KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating an officer-involved shooting that sent a man to the hospital.

the Clay County Sheriff’s Department requested the assistance of the Kansas City Missouri Police Department to investigate an officer involved shooting that occurred within the Kansas City limits around the 5200 block of North Oak Trafficway.This afternoon, 

Just before 2:30p.m. Saturday, Kansas City Missouri Police Officers were called to a reported disturbance involving a man armed with a large knife in the shopping center at the intersection of NE Englewood Road and N. Oak Trafficway, according to KCPD&nbsp;Officer Alayna Gonzalez. 

The man had left the scene prior to police arrival. A suspect description was obtained, provided to dispatch via police radio, and broadcasted out to other patrol officers, to include the Clay County Sheriff’s Department.

At approximately 2:27PM, a Clay County Sheriff’s Deputy was patrolling the area of NE 50th St and N. Oak Trafficway and located the described suspect involved in the disturbance. The Deputy attempted to contact the man for further investigation. The man presented a large knife from within his waistband and began running northbound on N. Oak Trafficway. A foot chase was initiated, and additional deputies were called to assist with apprehending the armed individual. 

The&nbsp; suspect refused to comply with verbal commands and ran into a wooded area while being pursued by multiple Clay County Sheriff’s Deputies. The man stopped and was given further verbal commands to drop the knife. The man charged at the deputies before coming to a stop again. Additional resources, to include Sheriff K-9’s, were being called to the scene to deescalate the situation, according to Gonzalez

Deputies continued giving verbal commands for the man to drop the knife and peacefully surrender. The man refused to comply and ran towards the deputies a second time while armed with a weapon. At 2:33PM, two Clay County Sheriff’s Deputies discharged their duty weapons striking the man.

 Deputies on scene immediately began rendering medical aid until EMS responded and transported the man to an area hospital for medical treatment of non-life threatening injuries.

A large knife was recovered from the scene where the suspect had been shot. No deputies were injured during this incident.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756606382239.png" alt="Photo courtesy KCTV" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy KCTV</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating an officer-involved shooting that sent a man to the hospital.the Clay County Sheriff’s Department requested the assistance of the Kansas City Missouri Police Department to investigate an officer involved shooting that occurred within the Kansas City limits around the 5200 block of North Oak Trafficway.This afternoon, Just before 2:30p.m. Saturday, Kansas City Missouri Police Officers were called to a reported disturbance involving a man armed with a large knife in the shopping center at the intersection of NE Englewood Road and N. Oak Trafficway, according to KCPD&nbsp;Officer Alayna Gonzalez. The man had left the scene prior to police arrival. A suspect description was obtained, provided to dispatch via police radio, and broadcasted out to other patrol officers, to include the Clay County Sheriff’s Department.At approximately 2:27PM, a Clay County Sheriff’s Deputy was patrolling the area of NE 50th St and N. Oak Trafficway and located the described suspect involved in the disturbance. The Deputy attempted to contact the man for further investigation. The man presented a large knife from within his waistband and began running northbound on N. Oak Trafficway. A foot chase was initiated, and additional deputies were called to assist with apprehending the armed individual. The&nbsp; suspect refused to comply with verbal commands and ran into a wooded area while being pursued by multiple Clay County Sheriff’s Deputies. The man stopped and was given further verbal commands to drop the knife. The man charged at the deputies before coming to a stop again. Additional resources, to include Sheriff K-9’s, were being called to the scene to deescalate the situation, according to GonzalezDeputies continued giving verbal commands for the man to drop the knife and peacefully surrender. The man refused to comply and ran towards the deputies a second time while armed with a weapon. At 2:33PM, two Clay County Sheriff’s Deputies discharged their duty weapons striking the man. Deputies on scene immediately began rendering medical aid until EMS responded and transported the man to an area hospital for medical treatment of non-life threatening injuries.A large knife was recovered from the scene where the suspect had been shot. No deputies were injured during this incident.

KCPD: Deputies shot man who threatened them with a large knife

By:<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a> <a href="https://statesnewsroom.com/">States Newsroom</a>

A federal judge&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.93.0.pdf" target="_blank">ruled Friday</a>&nbsp;against the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Medicaid funds from primarily Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.

Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the federal government’s motion to lift a block on a new law, rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to bill for Medicaid while their lawsuit plays out would cause the government “irreparable injury.” She said the plaintiffs were more likely to suffer injury if the provision went into effect, such as having to close clinics and reduce services.

“Here, Defendants suffer no irreparable harm where Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 violates several constitutional provisions,” Talwani wrote in an order, denying the federal government’s request to stay two preliminary injunctions. “[I]t is precisely because Congress targeted only a ‘certain’ group of entities for exclusion from Medicaid programs — all but two of which are Planned Parenthood Federation Members — that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 is unconstitutional.”

Late last month Talwani ordered a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/one-big-beautiful-law-provision-planned-parenthood-funding-partly-blocked-judge" target="_blank">partial</a>&nbsp;and then a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-issues-new-order-protecting-all-planned-parenthood-clinics-medicaid-defunding" target="_blank">full preliminary injunction</a>&nbsp;after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-sues-trump-administration-officials-over-defunding-provision-budget-bill" target="_blank">Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates sued</a>&nbsp;in early July over the new federal reproductive health restriction. After unsuccessfully asking the district court to lift the block, the federal government&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.75.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">appealed the preliminary injunctions</a>&nbsp;to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shortly after, the DOJ&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.85.0.pdf" target="_blank">filed a motion</a>&nbsp;asking the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunctions. Last week, the&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.89.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">appellate court declined</a>&nbsp;the government’s request, pending the district court’s decision. Defendants are now expected to re-appeal the injunction to the First Circuit.&nbsp;

The provision, set to expire July 4, 2026, would primarily affect health clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which has estimated it could lose 200 of its 600 clinics, many of which are in rural areas and others that are critical abortion-access points.&nbsp;

But two other affected organizations are Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/08/05/massachusetts-abortion-womens-health-federal-cuts?emci=d5dd797b-0b7e-f011-b481-6045bda9d23e&amp;emdi=4fdfb31e-7e7e-f011-b484-6045bdeb7413&amp;ceid=519099" target="_blank">according to WBUR</a>, operates seven clinics and serves about 10,000 patients, and Maine Family Planning, which has also sued over the provision. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker in Maine, an appointee of President Donald Trump,&nbsp;<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MFP-Decision-August-2025.pdf" target="_blank">denied Maine Family Planning’s motion for a preliminary injunction</a>, despite the organization facing losses up to nearly $2 million, potential layoffs, and disruption of care for about 8,000 patients.

“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” said George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-oks-medicaid-defunding-maines-largest-reproductive-health-care-provider" target="_blank">Maine Morning Star</a>. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Does the new federal Medicaid rule unlawfully target Planned Parenthood?

Federal funding of abortion is already prohibited in most cases under the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services-under-medicaid-in-the-post-roe-era/" target="_blank">Hyde Amendment</a>. But the new&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">funding rule</a>&nbsp;would bar from the Medicaid program reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 for health services like birth control, cancer and gender-affirming care.&nbsp;

The legislation has caused confusion throughout the Planned Parenthood network because its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/119/plaws/publ21/PLAW-119publ21.pdf#page=230" target="_blank">definition of “prohibited entity”</a>&nbsp;includes a barred organization’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics.”

The nonprofit health network comprises its national membership and advocacy organization, PPFA, and nearly 50 independently structured and operated&nbsp;affiliates, some of which do not offer abortion, such as co-plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. These organizations are reimbursed after the fact for specific health services covered by Medicaid.&nbsp;

Even though the provision is currently blocked, several Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have already closed, both because of the new rule and the Trump administration’s other restrictions stripping abortion providers of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/limited-judicial-relief-fallout-begins-planned-parenthood-clinics-facing-medicaid-cuts" target="_blank">federal family planning grants</a>.&nbsp;

Many of the recently shuttered clinics did not provide abortion, like in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ohio-planned-parenthoods-will-remain-closed-despite-federal-success-ongoing-lawsuit" target="_blank">Ohio</a>, and some are in states where abortion is illegal, like in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-close-louisiana-clinics-landry-murrill-applaud-news" target="_blank">Louisiana</a>.&nbsp;

Planned Parenthood’s attorneys have argued that the new federal Medicaid rule violates their equal protection, speech and association rights, because it excludes their clinics from the Medicaid program on the basis of their association to other organizations — in this case organizations that provide abortions and advocate for abortion rights.

“[S]ince this Court issued its decision, the government has now admitted that Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for its ‘political advocacy,’” the plaintiffs wrote in a recent brief&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.92.0.pdf" target="_blank">opposing defendants’ motion</a>&nbsp;to lift the injunction.&nbsp;

Plaintiffs referred to a recent public statement made by Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for co-defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.&nbsp;

“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/trump-planned-parenthood.html" target="_blank">Nixon said</a>, after the district court’s initial preliminary injunction on July 22.&nbsp;

But in court, the federal government argued the tax and spending cuts law excludes large abortion providers only because they provide abortions. They say they are also excluding smaller or non-abortion-providing affiliates, not because of their speech or advocacy, but because of their “non-expressive activities of corporate control and financing.” Their basic argument is that money to any Planned Parenthood clinic — even for health services unrelated to abortion — is money for abortion.&nbsp;

“[B]ecause money is fungible, extending the funding restriction to affiliates prevents an organization from undermining federal policy not to subsidize abortion providers by shifting funds between entities that do not perform abortions and entities that do,”&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.85.0.pdf#page=6" target="_blank">defendants wrote</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The DOJ has also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the federal legislation is a&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-1/ALDE_00013186/" target="_blank">bill of attainder</a>, which refers to legislation that unconstitutionally imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial.&nbsp;

“Halting the flow of federal Medicaid funds to those entities bears no resemblance to the forms of punishment that implicate the Bill of Attainder Clause,” reads the DOJ’s motion. “Historically, bills of attainder involved punishments such as ‘death,’ ‘banishment,’ and ‘imprisonment.’”

