Before taking over the sprawling Justice Department investigation into foes of President Donald Trump, Joe diGenova decried the lack of progress in bringing indictments.

Five months later, diGenova has left his position without charging a single case, clouding the future of an investigation that has animated right-wing commentators eager to prove an ill-defined theory of a “deep state” conspiracy to take down the Republican president.

Justice Department officials are pressing forward despite diGenova’s departure, with a flurry of subpoenas to former law enforcement and intelligence officials expected to yield grand jury testimony in the weeks ahead at the Fort Pierce, Florida, home court of a favored Trump-appointed federal judge.

Yet whether anyone ultimately will be charged, and for what, remains an open question. Investigators face not only legal hurdles and personnel upheaval but an impatient White House after more than a year of fits and starts.

The investigation known familiarly as the “grand conspiracy” case is the clearest example yet of the Trump administration’s efforts to leverage law enforcement powers to enact retribution on the president’s adversaries. The tumult that has defined the probe exposes a familiar gap between White House demands for speedy action and the Justice Department’s ability to craft the president’s litany of grievances into a prosecutable case.

The investigation has always been a tough task, aiming to knit together separate FBI probes of Trump — including related to Russian election interference and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida — into a coherent narrative of a government conspiracy. Prior efforts to investigate the investigators have failed to uncover the kind of criminal misconduct the conspiracy probe aims to prove.

“The idea of connecting all those different investigations into one single conspiracy, there’s no basis for that,” retired federal prosecutor Randall Eliason said. “Then, maybe more importantly, there’s no basis for an allegation that any one of them was actually a criminal act against Trump. They’ve all been verified and upheld in one way or another.”

If the mandate is unusual, so, too, was the person picked to lead it. DiGenova, who’s 81, was a top prosecutor in President Ronald Reagan’s administration but had been out of government for decades. He made headlines in 2020 after he said a cybersecurity official who attested to the legitimacy of the election Trump lost to Democrat Joe Biden should be “drawn and quartered.” DiGenova apologized after being sued.

A prominent booster of the theory that Trump was victimized by a “deep state” conspiracy, diGenova was appointed in April shortly after Trump ousted Pam Bondi as attorney general after she struggled to prosecute his foes.

The appointment was heralded by Trump allies who regard the probe as a long-awaited reckoning for former officials they believe wronged the president. Attorney General Todd Blanche, who took the reins of the department after Bondi’s firing, also trumpeted diGenova’s arrival, writing on social media: “Welcome to the fight, Joe!”

By Sept. 10, diGenova was gone amid Trump administration frustration with the pace and management of the probe. His parting comments suggested he didn’t see a pathway for imminent indictments. “If you want indictments where there’s no evidence, you have an ethical problem,” he told the New York Post.

DiGenova told The Associated Press those comments were taken out of context, adding: “There’s plenty of evidence in all of these cases to prove the theories of prosecution. It just takes time to get there, and some people want to get there a little faster than others — and you can’t do that.”

DiGenova was sworn in days after a career national security prosecutor, Maria Medetis Long, was removed from the investigative team after conveying concerns about an investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan.

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to restrict mail ballots for the midterm elections, capping a flurry of last-minute legal action with voting already underway.

The decision allows states to continue sending out mail ballots under the same processes they've used for years and have accounted for nearly a third of votes cast.

It represented a stark defeat for Trump on an issue he consistently has emphasized as vital to ensuring election integrity even though there is virtually no evidence of fraud with mail ballots.

The Supreme Court majority wrote that the administration's push to implement the restrictions this year is likely to lose in court, though the brief emergency order didn't detail its reasoning. Two justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

The Trump administration had asked the justices, once again at the center of a roiling political controversy, to clear the way for restrictions before the pivotal November contests for control of Congress.

Alito wrote in his dissent that the Postal Service "has broad authority to regulate the mail" and likely does have the power to enforce Trump's restrictions.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, meanwhile, agreed that the restrictions should not go into effect for the midterms but indicated he might rule in favor of the Trump administration if the issue comes back before the court at a later time.

Mail ballots are already being sent to voters

Election officials have said there was simply no way to carry out a complete overhaul in the weeks before the midterms. Indeed, Alabama, North Carolina and Wisconsin began sending mail ballots to voters over the past week while the new system was still not active.

The Trump administration plan would require states to adopt a uniform envelope style and submit lists of eligible voters to an online portal. The Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots to states that didn't comply.

The administration's efforts had the potential to be especially disruptive in states that send out ballots entirely by mail. Washington's Secretary of State Steve Hobbs, a Democrat, said the decision means work "to carry out a safe, secure, and accurate election" can continue "without having to upend our election processes to meet unrealistic ballot mail requirements."

In Arizona, another largely vote-by-mail state, Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said "it is crucial for us to continue rejecting the notion that access and security are mutually exclusive when it comes to running strong elections."

Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson, a Republican serving as the state's chief election officer, said on social media that the Supreme Court's decision means "Utahns can have confidence that the 2026 election will proceed as normal."

