(The Center Square) – A coalition of state attorneys general is filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, urging the court to lift a nationwide restraining order that is “preventing” the “immediate deportation” of “Tren de Aragua gang members.”

Leading the effort are Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares and South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, who joined 24 other states after a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order Saturday evening temporarily halting the deportations of members of the Venezuelan gang. The order came as the aircraft carrying the gang members was airborne.

The deportations followed President Donald Trump’s announcement that he was invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This prompted Chief Judge James Boasberg to immediately issue a temporary restraining order blocking the removal of “all noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject” to the president’s order.

Boasberg ordered the planes en route to Central America to be turned around. The Trump administration immediately appealed Boasberg’s order to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The planes carrying the migrants arrived in El Salvador, with the Trump administration claiming they complied with the court order but that the aircraft was out of U.S. airspace by the time Boasberg issued his order.

In January, the president designated Tren de Aragua a foreign terrorist organization, along with seven other cartels from Latin America.

In the latest brief, the coalition of attorneys general argues that allowing the TRO to stand “undermines public safety and national security, placing American lives at risk.”

The group defended the president’s executive order, saying it is “grounded in clear constitutional and statutory authority to remove TdA members.” They added that the district court “overstepped its bounds by issuing a restraining order without fully considering the Executive Branch’s compelling interest in national security.”

Miyares underscored the duties of the government in protecting its citizens, adding that the president’s actions are constitutionally protected.

“The core duty of government is to protect its citizens. The President, acting within his constitutional and statutory authority, did just that by ordering the removal of TdA gang members who have no legal right to be in this country and pose a direct threat to Americans’ safety. TdA is a violent transnational criminal organization responsible for heinous crimes across the United States. The law is clear, and so is our position,” said Miyares.

The brief comes on the heels of Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introducing articles of impeachment against Boasberg, who was appointed to the bench by former president Barack Obama.

Earlier in the day, the president called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” in a Truth Social post, adding that the judge “should be impeached.”

The post led U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to issue rare comments criticizing the president, saying the court system should be left to resolve legal disputes.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said Tuesday in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

In addition to the attorneys general from Virginia and South Carolina, the following states joined the coalition: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

(The Center Square) – The Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing regulatory changes the Biden administration made that broadened the definition of “waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, expanding the number of water bodies subject to federal permitting.

This latest step by the Trump administration toward environmental deregulation has agriculture and business advocates celebrating and environmentalists predicting a future flood of water pollution across the nation.

The definition of “waters of the United States” – which the Biden administration had expanded to include nearly all of the nation’s streams and wetlands – determines whether landowners and businesses must pay for federal permits under the Clean Water Act before beginning a project.

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has argued that clearer, streamlined permitting will reduce costs, encourage construction of homes and manufacturing facilities, and ensure WOTUS regulations align with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency ruling of 2023, which condemned the Biden administration’s changes.

“The previous Administration’s definition of ‘waters of the United States’ placed unfair burdens on the American people and drove up the cost of doing business,” Zeldin said in a statement. “Our goal is to protect America’s water resources consistent with the law of the land while empowering American farmers, landowners, entrepreneurs, and families.”

Zeldin said the EPA will conduct the review along with the United States Army Corps of Engineers and invite input from stakeholders and state partners before issuing a rule revision.

Republican lawmakers and business leaders are hailing the move as the likely end of what they view was a “weaponization” of federal regulatory powers that bypassed state and local authorities and infringed on property rights.

“This is great news for farmers, small businesses, manufacturers, home builders, infrastructure builders, local communities, and property owners across the country,” House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair Sam Graves, R-Mo., said in a statement.

“The Biden Administration, with its costly and burdensome WOTUS rule, created confusion, uncertainty, and hardship for everyone by pushing the federal government’s regulatory powers far beyond the intent of the Clean Water Act,” Graves added. “Even worse, they ignored the Supreme Court’s Sackett ruling that should have reigned in their illegal rulemaking.”

Both the American Farm Bureau and the National Association of Homebuilders support Zeldin’s plans, referencing the uncertainty and delays farmers and builders have faced since the WOTUS expansion.

“Obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit under WOTUS can take upwards of a year, and these permitting delays put home building projects on hold and increase construction costs,” NAHB Chairman Buddy Hughes stated. “[This] action by the EPA will help alleviate federal permitting roadblocks that are exacerbating the nation’s housing affordability crisis.”

But environmental advocates are strongly opposed to the move, arguing it gives a free pass to corporate polluters.

“After decades of misinformation and campaigning, corporate polluters won big when Sackett v. EPA gutted clean water protections for most wetlands and millions of miles of streams. Now, the Trump administration wants to strip even more protections,” Julian Gonzalez from Earthjustice, an environmental law nonprofit, said in a statement. “This administration is ignoring the will of the people, who overwhelmingly demand clean water.”

(The Center Square) – North Carolina agencies would have to get legislative approval for any new regulation that would have more than $1 million in economic impact under bills introduced Friday in the Senate and House of Representatives.

The legislation is part of a nationwide push by conservative groups such as Americans for Prosperity to stop unelected state agency leaders from raising costs for businesses by adding new regulations.

“The NC REINS Act is about giving the people of North Carolina a stronger voice in the rules that shape their lives,” state Rep. Allen Chesser, R-Nash, in a news conference Tuesday. “Right now, unelected bureaucrats can impose regulations with major financial consequences without direct oversight from the General Assembly. The current process is not transparent. We can do better.”

Chesser sponsored NC REINS ACT, or House Bill 402. Companion legislation in the upper chamber is the same name in Senate Bill 290, shepherded by Sen. Benton Sawrey, R-Johnston.

This is not a new issue, Dalton Clark, legislative liaison for Americans for Prosperity said Tuesday.

“It’s something that has been debated several times at the General Assembly,” Clark said. “I think the No. 1 question we’ve got is ‘Why now?”

The legislation now has “overwhelming” bipartisan support, Clark said. A poll shows 80% support for the bill, he said.

Donald Bryson, CEO of the Locke Foundation, said his organization has been pushing for this type of legislation for a decade.

“This is about good governance overall and reinstating accountability and transparency to democratic governance,” he said. ”At what point does a rule or regulation that’s created become so large that it in fact should be a law?”

The proposal “clarifies this strange gray area,” Bryson said.

Similar legislation is pending in at least a dozen states, including Georgia and South Carolina, said Jaimie Cavanaugh, legal policy counsel at Pacific Legal Foundation. Wyoming passed a bill this year, she said.

The Center Square was unsuccessful getting comment from Gov. Josh Stein’s office before publication.

Some legislative critics of the proposal have said that the proposal could be dangerous because it would create an extra layer of approval for regulations aimed at protecting public health.