A Department of Defense webpage describing baseball and civil rights icon Jackie Robinson’s military service was missing Wednesday morning.

That development comes after pages honoring a Black Medal of Honor winner and Japanese American service members were taken down — the Pentagon said that was a mistake — amid the department’s campaign to strip out content singling out the contributions by women and minority groups, which the Trump administration considers “DEI.”

According to Internet Archive, the page on Robinson previously included biographical information about his Army service during World War II, which occurred prior to his famously breaking baseball’s color barrier in 1947 with the Brooklyn Dodgers. When that page’s address was entered Wednesday, a message showed up saying it “might have been moved, renamed, or may be temporarily unavailable.” The letters “dei” were also automatically added to the URL.

The page included an anecdote about Robinson refusing to move to the back of an Army bus in 1944, prompting the driver to call military police. Robinson was court martialed but acquitted.

Thousands of pages honoring contributions by women and minority groups have been taken down in efforts to delete material promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell defended the practice at a briefing Monday.

A Defense Department webpage honoring Black Medal of Honor recipient Army Maj. Gen. Charles Calvin Rogers was taken down last week but was back online by Monday night.

___

AP MLB: https://apnews.com/mlb

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to address an issue that has irritated Republican and Democratic administrations alike: the ability of a single judge to block a nationwide policy.

Federal judges responding to a flurry of lawsuits have stopped or slowed one Trump administration action after another, from efforts to restrict birthright citizenship to freezes on domestic and international spending.

While several justices have expressed concern about the use of so-called nationwide, or universal, injunctions, the high court has sidestepped multiple requests to do something about them.

The latest plea comes in the form of an emergency appeal the Justice Department filed with the court last week, seeking to narrow orders issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that prohibit the nationwide enforcement of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship.

The justices usually order the other side in an emergency appeal to respond in a few days or a week. But in this case, they have set a deadline of April 4, without offering any explanation.

What are nationwide, or universal, injunctions?

The standard practice in U.S. courts is that a judge issues an order that gives only the people who sued what they want. As the name suggests, nationwide injunctions go well beyond the parties to a case and apply everywhere and to everyone who might be affected.

There is a scholarly dispute over when the first nationwide injunctions were issued, but there is no disagreement that they started increasing in frequency during the Obama administration and have only grown in number since.

One reason for the growth in these broad orders may be a corresponding increase in executive action.

In 2015, for instance, a judge in Texas blocked President Barack Obama’s program to protect immigrant parents of U.S. children after Congress failed to pass an immigration overhaul. Shortly after Trump took office for the first time, judges initially shut down his imposition of travel restrictions on immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

Shopping for judges to get a result

The Trump administration’s acting top Supreme Court lawyer, Sarah Harris, described one major flaw in these court orders with universal effect. “Years of experience have shown that the Executive Branch cannot properly perform its functions if any judge anywhere can enjoin every presidential action everywhere,” Harris wrote in the emergency appeal over birthright citizenship.

Her predecessor in the Biden administration, Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, struck a similar theme in high court filings last year, noting that “the government must prevail in every suit to keep its policy in force, but plaintiffs can block a federal statute or regulation nationwide with just a single lower-court victory.”

The issue has been exacerbated by the tendency of conservatives to seek out like-minded judges in Texas, Louisiana and Missouri, while liberals file suit in friendlier courthouses in Massachusetts, California and New York.

“You look at something like that and you think, that can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in 2022. “In the Trump years, people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas. It just can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”

Are nationwide injunctions even legal?

At least two justices, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have made clear they think the answer is no. Several others have suggested the injunctions raise questions the court might someday answer.

Samuel Bray, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, is a leading voice arguing that judges have no power to issue nationwide injunctions. The limits on a judge’s power remain even in the face of an obviously unconstitutional policy, Bray said.

That restraint applies even in the birthright citizenship cases, Bray wrote on the Divided Argument blog. “Any illegal act by the president should be rejected by the federal courts. But they should reject it as courts do—one case at a time, with remedies for the parties,” he wrote, citing Kagan’s remarks.