But Talwani disagrees with the DOJ’s reasoning.

“[T]here is no indication in the record that Planned Parenthood Members share revenues from Medicaid reimbursements,” she wrote. “The result is a restriction on associational freedom that is in no way ‘essential to the furtherance of [Defendants’] interest’ in withholding funds from certain abortion providers … and instead imposes a wholly unwarranted burden.”

While the new federal tax and spending cuts law does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, a bill introduced this year with similar language is explicitly titled, “<a href="https://click.everyaction.com/k/113700862/564667045/-4655086?nvep=ew0KICAiVGVuYW50VXJpIjogIm5ncHZhbjovL3Zhbi9TTldTUi9TTldTUi8xLzEwNTEzMSIsDQogICJEaXN0cmlidXRpb25VbmlxdWVJZCI6ICI0ZmRmYjMxZS03ZTdlLWYwMTEtYjQ4NC02MDQ1YmRlYjc0MTMiLA0KICAiRW1haWxBZGRyZXNzIjogInNyZXNuaWNrQHN0YXRlc25ld3Nyb29tLmNvbSINCn0%3D&amp;hmac=VzdAbS6Oa98XA62IADfNGZ3_6dvqDEvTmiY8Ar8EoZo=&amp;emci=d5dd797b-0b7e-f011-b481-6045bda9d23e&amp;emdi=4fdfb31e-7e7e-f011-b484-6045bdeb7413&amp;ceid=519099" target="_blank">Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025</a>.” Meanwhile, several state legislatures have successfully stripped funding from the organization. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in late June after a long legal fight, but the state’s affiliate just&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-files-new-challenge-stay-scs-medicaid-list-non-abortion-services" target="_blank">sued again</a>&nbsp;over Medicaid eligibility.

“You have to be living in a cave to believe this isn’t about Planned Parenthood,” said abortion law expert Mary Ziegler. “The reason Planned Parenthood is a target is because it’s a twofer. It’s both the nation’s largest abortion provider and also the nation’s best advocate for abortion rights. … But I think the problem for Planned Parenthood is that disaggregating the two is hard, and proving congressional intent to target one rather than the other is challenging.”

Anti-abortion activists and conservative commentators have accused Talwani, an Obama appointee, of judicial activism.

“Now the abortion industry is suing to block the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jun/23/poll-shows-voters-support-defunding-planned-parenthood-told/?utm_medium=SocialFlow&amp;utm_campaign=twtnl_x&amp;utm_source=Twitter" target="_blank">will of the voters</a>, duly passed by Congress,” wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/judicial-activism-wont-restore-planned-parenthoods-federal-funding/" target="_blank">op-ed for National Review</a>. “They argue they’re constitutionally entitled to our tax dollars in perpetuity, and they’ve&nbsp;<a href="https://sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-releases/sba-slams-activist-ruling-forcing-americans-to-fund-abortion-giant-planned-parenthood" target="_blank">found a single activist judge</a>&nbsp;willing to take their side and impose that view on the entire nation — for now.”

Ziegler said the bill of attainder argument is rarely used, but is plausible in this case.&nbsp;

“Generally, with a bill of attainder, you have to show that there’s no other kind of valid legislative purpose, and that it’s selectively targeting the person who’s suing,” she said. “In this case, it seems pretty clear that there’s some targeting of Planned Parenthood happening. … But I think there being no other purpose is more complicated.”

Ziegler said the case will likely be hard to win if it gets to the majority conservative Supreme Court. But if the injunction holds, Planned Parenthood could run out the clock on the one-year Medicaid restriction. She thinks it might seem too politically risky to renew this provision right before the 2026 midterm elections to more moderate Republicans in the House, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.notus.org/republicans/gop-defunding-planned-parenthood-reconciliation" target="_blank">told NOTUS</a>&nbsp;in May, “from the standpoint of providing health care to women, you know, I’m not for taking away people’s health care.”

“They’ll either have to say, ‘All our boasts about defunding Planned Parenthood were not real, because Planned Parenthood is going to get funded again,’ or they’re going to have to make the funding prohibition permanent, which could have the consequences that people like Lawler were afraid of.”

By:<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/sofia-resnick/">Sofia Resnick</a> <a href="https://statesnewsroom.com/">States Newsroom</a>A federal judge&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.93.0.pdf" target="_blank">ruled Friday</a>&nbsp;against the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Medicaid funds from primarily Planned Parenthood-affiliated abortion providers.Massachusetts U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the federal government’s motion to lift a block on a new law, rejecting the U.S. Department of Justice’s argument that allowing Planned Parenthood to continue to bill for Medicaid while their lawsuit plays out would cause the government “irreparable injury.” She said the plaintiffs were more likely to suffer injury if the provision went into effect, such as having to close clinics and reduce services.“Here, Defendants suffer no irreparable harm where Plaintiffs are substantially likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 violates several constitutional provisions,” Talwani wrote in an order, denying the federal government’s request to stay two preliminary injunctions. “[I]t is precisely because Congress targeted only a ‘certain’ group of entities for exclusion from Medicaid programs — all but two of which are Planned Parenthood Federation Members — that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in establishing that Section 71113 is unconstitutional.”Late last month Talwani ordered a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/one-big-beautiful-law-provision-planned-parenthood-funding-partly-blocked-judge" target="_blank">partial</a>&nbsp;and then a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-issues-new-order-protecting-all-planned-parenthood-clinics-medicaid-defunding" target="_blank">full preliminary injunction</a>&nbsp;after&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-sues-trump-administration-officials-over-defunding-provision-budget-bill" target="_blank">Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its Massachusetts and Utah affiliates sued</a>&nbsp;in early July over the new federal reproductive health restriction. After unsuccessfully asking the district court to lift the block, the federal government&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.75.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">appealed the preliminary injunctions</a>&nbsp;to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Shortly after, the DOJ&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.85.0.pdf" target="_blank">filed a motion</a>&nbsp;asking the district court to reconsider the preliminary injunctions. Last week, the&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.89.0_1.pdf" target="_blank">appellate court declined</a>&nbsp;the government’s request, pending the district court’s decision. Defendants are now expected to re-appeal the injunction to the First Circuit.&nbsp;The provision, set to expire July 4, 2026, would primarily affect health clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which has estimated it could lose 200 of its 600 clinics, many of which are in rural areas and others that are critical abortion-access points.&nbsp;But two other affected organizations are Health Imperatives in Massachusetts, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wbur.org/news/2025/08/05/massachusetts-abortion-womens-health-federal-cuts?emci=d5dd797b-0b7e-f011-b481-6045bda9d23e&amp;emdi=4fdfb31e-7e7e-f011-b484-6045bdeb7413&amp;ceid=519099" target="_blank">according to WBUR</a>, operates seven clinics and serves about 10,000 patients, and Maine Family Planning, which has also sued over the provision. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker in Maine, an appointee of President Donald Trump,&nbsp;<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/MFP-Decision-August-2025.pdf" target="_blank">denied Maine Family Planning’s motion for a preliminary injunction</a>, despite the organization facing losses up to nearly $2 million, potential layoffs, and disruption of care for about 8,000 patients.“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care,” said George Hill, president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-judge-oks-medicaid-defunding-maines-largest-reproductive-health-care-provider" target="_blank">Maine Morning Star</a>. “The loss of Medicaid funds — which nearly half our patients rely on — threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”<h2>Does the new federal Medicaid rule unlawfully target Planned Parenthood?</h2>Federal funding of abortion is already prohibited in most cases under the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/the-hyde-amendment-and-coverage-for-abortion-services-under-medicaid-in-the-post-roe-era/" target="_blank">Hyde Amendment</a>. But the new&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1/text" target="_blank">funding rule</a>&nbsp;would bar from the Medicaid program reproductive health clinics that provide abortions and received more than $800,000 in federal and state Medicaid funding in fiscal year 2023 for health services like birth control, cancer and gender-affirming care.&nbsp;The legislation has caused confusion throughout the Planned Parenthood network because its&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/119/plaws/publ21/PLAW-119publ21.pdf#page=230" target="_blank">definition of “prohibited entity”</a>&nbsp;includes a barred organization’s “affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics.”The nonprofit health network comprises its national membership and advocacy organization, PPFA, and nearly 50 independently structured and operated&nbsp;affiliates, some of which do not offer abortion, such as co-plaintiff Planned Parenthood Association of Utah. These organizations are reimbursed after the fact for specific health services covered by Medicaid.&nbsp;Even though the provision is currently blocked, several Planned Parenthood clinics around the country have already closed, both because of the new rule and the Trump administration’s other restrictions stripping abortion providers of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/limited-judicial-relief-fallout-begins-planned-parenthood-clinics-facing-medicaid-cuts" target="_blank">federal family planning grants</a>.&nbsp;Many of the recently shuttered clinics did not provide abortion, like in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ohio-planned-parenthoods-will-remain-closed-despite-federal-success-ongoing-lawsuit" target="_blank">Ohio</a>, and some are in states where abortion is illegal, like in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-close-louisiana-clinics-landry-murrill-applaud-news" target="_blank">Louisiana</a>.&nbsp;Planned Parenthood’s attorneys have argued that the new federal Medicaid rule violates their equal protection, speech and association rights, because it excludes their clinics from the Medicaid program on the basis of their association to other organizations — in this case organizations that provide abortions and advocate for abortion rights.“[S]ince this Court issued its decision, the government has now admitted that Section 71113 (the “Defund Provision”) was intended to punish Planned Parenthood for its ‘political advocacy,’” the plaintiffs wrote in a recent brief&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.92.0.pdf" target="_blank">opposing defendants’ motion</a>&nbsp;to lift the injunction.&nbsp;Plaintiffs referred to a recent public statement made by Andrew G. Nixon, a spokesperson for co-defendant U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.&nbsp;“States should not be forced to fund organizations that have chosen political advocacy over patient care,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/trump-planned-parenthood.html" target="_blank">Nixon said</a>, after the district court’s initial preliminary injunction on July 22.&nbsp;But in court, the federal government argued the tax and spending cuts law excludes large abortion providers only because they provide abortions. They say they are also excluding smaller or non-abortion-providing affiliates, not because of their speech or advocacy, but because of their “non-expressive activities of corporate control and financing.” Their basic argument is that money to any Planned Parenthood clinic — even for health services unrelated to abortion — is money for abortion.&nbsp;“[B]ecause money is fungible, extending the funding restriction to affiliates prevents an organization from undermining federal policy not to subsidize abortion providers by shifting funds between entities that do not perform abortions and entities that do,”&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.286600/gov.uscourts.mad.286600.85.0.pdf#page=6" target="_blank">defendants wrote</a>.&nbsp;&nbsp;The DOJ has also rejected plaintiffs’ claim that the federal legislation is a&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C3-1/ALDE_00013186/" target="_blank">bill of attainder</a>, which refers to legislation that unconstitutionally imposes punishment on a specific person or group of people without a judicial trial.&nbsp;“Halting the flow of federal Medicaid funds to those entities bears no resemblance to the forms of punishment that implicate the Bill of Attainder Clause,” reads the DOJ’s motion. “Historically, bills of attainder involved punishments such as ‘death,’ ‘banishment,’ and ‘imprisonment.’”But Talwani disagrees with the DOJ’s reasoning.“[T]here is no indication in the record that Planned Parenthood Members share revenues from Medicaid reimbursements,” she wrote. “The result is a restriction on associational freedom that is in no way ‘essential to the furtherance of [Defendants’] interest’ in withholding funds from certain abortion providers … and instead imposes a wholly unwarranted burden.”While the new federal tax and spending cuts law does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, a bill introduced this year with similar language is explicitly titled, “<a href="https://click.everyaction.com/k/113700862/564667045/-4655086?nvep=ew0KICAiVGVuYW50VXJpIjogIm5ncHZhbjovL3Zhbi9TTldTUi9TTldTUi8xLzEwNTEzMSIsDQogICJEaXN0cmlidXRpb25VbmlxdWVJZCI6ICI0ZmRmYjMxZS03ZTdlLWYwMTEtYjQ4NC02MDQ1YmRlYjc0MTMiLA0KICAiRW1haWxBZGRyZXNzIjogInNyZXNuaWNrQHN0YXRlc25ld3Nyb29tLmNvbSINCn0%3D&amp;hmac=VzdAbS6Oa98XA62IADfNGZ3_6dvqDEvTmiY8Ar8EoZo=&amp;emci=d5dd797b-0b7e-f011-b481-6045bda9d23e&amp;emdi=4fdfb31e-7e7e-f011-b484-6045bdeb7413&amp;ceid=519099" target="_blank">Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2025</a>.” Meanwhile, several state legislatures have successfully stripped funding from the organization. The U.S. Supreme Court allowed South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program in late June after a long legal fight, but the state’s affiliate just&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/planned-parenthood-files-new-challenge-stay-scs-medicaid-list-non-abortion-services" target="_blank">sued again</a>&nbsp;over Medicaid eligibility.“You have to be living in a cave to believe this isn’t about Planned Parenthood,” said abortion law expert Mary Ziegler. “The reason Planned Parenthood is a target is because it’s a twofer. It’s both the nation’s largest abortion provider and also the nation’s best advocate for abortion rights. … But I think the problem for Planned Parenthood is that disaggregating the two is hard, and proving congressional intent to target one rather than the other is challenging.”Anti-abortion activists and conservative commentators have accused Talwani, an Obama appointee, of judicial activism.“Now the abortion industry is suing to block the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jun/23/poll-shows-voters-support-defunding-planned-parenthood-told/?utm_medium=SocialFlow&amp;utm_campaign=twtnl_x&amp;utm_source=Twitter" target="_blank">will of the voters</a>, duly passed by Congress,” wrote Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, in a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/08/judicial-activism-wont-restore-planned-parenthoods-federal-funding/" target="_blank">op-ed for National Review</a>. “They argue they’re constitutionally entitled to our tax dollars in perpetuity, and they’ve&nbsp;<a href="https://sbaprolife.org/newsroom/press-releases/sba-slams-activist-ruling-forcing-americans-to-fund-abortion-giant-planned-parenthood" target="_blank">found a single activist judge</a>&nbsp;willing to take their side and impose that view on the entire nation — for now.”Ziegler said the bill of attainder argument is rarely used, but is plausible in this case.&nbsp;“Generally, with a bill of attainder, you have to show that there’s no other kind of valid legislative purpose, and that it’s selectively targeting the person who’s suing,” she said. “In this case, it seems pretty clear that there’s some targeting of Planned Parenthood happening. … But I think there being no other purpose is more complicated.”Ziegler said the case will likely be hard to win if it gets to the majority conservative Supreme Court. But if the injunction holds, Planned Parenthood could run out the clock on the one-year Medicaid restriction. She thinks it might seem too politically risky to renew this provision right before the 2026 midterm elections to more moderate Republicans in the House, like Rep. Mike Lawler of New York, who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.notus.org/republicans/gop-defunding-planned-parenthood-reconciliation" target="_blank">told NOTUS</a>&nbsp;in May, “from the standpoint of providing health care to women, you know, I’m not for taking away people’s health care.”“They’ll either have to say, ‘All our boasts about defunding Planned Parenthood were not real, because Planned Parenthood is going to get funded again,’ or they’re going to have to make the funding prohibition permanent, which could have the consequences that people like Lawler were afraid of.”

