War ignited record-breaking wildfires in Ukraine last year, scientists say

A federal judge has allowed the US Department of Justice to temporarily stop funding legal education programs for people facing deportation or immigration court while a lawsuit brought by the organizations that provide the service moves forward in court.
The decision from US District Judge Randolph D. Moss in Washington, D.C., means a coalition of nonprofit groups that offer the education programs will lose their federal funding on Wednesday – and possibly, some access to potential clients inside detention centers.
Unlike criminal cases, people in immigration courts and detention centers don’t have a right to an attorney if they can’t afford one themselves. Proponents of the legal education programs say they ease the burden on immigration judges and help immigrants navigate the complicated court system more efficiently.
Congress allocates $29 million a year for four programs — the Legal Orientation Program, the Immigration Court Helpdesk, the Family Group Legal Orientation and the Counsel for Children Initiative — and those groups spread the funding to subcontractors nationwide.
The Justice Department first instructed the nonprofit groups to “stop work immediately” on the programs on Jan. 22, citing an executive order from President Donald Trump targeting illegal immigration.
The nonprofit groups about a week later, and the Justice Department then rescinded the stop-work order. But on April 11, the agency said it was terminating its contracts with the groups nationwide, effective at 12:01 a.m. on April 16.
During a hearing Tuesday afternoon, Moss told attorneys on both sides that he wanted more information about exactly how the Department of Justice came to its decision to end the contracts, any plans for spending the earmarked money in the future, as well as any problems the nonprofit groups run into as they try to provide legal information to detained non-citizens in the coming weeks.
The judge also said he wanted to issue a final decision in the case quickly, and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction and possible final decision for May 14.
A few blocks away from the federal immigration courts in New York City, a leader of the one affected program testified at a city council hearing on immigration fraud.
“We’re often the first attorneys people are able to speak to about their immigration cases,” said Hannah Strauss, an immigration lawyer who supervises a team triaging cases Supervising Attorney of the Immigration Court Helpdesk run by Catholic Charities.
New York state is one of only six states in the US where more than half of immigrants are represented by an attorney in pending immigration cases, according to government data compiled by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. That’s thanks in part to state and city grants, as well as a large pool of lawyers who volunteer. But federal funding forms an important part of the system.
Strauss said the $1.2 million federal grant covering New York covered the helpdesk, a skeleton crew relied upon by other NGOs to screen immigration referrals and by immigration judges to explain the basics on laws regarding asylum and other forms of legal immigration.
“Unfortunately today marks the final day of both ICH and FGLOP, as the federal government has chosen to terminate our contracts as of midnight tonight,” Strauss, referring to her organization and the Family Group Legal Orientation Program, run by Acacia Center for Justice.
The main reason for falling prey to immigration scams is the lack of legitimate legal help, said immigrants at the hearing. The immigrants testified without using their names, citing fear they could become targets of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for speaking out, but details they shared were representative of cases that have been investigated by federal prosecutors, costing immigrants thousands of dollars and sometimes ruining their cases.In the hearing, the city council discussed ways to crack down on immigration service providers advertising exaggerated or outright fraudulent services.
For example, it’s considering increasing funding for civil enforcement of business laws through the city’s consumer protection department. The agency uses investigators, sometimes undercover, to investigate violations that can lead to civil penalties, or referrals to criminal prosecutors.