The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a lawsuit over speech restrictions for immigration judges that touched on the rights of federal workers.

The justices overturned a lower-court ruling that had allowed the case to proceed and raised questions about whether a complaint system for federal employees is still working as intended after the Republican president fired some of its top officials.

Immigration judges are federal employees, unlike those in federal courtrooms. They want to sue over a policy restricting their public speeches that started in Trump's first term in office and continued under President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. The judges argue it is a free speech issue that belongs in federal court.

The Trump administration disagreed, saying the judges must instead take their dispute to the complaint system for federal employees overseen by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The court ruled on procedural grounds, but Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote to rebuke the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for responding to "political controversies of the day."

Tuesday's decision comes as the court weighs another lawsuit about Trump's power to fire heads of independent agencies. The outcome is also expected to affect firing power over Merit Systems Protection Board members.

The judges first sued in 2020, and the Supreme Court previously temporarily sided with them on an emergency basis in December 2025. A union said in a statement that the judges were disappointed by the decision, but the case is "far from over."

"Justice cannot endure when judges are intimidated into silence, nor can a nation remain free when the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of political ambition," the National Association of Immigration Judges said.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche applauded the decision, saying it "sends a clear message: lower courts must accept that the law is the law, no matter the 'political controversies of the day,'" he wrote in a social-media post.

The estranged husband of former Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon pleaded guilty Monday to embezzling more than 400,000 pounds ($540,000) from the Scottish National Party to fund a lavish lifestyle when he was its chief executive.

Peter Murrell, 61, who was remanded into custody in the High Court in Edinburgh after his plea, admitted he used the money to buy a motorhome, two cars and luxury goods.

"By embezzling from the SNP, Peter Murrell was stealing the hopes, the dreams and the aspirations of thousands of people all over Scotland, people who gave what they could over many years in the hope that it would help contribute to a better country," SNP leader John Swinney said at a press conference. "I am horrified, I am betrayed."

Murrell's plea caps a five-year police investigation and a tumultuous period for Scotland's dominant party and the former power couple once at its helm.

Following big gains for the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2021, signs of internal turmoil exploded less than two years later as questions swirled about the SNP's finances and dwindling membership numbers.

Sturgeon, who dominated Scottish politics for almost a decade, abruptly resigned as first minister of Scotland's semi-autonomous government in February 2023 after serving more than eight years in the role. Observers were bewildered by her announcement that she knew in her "head and in my heart" that it was the right time to go.

A month later, Murrell quit his job after two decades as party executive. He took responsibility for misleading the news media about the collapsing membership of the party.

Three weeks later, police showed up at the couple's Glasgow home and arrested Murrell.

Officers spent two days searching the house. They also searched SNP headquarters in Edinburgh and confiscated a luxury motorhome parked in the driveway at Murrell's mother's home north of the capital.

Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston said the investigation, which cost 2 million pounds ($2.7 million) in public funds, was lengthy and complex because Murrell covered his tracks over a 12-year period by cooking the books.

"Peter Murrell has shown utter contempt for the high public trust placed in him," Houston said. "He abused his privileged position with access to Scottish National Party funds to divert cash into his own accounts and bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford."

Sentencing was scheduled for June 23.

Police Scotland's investigation into how the SNP spent more than 600,000 pounds ($810,000) designated for a Scottish independence campaign cast a cloud over the party, Sturgeon and her legacy.

The former leader of a Minnesota nonprofit who was convicted for her role in a staggering $250 million fraud case that helped ignite a federal immigration crackdown should spend 50 years in prison, prosecutors argued in a court filing.

Aimee Bock, who ran the organization Feeding Our Future, which claimed it helped provide millions of meals to children in need during the pandemic, is set to be sentenced Thursday in federal court in Minneapolis. President Donald Trump used the fraud cases to initially justify a massive surge of federal officers to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area last winter, leading to a pushback by residents and the deaths of two people.

"Feeding Our Future operated like a cash pipeline, open to anyone willing to submit fraudulent claims and pay kickbacks," prosecutors said in the Monday filing. "The ripple effects of her actions are profound, immeasurable, and will have lasting consequences for both Minnesota and the nation."

Bock was convicted last year of multiple counts involving conspiracy, wire fraud and bribery. She has long insisted she is innocent.

Her lawyer, Kenneth Udoibok, argued in a separate filing that she shouldn't have to serve for more than 37 months in prison, saying she had provided information to investigators. He argued that Bock had been unfairly painted as the mastermind and insisted that two co-defendants were responsible for running the scams.

The nonprofit sat atop a fraud network that included a web of partner organizations, phony distribution sites, kickbacks and fake lists of children supposedly being fed, prosecutors say. Dozens of people, many from the state's large Somali community, have been convicted for their roles in a series of overlapping food fraud cases that have spent years in the courts.

Trump, who has long derided Somalis, last year blasted the state as "a hub of fraudulent money laundering activity." He also criticized the leadership of Gov. Tim Walz, the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in the 2024 election.

"Somali gangs are terrorizing the people of that great State, and BILLIONS of Dollars are missing. Send them back to where they came from," Trump wrote on social media.

Bock is white and the U.S. Attorney's Office says the overwhelming majority of defendants in the cases are of Somali descent. Most are U.S. citizens.

The immigration surge led to repeated protests and confrontations between residents and federal officers and resulted in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

Federal agents can no longer make arrests without exceptional circumstances in and around three Manhattan buildings where immigration proceedings occur, a judge ruled Monday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel brings an abrupt halt to a practice begun under the Trump administration that enabled agents to take into custody individuals who follow requirements to appear before immigration judges.