Judge: Planned Parenthood clinics can remain Medicaid providers while lawsuit continues

Players will have another chance to go for the billion-dollar Powerball® jackpot before the holiday weekend ends! No ticket matched all six numbers drawn Saturday night, pushing the Powerball jackpot to an estimated $1.1 billion for the next drawing on Monday night – the game’s fifth-largest prize ever,&nbsp;according to the Multi-State Lottery Association.

Monday’s jackpot has an estimated cash value of $498.4 million.

“America has waited all year for the chance to play for a billion-dollar jackpot, and what better time than Labor Day for a $1.1 billion Powerball drawing!” said Matt Strawn, Powerball Product Group Chair and Iowa Lottery CEO. “With just one $2 ticket, you could win it all – all while helping to support good causes close to home.”

The winning numbers in the Saturday, Aug 30 drawing were white balls 3, 18, 22, 27, 33 and red Powerball 17. The Power Play® multiplier was 3.

Even though the Powerball jackpot rolled, participating lotteries are reminding players to check their tickets to see if they won a lower-tier cash prize.

Nine tickets matched all five white balls to win $1 million prizes in last night’s drawing. The $1 million-winning tickets were sold in California (4), Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.&nbsp;Note: In California, prize payout amounts are pari-mutuel and determined by sales and the number of winners.

Three tickets matched all five white balls and increased the $1 million prize to $2 million, because the tickets included the Power Play® option for $1 more. The $2 million-winning tickets were sold in Colorado, Indiana and New Hampshire.

There were also 115 tickets that won $50,000 prizes and 27 tickets that won $150,000 prizes.

Monday’s Powerball drawing will be the 40th drawing since the jackpot was last won in California on May 31, 2025. To date, the longest Powerball jackpot run has been 42 consecutive drawings, which was set on April 6, 2024, with a $1.326 billion jackpot winner in Oregon.

If a player wins Monday’s jackpot, they will have the choice between an annuitized prize estimated at $1.1 billion or a lump sum payment estimated at $498.4 million. Both prize options are before taxes. If the winner selects the annuity option, they will receive one immediate payment followed by 29 annual payments that increase by 5-percent each year.

Powerball® tickets are $2 per play. Tickets are sold in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. More than half of all proceeds from the sale of a Powerball ticket remain in the jurisdiction where the ticket was sold. Since its first drawing in 1992, the Powerball game has helped generate more than $36 billion for good causes supported by U.S. lotteries.

Powerball drawings are broadcast live every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 10:59 p.m. ET from the Florida Lottery draw studio in Tallahassee, Fla. Powerball drawings are also live streamed on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.powerball.com/watch-drawing">Powerball.com</a>.

The overall odds of winning a prize are 1 in 24.9. The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 292.2 million.