The White House and Justice Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but have in the past framed the restrictions as commonsense changes aimed at keeping elections secure.

State officials and voting rights groups pushed back

Democratic state officials and voting rights groups challenged the restrictions in court, arguing that the president has no constitutional authority to set election rules that would "virtually eliminate mail voting on the eve of a major election."

A whistleblower report, meanwhile, said the postal system's requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent, because problems with the not-yet-operational portal meant a single bar code error could result in an entire batch of ballots being tossed out.

A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed the White House to continue construction on a $400 million ballroom project as lawsuits play out, a win for President Donald Trump as he flexes unprecedented executive power and remakes the capital in his image.

The apparent 5-4 decision replaces a temporary order issued earlier this month, shortly before a court-ordered halt would have gone into effect.

That temporary order was signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, assigned to handle appeals from the capital. But he publicly disagreed with the latest decision, writing a strong dissent that said the project is likely unlawful because it hasn't been approved by Congress.

“Today's decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” Roberts wrote. The court's three liberal-leaning justices agreed.

The majority, on the other hand, found the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely did not have the legal right to challenge the project.

The unsigned order pointed to government arguments that the ballroom would address national security concerns by shielding a planned underground military installation and offering a more secure structure for large events than the tents currently used.

By contrast, “the only harm the Trust claims is the offense one of its members will suffer from having to view a structure of the ‘scale,’ ‘height,’ and ‘massing’ the government intends,” it states.

Trump applauded the decision, writing in a social media post, “I am pleased to report that the United States Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the Ballroom/Military Complex being built without any further contingency, doubt, or threat.”

The majority's order did not directly decide the legality of the project, and the suit will return to lower courts. Documents filed in the case, though, say that key portions of the project could be complete within months — a quick timeline compared with a typical legal case.

The trust's president and CEO, Brent Leggs, said the group was disappointed with the decision but pleased with Roberts' dissent. “This is not the final decision on the merits of our case and does not resolve our fundamental argument — that each President is a temporary steward of the People's House and does not have the unilateral authority to demolish and redesign it without the approval of Congress,” he said in a statement.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene after federal courts found the project must halt because it didn't have congressional approval.

The lawsuit from the trust argued that Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, which has included demolishing the East Wing. The group's lawyers accused the White House of trying to “outrun the courts” by accelerating construction.

In lower courts, the administration has argued that the president has total authority to renovate the White House and other federal buildings.

A social media influencer known for posting viral videos of pranks has pleaded guilty to criminal impersonation in Arizona for posing as an employee of businesses in a Phoenix suburb and orchestrating brief but chaotic takeover attempts.

The outcome was welcomed by observers who said it could serve as a reminder to seekers of viral fame that stunts that cross the line legally can lead to serious ramifications.

Heston James Cobb, who posts as “Heston James,” was arrested in July 2025 after police in Tempe say he and others went into businesses posing as workers, entered employee-only areas and refused to leave when asked to do so. He entered his plea Friday.

In one video Cobb, wearing a Chipotle Mexican Grill shirt, told restaurant staff he was going to “clean house” before a group of men wearing dark shirts flooded into the eatery and ignored requests to leave. One man posing as an employee cleaned a tabletop with a mop.

Investigators said the videos had millions of views and potentially generated large amounts of income.

Vicki Lopez, an attorney representing Cobb, declined to comment Saturday. The Associated Press left a message with Cobb's TikTok account seeking comment.

Steve Chucri, president of the Arizona Restaurant Association, said he hopes Cobb's punishment is “severe” to deter copycats.

“There's no place for it,” Chucri said. “That's the last thing we need to put up with in the restaurant industry. The amount of money it takes to operate today is expensive.”

Chucri said the association does not offer any formal training or advice to restaurants on dealing with social media pranksters, and he hopes it does not come to that.

“We're a society of civility,” Chucri said. “We shouldn't have to.”

Matthew Pittman, a social media professor at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, hopes the arrest will be a warning to influencers about boundaries when creating prank or satirical content.

Pittman said he and others who teach aspiring content creators generally stress that “real world norms and laws” extend into the digital world.

“So doing something that is illegal in real life would also be illegal on social, even if you are doing it for content,” he said. “This is a clear case of going beyond what the law allows.”

Among the recent cases he cited was an influencer in Long Island, New York, who was arrested last year after a series of pranks. They included videos of him going to eateries; pouring food such as raw eggs or beans over his head; and then running off, leaving the mess to be cleaned by others.

“Every few years a YouTuber, influencer or prank content creator goes a little too far, gets in trouble, and reminds the rest of us creators that digital actions can have real world consequences,” Pittman said.

Cara Hawkins-Jedlicka, a communications professor at Washington State University who teaches about content creation, said it's not enough for influencers to stay within the law. They also need to have basic empathy.

“When is it pulling a prank, and when it is being cruel?” Hawkins-Jedlicka said. “Before anything else, this is truly kind of unkind. This influencer was really only thinking about himself and how can I take advantage of this community.”

