NEW YORK (AP) — The Small Business Administration said it will relocate six of its regional offices in so-called “sanctuary cities,” part of a broader Trump administration effort to crack down on cities that it deems have immigrant-friendly policies.

In a statement Thursday, SBA administrator Kelly Loeffler said offices in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, New York City and Seattle will be relocated to “less costly, more accessible locations that better serve the small business community and comply with federal immigration law.”

No details were given about where the offices might be moving to.

There’s no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers. Courts have repeatedly upheld the legality of sanctuary laws.

The announcement came a day after Republican members of Congress hammered four Democratic mayors Wednesday about their so-called sanctuary city policies, accusing them of endangering Americans and threatening to prosecute local officials.

The SBA was established in 1953 to offer resources to small businesses and helps administer small business and disaster recovery loans. It played a crucial role during the pandemic, helping distribute small business aid. It has at least one district office in each state, and some larger states, like California and Texas, have several. Offices provide counseling, training, and other resources that provide support for small business owners.

Separately, the Loeffler said SBA loans won't be eligible to businesses that have owners “in whole or in part” who aren't U.S. citizens. The SBA said in an email response to a query that it would make more details about that policy known “in coming days.”

The SBA doesn’t give out direct loans, except when they’re related to disasters, but it works with lenders to distribute loans to small businesses. The loans typically have better rates than traditional loans.

Federal judge won't order immigration officials to change school arrests policy

DENVER (AP) — Immigration authorities don't need to revert to a Biden-era policy limiting arrests at schools after officials in Denver challenged new policies from the Trump administration, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico said Denver Public Schools failed to prove that a drop in attendance was due to the Trump administration's new policy. It wasn’t clear how much of the fear surrounding possible enforcement actions in schools was really due to the new rules as opposed to broader concerns of increased immigration actions, he said.

The new policy has not yet been acted upon, according to a group representing large urban school districts across the U.S.

Besides a drop in attendance, Denver Public Schools says it has had to divert resources to respond to fear among students and families over the lifting of longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and other sensitive locations.

“This includes providing mental health support to students, diverting administrator attention from academics to immigration issues, and assisting students who miss school to catch up,” lawyers for the school district said in their request to block the new rules.

The ruling came just days after Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and the Democratic leaders of other cities were in Washington to answer questions from Republican members of Congress about their their so-called sanctuary city policies that they see as undermining President Donald Trump’s immigration and mass deportation efforts. The lawsuit was brought by the school district, not the city.

Under the previous “sensitive locations” guidance issued in 2021, officers were generally required to get approval for any enforcement operations at those locations, although exceptions were allowed for matters like national security. The change announced in January by the acting leader of the Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement, scrapped that guidance and emphasized that field agents should use “common sense” and “discretion” to conduct immigration enforcement operations.

However, Domenico noted that the head of ICE later issued a directive for its officers that immigration arrests at sensitive places like schools still had to be approved by supervisors. The fear over the new rules, as well as the belief that the old rules provided protection to schools, both seem to be “overstated", Domenico said.

Domenico, a Trump appointee and Colorado's former solicitor general, denied a request that he grant a nationwide preliminary injunction forcing immigration officials to revert to the 2021 guidance.

Denver Public Schools issued a statement expressing disappointment in his ruling, while asserting that its lawsuit was successful in making public details of the Trump administration rules.

Arrests at schools have been rare. According to data from ICE cited by lawyers for Denver schools, there were only two immigration arrests made in schools between 2018 and 2020 along with 18 arrests near schools.

There have not been any arrests at schools under the new policy as of last week, according to a filing submitted by the Council of the Great City Schools in support of Denver’s lawsuit.

Last month, a federal judge in Maryland blocked immigration agents from conducting enforcement operations in houses of worship for Quakers and a handful of other religious groups after they filed a lawsuit challenging the directive. The order does not apply to any religious groups beyond the ones who brought the lawsuit.

States sue President Trump’s administration over mass firings of probationary federal workers

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — Maryland and 19 other states are suing multiple federal agencies, contending President Donald Trump's administration has illegally fired thousands of federal probationary workers.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown is leading the coalition of attorneys general in the federal lawsuit that was filed late Thursday in Maryland, where the state estimates about 10% of households receive wages from the federal government.

“The draconian actions of the Trump-Vance Administration could lead to tens of thousands of jobs lost, hundreds of thousands of lives disrupted, and the cratering of tens of millions of dollars in income here in Maryland,” Gov. Wes Moore, a Democrat, said Friday in support of the complaint.

Brown followed up on Friday by moving for a temporary restraining order in federal court in Maryland seeking to stop any more firings of federal probationary employees and to reinstate those who have already been dismissed.

The mass firings will cause irreparable burdens and expenses on the states, the lawsuit said, because states will have to support recently unemployed workers and review and adjudicate claims of unemployment assistance. More than 800 fired federal workers in Maryland already have applied for unemployment benefits, Brown's office said.

The lawsuit also contended that the layoffs will hurt state finances due to lost tax revenue.

“President Trump’s unlawful mass firings of federal workers are a blatant attack on the civil service, throwing thousands of hardworking families into financial turmoil,” Brown, a Democrat, said in a news release. “Instead of following the law and notifying states, his administration blindsided Maryland, forcing us to deal with the devastating economic fallout and social consequences."

Trump, a Republican, has said he’s targeting fraud, waste and abuse in a bloated federal government. The president and his adviser Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency have fired both new and career workers, telling agency leaders to plan for “large-scale reductions in force.” The purge has spawned a number of lawsuits as unions and attorneys general have challenged Doge's authority. Attempts to contact the White House and Justice Department for comment were unsuccessful.

Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they’re usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection.

While federal agencies claimed the employees were fired for unsatisfactory performance or conduct, the lawsuit said the firings were part of the administration’s attempt to restructure and downsize the entire government.

That means the administration was required to follow federal laws and regulations that govern large-scale federal reductions in force, the lawsuit said. For example, regulations require that government agencies consider an employee’s tenure, performance and veteran status when making termination decisions, the attorneys said. Regulations also typically require 60 days’ advance notice of termination in a reduction in force.

“This has inflicted and will continue to inflict serious and irreparable harms on the Plaintiff States, as they must now deal with a sudden surge in unemployment, without the advance notice required under the federal (reduction in force) statute and regulations,” the lawsuit said.

The attorneys general are asking for the court to reinstate the fired employees and stop further terminations of federal employees.

The other states that have joined the lawsuit are Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia also is a plaintiff.