U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers surrounded a Lenexa woman recording video from her car as an officer shouted “25 feet, 25 feet” and ordered her to move back Saturday morning in Olathe.

She couldn’t move because they had trapped her.

The officer’s command referenced a Kansas law called the Halo Act. Effective July 1, it criminalized “unlawfully approaching” law enforcement officers or first responders within 25 feet under certain circumstances. The law changed how people like Shana Leacox document ICE activity.

The move puts at risk $600,000 in philanthropic support to Vermont organizations in an ongoing fight over the ice cream company’s social mission.

Law enforcement agents misused crowd-control weapons during protests against the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement operations in 412 verified incidents across 16 U.S. cities from when immigration enforcement protests escalated in Los Angeles in June 2025 until May 2026, according to Charting the Crackdown, a digital mapping report released today by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) and the Human Rights Center at the University of California, Berkeley (HRC).

The Hormuz Strait is OPEN, and will remain OPEN, with or without Iran. We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it is only stopping Iran’s ships or customers from entering or leaving. All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait. The U.S.A. will be, from this point forward, known as “THE GUARDIAN OF THE HORMUZ STRAIT,” but as such, and as a matter of FAIRNESS, will be reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped, for any and all costs necessary to do the job of providing safety and security to this very volatile section of the World. The process and formation will begin immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Source: Donald Trump on Truth Social.

These facts lead to the inexorable conclusion that the “settlement” terms, the individuals who signed the "settlement” as well as the putative beneficiaries of the “settlement,” demonstrate a shared, unitary interest.

This action was never about a party seeking judicial resolution of a legal issue or a factual dispute. The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law. The President may be the functional “dominus litus” of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules.

In sum, the facts before this Court demonstrate there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail.