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.

The European Union on Thursday hit Google with a fine of 890 million euros ($1 billion) after it said the technology behemoth broke digital antitrust regulations by setting up Google Play and its ubiquitous search engine to corral consumers towards its own services and apps to the detriment of competitors.

It was the latest major crackdown on Big Tech by Brussels, which has led the world in reining in some of the world's largest companies from Silicon Valley to Beijing.

It has done so despite the risk of incurring the wrath of President Donald Trump, who has lashed out at the 27-nation bloc's digital regulations amid a broader campaign against Europe: imposing high tariffs, making threats to seize Greenland from Denmark by force, and rattling trust within the NATO military alliance.

In the past, Trump has threatened retaliation if American tech companies are penalized.

Google had recently lost its appeal of a $4.5 billion antitrust fine imposed by the EU for throttling competition and reducing consumer choice through the dominance of its mobile Android operating system.

The European Commission, the bloc's executive branch and highest antitrust enforcer, said it was acting in the interest of consumers after an investigation of Google.

“The best products should succeed because they’re better, not because they’re owned by the company running the search engine. And European consumers have a right to be told by app developers where to sign up to the best offers, even when the app store owner does not get a cut,” said Teresa Ribera, the commission’s Executive Vice President for Clean, Just and Competitive Transition.

Google’s President of Global Affairs Kent Walker blasted the fine as “product degradation driven by a small group of self-serving complainants” that will have a negative impact on European businesses and consumers.

He said that the EU’s Digital Markets Act forces Google “to strip away real-time search features Europeans love — like instant pricing and direct availability for hotels, flights, and restaurants — and dismantle safety protections on Google Play.”

The EU describes the world’s seven tech giants — Amazon, Apple, Google parent Alphabet, Meta, Microsoft and TikTok owner ByteDance — as “gatekeepers” that control access for consumers.

“In the EU, businesses have the right to compete fairly. Gatekeepers have the obligation to ensure a level playing field and consumers the right to choose for cheaper alternative offers,” European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier said. Alphabet reported $403 billion in revenue in 2025.

A former forensic analyst with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation pleaded guilty Tuesday to four felony counts stemming from accusations that she manipulated and omitted data to speed up the DNA testing process, calling into question the validity of hundreds of criminal cases.

Yvonne "Missy" Woods entered guilty pleas to committing a cybercrime, perjury, attempting to influence a public servant and forgery. Dozens of other counts were dismissed as part of a plea agreement.

Woods was set to stand trial later this year. Instead, she'll face between 8 and 16 years in prison when she's sentenced in September.

Woods and her attorneys declined to talk to reporters after Tuesday's hearing.

Authorities accused Woods, who resigned in 2023 after a decades-long career, of altering data to conceal tampering, deleting data that showed she failed to troubleshoot issues within the testing process and not thoroughly documenting tests performed in case records.

The investigation into Woods' misconduct began in September 2023 after an intern at the bureau discovered missing information in a case that Woods handled in 2018. According to an arrest affidavit, Woods allegedly told investigators at one point that she had changed data to complete cases more quickly.

Problems with the scientist's work were found in cases involving homicide, sexual assault, robbery and other crimes, according to a law enforcement affidavit. Prosecutors were forced to review hundreds of cases.

At least one murder conviction was overturned as a result of Woods' misconduct. Michael Clark was released from prison in 2025 after his lawyers argued that DNA evidence in the case was mishandled by Woods, but prosecutors are seeking to retry him.

In at least two cases, both homicides, the defendants received lesser sentences under plea deals than they could have faced if they went to trial because prosecutors were afraid Woods' involvement could lead to acquittals. Convictions in other cases also are being challenged in courts across Colorado.

State officials have said that the response to Woods' actions could end up costing more than $11 million.

The state investigation bureau in a statement issued Tuesday described Woods' actions as intentional criminal fraud and said it didn't reflect the bureau's practices.