People challenging the executive order could file a class-action lawsuit, which would have broader application. Indeed, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing immigration advocates and individuals in a case in New Hampshire told a judge that the ACLU was considering a nationwide class action.

But the group’s lawyer, Cody Wofsy, pointed out what might happen in the interim, if the Supreme Court agrees to the administration’s request. “Children would be exposed to all the harms we’ve talked about immediately,” Wofsay said.

Amanda Frost, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, thinks the Supreme Court could be open to addressing the broader issue at some point because judges impose nationwide injunctions too often.

But birthright citizenship would be a terrible issue on which to do so, Frost said.

“It would create a burden on people at a moment in their lives when they’re entering into the labor delivery room…And then you create a patchwork across the United States, incentivizing pregnant women to leave for a state that recognizes birthright citizenship,” she said.

She added: “You think about the chaos that would play out.”

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

MIAMI (AP) — In Hialeah, Florida, a city that’s 95% Hispanic, only three residents showed up at a recent city council meeting to speak against a partnership with the federal government to enforce immigration laws.

The police departments in Hialeah, where three out of four people were born abroad, and Coral Gables, with a majority of Hispanics mostly of Cuban descent, have entered into agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement with very little visible pushback.

President Donald Trump’s doubling of immigration arrests and ramping up of deportations could have a disproportionate impact on South Florida, home to some of the nation’s largest communities of Cubans, Venezuelans and other Latin Americans. But reaction here to Trump’s crackdown has been far more muted than during his first term, reflecting both the rightward shift of Latino voters and a belief among some that restrictive border measures are necessary.

“I understand some people feel a little bit betrayed because most of us voted him in,” said Frank Ayllon, a 41-year-old sales representative from Miami. “I feel like a lot of these people are taking it very personal. And it’s not personal. It’s just that you’ve got to understand that this has been an open border for many years.”

Ayllon echoed Trump’s attacks on former President Joe Biden, whose administration saw record-high illegal border crossings before falling by the end of his term. Having once been critical Trump’s 2020 election lies, Ayllon now says he thought the president has had the most action-packed beginning of a term he has ever seen.

A political shift begins to stick

When Miami-Dade County ordered jail officials in 2017 to hold people suspected of being in the U.S. illegally, dozens lined up to speak against the order at a public meeting, with some shouting “shame on you.” Lawmakers including former Vice President Kamala Harris, then California’s junior senator, joined large protests outside a local immigrant detention facility.

Now in Trump’s second term, the protest movement is splintered. But there’s also been a broader political shift in South Florida and Latino communities.

While Harris in the 2024 presidential election won more than half of Hispanic voters, that support was down slightly from the roughly 6 in 10 Hispanic voters that Biden won in 2020. Roughly half of Latino men voted for Harris, down from about 6 in 10 who went for Biden.

In the November election, 7 in 10 Hispanic voters in Florida said they favored reducing the number of immigrants who were allowed to seek asylum in the U.S. when they arrived at the U.S. border, according to AP VoteCast. That was in line with Florida voters overall.

In 2024, Trump won not just Miami-Dade County but the central Florida counties of Seminole and Osceola, where many Venezuelans have immigrated, and made inroads in heavily Puerto Rican areas of Pennsylvania. He also flipped several South Texas border counties that were Democratic bastions for decades.

What initially catapulted Trump’s popularity in South Florida was his stance on the socialist governments that many exiles and their families fled, along with his focus on boosting growth and reducing prices. But at a rally in Miami days before announcing his third White House bid in November 2022, Trump said that, contrary to the belief of some, Hispanics liked his vows to crack down on illegal immigration.

“When I talked about the border, you know who the biggest fans of that were? (they) were the Hispanics, Latinos,” Trump said. “They knew more about the border than anybody. They knew more about it. Everybody said, ‘Oh, he’s going to hurt himself with Hispanics.’ Actually, it turned out to be the exact opposite.”

Barbara Canales, a 49-year-old certified nursing assistant who lives in Hialeah, said her mother brought her as a young girl from Honduras with a visa and overstayed it. It took them many years to legalize their status and to be able to bring other family members.

