BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota lawmakers are on the verge of making their state the first to tell the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its decade-old ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Similar efforts — which would not have any direct sway with the nation’s top courts — have been introduced in a handful of states this year. North Dakota’s resolution passed the Republican-led House in February but still requires Senate approval, which is not assured.

“The original Supreme Court ruling in 2015 went totally against the Tenth Amendment, went totally against the North Dakota Constitution and North Dakota Century Code (state laws),” sponsor Republican Rep. Bill Tveit said. “Why did I introduce it? Every one of us in this building took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the state.”

When the Legislature considers such resolutions, attorney and North Dakota National Guard member Laura Balliet said she wonders why she stays in her home state. The measure makes her feel unwanted, unwelcome and judged because of who she is, she said. She married her wife in 2020.

“I don’t know what this resolution does other than to tell people like myself, my friends and my family that we’re not welcome here, and I’m angry about that because I want to be welcome here. This is my home,” Balliet told the Senate panel that heard the measure on Wednesday — one in a stream of opponents who testified against it.

A push across states

Massachusetts-based MassResistance, which describes itself as an “international pro-family group” but has been labeled “anti-LGBTQ hate group” by the LGBTQ+ advocacy organization GLAAD, is pushing the resolution across the country.

Massachusetts became the first state to recognize same-sex marriage, in 2004. Over the next 11 years, most states began to recognize it through laws, ballot measures or court decisions before the Supreme Court made it legal nationwide.

Outside of Idaho and North Dakota, the measures have not progressed far, according to an analysis of legislation collected by the bill-tracking service Plural.

By contrast, there have been additional protections for same-sex marriage over the years, including a federal law in 2022. Since 2020, California, Colorado, Hawaii and Nevada have repealed old constitutional amendments that defined marriage as being allowed only between a man and a woman, and Virginia lawmakers advanced a similar measure this year. It could be on the ballot there in 2026.

Differing views

The North Dakota measure states that the Legislature “rejects” the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision and urges the U.S. Supreme Court “to overturn the decision and leave unaddressed the natural definition of marriage as a union between one man, a biological male, and one woman, a biological female.”

In the court’s 2022 ruling that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court should reconsider its precedents in the marriage decision and other past cases.

Soon after the measure passed the North Dakota House last month, several Republican state reps who voted for it stated they meant to vote no or regretted voting yes.

Republican Rep. Matt Ruby said he wished he had voted against the measure, saying his yes vote was for a different intent he realized wasn’t going to happen. The vote sent a bad message “that your marriage isn’t valid and you’re not welcome,” Ruby said. He said he supports the right for same-sex couples to be married.

Republican Rep. Dwight Kiefert said he voted for the resolution because of his Christian faith and that the institution of marriage was established in the Bible in the Garden of Eden between Adam and Eve.

‘Slap in the face’

The measure is a slap in the face to North Dakotans who are happily married and invested in their state, said Democratic Sen. Ryan Braunberger, who is gay and sits on the Senate panel that heard the resolution. The measure sends a dangerous message as North Dakota wants to grow its population and expand economically, he said.

“We want to make sure that we bring everybody in the best of the crop, and that runs the gamut of all sorts of different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations through that,” Braunberger said.

The measure is a declaration, if passed, that lawmakers would want to define marriage through what is arguably a religious lens, which dangerously gets close to infringing upon the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, said Cody Schuler, advocacy manager for the American Civil Liberties Union’s North Dakota chapter.

“Marriage defined as ‘one man, one woman’ is a particular religious view. It is not held by all religions, all societies or by nonreligious people, and so therefore it is dangerous to be making that kind of statement because it puts legislators on record as to how they might vote on law, on a binding law versus this nonbinding resolution,” Schuler said.

___

Associated Press writer Geoff Mulvihill contributed from Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

Jack Dura, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — In what he called the “most consequential day of deregulation in American history,” the head of the Environmental Protection Agency announced a series of actions Wednesday to roll back landmark environmental regulations, including rules on pollution from coal-fired power plants, climate change and electric vehicles.

“We are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion and ushering in America’s Golden Age,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in an essay in The Wall Street Journal.

