State and local officials blasted the Trump administration’s widely anticipated list of “sanctuary” jurisdictions that are deemed uncooperative with federal immigration enforcement, with some of the most enthusiastic supporters of the White House wondering on Friday how they wound up on it.

The list, which was riddled with misspellings, included sparsely populated counties that have little interaction with immigration authorities, that overwhelmingly voted for President Donald Trump and that have actively supported his hard-line immigration policies.

In California, the city of Huntington Beach made the list of hundreds even though it filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s immigration sanctuary law and passed a resolution this year declaring the community a “non-sanctuary city.”

“At first when I heard it I was like, accidents happen,” said Huntington Beach Mayor Pat Burns. But after seeing so many other cities lumped in like his, he called it “negligent.” “You don’t have that many mistakes on such an important federal document ? somebody’s got to answer to that.”

Meanwhile, those with policies protecting immigrants also pushed back, saying they are doing right by their communities.

“This is simply the latest attempt by the Trump administration to strong-arm cities like Seattle into changing our local policies through bluster and threats to critical federal funding for public safety and homelessness,” Bruce Harrell, the city’s mayor, told The Associated Press in an email. “It’s not going to work ? the law is on our side ? and we will not hesitate to protect our people and stand up for our values.”

The list was published as the Trump administration ramps up efforts to follow through on the president’s campaign promises to remove millions of people who are in the country illegally. It came out as Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced major leadership changes, and after a White House official said the administration wanted to increase daily immigration arrests.

Misspelled communities on the list included Cincinnati, which was spelled Cincinnatti. Also, some counties were mislabeled as cities and vice versa.

The administration has said each listed jurisdiction will receive formal notification that the government has deemed them noncompliant and if they’re believed to be in violation of any federal criminal statutes.

In response to questions Friday about the list, the Department of Homeland security reiterated that it was compiled using a number of factors, including whether the localities identified themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions, how much they complied with federal officials enforcing immigration laws, if they had restrictions on sharing information with immigration enforcement or had any legal protections for people in the country illegally.

The United States on Wednesday vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages, saying it would embolden Hamas militants.

All 14 other members of the council voted in favor of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as “catastrophic” and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory.

The resolution before the U.N.'s most powerful body also did not fulfill two other U.S. demands: It did not condemn Hamas’ deadly attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza.

Acting U.S. Ambassador Dorothy Shea, speaking to the council immediately before the vote, said the resolution would undermine the security of Israel. a close U.S. ally, and diplomatic efforts to reach a ceasefire “that reflects the realities on the ground.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the resolution would only have empowered Hamas. “Hamas could end this brutal conflict immediately by laying down its arms and releasing all remaining hostages,” he said in a statement.

Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon thanked the United States for refusing to abandon the hostages. He said the resolution’s failure to make the release of hostages a condition for a ceasefire would have put all the pressure on Israel and handed Hamas “time, leverage and political cover.”

But the U.S. veto of the resolution ? its fifth since the start of the war ? was roundly criticized by other members of the council, who accused the United States of providing Israel with impunity. The Chinese ambassador to the U.N. said Israel’s actions have “crossed every red line” of international humanitarian law and seriously violated U.N. resolutions. “Yet, due to the shielding by one country, these violations have not been stopped or held accountable,” Ambassador Fu Cong said.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Barbara Woodward, a usual U.S. ally, lashed out at Israel. “This Israeli government’s decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive, and the U.K. completely opposes them,” she said.

Pakistan’s Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad said the U.S. veto “will be remembered as a complicity, a green light for continued annihilation. A moment where the entire world was expecting action. But yet again, this council was blocked and prevented by one member from carrying out its responsibility.”

Slovenia’s U.N. Ambassador Samuel ?bogar, the coordinator for the council’s 10 elected members, stressed that it was never the intention to provoke a veto and therefore the resolution focused on the humanitarian crisis and the urgent need for unimpeded access to deliver aid.

A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.

The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote for the court that federal civil rights law draws no distinction between members of majority and minority groups.

“By establishing the same protections for every ‘individual’ — without regard to that individual’s membership in a minority or majority group — Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone,” Jackson wrote.

The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.

Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames.

The 6th circuit is among the courts that had required an additional requirement for people like Ames, showing “background circumstances” that might include that LGBTQ people made the decisions affecting Ames or statistical evidence of a pattern of discrimination against members of the majority group.

The appeals court noted that Ames didn’t provide any such circumstances.

But Jackson wrote that “this additional ‘background circumstances’ requirement is not consistent with Title VII’s text or our case law construing the statute.”