The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court's conservative majority didn't decide the legality of Trump's order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

While the emergency order is not final, it does have the potential to create chaos around voting across the country, with Trump often questioning the integrity of elections and the nation's highest court again the possible arbiter of a political controversy.

“The Court's disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order.

The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the rule “lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James foreshadowed more legal fights ahead, calling the decision a “painful setback” but vowing it would “not be the final word.”

The court's order opens a path for the administration to begin action to restrict mail voting, but it also could lead to further litigation that could freeze the federal government again.

“This is just the first inning of a very fast nine-inning game,” said Derek Muller, a law professor at Notre Dame University.

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

Trump's executive order, signed in March, calls on his administration to create lists of eligible voters and orders the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to people on those lists. New requirements released Friday would forbid the Postal Service from sending mail ballots from any state that does not comply with Trump's order.

A Postal Service spokesperson did not immediately respond messages seeking comment. The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

A federal judge refused on Friday to block the Trump administration from taking steps to build 62 miles of international border wall along part of a Native American tribe’s reservation without its consent.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., denied the Tohono O’odham Nation’s request for a court-ordered halt to border wall construction on its 2.8-million-acre reservation. Leon ruled the tribe hasn’t established that a border wall will change its reservation boundaries without congressional authority.

The judge also rejected the tribe’s claim that the planned border wall would illegally trespass on its reservation.

“And in any event, I find that the Government’s interests in securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and ensuring public safety outweigh any surviving irreparable harms at this juncture,” Leon wrote.

The tribe released a statement late Friday strongly disagreeing with the decision.

“Too many critical issues were not adequately addressed, such as inevitable impacts construction will have on the Nation’s land and the permanent destruction of sacred sites,” Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon M. Jose said. “The Nation will consider all possible options for moving forward, as this issue is simply too important to the O’odham.”

The O’odham reservation in the Sonoran Desert in Arizona abuts 62 miles of the Mexico border. The tribe has over 37,000 members, including thousands who live in Mexico.

Building the border wall would led to “significant devastation” on the reservation, including the destruction of mountain peaks that are sacred to the O’odham, tribe attorneys said.

“It would fray the ties between O’odham communities and families on opposite sides of the border, interfere significantly with O’odham religious rituals and practices, and destroy plant and animal resources sacred to the O’odham,” the lawyers wrote.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt issued a proclamation reserving a 60-foot strip of public land along the U.S.-Mexico border for a buffer zone called the “Roosevelt Reservation,” which was formed a decade before the reservation’s establishment.

Tribe attorneys say it is “fanciful at best” to suggest that border wall construction can be confined to a 60-foot-wide corridor. During a July 22 hearing, Leon appeared to be skeptical that U.S. laws tip in favor of the tribe’s bid for a preliminary injunction, calling it an “extraordinary” request. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, said he couldn’t find a previous court ruling under comparable circumstances.

Right-leaning legal activists along with Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company have brought sweeping challenges against a cornerstone of legal enforcement in the United States: the right of private groups, people and local governments to sue over violations of many major laws.

Their argument, supported by the Trump administration, is that the Constitution reserves tremendous power for the president and federal agencies to decide how — or whether at all — to enforce federal law. They contend Congress should never have handed that power to others through so-called citizen suits that are part of environmental, campaign finance and certain other laws.

Environmentalists say it would be devastating to lose this essential, decades-old tool that is used to impose fines and halt lawbreaking by bad actors. Citizen suits, for example, have extracted millions from heavily polluting oil and gas operations, and ensured that lead pipes in Flint, Michigan, would be removed after its water crisis.

Legal experts say four pending federal cases — one of them filed last week — are moving forward at a time when the conservative majority on the Supreme Court gives opponents of citizen suits a greater chance than ever of success. The hard part for those opponents now is winning early federal cases and creating disagreement between the country’s appeals courts, which may help convince the Supreme Court the issue is important enough for a nationwide ruling.

Back in 2000, a Supreme Court opinion opened the door for that possibility.

“Many of us who worked in this area have been waiting basically 26 years for this shoe to drop,” said Richard Lazarus, a Harvard professor with decades of experience in environmental law.

Lazarus was referring to former moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a Clean Water Act case that citizen suits raised “difficult and fundamental” questions about whether they improperly dilute executive power. The late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissenting opinion in the same case that citizen suits turn “over to private citizens the function of enforcing the law.” He avoided explicitly saying they were constitutional.

“The court is more like Scalia’s court since he died than it ever was when he was there,” said Lazarus.

He observed that those who lost cases where Scalia dissented are rushing back to today’s court hoping for a more favorable result.

The critical issue for citizen suits is who — the government or private citizens — collects fines and has control. A person filing a citizen suit must tell the government ahead of time. The government can stop the suit if it sufficiently pursues the case itself, but its options are limited and the person suing can stay involved. Citizen suits can force compliance with the law and result in fines, which go to the U.S. Treasury.