If approved after a lengthy process that includes public comment, the Trump administration’s actions will eliminate trillions of dollars in regulatory costs and “hidden taxes,” Zeldin said, lowering the cost of living for American families and reducing prices for such essentials such as buying a car, heating your home and operating a business.

“Our actions will also reignite American manufacturing, spreading economic benefits to communities,” he wrote. “Energy dominance stands at the center of America’s resurgence.”

In all, Zeldin said he is rolling back 31 environmental rules, including a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for U.S. action against climate change.

Zeldin said he and President Donald Trump support rewriting the agency’s 2009 finding that planet-warming greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The Obama-era determination under the Clean Air Act is the legal underpinning of a host of climate regulations for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources.

Environmentalists and climate scientists call the endangerment finding a bedrock of U.S. law and say any attempt to undo it will have little chance of success.

“In the face of overwhelming science, it’s impossible to think that the EPA could develop a contradictory finding that would stand up in court,” said David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group.

In a related action, Zeldin said EPA will rewrite a rule restricting air pollution from fossil-fuel fired power plants and a separate measure restricting emissions from cars and trucks. Zeldin and the Republican president incorrectly label the car rule as an electric vehicle “mandate.”

President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration had said the power plant rules would reduce pollution and improve public health while supporting the reliable, long-term supply of electricity that America needs.

Biden, who made fighting climate change a hallmark of his presidency, cited the car rule as a key factor in what he called “historic progress” on his pledge that half of all new cars and trucks sold in the U.S. will be zero-emission by 2030.

The EPA also will take aim at rules restricting industrial pollution of mercury and other air toxins, soot pollution and a “good neighbor” rule intended to restrict smokestack emissions that burden downwind areas with smog. The EPA also targeted a clean water law that provides federal protections for rivers, streams and wetlands.

None of the changes take effect immediately, and nearly all will require a long rulemaking process. Environmental groups vowed to oppose the actions, which one said would result in “the greatest increase in pollution in decades” in the U.S.

Amanda Leland, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, made the claim as she denounced Zeldin’s “unlawful attack on the public health of the American people.”

The EPA has also terminated its diversity, equity and inclusion programs and will shutter parts of the agency focused on environmental justice, Zeldin said. The effort strived to improve conditions in areas heavily burdened by industrial pollution, mostly in low-income and majority-Black or Hispanic communities.

“This isn’t about abandoning environmental protection — it’s about achieving it through innovation and not strangulation,” Zeldin wrote. “By reconsidering rules that throttled oil and gas production and unfairly targeted coal-fired power plants, we are ensuring that American energy remains clean, affordable and reliable.”

University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann called the EPA’s action “just the latest form of Republican climate denial. They can no longer deny climate change is happening, so instead they’re pretending it’s not a threat, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it is, perhaps, the greatest threat that we face today.”

The directive to reconsider the endangerment finding and other EPA rules was a recommendation of Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for Trump’s second term. Russell Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and co-author of Project 2025, called the actions long overdue.

“EPA’s regulation of the climate affects the entire national economy — jobs, wages and family budgets,″ Vought said Wednesday.

“The Trump administration’s ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet,” countered Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute. “Come hell and high water, raging fires and deadly heatwaves, Trump and his cronies are bent on putting polluter profits ahead of people’s lives.”

Reconsidering the endangerment finding and other actions “won’t stand up in court,” Rylander said. ”We’re going to fight it every step of the way.”

The United States is the second largest carbon polluter in the world, after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases.

The moves to terminate environmental justice staff follows an action last week to drop a case against a Louisiana petrochemical plant accused of increasing cancer risk in a majority-Black community. Zeldin called environmental justice a term that “has been used primarily as an excuse to fund left-wing activists instead of actually spending those dollars to directly remediate environmental issues for those communities.”

Matthew Tejada, who once led EPA’s environmental justice office, said Trump and Zeldin were “taking us back to a time of unfettered pollution across the nation, leaving every American exposed to toxic chemicals, dirty air and contaminated water.” Tejada now works at the NRDC.