“That’s why I totally agree that you need to take illegal immigrants out of the United States. I’m sorry, but they should do it,” Canales said, adding that she feels most of the migrants arriving in the past few years are different. “When you come in with a visa is a totally different story.”

Canales says that while the Republican president has made immigration his signature issue, previous Democratic administrations have been just as willing to enforce immigration laws and deport people who had built their lives in the U.S. Former President Barack Obamaearned the nickname “deporter in chief” from advocacy groups who opposed his use of enforcement.

“It’s the reality that if you’re here breaking the rules, you have to suffer the consequences,” Canales said.

Miami’s Cuban exiles are split

Miami is particularly well-known for its community of Cuban exiles who originally fled the government of communist leader Fidel Castro. About two-thirds of Cuban voters in Florida supported Trump in 2024, according to AP VoteCast, while about one-third supported Harris.

Cubans have long prided themselves of arriving here legally through several refugee and family-based programs and have been able to get green cards easier than people from other countries, thanks to a Cold War-era law.

After Obama in 2017 ended the “wet foot, dry foot” policy that considered any Cuban who set foot on dry land to be automatically a legal arrival, Cubans leaving for the U.S. have found more obstacles.

It did not stop many from coming.

Between 2021 and 2022, the U.S. government recorded the largest flight of Cuban exiles since the Mariel boatlift in 1980, when nearly 125,000 Cubans came to the U.S. over a six-month period.

“We are all in favor of legal immigration. My parents are products of legal immigration, like many of your parents, if not you directly,” said Hialeah Mayor Esteban Bovo, a strong Trump ally, during the recent city council meeting about an ICE partnership.

Trump picked up support from new Cuban immigrants such as Luis Boulart, 85, who arrived in 2015, got his citizenship in 2022 and cast his first presidential vote for Trump in 2024. Boulart recently said he trusted the president and believed the Republican party could better handle immigration, the economy, immigration and foreign policy.

“I think the challenges ahead are huge. But he is capable of solving all the problems,” Boulart said.

But those policy changes have meant more recent arrivals have a tougher path to legal status than preceding generations did.

Julian Padron, a 79-year-old who said he was jailed in Cuba, arrived decades ago when President Jimmy Carter negotiated with Castro the release of hundreds of political prisoners to the United States. He said he feels strongly against Trump and considers his actions anti-democratic.

He frequents Domino Park, located on Calle Ocho in Miami’s iconic Little Havana, where a lot of the players sitting at four-person tables on a recent day were supportive of Trump. Padron said he typically keeps his thoughts to himself unless he is asked for his opinion. A park employee first told an Associated Press reporter that political questions were not allowed at this park to avoid arguments. But when asked which directive forbade that, the employee said he would find out and then allowed the interviews to continue.

“They are going to be detaining people,” Padron said, looking around the park. “Do they not know that people are still fleeing communism?”

Adriana Gomez Licon, The Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Republican-backed candidate in Wisconsin’s closely watched state Supreme Court race has resurfaced long debunked concerns about voting fraud because of the late reporting of ballots in Milwaukee just two weeks before the April 1 election.

Brad Schimel, a former Republican attorney general, spoke of the possibility of “bags of ballots” and fraud in Milwaukee during an interview Tuesday on conservative talk radio. Schimel faces Democratic-backed Susan Crawford in the April 1 election with majority control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court at stake.

Schimel, in an interview on WISN-AM, said his supporters need to “get our votes banked, make this too big to rig so we don’t have to worry that at 11:30 in Milwaukee, they’re going to find bags of ballots that they forgot to put into the machines.”

Schimel said that happened in 2018 and in November “when (U.S. Senate candidate) Eric Hovde was ahead all night, and then all of a sudden, Milwaukee County changed that.”

Republicans and Democrats alike, along with state and Milwaukee election leaders, warned in the run-up to the November election that Milwaukee absentee ballots would be reported late and cause a huge influx of Democratic votes. Milwaukee is the state’s most populated city and is heavily Democratic.

The reporting of those absentee ballots swung the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden, fueling baseless conspiracy theories that the election had been stolen from President Donald Trump.