Players will have another chance to go for the billion-dollar Powerball® jackpot before the holiday weekend ends! No ticket matched all six numbers drawn Saturday night, pushing the Powerball jackpot to an estimated $1.1 billion for the next drawing on Monday night – the game’s fifth-largest prize ever,&nbsp;according to the Multi-State Lottery Association.Monday’s jackpot has an estimated cash value of $498.4 million.“America has waited all year for the chance to play for a billion-dollar jackpot, and what better time than Labor Day for a $1.1 billion Powerball drawing!” said Matt Strawn, Powerball Product Group Chair and Iowa Lottery CEO. “With just one $2 ticket, you could win it all – all while helping to support good causes close to home.”The winning numbers in the Saturday, Aug 30 drawing were white balls 3, 18, 22, 27, 33 and red Powerball 17. The Power Play® multiplier was 3.Even though the Powerball jackpot rolled, participating lotteries are reminding players to check their tickets to see if they won a lower-tier cash prize.Nine tickets matched all five white balls to win $1 million prizes in last night’s drawing. The $1 million-winning tickets were sold in California (4), Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.&nbsp;Note: In California, prize payout amounts are pari-mutuel and determined by sales and the number of winners.Three tickets matched all five white balls and increased the $1 million prize to $2 million, because the tickets included the Power Play® option for $1 more. The $2 million-winning tickets were sold in Colorado, Indiana and New Hampshire.There were also 115 tickets that won $50,000 prizes and 27 tickets that won $150,000 prizes.Monday’s Powerball drawing will be the 40th drawing since the jackpot was last won in California on May 31, 2025. To date, the longest Powerball jackpot run has been 42 consecutive drawings, which was set on April 6, 2024, with a $1.326 billion jackpot winner in Oregon.If a player wins Monday’s jackpot, they will have the choice between an annuitized prize estimated at $1.1 billion or a lump sum payment estimated at $498.4 million. Both prize options are before taxes. If the winner selects the annuity option, they will receive one immediate payment followed by 29 annual payments that increase by 5-percent each year.Powerball® tickets are $2 per play. Tickets are sold in 45 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. More than half of all proceeds from the sale of a Powerball ticket remain in the jurisdiction where the ticket was sold. Since its first drawing in 1992, the Powerball game has helped generate more than $36 billion for good causes supported by U.S. lotteries.Powerball drawings are broadcast live every Monday, Wednesday and Saturday at 10:59 p.m. ET from the Florida Lottery draw studio in Tallahassee, Fla. Powerball drawings are also live streamed on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.powerball.com/watch-drawing">Powerball.com</a>.The overall odds of winning a prize are 1 in 24.9. The odds of winning the jackpot are 1 in 292.2 million.Top Ten Powerball® Jackpots<ol>
 <li>$2.04 Billion – Nov. 7, 2022 – CA</li><li>$1.765 Billion – Oct. 11, 2023 - CA</li><li>$1.586 Billion – Jan. 13, 2016 – CA, FL, TN</li><li>$1.326 Billion – April 6, 2024 – OR</li><li>$1.1 Billion (estimated) – Sept 1, 2025</li><li>$1.08 Billion – July 19, 2023 – CA</li><li>$842.4 Million – January 1, 2024 – MI</li><li>$768.4 Million – March 27, 2019 – WI</li><li>$758.7 Million – Aug. 23, 2017 – MA</li><li>$754.6 Million – Feb. 6, 2023 - WA</li>
 </ol>

Powerball jackpot rolls to fifth-largest prize ever for Labor Day drawing

DOUGLAS COUNTY—A Kansas felon with a previous murder conviction is accused of another murder.

On Friday, police arrested&nbsp;63-year-old Aaron Blake Wright, of Lawrence, in connection with a woman's death.

Just before 7:30a.m. Friday, Police were called to&nbsp;Massachusetts Street where they located a 35-year-old Lawrence woman behind the building. She appeared to have been stabbed multiple times and was pronounced deceased. Police believe she&nbsp;knew Wright.

Following witness interviews near the scene, Investigators quickly identified Wright as a person of interest. They located him shortly thereafter and transported him to police headquarters for questioning. After conducting an interview, detectives placed Wright under arrest. He was booked on requested charges of second-degree murder.

Douglas County District Attorney Dakota Loomis was briefed at the scene and is awaiting a charging affidavit, which investigators will submit once the information has been compiled.

Wright has previous convictions for second degree murder,&nbsp; attempted murder and criminal use of explosives, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756600798019.png" alt="Wright photo KDOC" />
 <figcaption>Wright photo KDOC</figcaption>
 </figure>DOUGLAS COUNTY—A Kansas felon with a previous murder conviction is accused of another murder.On Friday, police arrested&nbsp;63-year-old Aaron Blake Wright, of Lawrence, in connection with a woman's death.Just before 7:30a.m. Friday, Police were called to&nbsp;Massachusetts Street where they located a 35-year-old Lawrence woman behind the building. She appeared to have been stabbed multiple times and was pronounced deceased. Police believe she&nbsp;knew Wright.Following witness interviews near the scene, Investigators quickly identified Wright as a person of interest. They located him shortly thereafter and transported him to police headquarters for questioning. After conducting an interview, detectives placed Wright under arrest. He was booked on requested charges of second-degree murder.Douglas County District Attorney Dakota Loomis was briefed at the scene and is awaiting a charging affidavit, which investigators will submit once the information has been compiled.Wright has previous convictions for second degree murder,&nbsp; attempted murder and criminal use of explosives, according to the Kansas Department of Corrections.&nbsp;

Kan. man with previous murder conviction accused of woman's death

LEE COUNTY, Florida —A homeowner in his pajamas is credited with helping fight crime in his neighborhood.

Just after 2a.m. August 27, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home in Southeast Cape Coral, Florida, according to a media release. When officers arrived, they found the suspect already detained — by a neighbor wearing Batman pajamas.

The neighbor, Kyle Myvett, told detectives he had gone to bed when his home security cameras alerted him to someone breaking into his vehicle. Still dressed in his Batman pajamas, Kyle went outside to investigate and saw the suspect rummaging through his truck. Moments later, he found the same suspect in his neighbor’s garage and detained him until officers arrived. 

The suspect was identified as Justin Schimpl, 21,&nbsp; who is known to law enforcement from prior investigations. Detectives determined that Schimpl broke into Kyle’s vehicle, as well as his neighbors, and stole multiple items including two pairs of Ray-Ban sunglasses valued at $300 each, cash, a woman’s wristlet, and more than $500 in gift cards.

Schimpl claimed another man was with him, but the name of that man changed multiple times. The Lee County Sheriff’s Office Helicopter as well as a Cape Coral Police Department K9 searched the area, but no other suspects were located.

Schimpl was arrested and taken to the Lee County Jail on requested charges:–2 counts of Burglary of an Unoccupied Conveyance (Unarmed), a 3rd Degree Felony–2 counts of Petit Theft Under $750, a 1st Degree Misdemeanor–1 count of Burglary of an Occupied Dwelling, a 2nd Degree FelonyThanks to a quick-thinking neighbor in his Batman pajamas, another burglary suspect was put behind bars.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756479561814.png" alt="Schimpi photo Cape Coral PD" />
 <figcaption>Schimpi photo Cape Coral PD</figcaption>
 </figure>LEE COUNTY, Florida —A homeowner in his pajamas is credited with helping fight crime in his neighborhood.Just after 2a.m. August 27, police responded to a burglary in progress at a home in Southeast Cape Coral, Florida, according to a media release. When officers arrived, they found the suspect already detained — by a neighbor wearing Batman pajamas.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756479459496.png" alt="Photo Cape Coral Police" />
 <figcaption>Photo Cape Coral Police</figcaption>
 </figure>The neighbor, Kyle Myvett, told detectives he had gone to bed when his home security cameras alerted him to someone breaking into his vehicle. Still dressed in his Batman pajamas, Kyle went outside to investigate and saw the suspect rummaging through his truck. Moments later, he found the same suspect in his neighbor’s garage and detained him until officers arrived. The suspect was identified as Justin Schimpl, 21,&nbsp; who is known to law enforcement from prior investigations. Detectives determined that Schimpl broke into Kyle’s vehicle, as well as his neighbors, and stole multiple items including two pairs of Ray-Ban sunglasses valued at $300 each, cash, a woman’s wristlet, and more than $500 in gift cards.Schimpl claimed another man was with him, but the name of that man changed multiple times. The Lee County Sheriff’s Office Helicopter as well as a Cape Coral Police Department K9 searched the area, but no other suspects were located.Schimpl was arrested and taken to the Lee County Jail on requested charges:–2 counts of Burglary of an Unoccupied Conveyance (Unarmed), a 3rd Degree Felony–2 counts of Petit Theft Under $750, a 1st Degree Misdemeanor–1 count of Burglary of an Occupied Dwelling, a 2nd Degree FelonyThanks to a quick-thinking neighbor in his Batman pajamas, another burglary suspect was put behind bars.

Homeowner in Batman pajamas helps catch burglary suspect

KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating the use of force by a State Trooper which resulted in a fatality.

Just before 1:30a.m. Saturday, a trooper with the Missouri State Highway Patrol observed a silver Chevrolet Tahoe traveling northbound on Interstate 35 south of Chouteau Trafficway in Clay County Missouri, according to a statement from the patrol.

The driver of the SUV was suspected&nbsp; of being intoxicated, as the vehicle failed to maintain a single lane and almost struck a guard rail in the area multiple times. This created a danger to the public.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The trooper initiated a traffic stop on the SUV but the driver fled and a pursuit ensued.&nbsp; At 1:21a.m. on northbound Interstate 35 south of Brighton Avenue, the trooper conducted a Tactical Vehicle Intervention to end the pursuit and reduce risk to public safety.&nbsp; The SUV traveled off the right side of the road, struck a ditch and rolled. The driver was ejected from the vehicle and pronounced deceased.

The MSHP is investigating the use of force, per Patrol policy. The MSHP's major crash investigation unit is in charge of reconstructing the crash.&nbsp; Upon completion of the investigation, the reports will be forwarded to the Clay County Attorney's office.

KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating the use of force by a State Trooper which resulted in a fatality.Just before 1:30a.m. Saturday, a trooper with the Missouri State Highway Patrol observed a silver Chevrolet Tahoe traveling northbound on Interstate 35 south of Chouteau Trafficway in Clay County Missouri, according to a statement from the patrol.The driver of the SUV was suspected&nbsp; of being intoxicated, as the vehicle failed to maintain a single lane and almost struck a guard rail in the area multiple times. This created a danger to the public.&nbsp;&nbsp; The trooper initiated a traffic stop on the SUV but the driver fled and a pursuit ensued.&nbsp; At 1:21a.m. on northbound Interstate 35 south of Brighton Avenue, the trooper conducted a Tactical Vehicle Intervention to end the pursuit and reduce risk to public safety.&nbsp; The SUV traveled off the right side of the road, struck a ditch and rolled. The driver was ejected from the vehicle and pronounced deceased.The MSHP is investigating the use of force, per Patrol policy. The MSHP's major crash investigation unit is in charge of reconstructing the crash.&nbsp; Upon completion of the investigation, the reports will be forwarded to the Clay County Attorney's office.

Patrol investigating after KC area traffic stop turns deadly

WASHINGTON (AP) More than 260 reproductive health researchers submitted a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday affirming the safety record of the abortion medication mifepristone.