The arrests have resulted in dramatic scenes in courthouse hallways as those being detained were sometimes pulled away from emotional family members.

Castel said in a written decision that while there was "a strong governmental interest in enforcing immigration laws," there also was a serious interest in letting individuals attend removal proceedings and pursue asylum claims before a judge "without fear of arrest."

He noted that federal agents still can detain individuals at locations away from immigration courts and also can make arrests at immigration courthouses when there are serious threats to public safety.

He said the boundaries set out in federal policy five years ago can remain in effect, but a court case before him was likely to result in a finding that a withdrawal of that policy after President Donald Trump took office was "arbitrary and capricious."

Castel also noted that government lawyers recently reversed their position, saying they've learned that 2025 policies regarding arrests in and around courthouses set by the Trump administration did not apply to immigration courts after all.

The judge, who last year had declined to ban the practice, said the new position by government lawyers meant it was necessary to "correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice."

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and others.

It was praised by Amy Belsher, director of the NYCLU's Immigrants' Rights Litigation.

She called it "an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings."

Messages seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security were not immediately returned. A spokesperson for Justice Department lawyers declined comment.

Castel's decision, which did not apply nationwide, pertained to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway in Manhattan. New York's FBI headquarters is also located at 26 Federal Plaza, a large building across from two federal courthouses near City Hall.

The organizations first brought the lawsuit last August on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups African Communities Together and The Door.

"In the face of this administration's ongoing targeting of our young members, this decision brings us hope," said Beth Baltimore, deputy director of The Door's Legal Services Center.

"Our staff continues to work tirelessly to support Door members who were terrified to go to their required court appearances. We stand with our members to fight for those impacted by courthouse arrests, including those who remain detained, and other cruel policies," Baltimore said in a release.

President Lyndon B. Johnson knew the legislation he was about to sign was momentous, one that took courage for certain members of Congress to pass since the vote could cost them their seats.

To honor that, he took the unusual step of leaving the Oval Office and going to Capitol Hill for the signing ceremony. It was Aug. 6, 1965, five months after the "Bloody Sunday" attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, gave momentum to the bill that became known as the Voting Rights Act.

In the six decades since, it became one of the most consequential laws in the nation's history, preventing discrimination against minorities at the ballot box and helping to elect thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives at all levels of government.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a major pillar of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. It was a decision that came more than a decade after the court undermined another key tenet of the law and led to restrictive voting laws in a number of states.

Voting and civil rights advocates were left fearful of what lies ahead for minority communities. "It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation," said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. "It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that's not exaggeration."

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office, said the court's steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday's decision, amounted to "burying it without the funeral."

The Supreme Court's ruling came in a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana after the state created a district that gave the state its second Black representative to Congress.

It found that map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander because it took race into account to draw the lines. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, called Section 2, was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.

The Supreme Court is leaving women's access to a widely used abortion pill untouched until at least Thursday, while the justices consider whether to allow restrictions on the drug, mifepristone, to take effect.

Justice Samuel Alito's order Monday allows women seeking abortions to continue obtaining the pill at pharmacies or through the mail, without an in-person visit to a doctor. It prevents restrictions on mifepristone imposed by a federal appeals court from taking effect for the time being.

The court is dealing with its latest abortion controversy four years after its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

The case before the court stems from a lawsuit Louisiana filed to roll back the Food and Drug Administration's rules on how mifepristone can be prescribed. The state claims the policy undermines the ban there, and it questions the safety of the drug, which was first approved in 2000 and has repeatedly been deemed safe and effective by FDA scientists.

Lower courts concluded that Louisiana is likely to prevail, and a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mail access and telehealth visits should be suspended while the case plays out.

The drug is most often used for abortion in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Medication abortions accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. in 2023, the last year for which statistics are available.

The current dispute is similar to one that reached the court three years ago.

Lower courts then also sought to restrict access to mifepristone, in a case brought by physicians who oppose abortion. They filed suit in the months after the court overturned Roe.

The Supreme Court blocked the 5th Circuit ruling from taking effect over the dissenting votes of Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. Then, in 2024, the high court unanimously dismissed the doctors' suit, reasoning they did not have the legal right, or standing, to sue.

In the current dispute, mainstream medical groups, the pharmaceutical industry and Democratic members of Congress have weighed in cautioning the court against limiting access to the drug. Pharmaceutical companies said a ruling for abortion opponents would upend the drug approval process.

The FDA has eased a number of restrictions initially placed on the drug, including who can prescribe it, how it is dispensed and what kinds of safety complications must be reported.

Despite those determinations, abortion opponents have been challenging the safety of mifepristone for more than 25 years. They have filed a series of petitions and lawsuits against the agency, generally alleging that it violated federal law by overlooking safety issues with the pill.

President Donald Trump's administration has been unusually quiet at the Supreme Court. It declined to file a written brief recommending what the court should do, even though federal regulations are at issue.

The case puts Trump's Republican administration in a difficult place. Trump has relied on the political support of anti-abortion groups but has also seen ballot question and poll results that show Americans generally support abortion rights.

Both sides took the silence as an implicit endorsement of the appellate ruling. Alito is both the justice in charge of handling emergency appeals from Louisiana and the author of the 2022 decision that declared abortion is not a constitutional right and returned the issue to the states.