"This moment is not about moving on, for CBI it's about moving forward," said Armando Saldate, bureau director. "Today's guilty plea is an important moment of accountability."

The bureau said it has been making changes and is committed to following best practices used nationwide in forensic science.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a lawsuit over speech restrictions for immigration judges that touched on the rights of federal workers.

The justices overturned a lower-court ruling that had allowed the case to proceed and raised questions about whether a complaint system for federal employees is still working as intended after the Republican president fired some of its top officials.

Immigration judges are federal employees, unlike those in federal courtrooms. They want to sue over a policy restricting their public speeches that started in Trump's first term in office and continued under President Joe Biden's Democratic administration. The judges argue it is a free speech issue that belongs in federal court.

The Trump administration disagreed, saying the judges must instead take their dispute to the complaint system for federal employees overseen by the Merit Systems Protection Board.

The court ruled on procedural grounds, but Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, wrote to rebuke the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for responding to "political controversies of the day."

Tuesday's decision comes as the court weighs another lawsuit about Trump's power to fire heads of independent agencies. The outcome is also expected to affect firing power over Merit Systems Protection Board members.

The judges first sued in 2020, and the Supreme Court previously temporarily sided with them on an emergency basis in December 2025. A union said in a statement that the judges were disappointed by the decision, but the case is "far from over."

"Justice cannot endure when judges are intimidated into silence, nor can a nation remain free when the rule of law is subordinate to the whims of political ambition," the National Association of Immigration Judges said.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche applauded the decision, saying it "sends a clear message: lower courts must accept that the law is the law, no matter the 'political controversies of the day,'" he wrote in a social-media post.

Federal agents can no longer make arrests without exceptional circumstances in and around three Manhattan buildings where immigration proceedings occur, a judge ruled Monday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel brings an abrupt halt to a practice begun under the Trump administration that enabled agents to take into custody individuals who follow requirements to appear before immigration judges.

The arrests have resulted in dramatic scenes in courthouse hallways as those being detained were sometimes pulled away from emotional family members.

Castel said in a written decision that while there was "a strong governmental interest in enforcing immigration laws," there also was a serious interest in letting individuals attend removal proceedings and pursue asylum claims before a judge "without fear of arrest."

He noted that federal agents still can detain individuals at locations away from immigration courts and also can make arrests at immigration courthouses when there are serious threats to public safety.

He said the boundaries set out in federal policy five years ago can remain in effect, but a court case before him was likely to result in a finding that a withdrawal of that policy after President Donald Trump took office was "arbitrary and capricious."

Castel also noted that government lawyers recently reversed their position, saying they've learned that 2025 policies regarding arrests in and around courthouses set by the Trump administration did not apply to immigration courts after all.

The judge, who last year had declined to ban the practice, said the new position by government lawyers meant it was necessary to "correct a clear error and prevent a manifest injustice."

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road NY and others.

It was praised by Amy Belsher, director of the NYCLU's Immigrants' Rights Litigation.

She called it "an enormous win for noncitizen New Yorkers seeking to safely attend their immigration court proceedings."

Messages seeking comment from the Department of Homeland Security were not immediately returned. A spokesperson for Justice Department lawyers declined comment.

Castel's decision, which did not apply nationwide, pertained to immigration courts at 26 Federal Plaza, 201 Varick Street and 290 Broadway in Manhattan. New York's FBI headquarters is also located at 26 Federal Plaza, a large building across from two federal courthouses near City Hall.

The organizations first brought the lawsuit last August on behalf of immigrant advocacy groups African Communities Together and The Door.

"In the face of this administration's ongoing targeting of our young members, this decision brings us hope," said Beth Baltimore, deputy director of The Door's Legal Services Center.

"Our staff continues to work tirelessly to support Door members who were terrified to go to their required court appearances. We stand with our members to fight for those impacted by courthouse arrests, including those who remain detained, and other cruel policies," Baltimore said in a release.