In the letter, the researchers urge the FDA not to impose new restrictions on the drug and to make decisions based on “gold-standard science.”

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/fda-trump-makary-vaccines-ultraprocessed-food-safety-ce9df8eb4bba5c950e500c62d975afe2">Dr. Marty Makary</a>, who leads the FDA, hasn’t committed to specific action on the pill, but many Americans wonder if there will be new restrictions under the Trump administration.

Medical professionals call it “among the safest medications” ever approved by the FDA. But a Christian conservative group that sued the FDA over the drug says it has caused “tens of thousands” of “emergency complications.”

Mifepristone is typically used with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-supreme-court-abortion-d451e14148ffbe6ce4811b1a37651480">misoprostol</a>&nbsp;in medication abortions, which make up close to two-thirds of abortions in the U.S.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/4/1680967437018.png" alt="Photo AP" />
 <figcaption>Photo AP</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) More than 260 reproductive health researchers submitted a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday affirming the safety record of the abortion medication mifepristone.In the letter, the researchers urge the FDA not to impose new restrictions on the drug and to make decisions based on “gold-standard science.”<a href="https://apnews.com/article/fda-trump-makary-vaccines-ultraprocessed-food-safety-ce9df8eb4bba5c950e500c62d975afe2">Dr. Marty Makary</a>, who leads the FDA, hasn’t committed to specific action on the pill, but many Americans wonder if there will be new restrictions under the Trump administration.Medical professionals call it “among the safest medications” ever approved by the FDA. But a Christian conservative group that sued the FDA over the drug says it has caused “tens of thousands” of “emergency complications.”Mifepristone is typically used with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/mifepristone-supreme-court-abortion-d451e14148ffbe6ce4811b1a37651480">misoprostol</a>&nbsp;in medication abortions, which make up close to two-thirds of abortions in the U.S.

Researchers send letter to FDA on abortion pill safety

DOUGLAS COUNTY —A passerby found a small plane off the roadway Saturday morning near Vinland at N 700 and E 1700 road, approximately two miles north of Baldwin City, according to the Douglas County Sheriff. Nobody was with the plane when it was found. 

The Kansas Highway Patrol arrived and according to their investigation, the incident occurred just after 2:30a.m. Saturday.&nbsp;

A 1978 Cessna&nbsp;Single Engine Fixed Wing aircraft piloted by Arnold&nbsp;Nguyen, 26, Kansas City,&nbsp; Missouri,&nbsp;landed long and failed to stop on a runway.

The aircraft then crossed the roadway to the north and struck a tree. The pilot was not injured. There were no passengers on the plane, according to the KHP.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756559822774.png" alt="Photos Douglas County Sheriff" />
 <figcaption>Photos Douglas County Sheriff</figcaption>
 </figure>DOUGLAS COUNTY —A passerby found a small plane off the roadway Saturday morning near Vinland at N 700 and E 1700 road, approximately two miles north of Baldwin City, according to the Douglas County Sheriff. Nobody was with the plane when it was found. The Kansas Highway Patrol arrived and according to their investigation, the incident occurred just after 2:30a.m. Saturday.&nbsp;<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756559732892.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>A 1978 Cessna&nbsp;Single Engine Fixed Wing aircraft piloted by Arnold&nbsp;Nguyen, 26, Kansas City,&nbsp; Missouri,&nbsp;landed long and failed to stop on a runway.The aircraft then crossed the roadway to the north and struck a tree. The pilot was not injured. There were no passengers on the plane, according to the KHP.

KHP: Small plane lands, failed to stop and struck a tree

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has told House Speaker Mike Johnson that he won’t be spending $4.9 billion in congressionally approved&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/foreign-aid">foreign aid</a>, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

Trump, who sent a letter to Johnson, R-La., on Thursday, is using what’s known as a pocket rescission — when a president submits a request to Congress to not spend approved funds toward the end of the fiscal year, so Congress cannot act on the request in a 45-day timeframe and the money goes unspent as a result. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years a president has used one. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.

The letter was posted Friday morning on the X account of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said the funding would be cut from the State Department and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/usaid-workers-clear-their-desks-in-trumps-final-push-to-dismantle-the-agency/" target="_blank">the U.S. Agency for International Development</a>, or USAID, an early target of Trump’s efforts to cut foreign aid.

If the White House standardizes this move, the president could effectively bypass Congress on key spending choices and potentially throw into disarray efforts in the House and the Senate to keep the government funded when the next fiscal year starts in October.

The use of a pocket rescission fits part a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exact greater control over the U.S. government, eroding the power of Congress and agencies such as the Federal Reserve and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others. The administration has already&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-workers-layoffs-doge-406752da1614755b8fabe9c94e0c71a8">fired federal workers</a>&nbsp;and imposed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-into-effect-economy-warning-signs-eafe20de9abad312573b320fd4b5fb33">a historic increase in tariffs</a>&nbsp;without going through Congress, putting the burden on the judicial branch to determine the limits of presidential power.

A White House official, who insisted on anonymity on a call with reporters to discuss the move, declined to say how the administration might use pocket rescissions in the coming years or what the upper limits of it might be as a tool. The official expressed confidence the administration would prevail in any legal challenges and said a goal of the proposed spending cuts was to make the cleanest case possible for these types of clawbacks.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X that USAID is essentially being shuttered and congratulated White House budget director Russ Vought for managing the process.

“USAID is officially in close out mode,” Rubio said. “Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails.”

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to Sept. 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.

What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it’s a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.

The move by the Trump administration drew immediate backlash in parts of the Senate over its legality.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement that the Constitution “makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse” and any effort to claw back funds “without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”

“Instead of this attempt to undermine the law, the appropriate way is to identify ways to reduce excessive spending through the bipartisan, annual appropriations process,” Collins said. Congress approves rescissions regularly as part of this process.”

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned that Trump’s use of the pocket veto could undermine the normal funding process and risk “a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown.” After all, any budget agreements reached in the Senate could lack authority if the Trump White House has the power to withhold spending as it sees fit.

Schumer said in a statement that Republican leaders have yet to meet with Democrats on a path to fund the government after the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 just as Trump tries an “unlawful gambit to circumvent the Congress all together.”

“But if Republicans are insistent on going it alone, Democrats won’t be party to their destruction,” Schumer said.

Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown University law professor and expert on federal spending issues, has written that the Impoundment Control Act allows rescissions only if Congress acts within 45 days, meaning the the White House alone cannot decide to not spend the funds.

“This mandatory language admits no exceptions, indicating that Congress expects the funds to be used as intended before the end of the fiscal year if it does not approve the proposed rescission,” Pasachoff wrote in an academic paper last year.

The funds in the pocket rescission package include $3.2 billion in development assistance grants, $520 million for the United Nations, $838 million for international peacekeeping operations and $322 million to encourage democratic values in other countries.

Trump had previously sought to get congressional backing for rescissions and succeeded in doing so in July when the House and the Senate approved&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-republicans-budget-cuts-pepfar-pbs-npr-486f0f5871068f14d97eb4c4d7f9bb88">$9 billion worth of cuts</a>. Those rescissions clawed back funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid.

The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-budget-deficit-trump-tariffs-treasury-992949ccc115fddbf3838a6213cf2c94">the deficit</a>&nbsp;and possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs.

In February, the administration said it would&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-cuts-6292f48f8d4025bed0bf5c3e9d623c16">eliminate almost all of USAID’s foreign aid contracts</a>&nbsp;and $60 billion in overall assistance abroad. USAID has since been dismantled, and its few remaining programs have been placed under State Department control.

The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to stop lower court decisions that had preserved foreign aid, including for global health and HIV and AIDS programs, that Trump has tried to freeze. But on Friday, the administration withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court, after a favorable appeals court ruling late Thursday.

The New York Post first reported the pocket rescission.