Anne Bradbury, CEO of the American Exploration & Production Council, an oil industry group, hailed Zeldin’s actions and said the U.S. is “stronger and more secure when we are energy dominant.”

Her group has long called for changes to EPA rules so they are “workable, effective and build on the significant emissions reductions” made by oil and gas producers, Bradbury said. “We support updating these rules so the American people can continue to benefit from affordable, reliable and clean American energy.”

New Jersey Rep. Frank Pallone, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called Zeldin’s actions “a despicable betrayal of the American people.”

Every day, more Americans lose their jobs, homes and even their lives to worsening climate disasters, Pallone said. Trump and Zeldin “are making a mockery of those people’s pain,” Pallone said, adding that “will have swift and catastrophic ramifications for the environment and health of all Americans.”

___

Associated Press writer Michael Phillis in St. Louis contributed to this report.

Matthew Daly, The Associated Press

Again and again the Trump White House has turned to a 73-year-old legal statute to defend its immigration crackdown.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 on Tuesday to explain the arrest and planned deportation of a Palestinian activist and legal U.S. resident with a green card.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cited it in late February when announcing that anyone living in the U.S. illegally would have to register with the federal government.

The act has been mentioned in presidential orders, press releases and speeches.

But what is it?

Why do officials keep talking about the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952?

The act comes up so frequently because it is the legal foundation of modern immigration law, encompassing a vast range of regulations and procedures. It has been amended hundreds of times since it was passed, during the Truman administration.

Decades of sweeping changes in immigration law link back to the act.

“These were all massive public laws in their own standing, but they were all amending” the 1952 legislation, said Niels Frenzen, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

The law, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act, came amid the anti-communist fears of the early Cold War. While it eased some race-based immigration restrictions, particularly for Asians, it effectively limited most immigration to Europeans. It also codified rules allowing ideology to be used to deny immigration and allow deportation.

How has the Trump administration used the act and its many provisions?

Most recently, the Trump White House used the act as the basis to arrest Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who helped organize campus protests at Columbia University against the Israel-Hamas war. Khalil, a Palestinian who was born and raised in Syria, became a legal permanent resident, also known as a green card holder, last year. He is married to an American citizen.

But the administration says he still can be expelled.

“Under the Immigration and Nationality Act the secretary of state has the right to revoke a green card or a visa for individuals who are adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests” of the U.S., Leavitt told reporters Tuesday.

The reality is more complicated, legal scholars say. The provision the White House is using – Section 237 (a)(4)(C) – is rarely invoked, requires extensive judicial review and is intended for unusual cases when someone’s presence in the U.S. could cause diplomatic turmoil.

“The deportation has to have some seriousness to it,” said Richard Boswell, a University of California San Francisco law professor whose work often focuses on immigration. “The burden is on the government” to show the person should be deported.

Scholars often point back to the Clinton administration for a recent, high-profile example.

Mario Ruiz Massieu was a former deputy attorney general in Mexico when he was arrested in 1995 for trying to leave the U.S. with $26,000 in undeclared cash. Then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher said that not deporting Ruiz-Massieu “would jeopardize our ability to work with Mexico on law enforcement matters.”

When else has the act been invoked?

-Under Section 212(f) , the president may block entry of “any aliens or class of aliens into the United States” whose presence would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” Donald Trump used that broad language to impose a travel ban on people from several Muslim-majority countries during his first term and, on the first day of his second term, laid groundwork for a renewed travel ban. His advisers are expected to make recommendations later this month.

-In late February, Noem said in a statement she would “fully enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and would require anyone living in the U.S. illegally to register with the federal government, with those who don’t facing fines, imprisonment or both.

– Joe Biden used the act’s humanitarian parole provision more than any president to allow temporarily allow people into the U.S. from countries including Ukraine, Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Specifically, it allows the president to admit anyone “on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” The Trump administration is facing a lawsuit for ending the long-standing legal tool.

Tim Sullivan, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Kuwait has released a group of American prisoners, including veterans and military contractors jailed for years on drug-related charges, in a move seen as a gesture of goodwill between two allies, a representative for the detainees told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The release follows a recent visit to the region by Adam Boehler, the Trump administration’s top hostage envoy, and comes amid a continued U.S. government push to bring home American citizens jailed in foreign countries.