Milwaukee’s absentee ballots are counted at a central location and reported all at once, often well after midnight on election day. Elections officials for years have made clear that those ballots are reported later than usual due to the sheer number that have to be counted and because state law does not allow them to be processed until polls open.

In 2018, the reporting of more than 47,000 absentee ballots after midnight put Democrat Tony Evers ahead of then-Gov. Scott Walker. Evers went on to win and Walker criticized the late reporting, saying it blindsided him.

And in November, Hovde said he was “shocked” by the reporting of more than 108,000 ballots in Milwaukee early in the morning after the election in his defeat to Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin.

Schimel said in the radio interview he didn’t know what happened.

“I don’t know if there was fraud there,” Schimel said. “There’s no way for me to know that. All I know is this: We need to turn our votes out. That’s the best insulation we have against any potential fraud, is just get our people to the polls.”

Asked about his concerns during an appearance later Tuesday at the Milwaukee Rotary Club, Schimel said he brought up fraud because voters often ask him how to guarantee election integrity.

“I tell people, by following the rules,” Schimel said. “And then I tell them, ‘Here’s the best way to make sure your vote isn’t stolen: Go use it.’ That’s the answer.”

Yet despite his concerns, Schimel said: “I will always accept the results of the election.”

Crawford’s spokesperson, Derrick Honeyman, said Schimel was “dabbling in conspiracy theories to please his ally, Elon Musk, and it’s unbecoming of a judge and candidate for the state’s high court.”

Groups funded by billionaire Musk have contributed more than $11 million to help Schimel’s campaign. Crawford is backed by several billionaire Democrats, including philanthropist George Soros and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

The election comes as the court faces cases on abortion, public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries. Who controls the court also could factor into how it might rule on any future voting challenge in the perennial presidential battleground state — raising the stakes for national Republicans and Democrats.

Scott Bauer, The Associated Press

The U.S. Institute of Peace and many of its board members have sued the Trump administration, seeking to prevent their removal and stop Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from taking over and accessing the building and systems of the independent nonprofit.

The lawsuit filed late Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington describes the lengths that institute staff resorted to, including calling the police, in an effort to prevent DOGE representatives and others working with the Trump administration from accessing the headquarters near the State Department.

An executive order last month from Republican President Donald Trump targeted the institute and three other agencies for large-scale reductions. The think tank, which seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, was created and funded by Congress in 1984. Board members are nominated by the president and must be confirmed by the Senate.

The lawsuit accuses the White House of illegal firings by email and said the remaining board members — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Defense University President Peter Garvin — also ousted the institute’s president, George Moose.

In his place, the three appointed Kenneth Jackson, an administrator with the U.S. Agency for International Development, according to the lawsuit.

DOGE staff tried multiple times to access the building Monday before successfully getting in, partly with police assistance. The lawsuit says the institute’s lawyer told DOGE representatives multiple times that the executive branch has no authority over the nonprofit.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

The legal action is the latest challenging the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle U.S. foreign assistance agencies, reduce the size of the federal government and exert control over entities created by Congress.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that cuts to USAID likely violated the Constitution and he blocked DOGE staff from making further ones.

The leaders of two of the other agencies listed in Trump’s February executive order — the Inter-American Foundation, which invests in businesses in Latin American and the Caribbean, and the U.S. African Development Foundation — also have sued the administration to undo or pause the removal of most of their staff and cancellation of most of their contracts.

A federal judge ruled last week that it would be legal to remove most contracts and staff from the U.S.-Africa agency, which invested millions of dollars in African small businesses.

But the judge also ordered the government to prepare DOGE staff to explain what steps they were taking to maintain the agency at “the minimum presence and function required by law.”

A White House spokesperson, Anna Kelly, has said in response to the U.S.-Africa foundation case that “entitled, rogue bureaucrats have no authority to defy” Trump’s executive orders or “physically bar his representatives from entering the agencies they run.”

___

Associated Press coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content. For all of AP’s philanthropy coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/philanthropy.

Thalia Beaty, The Associated Press