AP writers Mark Sherman, Lindsay Whitehurst and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has told House Speaker Mike Johnson that he won’t be spending $4.9 billion in congressionally approved&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/foreign-aid">foreign aid</a>, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨 Last night, President Trump CANCELLED $4.9 billion in America Last foreign aid using a pocket rescission.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> will always put AMERICA FIRST! <a href="https://t.co/1DvXYGdy3B">pic.twitter.com/1DvXYGdy3B</a>&mdash; Office of Management and Budget (@WHOMB) <a href="https://twitter.com/WHOMB/status/1961410044907458780?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 29, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Trump, who sent a letter to Johnson, R-La., on Thursday, is using what’s known as a pocket rescission — when a president submits a request to Congress to not spend approved funds toward the end of the fiscal year, so Congress cannot act on the request in a 45-day timeframe and the money goes unspent as a result. It’s the first time in nearly 50 years a president has used one. The fiscal year draws to a close at the end of September.The letter was posted Friday morning on the X account of the White House Office of Management and Budget. It said the funding would be cut from the State Department and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/usaid-workers-clear-their-desks-in-trumps-final-push-to-dismantle-the-agency/" target="_blank">the U.S. Agency for International Development</a>, or USAID, an early target of Trump’s efforts to cut foreign aid.If the White House standardizes this move, the president could effectively bypass Congress on key spending choices and potentially throw into disarray efforts in the House and the Senate to keep the government funded when the next fiscal year starts in October.The use of a pocket rescission fits part a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exact greater control over the U.S. government, eroding the power of Congress and agencies such as the Federal Reserve and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, among others. The administration has already&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-federal-workers-layoffs-doge-406752da1614755b8fabe9c94e0c71a8">fired federal workers</a>&nbsp;and imposed&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-into-effect-economy-warning-signs-eafe20de9abad312573b320fd4b5fb33">a historic increase in tariffs</a>&nbsp;without going through Congress, putting the burden on the judicial branch to determine the limits of presidential power.A White House official, who insisted on anonymity on a call with reporters to discuss the move, declined to say how the administration might use pocket rescissions in the coming years or what the upper limits of it might be as a tool. The official expressed confidence the administration would prevail in any legal challenges and said a goal of the proposed spending cuts was to make the cleanest case possible for these types of clawbacks.<h2>Winding down USAID</h2>Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on X that USAID is essentially being shuttered and congratulated White House budget director Russ Vought for managing the process.“USAID is officially in close out mode,” Rubio said. “Russ is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails.”The 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the president the authority to propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Congress can within 45 days vote on pulling back the funds or sustaining them, but by proposing the rescission so close to Sept. 30 the White House argues that the money won’t be spent and the funding lapses.What was essentially the last pocket rescission occurred in 1977 by Democratic then-President Jimmy Carter, and the Trump administration argues it’s a legally permissible tool despite some murkiness as Carter had initially proposed the clawback well ahead of the 45-day deadline.<h2>Pushback against pocket rescissions</h2>The move by the Trump administration drew immediate backlash in parts of the Senate over its legality.Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement that the Constitution “makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse” and any effort to claw back funds “without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.”“Instead of this attempt to undermine the law, the appropriate way is to identify ways to reduce excessive spending through the bipartisan, annual appropriations process,” Collins said. Congress approves rescissions regularly as part of this process.”Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York warned that Trump’s use of the pocket veto could undermine the normal funding process and risk “a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown.” After all, any budget agreements reached in the Senate could lack authority if the Trump White House has the power to withhold spending as it sees fit.Schumer said in a statement that Republican leaders have yet to meet with Democrats on a path to fund the government after the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30 just as Trump tries an “unlawful gambit to circumvent the Congress all together.”“But if Republicans are insistent on going it alone, Democrats won’t be party to their destruction,” Schumer said.<h2>‘No exceptions’</h2>Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown University law professor and expert on federal spending issues, has written that the Impoundment Control Act allows rescissions only if Congress acts within 45 days, meaning the the White House alone cannot decide to not spend the funds.“This mandatory language admits no exceptions, indicating that Congress expects the funds to be used as intended before the end of the fiscal year if it does not approve the proposed rescission,” Pasachoff wrote in an academic paper last year.<h2>What’s in the funding?</h2>The funds in the pocket rescission package include $3.2 billion in development assistance grants, $520 million for the United Nations, $838 million for international peacekeeping operations and $322 million to encourage democratic values in other countries.Trump had previously sought to get congressional backing for rescissions and succeeded in doing so in July when the House and the Senate approved&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-republicans-budget-cuts-pepfar-pbs-npr-486f0f5871068f14d97eb4c4d7f9bb88">$9 billion worth of cuts</a>. Those rescissions clawed back funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid.The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-budget-deficit-trump-tariffs-treasury-992949ccc115fddbf3838a6213cf2c94">the deficit</a>&nbsp;and possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs.In February, the administration said it would&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-cuts-6292f48f8d4025bed0bf5c3e9d623c16">eliminate almost all of USAID’s foreign aid contracts</a>&nbsp;and $60 billion in overall assistance abroad. USAID has since been dismantled, and its few remaining programs have been placed under State Department control.The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to stop lower court decisions that had preserved foreign aid, including for global health and HIV and AIDS programs, that Trump has tried to freeze. But on Friday, the administration withdrew its appeal to the Supreme Court, after a favorable appeals court ruling late Thursday.The New York Post first reported the pocket rescission.___AP writers Mark Sherman, Lindsay Whitehurst and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

What's in the $4.9B in foreign aid Trump bypassed Congress to cancel

A late Tennessee sheriff who inspired a Hollywood movie about a law enforcement officer who took on organized crime killed his wife in 1967 and led people to believe she was murdered by his enemies, authorities said Friday.

Authorities acknowledged that the finding will likely shock many who grew up as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/05dd8ca5cdfb43e8a710e0b427183e0c">Buford Pusser</a>&nbsp;fans and watched 1973's “Walking Tall,” which immortalized him as a tough but fair sheriff with zero tolerance for crime. The movie was remade in 2004, and many officers joined law enforcement because of his story, according to Mark Davidson, the district attorney for Tennessee’s 25th judicial district.

There is enough evidence that if Pusser, the McNairy County sheriff who died in a car crash seven years after his wife's death, were alive today, prosecutors would present an indictment to a grand jury for the killing of Pauline Mullins Pusser, Davidson said. Investigators also uncovered signs that she suffered from domestic violence.

Prosecutors worked with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which began reexamining decades-old files on Pauline's death in 2022 as part of its regular review of cold cases, agency director David Rausch said. Agents found inconsistencies between Buford Pusser's version of events and the physical evidence, received a tip about a potential murder weapon and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-sheriff-wife-exhumed-8f7eed563cd72177231e4edbbc7808cf">exhumed Pauline's body</a>&nbsp;for an autopsy.

“This case is not about tearing down a legend. It is about giving dignity and closure to Pauline and her family and ensuring that the truth is not buried with time,” Davidson said in a news conference streamed online. “The truth matters. Justice matters. Even 58 years later. Pauline deserves both.”

Evidence does not back up sheriff's story

The case dates to Aug. 12, 1967. Buford Pusser got a call in the early morning hours about a disturbance. He reported that his wife volunteered to ride along with him as he responded. Buford Pusser said that shortly after they passed New Hope Methodist Church, a car pulled up and fired several times into the vehicle, killing Pauline and injuring the sheriff. Buford Pusser spent 18 days in the hospital and required several surgeries to recover. The case was built largely on his own statement and closed quickly, Rausch said.

During the reexamination of the case, Dr. Michael Revelle, an emergency medicine physical and medical examiner, studied postmortem photographs, crime scene photographs, notes made by the medical examiner at the time and Buford Pusser's statements. He concluded that Pauline was more likely than not shot outside the car and then placed inside it.

He found that cranial trauma suffered by Pauline didn't match crime scene photographs of the car's interior. Blood spatter on the hood outside the car contradicted Buford Pusser's statements. The gunshot wound on his cheek was in fact a close-contact wound and not one fired from long range, as Buford Pusser described, and was likely self-inflicted, Revelle concluded.

Pauline's autopsy revealed she had a broken nose that had healed prior to her death. Davidson said statements from people who were around at the time she died support the conclusion that she was a victim of domestic violence.

Brother says investigation gave him closure

Pauline's younger brother, Griffon Mullins, said the investigation gave him closure. He said in a recorded video played at the news conference that their other sister died without knowing what happened to Pauline and he is grateful he will die knowing.

“You would fall in love with her because she was a people person. And of course, my family would always go to Pauline if they had an issue or they needed some advice and she was always there for them,” he said. “She was just a sweet person. I loved her with all my heart.”

Mullins said he knew there was some trouble in Pauline's marriage, but she wasn't one to talk about her problems. For that reason, Mullins said he was “not totally shocked.”

Asked about the murder weapon and whether it matched autopsy findings, Rausch recommended reading the case file for specifics.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation plans to make the entire file, which exceeds 1,000 pages, available to the public by handing it over to the University of Tennessee at Martin once it finishes with redactions. The school will create an online, searchable database for the case. Until then, members of the public can make appointments to review it in person or can purchase a copy, said university Chancellor Yancy Freeman Sr.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756523930137.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>By AUDREY McAVOY Associated PressA late Tennessee sheriff who inspired a Hollywood movie about a law enforcement officer who took on organized crime killed his wife in 1967 and led people to believe she was murdered by his enemies, authorities said Friday.Authorities acknowledged that the finding will likely shock many who grew up as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/05dd8ca5cdfb43e8a710e0b427183e0c">Buford Pusser</a>&nbsp;fans and watched 1973's “Walking Tall,” which immortalized him as a tough but fair sheriff with zero tolerance for crime. The movie was remade in 2004, and many officers joined law enforcement because of his story, according to Mark Davidson, the district attorney for Tennessee’s 25th judicial district.There is enough evidence that if Pusser, the McNairy County sheriff who died in a car crash seven years after his wife's death, were alive today, prosecutors would present an indictment to a grand jury for the killing of Pauline Mullins Pusser, Davidson said. Investigators also uncovered signs that she suffered from domestic violence.Prosecutors worked with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which began reexamining decades-old files on Pauline's death in 2022 as part of its regular review of cold cases, agency director David Rausch said. Agents found inconsistencies between Buford Pusser's version of events and the physical evidence, received a tip about a potential murder weapon and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-sheriff-wife-exhumed-8f7eed563cd72177231e4edbbc7808cf">exhumed Pauline's body</a>&nbsp;for an autopsy.“This case is not about tearing down a legend. It is about giving dignity and closure to Pauline and her family and ensuring that the truth is not buried with time,” Davidson said in a news conference streamed online. “The truth matters. Justice matters. Even 58 years later. Pauline deserves both.”<h2>Evidence does not back up sheriff's story</h2>The case dates to Aug. 12, 1967. Buford Pusser got a call in the early morning hours about a disturbance. He reported that his wife volunteered to ride along with him as he responded. Buford Pusser said that shortly after they passed New Hope Methodist Church, a car pulled up and fired several times into the vehicle, killing Pauline and injuring the sheriff. Buford Pusser spent 18 days in the hospital and required several surgeries to recover. The case was built largely on his own statement and closed quickly, Rausch said.During the reexamination of the case, Dr. Michael Revelle, an emergency medicine physical and medical examiner, studied postmortem photographs, crime scene photographs, notes made by the medical examiner at the time and Buford Pusser's statements. He concluded that Pauline was more likely than not shot outside the car and then placed inside it.He found that cranial trauma suffered by Pauline didn't match crime scene photographs of the car's interior. Blood spatter on the hood outside the car contradicted Buford Pusser's statements. The gunshot wound on his cheek was in fact a close-contact wound and not one fired from long range, as Buford Pusser described, and was likely self-inflicted, Revelle concluded.Pauline's autopsy revealed she had a broken nose that had healed prior to her death. Davidson said statements from people who were around at the time she died support the conclusion that she was a victim of domestic violence.<h2>Brother says investigation gave him closure</h2>Pauline's younger brother, Griffon Mullins, said the investigation gave him closure. He said in a recorded video played at the news conference that their other sister died without knowing what happened to Pauline and he is grateful he will die knowing.“You would fall in love with her because she was a people person. And of course, my family would always go to Pauline if they had an issue or they needed some advice and she was always there for them,” he said. “She was just a sweet person. I loved her with all my heart.”Mullins said he knew there was some trouble in Pauline's marriage, but she wasn't one to talk about her problems. For that reason, Mullins said he was “not totally shocked.”Asked about the murder weapon and whether it matched autopsy findings, Rausch recommended reading the case file for specifics.The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation plans to make the entire file, which exceeds 1,000 pages, available to the public by handing it over to the University of Tennessee at Martin once it finishes with redactions. The school will create an online, searchable database for the case. Until then, members of the public can make appointments to review it in person or can purchase a copy, said university Chancellor Yancy Freeman Sr.