Six of the newly freed prisoners were accompanied on a flight from Kuwait to New York by Jonathan Franks, a private consultant who works on cases involving American hostages and detainees and who had been in the country to help secure their release.

“My clients and their families are grateful to the Kuwaiti government for this kind humanitarian gesture,” Franks said in a statement.

He said that his clients maintain their innocence and that additional Americans he represents also are expected to be released by Kuwait later.

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The names of the released prisoners were not immediately made public.

Kuwait, a small, oil-rich nation that borders Iraq and Saudi Arabia and is near Iran, is considered a major non-NATO ally of the United States. Secretary of State Marco Rubio paid tribute to that relationship as recently as last month, when he said the U.S. “remains steadfast in its support for Kuwait’s sovereignty and the well-being of its people.”

The countries have had a close military partnership since America launched the 1991 Gulf War to expel Iraqi troops after Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein invaded the country, with some 13,500 American troops stationed in Kuwait at Camp Arifjan and Ali al-Salem Air Base.

But Kuwait has also detained many American military contractors on drug charges, in some cases, for years. Their families have alleged that their loved ones faced abuse while imprisoned in a country that bans alcohol and has strict laws regarding drugs.

Others have criticized Kuwaiti police for bringing trumped-up charges and manufacturing evidence used against them — allegations never acknowledged by the autocratic nation ruled by a hereditary emir.

The State Department warns travelers that drug charges in Kuwait can carry long prison sentences and the death penalty. Defense cooperation agreements between the U.S. and Kuwait likely include provisions that ensure U.S. troops are subject only to American laws, though that likely doesn’t include contractors.

Since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his Republican administration has secured the release of American schoolteacher Marc Fogel in a prisoner swap with Russia and has announced the release by Belarus of an imprisoned U.S. citizen.

The Americans released Wednesday had not been designated by the U.S. government as wrongfully detained. The status is applied to a subsection of Americans jailed abroad and historically ensures the case is handled by the administration’s special presidential envoy for hostage affairs — the office that handles negotiations for a release.

But advocates of those held in foreign countries are hopeful the Trump administration takes a more flexible approach and secures the release of those not deemed wrongfully detained.

“The sad reality is that these Americans were left in prison for years due to a misguided policy that had, before President Trump took office, effectively abandoned Americans abroad who hadn’t been designated wrongfully detained,” Franks said in a statement.

“These releases,” he added, “demonstrate what is achievable when the U.S. government prioritizes bringing Americans home.”

___

Gambrell reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Eric Tucker And Jon Gambrell, The Associated Press

President Donald Trump welcomed Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin on Wednesday for the annual St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House, where he added Ireland to the list of countries he says are taking advantage of the United States.

Martin countered by noting Ireland’s contributions to the U.S.

It was Trump’s first Oval Office meeting with a foreign leader since his recent sit-down with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which morphed into a shouting match as they jousted over ending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The session ended with Zelenskyy being asked to leave the White House.

Martin, who offered only gentle pushback to some of Trump’s comments, is set to return to the White House in the evening to present Trump with a bowl of shamrocks at an early St. Patrick’s Day celebration. The duo also attended an annual luncheon at the Capitol.

The president’s banter during the Oval Office meeting also touched on Vice President JD Vance’s shamrock-themed socks and Trump nemesis Rosie O’Donnell ‘s recent move to Ireland.

The Republican president has been sparring with U.S. allies and adversaries alike over trade, slapping double-digit tariffs on imports from countries from Canada to China and in between. During the appearance with Martin, Trump repeated his claim that the European Union was created just to stick it to the U.S.

Asked if Ireland, a member of the EU, was taking advantage, too, Trump said, “of course they are. I have great respect for Ireland and what they did and they should have done just what they did, but the United States shouldn’t have let it happen.” He was referring to the concentration of U.S. pharmaceutical companies in Ireland, due to the country’s tax policies.

“We had stupid leaders. We had leaders that didn’t have a clue or let’s say they weren’t businesspeople, but they didn’t have a clue what was happening and all of a sudden Ireland has our pharmaceutical companies,” Trump said.

