SUMMARY: Hurricane Katrina, marking its 20th anniversary, was one of the costliest U.S. hurricanes. Initially making landfall in Florida, it strengthened into a Category 5 hurricane over the Gulf of Mexico before hitting Louisiana as a Category 4. As Katrina moved inland toward the Tennessee Valley, tropical storm-force winds of 40 to 50 mph, and unofficial gusts near 70 mph in Albertville, Alabama, were recorded. Heavy rainfall, especially in northwest Alabama, coupled with winds, caused widespread tree and power line damage. The storm’s large wind swath extended well into Middle Tennessee and northern Alabama, illustrating its significant inland impact.
From late in the evening on August 29, 2005, through the morning hours of the 30, the Tennessee Valley was impacted by Katrina. While Katrina was not a hurricane as it pushed farther north towards the region, it still maintained tropical storm strength.
News 19 is North Alabama’s News Leader! We are the CBS affiliate in North Alabama and the Tennessee Valley since November 28, 1963.
SUMMARY: In Prichard’s mayoral race, businesswoman Carletta Davis secured a runoff spot with 951 votes. The identity of her opponent remains uncertain between incumbent Mayor Jimmie Gardner (635 votes) and former councilman Lorenzo Martin (631 votes), as only four votes separate them. The city is reviewing 36 provisional ballots and will announce the confirmed runoff candidate at a special meeting on September 2. Davis expressed confidence and momentum heading into the runoff on September 23, while Martin emphasized his longstanding dedication to the community. Gardner declined to comment. The runoff will determine Prichard’s next mayor.
The race for Prichard mayor is headed for a runoff, but we still don’t know who is in the race.
In Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis blocked the Trump administration from re-deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was unlawfully removed to El Salvador in March. A hearing on his habeas corpus claim is set for October. Abrego Garcia, currently detained in Virginia, challenges efforts to deport him to Uganda, a third country where he fears harm. His attorneys seek a credible fear interview and oppose forced removal, while the government aims to resolve his case, which involves unproven human smuggling charges. Previously, Abrego Garcia was deported despite protections due to gang violence fears in El Salvador, spotlighting Trump’s harsh immigration policies.
WASHINGTON — Maryland federal Judge Paula Xinis barred the Trump administration Wednesday from re-deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was unlawfully removed earlier this year, until she makes a decision in an evidentiary hearing set for October.
Separately, Abrego Garcia filed a claim for asylum, a longshot bid to gain legal status as the Trump administration aims to expel him to Uganda after unlawfully deporting him to a notorious prison in El Salvador in March. Xinis has no jurisdiction over the asylum case, which will be handled by an immigration judge.
Xinis said at a Wednesday hearing that she would issue a temporary restraining order blocking immigration authorities from removing Abrego Garcia until she issues a decision following a hearing scheduled for Oct. 6 in the U.S. District Court of Maryland.
That hearing is on Abrego Garcia’s habeas corpus claim challenging his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials this week.
Xinis said she would rule on the claim within 30 days of the early October hearing.
Xinis said she would include in her temporary restraining order that Abrego Garcia must be detained within 200 miles of the district courthouse in Greenbelt, Maryland.
Attorneys for Abrego Garcia are also challenging the administration’s efforts to expel Abrego Garcia to the East African nation of Uganda and are pushing for a credible fear interview, in an effort to stop his removal to a country where he could face harm.
Immigrants who are deported to a country that is not their home, known as a third country, are allowed to challenge their removal if they believe they will experience harm in that country.
Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said during Wednesday’s hearing that he expects the credible fear process to take two weeks.
Ensign said that while the Department of Justice objects to Xinis’ temporary restraining order, the federal government is “committed” to keeping Abrego Garcia in the United States until she makes her decision on the habeas corpus claim.
Uganda or Costa Rica
Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported to El Salvador despite deportation protections granted in 2019, was brought back to the U.S. in June to face criminal charges lodged against him by the Department of Justice in May amid several court orders, including from the Supreme Court, that required the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.
His case has brought a spotlight to President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia has detailed the physical and psychological torture he experienced at the El Salvador megaprison.
Last week, attorneys for Abrego Garcia in his criminal case in Nashville, Tennessee, said in court filings that the Trump administration is trying to force Abrego Garcia to plead guilty to human smuggling charges by promising to remove him to Costa Rica if he does so, and threatening to deport him to Uganda if he refuses.
Costa Rica’s government has stated it will grant Abrego Garcia refugee status.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney in his Maryland case, Simon Y. Sandoval-Moshenberg, said Abrego Garcia is willing to be removed to Costa Rica but will not plead guilty to the charges in Tennessee.
Those charges stem from a traffic stop in 2022 in which Abrego Garcia was in a car with several people. No charges were filed at the time.