Officials: ‘Walking Tall’ sheriff likely murdered his wife in 1967

BY&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/mchilson/">MORGAN CHILSON</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>

TOPEKA — Seventy percent of Kansas school districts are repaying amounts from hundreds to millions of dollars after a Medicaid calculation error by a state contractor, a Kansas official testified this week.&nbsp;

Secretary Janet Stanek from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment told the Legislative Budget Committee on Tuesday that 153 of the 286 school districts had to repay funds from fiscal year 2016 to 2023.

Kansas&nbsp;<a href="https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/committees/ctte_leg_budget_1/documents/testimony/20250826_03.pdf" target="_blank">school districts owe $11.2 million</a>&nbsp;to Medicaid, with most owing less than $50,000 each, Stanek said. Wichita Public Schools owes the most at $11.3 million and 19 districts owe less than $1,000.&nbsp;

The $11.2 million was 4.4% of the Medicaid payments made during that time period, Stanek said.

Districts bill Medicaid in two ways, one for claims reimbursement In which providers bill for services like physical or speech therapy, and the other for administrative claims, which cover the cost of providing services at schools, she said.

It was the second method that was incorrectly calculated by Public Consulting Group, a KDHE contractor, Stanek said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

Gary Menke, chief financial officer for Topeka Public Schools, said the administrative claims calculation is complicated. It involves payments for support services the district provides to students to make sure they receive Medicaid services.

“It takes an army of people to get a student that needs those services pulled away from instruction, ready if they have to move to another building or facility for services, then you’ve got to get them back from those services,” he said. “Those are the dollars they are talking about.”

Topeka Public Schools owed just more than $424,000, which Menke said the district elected to repay in four installments to be deducted from a quarterly Medicaid reimbursement the district receives.&nbsp;

While the repayment isn’t a hardship for the school district because Menke said he’s wary of budgeting Medicaid funds until final amounts are set, that $400,000 still would have covered multiple special education teacher salaries, which average about $61,000 annually.

Wichita Public Schools owed over $3 million, and the district’s Medicaid coordinator Deanna Beard told the committee that she would like to see more transparency in the process and&nbsp;<a href="https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/committees/ctte_leg_budget_1/documents/testimony/20250826_04.pdf" target="_blank">Medicaid funding expanded for schools</a>.&nbsp;

“Currently, districts are excluded from key components of the calculation, such as the numerator used to verify Medicaid-eligible students who received services,” she said. “This lack of information from KDHE prevented us from validating data and any ability to identify errors early.”

In an emailed statement, a representative for the Wichita district said it elected to repay the amount in four installments.&nbsp;

“Unforeseen financial needs such as this are an example of why WPS maintains unrestricted reserves,” the statement said. “These reserves will have to backfill the shortfall the audit finding repayment has created for the 2025-26 budget year.”

Stanek, who said she was offering no excuses, explained that previous administrations had cut staff and the program was “under-resourced.” In addition, schools had quite a lot of turnover at the same time the contractor PCG had turnover.&nbsp;

Rep. Kristey Williams, R-Augusta, asked whether anything in the contract allowed Kansas to hold PCG responsible for the error.&nbsp;

Stanek said nothing in the contract allows that but the state&nbsp; isworking with PCG and have asked for a corrective action plan.&nbsp;

“But I can tell you, PCG has stepped up, and we are holding them more accountable,” Stanek said. “We are going to look at adding positions to manage – even though you have a consultant or a contractor, as you know, somebody’s got to manage them too – and I would say it was loose, and that’s on us.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756500055592.png" alt=" Kansas Department of Health and environment secretary Janet Stanek testified Tuesday that corrective actions are being taken to address a Medicaid calculation mistake made by a contractor. (Screenshot/Kansas Legisltive Budget Committee)" />
 <figcaption> Kansas Department of Health and environment secretary Janet Stanek testified Tuesday that corrective actions are being taken to address a Medicaid calculation mistake made by a contractor. (Screenshot/Kansas Legisltive Budget Committee)</figcaption>
 </figure>BY&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/mchilson/">MORGAN CHILSON</a> <a href="https://kansasreflector.com/">Kansas Reflector</a>TOPEKA — Seventy percent of Kansas school districts are repaying amounts from hundreds to millions of dollars after a Medicaid calculation error by a state contractor, a Kansas official testified this week.&nbsp;Secretary Janet Stanek from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment told the Legislative Budget Committee on Tuesday that 153 of the 286 school districts had to repay funds from fiscal year 2016 to 2023.Kansas&nbsp;<a href="https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/committees/ctte_leg_budget_1/documents/testimony/20250826_03.pdf" target="_blank">school districts owe $11.2 million</a>&nbsp;to Medicaid, with most owing less than $50,000 each, Stanek said. Wichita Public Schools owes the most at $11.3 million and 19 districts owe less than $1,000.&nbsp;The $11.2 million was 4.4% of the Medicaid payments made during that time period, Stanek said.Districts bill Medicaid in two ways, one for claims reimbursement In which providers bill for services like physical or speech therapy, and the other for administrative claims, which cover the cost of providing services at schools, she said.It was the second method that was incorrectly calculated by Public Consulting Group, a KDHE contractor, Stanek said.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Gary Menke, chief financial officer for Topeka Public Schools, said the administrative claims calculation is complicated. It involves payments for support services the district provides to students to make sure they receive Medicaid services.“It takes an army of people to get a student that needs those services pulled away from instruction, ready if they have to move to another building or facility for services, then you’ve got to get them back from those services,” he said. “Those are the dollars they are talking about.”Topeka Public Schools owed just more than $424,000, which Menke said the district elected to repay in four installments to be deducted from a quarterly Medicaid reimbursement the district receives.&nbsp;While the repayment isn’t a hardship for the school district because Menke said he’s wary of budgeting Medicaid funds until final amounts are set, that $400,000 still would have covered multiple special education teacher salaries, which average about $61,000 annually.Wichita Public Schools owed over $3 million, and the district’s Medicaid coordinator Deanna Beard told the committee that she would like to see more transparency in the process and&nbsp;<a href="https://kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/committees/ctte_leg_budget_1/documents/testimony/20250826_04.pdf" target="_blank">Medicaid funding expanded for schools</a>.&nbsp;“Currently, districts are excluded from key components of the calculation, such as the numerator used to verify Medicaid-eligible students who received services,” she said. “This lack of information from KDHE prevented us from validating data and any ability to identify errors early.”In an emailed statement, a representative for the Wichita district said it elected to repay the amount in four installments.&nbsp;“Unforeseen financial needs such as this are an example of why WPS maintains unrestricted reserves,” the statement said. “These reserves will have to backfill the shortfall the audit finding repayment has created for the 2025-26 budget year.”Stanek, who said she was offering no excuses, explained that previous administrations had cut staff and the program was “under-resourced.” In addition, schools had quite a lot of turnover at the same time the contractor PCG had turnover.&nbsp;“It was a perfect storm,” she said.Rep. Kristey Williams, R-Augusta, asked whether anything in the contract allowed Kansas to hold PCG responsible for the error.&nbsp;Stanek said nothing in the contract allows that but the state&nbsp; isworking with PCG and have asked for a corrective action plan.&nbsp;“But I can tell you, PCG has stepped up, and we are holding them more accountable,” Stanek said. “We are going to look at adding positions to manage – even though you have a consultant or a contractor, as you know, somebody’s got to manage them too – and I would say it was loose, and that’s on us.”

Kansas school districts repay Medicaid dollars after contractor error

BUCHANAN COUNTY, Mo. — Nine people on a church bus were injured in an accident just 3:30p.m. Friday in Buchanan County.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 2013 Ford F550 owned by&nbsp;Olivet Baptist Church of Westwood and driven by a 61-year-old Merriam, Kansas, man was northbound on Interstate 29 one half mile south of Faucett.&nbsp; The front passenger side tire blew out.&nbsp; The vehicle began to skid and then the back passenger side tire blew out. The vehicle traveled off the east side of the road, struck a ditch and overturned.

EMS transported 9 passengers including two 14-year-old girls, a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl all from Kansas City, Kansas and a 16-year-old Lee's Summit boy to North Kansas City Hospital; a 15-year-old Merriam, Kansas girl, a 16-year-old Shawnee, Kansas boy; a 14-year-old&nbsp; Kansas City, Kansas girl and a 44-year-old Shawnee, Kansas, woman to Mosaic Life Care in St. Joseph.&nbsp; The driver was not injured.

