, a ruling that could come as soon as next week.

Courts across the country have overwhelmingly rejected the Trump administration’s effort to round up thousands of immigrants and lock them up without a chance for bond — even if they have no criminal records and have lived in the United States for years.

But the Trump administration has slow-walked or outright defied judges’ orders demanding the release of people scooped up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement at an increasingly rapid clip.

Sometimes, ICE has raced detainees across state lines in ways judges say are designed to thwart legal proceedings. Other times, they’re detaining people for days or weeks after judges have ordered them released. ICE officials have at times ignored other arms of the federal government trying to ensure compliance with court orders. And sometimes the administration has given judges bad or incomplete information.

A POLITICO review of hundreds of cases brought by ICE detainees across the country shows judges increasingly furious and exhausted by the Trump administration’s tactics.

“There has been an undeniable move by the Government in the past month to defy court orders or at least to stretch the legal process to the breaking point in an attempt to deny noncitizens their due process rights,” U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, a Clinton appointee from Minnesota, said in a recent order.

President Trump threatened on Monday to block the opening of a new bridge between the United States and Canada if Canadian officials did not address a long and growing list of grievances, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two countries.

Amid a trade war and a deepening rift between the United States and its northern neighbor, Mr. Trump said that he would “not allow” the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, scheduled to open early this year for traffic between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, “until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them, and also, importantly, Canada treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve.”

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s largest business lobbying group, denounced the president’s threat in a statement, writing that “whether this proves real or simply threatened to keep uncertainty high — blocking or barricading bridges is a self-defeating move.”

It was not immediately clear how Mr. Trump would block the opening of the bridge. Its construction was paid for by Canada, and a public-private arrangement , under which Canada and Michigan would jointly operate the crossing, gives Michigan part ownership.

One possible avenue would be for Mr. Trump to declare an emergency. Under the law, Customs and Border Protection can temporarily close a port of entry “when necessary to respond to a specific threat to human life or national interests.” Mr. Trump has often invoked emergency statutes for events and circumstances that are largely considered routine to make use of the expanded authority that doing so grants him.

The Trump administration wants some of the world’s largest technology companies to publicly commit to a new compact governing the rapid expansion of AI data centers, according to two administration officials granted anonymity to discuss private conversations.

A draft of the compact obtained by POLITICO lays out commitments designed to ensure energy-hungry data centers do not raise household electricity prices, strain water supplies or undermine grid reliability, and that the companies driving demand also carry the cost of building new infrastructure.

The proposed pact, which is not final and could be subject to change, is framed as a voluntary agreement between President Donald Trump and major U.S. tech companies and data center developers. It could bind OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook parent Meta and other AI giants to a broad set of energy, water and community principles. None of these companies immediately responded to a request for comment.

The initiative, which the administration wants to roll out with a splashy White House event, has yet to be formally announced – and it remains unclear which companies have agreed to the compact or been invited to participate.

A judge on Monday blocked California from enforcing a new law sharply limiting when federal agents can wear masks while engaged in deportation operations.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder rejected the Trump administration’s claim that ICE agents need to wear masks to prevent doxing. However, in a 30-page decision, the judge said California’s “No Secret Police Act” appears to violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by discriminating against the federal government because the law’s provisions do not apply to state or local law enforcement officers.

“The Act treats federal law enforcement officers differently than similarly situated state law enforcement officers,” Snyder concluded.

But the judge also turned down the federal government’s request to block another California law aimed at abuses in immigration enforcement: the “No Vigilantes Act.” It requires most local, state and federal law enforcement personnel to display their name or badge number while on duty.

Snyder, a Clinton appointee based in Los Angeles, said that law is likely to pass constitutional muster because it applies more broadly, including to California officials. She also suggested the anti-masking law would be constitutional if it were broadened to cover state and local law enforcement as well.

The Justice Department is seeking to erase the criminal conviction of longtime Trump adviser Steve Bannon for defying a 2021 subpoena from congressional investigators probing his role in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

In a motion signed by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro — and without the signature of any career prosecutors — the Justice Department asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to dismiss the two-count indictment that DOJ brought against Bannon more than four years ago. Nichols, a Trump appointee, presided over a week-long jury trial of Bannon in 2022 that resulted in his conviction on criminal contempt charges.

Federal prosecutors brought those charges in November 2021 after the Democratic-led House voted to hold Bannon in contempt. The Jan. 6 select committee, convened that year by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, had subpoenaed Bannon to describe his contacts with key organizers of the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol that day. They also hoped to learn details about his contacts with President Donald Trump in his effort to subvert the results of the 2020 election.

The end of the case is, in some ways, symbolic. Bannon already served a four-month prison sentence in 2024 for his conviction on the charges. But he has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, which was awaiting a response from the Justice Department before Monday’s move by Pirro. If Nichols grants the motion to dismiss, it would likely end the pending Supreme Court case and erase Bannon’s jury conviction.

Solicitor General John Sauer confirmed this goal in a brief filing to the justices Monday.

Kyle Cheney
‪@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬

JUST IN: DOJ is trying to help Steve Bannon erase his conviction for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. Motion has no career prosecutor on it, just signed by US Attorney Pirro.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.237437/gov.uscourts.dcd.237437.207.0.pdf

A recent survey found that nearly half of Floridians are considering leaving the state due to cost-of-living concerns, with 80 percent of respondents citing concerns about housing affordability and over 40 percent stating they believe the so-called “American Dream” no longer exists.

Florida lawmakers have come up with a number of proposals to address affordability concerns, while another has garnered concerns that it could push more Floridians into poverty.

A panel of Florida lawmakers on Wednesday, for instance, advanced one bill (HB 221) that would allow certain types of workers to temporarily “opt out” of being paid minimum wage, despite critics warning the bill would open the floodgates to exploitation and legalize cheap labor.

Under the proposal, workers in Florida who are enrolled in an internship program, pre-apprenticeship, work-study program or “other similar work-based learning opportunity” would be allowed to sign a waiver opting out of being paid Florida’s minimum wage, at least temporarily. Adults would be permitted to waive their minimum wage rights for up to 252 days (or two college semesters), while minors under age 18 would be permitted to do so for 126 days (about one college semester).

Workers, under the proposal, would be able to opt out of being paid the Florida minimum wage of $14 an hour — equal to $29, 120 a year working full-time — but would need to be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. That wage floor hasn’t budged since 2009. Florida’s minimum wage, in contrast, is scheduled to rise to $15 an hour later this year as the result of a constitutional amendment that was approved by more than 6 million Florida voters in 2020.