Martin countered that the trade relationship is “a two-way street,” adding that Ireland’s two largest airlines buy more aircrafts from Boeing Co. than anyone else outside of America.

More than 700 Irish companies are also based in America, creating thousands of jobs, Martin said. “That’s a little known fact that doesn’t turn up in the statistics,” he added.

“I understand where you’re coming from, fully,” Martin told Trump, “but I think it’s a relationship that we can develop and that will endure into the future.”

At one point, Trump became distracted as he talked about inflation in the U.S.

“By the way, I love these socks. What’s with these socks? I’m trying to stay focused, but I’m very impressed with the VP’s socks,” Trump said, drawing chuckles from others in the room.

Vance had worn socks patterned with small green shamrocks as a nod to Martin’s visit.

When a reporter asked Martin why his country would let O’Donnell move there, Trump jumped at the opening.

“I like that question,” the president said, adding that Martin was ”better off not knowing” about O’Donnell.

O’Donnell, a comedian and former talk-show host, and Trump have feuded for years. O’Donnell, who is gay, recently announced that she moved to Ireland in January, citing a lack of equal rights in America.

Trump found a way to sneak his penchant for professional fighting into the discourse.

As the meeting wrapped, Trump was asked to name his favorite person in Ireland. Trump referred to Irish mixed martial arts fighter Conor McGregor, partly because “he’s got the best tattoos I’ve ever seen.”

Trump is well known for his support of Ultimate Fighting Championship and attended bouts during the 2024 presidential campaign.

He noted that Martin’s father was an acclaimed boxer, but motioned to Martin saying, “You’re so smooth,” suggesting he did not look like a boxer.

“I’m a pretty good defensive boxer,” Martin joked in reply.

___

Associated Press writer Tom Beaumont in Des Moines, Iowa, contributed to this report.

Darlene Superville, The Associated Press

SCARBOROUGH, Maine (AP) — A Republican lawmaker in Maine has sued the state’s Democratic House speaker over her censure that followed a social media post about a transgender athlete participating in high school sports.

Rep. Laurel Libby’s posted about a high school athlete who won a girls’ track competition. The post included a photo of the student and identified them by first name, with the name in quotation marks, saying that they previously competed in boys’ track.

The post went viral and touched off a spat between President Donald Trump and Democratic Gov. Janet Mills. It also led to the Democrat-controlled Maine House of Representatives censuring Libby in February and Democratic House Speaker Ryan Fecteau accusing her of violating the state’s legislative code of ethics.

Libby filed a federal lawsuit against Fecteau and House clerk Robert Hunt on Tuesday with a claim the censure violated her right to free speech. The lawsuit also states that the censure stripped her right to speak and vote on the House floor, and that disenfranchises the thousands of residents in her district.

“I have the constitutional right to speak out and my constituents have the right to full representation in the Maine House. Biological males have no place in girls’ sports. Our girls have every right, under federal law, to fair competition in sports,” Libby said in a statement.

The lawsuit seeks a judgment that the censure is unlawful. It also seeks the restoration of Libby’s voting and speaking rights on the House floor.

Spokespeople for Fecteau and Hunt declined to comment on the lawsuit and deferred to the office of the state attorney general. The attorney general’s office declined to comment on pending litigation.

At the time of the censure, Fecteau said Libby violated the code of ethics by sharing an image of a minor online.

“Sharing images of kids online without their consent is a clear violation of the bond of trust and respect between citizens and their Legislators. There is a time and place for policy debates. That time and place will never be a social media post attacking a Maine student,” Fecteau said in February.

Libby’s post preceded a public argument between Trump and Mills at a meeting of governors at the White House in February.

Soon after taking office, Trump signed an executive order designed to ban transgender athletes from participating in girls’ and women’s sports. Trump characterized Maine as out of line with the order and told Mills “you’re not getting any federal funding” during the meeting with governors.

Mills responded by saying: “We’ll see you in court.” The Trump administration followed by launching an investigation that found Maine in violation of Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in school programs.

Patrick Whittle, The Associated Press