There were 30 people on the bus at the time of the accident.&nbsp;Interstate 29 was closed for several hours but reopened while first responders worked the scene. The highway was&nbsp; open again just after 7 p.m. Friday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/8/1756555858424.png" alt="photo courtesy KMBC" />
 <figcaption>photo courtesy KMBC</figcaption>
 </figure>BUCHANAN COUNTY, Mo. — Nine people on a church bus were injured in an accident just 3:30p.m. Friday in Buchanan County.The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 2013 Ford F550 owned by&nbsp;Olivet Baptist Church of Westwood and driven by a 61-year-old Merriam, Kansas, man was northbound on Interstate 29 one half mile south of Faucett.&nbsp; The front passenger side tire blew out.&nbsp; The vehicle began to skid and then the back passenger side tire blew out. The vehicle traveled off the east side of the road, struck a ditch and overturned.EMS transported 9 passengers including two 14-year-old girls, a 14-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl all from Kansas City, Kansas and a 16-year-old Lee's Summit boy to North Kansas City Hospital; a 15-year-old Merriam, Kansas girl, a 16-year-old Shawnee, Kansas boy; a 14-year-old&nbsp; Kansas City, Kansas girl and a 44-year-old Shawnee, Kansas, woman to Mosaic Life Care in St. Joseph.&nbsp; The driver was not injured.There were 30 people on the bus at the time of the accident.&nbsp;Interstate 29 was closed for several hours but reopened while first responders worked the scene. The highway was&nbsp; open again just after 7 p.m. Friday.

8 Kansas City area students injured in church bus crash 

By&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/author/paul-wiseman">PAUL WISEMAN</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/author/lindsay-whitehurst">LINDSAY WHITEHURST</a>

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products.

Now a federal appeals court has thrown a roadblock in his path.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-appeals-court-b714cfc8dff51289b1d5291f46d71f3f">ruled Friday</a>&nbsp;that Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify imposing sweeping import taxes on almost every country on earth. The ruling largely upheld a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-court-0392dbd59f548e49ad4f64254ae3f94a">May decision</a>&nbsp;by a specialized federal trade court in New York. But the 7-4 appeals court decision tossed out a part of that ruling striking down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-chickening-out-taco-trade-tariff-chinau-69569d771c28ef972f80b87bac0d54d6">erratic trade policies</a>&nbsp;have rocked financial markets,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-china-36df035fc02b45e498cc50f213536e79">paralyzed businesses with uncertainty</a>&nbsp;and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

The court’s decision centers on the tariffs Trump slapped in April on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-stock-market-china-recession-deals-e8e54a68397e6829e1d27552a1d7bfb9">almost all U.S. trading partners</a>&nbsp;and levies he imposed before that on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4">China, Mexico and Canada</a>.

Trump on April 2 —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-liberation-day-2a031b3c16120a5672a6ddd01da09933">Liberation Day, he called it</a>&nbsp;— imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.

The president later&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-stock-market-china-recession-deals-e8e54a68397e6829e1d27552a1d7bfb9">suspended the reciprocal tariffs</a>&nbsp;for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. Some of them did — including the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union — and agreed to lopsided deals with Trump to avoid even bigger tariffs.

Those that didn’t knuckle under — or otherwise incurred Trump’s wrath — got hit harder earlier this month. Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff, for instance, and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump also kept the baseline tariffs in place.

Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, Trump justified the taxes under the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-china-trade-taxes-6c2ae398d0dfab042fc2c9f139b27db5">1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act</a>&nbsp;by declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”

In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-immigration-crime-drugs-border-mexico-1528ef9c04f786478184a279ad26abb9">illegal flow of immigrants</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/china-us-fentanyl-tariffs-trump-f77abc5dc8cba277a07c0f2cddb9a9e9">drugs across the U.S. border</a>&nbsp;amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-steel-aluminum-trade-240dbc3823ecd66d3dd05a66883f9277">foreign steel, aluminum</a>&nbsp;and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Why did the court rule against the president?

The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

On Friday, the federal appeals court wrote in its 7-4 ruling that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to ... grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

A dissent from the judges who disagreed with Friday’s ruling clears a possible legal path for Trump, concluding that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions,” which have allowed the legislature to grant some tariffing authorities to the president.

So where does this leave Trump’s trade agenda?

The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

It could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland &amp; Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The president vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on his social medial platform.

Trump does have alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot simply be imposed at the president’s own discretion.

The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):

— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.

— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.

The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.

They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.

By&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/author/paul-wiseman">PAUL WISEMAN</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/author/lindsay-whitehurst">LINDSAY WHITEHURST</a>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-media-max-width="560"><a href="https://t.co/SXchwKrQbz">pic.twitter.com/SXchwKrQbz</a>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1961552377246548224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 29, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Now a federal appeals court has thrown a roadblock in his path.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> Trump found there was a national emergency and took action under the law by imposing tariffs. The judges of the Federal Circuit are interfering with the President’s vital and constitutionally central role in foreign policy. This decision is wrong and undermines the…&mdash; Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) <a href="https://twitter.com/AGPamBondi/status/1961568926862610761?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 29, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-appeals-court-b714cfc8dff51289b1d5291f46d71f3f">ruled Friday</a>&nbsp;that Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify imposing sweeping import taxes on almost every country on earth. The ruling largely upheld a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-court-0392dbd59f548e49ad4f64254ae3f94a">May decision</a>&nbsp;by a specialized federal trade court in New York. But the 7-4 appeals court decision tossed out a part of that ruling striking down the tariffs immediately, allowing his administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-chickening-out-taco-trade-tariff-chinau-69569d771c28ef972f80b87bac0d54d6">erratic trade policies</a>&nbsp;have rocked financial markets,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-china-36df035fc02b45e498cc50f213536e79">paralyzed businesses with uncertainty</a>&nbsp;and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.<h2>Which tariffs did the court knock down?</h2>The court’s decision centers on the tariffs Trump slapped in April on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-stock-market-china-recession-deals-e8e54a68397e6829e1d27552a1d7bfb9">almost all U.S. trading partners</a>&nbsp;and levies he imposed before that on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-trade-china-mexico-canada-inflation-753a09d56cd318f2eb1d2efe3c43b7d4">China, Mexico and Canada</a>.Trump on April 2 —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-liberation-day-2a031b3c16120a5672a6ddd01da09933">Liberation Day, he called it</a>&nbsp;— imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.The president later&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-stock-market-china-recession-deals-e8e54a68397e6829e1d27552a1d7bfb9">suspended the reciprocal tariffs</a>&nbsp;for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. Some of them did — including the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union — and agreed to lopsided deals with Trump to avoid even bigger tariffs.Those that didn’t knuckle under — or otherwise incurred Trump’s wrath — got hit harder earlier this month. Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff, for instance, and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump also kept the baseline tariffs in place.Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, Trump justified the taxes under the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-mexico-canada-china-trade-taxes-6c2ae398d0dfab042fc2c9f139b27db5">1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act</a>&nbsp;by declaring the United States’ longstanding trade deficits “a national emergency.”In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-immigration-crime-drugs-border-mexico-1528ef9c04f786478184a279ad26abb9">illegal flow of immigrants</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/china-us-fentanyl-tariffs-trump-f77abc5dc8cba277a07c0f2cddb9a9e9">drugs across the U.S. border</a>&nbsp;amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-steel-aluminum-trade-240dbc3823ecd66d3dd05a66883f9277">foreign steel, aluminum</a>&nbsp;and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.<h2>Why did the court rule against the president?</h2>The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEEPA.In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.On Friday, the federal appeals court wrote in its 7-4 ruling that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to ... grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”A dissent from the judges who disagreed with Friday’s ruling clears a possible legal path for Trump, concluding that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions,” which have allowed the legislature to grant some tariffing authorities to the president.<h2>So where does this leave Trump’s trade agenda?</h2>The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.It could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward.“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland &amp; Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.The president vowed to take the fight to the Supreme Court. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on his social medial platform.Trump does have alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act. For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot simply be imposed at the president’s own discretion.-------------The ruling involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA):— The sweeping tariffs he announced April 2 — “Liberation Day,’’ he called it — when he imposed “reciprocal’’ tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs trade deficits and a “baseline’’ 10% tariff on just about everyone else. The national emergency underlying the tariffs, Trump said, was the long-running gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from the rest of the world. The president started to levy modified the tariff rates in August, but goods from countries with which the U.S. runs a surplus also face the taxes.— The “trafficking tariffs’’ he announced Feb. 1 on imports from Canada, China and Mexico. These were designed to get those countries to do more to stop what he declared a national emergency: the illegal flow of drugs and immigrants across their borders into the United States.The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose taxes, including tariffs. But over decades, lawmakers have ceded authorities to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.But Trump’s assertion that IEEPA essentially gives him unlimited power to tax imports quickly drew legal challenges — at least seven cases. No president had ever used the law to justify tariffs, though IEEPA had been used frequently to impose export restrictions and other sanctions on U.S. adversaries such as Iran and North Korea.The plaintiffs argued that the emergency power law does not authorize the use of tariffs.They also noted that the trade deficit hardly meets the definition of an “unusual and extraordinary’’ threat that would justify declaring an emergency under the law. The United States, after all, has run trade deficits — in which it buys more from foreign countries than it sells them — for 49 straight years and in good times and bad.The Trump administration argued that courts approved President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic crisis that arose from the chaos that followed his decision to end a policy linking the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in IEEPA.In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.In the case of the drug trafficking and immigration tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico, the trade court ruled that the levies did not meet IEEPA’s requirement that they “deal with’’ the problem they were supposed to address.The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-tariffs-steel-aluminum-trade-240dbc3823ecd66d3dd05a66883f9277">foreign steel, aluminum&nbsp;</a>and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Joe Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that the Chinese used unfair practices to give their own technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.Trump could potentially cite alternative authorities to impose import taxes, though they are more limited. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, for instance, allows the president to tax imports from countries with which the U.S. runs big trade deficits at 15% for 150 days.Likewise, Section 301 of the same 1974 law allows the president to tax imports from countries found to have engaged in unfair trade practices after an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Trump used Section 301 authority to launch his first-term trade war with China.__Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Josh Boak contributed to this story.