The Department of Justice has alleged that Abrego Garcia took part in a long-running conspiracy to smuggle immigrants without legal status across the United States. He has pleaded not guilty to those charges.
Trump and other top officials such as Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have accused Abrego Garcia of being a MS-13 gang leader, but no allegations have been proven in court.
Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. without legal authorization from his home country of El Salvador in 2011 at the age of 16. He applied for asylum in 2019, but authorities denied the claim because he did not apply for asylum within his first year in the U.S., which is the legal deadline for such claims.
Instead, an immigration judge gave him deportation protections, known as a withholding in place, because it was likely he would face gang violence if returned to his home country of El Salvador.
Federal immigration officials at the time didn’t object to the deportation protections and declined to find a third country of removal that would accept him and where he would not experience harm.
Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This content presents a detailed account of the legal challenges faced by Kilmar Abrego Garcia in the context of U.S. immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. It highlights concerns about unlawful deportation, potential human rights abuses, and the legal system’s role in protecting immigrant rights. The focus on the hardships faced by the immigrant and criticism of aggressive immigration policies suggests a perspective that leans toward advocating for immigrant protections and due process, which is commonly associated with a center-left viewpoint. However, the article maintains a factual tone without overt partisan language, keeping it from being strongly left-leaning.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Emilee Calametti | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-08-27 11:00:00
Hurricane Katrina displaced an estimated 1.5 million people across Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi, with New Orleans most affected. About 40% of displaced families never returned. Former resident Lauren Breaux recalled evacuating multiple times and losing her home after levee failures caused severe flooding. The storm caused $125 billion in damage, dropping from Category 5 to 3 at landfall. Louisiana had 1.12 million displaced residents, with others from Mississippi and Alabama. While 61.9% of Louisiana evacuees returned within 33 days on average, many resettled elsewhere. New Orleans’ population decreased by 80,000, and the city and residents still feel Katrina’s impact 20 years later.
(The Center Square) – An estimated 1.5 million people were displaced during Hurricane Katrina across Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi, but most significantly from New Orleans.
It is estimated that 40% of displaced families did not return to the city.
As the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina arrives Friday, The Center Square spoke with former New Orleans resident Lauren Breaux, who was evacuated with her family during the destructive storm.
“We had evacuated many times leading up to Katrina,” Breaux said. “I think already once that year, so we were nonchalant about the entire situation. I remember we started to realize the gravity of the situation when we were driving home and our side of the road was completely clear going back into the city.
“We didn’t know until seeing the cars bumper to bumper trying to exit the city, how bad it was going to be.”
Breaux and her family lost their home, part of the $125 billion destruction caused by a storm that mercifully dropped from Category 5 to Category 3 when making landfall.
A study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that 1.12 million of those displaced from their homes were living in Louisiana before Hurricane Katrina. Of the remaining evacuees, 288,000 were residing in Mississippi and 88,000 in Alabama.
“Once the levee broke, there was no hope for our home,” said Breaux. “We had water through our attic, and possibly above our roof, but we are not 100% sure since no one could be down there at the peak water height.”
Her family eventually settled across Lake Pontchartrain in Pearl River months after evacuating.
Saint Tammany, Orleans, Jefferson, Saint Charles, Terrebonne and Saint Bernard were among the most displaced counties in Louisiana during the storm. Each county had between 10,000 to 350,000 residents evacuated.
While Breaux and her family did not return to New Orleans, 61.9% of Louisiana evacuees returned to their prior residence after the storm. It is reported that on average, families who evacuated but returned to their former address were displaced for 33 days.
Those who did not return settled in other parts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida and Arkansas.
Now, the New Orleans population sits at 380,000, a drop of about 80,000 – or roughly a tick more than can fill the Superdome for Saints football games. The NFL team lost its home, too, relocating to various other “home” venues from San Antonio to New York.
Residents who moved back to the city had to rebuild or move entirely and still feel the effects of the storm 20 years later.
Emilee Ruth Calametti currently serves as Staff Reporter for The Center Square covering the Northwestern Louisiana region. She holds her M.A. in English from Georgia State University and an additional M.A. in Journalism from New York University. Her articles have been featured in DIG Magazine, Houstonia Magazine, Bookstr, inRegister, EntertainmentNOW, AOL, MSN, and more. She is a Louisiana native with over seven years of journalism experience.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content presents a factual, neutral account of the impact and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, focusing on statistics and personal testimony without adopting a political or ideological stance. It reports on displacement figures, the demographic impact, and personal experiences without framing these in a way that promotes a particular viewpoint or agenda. The language is descriptive and straightforward, aimed at informing rather than persuading, which aligns with neutral, factual reporting rather than ideological commentary.
