appeal

“We have appealed [against the red card] and our appeal was turned down,” Everton manager Moyes said.

“We haven’t been given any reason why it was turned down, but we did appeal it – immediately.”

On Thursday, Everton shared a photo of Gueye and Keane wearing boxing gloves and hugging on their social media channels.

“It was over immediately,” Moyes told a media conference on Friday.

“It was done, that was it. We moved on quite quickly and it was all sorted within the dressing room.

“We want passion. We don’t always want it in the style it showed up on Monday night but we certainly want that passion and commitment from all the players.”

Gueye has started every Premier League game for Everton this season and is due to join up with Senegal for the Africa Cup of Nations (Afcon) in December.

Moyes is also without German midfielder Merlin Rohl, who recently had hernia surgery, while a minor hamstring issue sidelines captain Seamus Coleman, who was substituted in the first half at Old Trafford amid a season beset by injury concerns.

When asked if his team were light in midfield, Moyes said: “Yes, we are.

“Merlin [Rohl] having an operation has made us light, so we are quite short but we have other people who can play in there – Charly Alcaraz, Dwight McNeil if we need to as well.

“I think those players can do the job in there, if required.

“Merlin probably isn’t going to be back until the start of January and Idrissa’s suspension [and forthcoming Afcon participation] leaves us pretty short in that area.”

Everton’s Premier League campaign continues at Hill Dickinson Stadium on Saturday, when they host Newcastle (17:30 GMT).

The majority on a federal court in El Paso, Texas, found that the new map used race to redraw congressional districts.

A panel of federal judges has ruled that Texas’s newly redrawn congressional districts cannot be used in next year’s 2026 midterm elections, striking a blow to Republican efforts to tilt races in their favour.

On Tuesday, a two-to-one majority at the US District Court for western Texas blocked the map, on the basis that there was “substantial evidence” to show “that Texas racially gerrymandered” the districts.

Partisan gerrymandering has generally been considered legal under court precedent, but dividing congressional maps along racial lines is considered a violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” the court’s majority wrote in the opening of its 160-page opinion.

The ruling marked a major setback to efforts to redraw congressional districts ahead of the critically important midterms, which decide the composition of the US Congress.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs in that election. With Republicans holding a narrow 219-seat majority, analysts speculate that control of the chamber could potentially switch parties.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, had kicked off a nationwide race to redesign congressional districts in favour of one party or the other.

In June, news reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had reached out to state officials to redraw the red state’s map, in order to gain five additional House seats for Republicans.

Despite hesitations and a walkout by state Democrats, the Texas legislature passed a new, gerrymandered map in August.

That inspired other right-leaning states, notably North Carolina and Missouri, to similarly redraw their districts. North Carolina and Missouri each passed a map that would gain Republicans one additional House seat.

Texas’s actions also sparked a Democratic backlash. California Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded a ballot campaign in his heavily blue state to pass a proposition in November that would suspend an independent districting commission and instead pass a partisan map, skewed in favour of Democrats.

Voters passed the ballot initiative overwhelmingly in November, teeing up Democrats to gain five extra seats in California next year.

The state redistricting battle has sparked myriad legal challenges, including the one decided in Texas on Tuesday.

In that case, civil rights groups accused the Texas government of attempting to dilute the power of Black and Hispanic voters.

Judges David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Jeffrey V Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

A third judge — Jerry Smith, appointed under Ronald Reagan — dissented from their decision.

Writing for the majority, Brown said that Trump official Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, made the “legally incorrect assertion” that four congressional districts in the state were “unconstitutional” because they had non-white majorities.

The letter Dhillon sent containing that assertion helped prompt the Texas redistricting fight, Brown argued.

The judge also pointed to statements Texas Governor Greg Abbott made, seeming to reference the racial composition of the districts. If the new map’s aims were purely partisan and not racial, Brown indicated that it was curious no majority-white districts were targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling restores the 2021 map of Texas congressional districts. Currently, the state is represented by 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the US House.

Already, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged to appeal the ruling before the US Supreme Court.

“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a statement posted to social media.

He expressed optimism about his odds before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. “I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

California’s new congressional map likewise faces a legal challenge, with the Trump administration suing alongside state Republicans.

It was a spat — or a spit — between two All-Pro NFL players: Cincinnati Bengals wide receiver Ja’Marr Chase and Pittsburgh Steelers defensive back Jalen Ramsey.

And it’s going to cost Chase a half a million dollars unless the appeal he filed goes his way.

Chase was caught on video spitting in Ramsey’s direction during Cincinnati’s lopsided loss to Pittsburgh on Sunday. Ramsey retaliated by throwing a punch at Chase and was ejected.

The NFL suspended Chase for one game, which would cost him a week’s pay plus a bonus for being on the active roster totaling $507,156.

After the game, Chase denied spitting and referee Bill Vinovich told pool reporters “We did not see anything that rose to that level at all.” However, video captured the mid-air saliva.

Ramsey, a 10-year veteran who helped the Rams win Super Bowl LVI, responded violently and had to be restrained.

“I’m always going to be all for trash talking … stuff like that,” Ramsey told reporters after the game. “I actually enjoy that part of the game. I think people know that. But as soon as he spit, it was like ‘f— that.’”

Ramsey, 31, said that Chase snatched his mouthpiece earlier in the game, which prompted a scuffle that resulted in offsetting unsportsmanlike conduct penalties. Chase had been guilty of that behavior before against the division rival Steelers, grabbing the mouthpiece of defensive back Ahkello Witherspoon and flipping off safety Minkah Fitzpatrick during a game in 2022. Chase was fined for unsportsmanlike conduct.

Ramsey, who played for the Rams from 2019-2022, is a seven-time Pro Bowl and three-time All-Pro cornerback on a Hall of Fame trajectory.

Chase, 25, has been an elite receiver since being drafted out of Louisiana State in 2021. He was Rookie of the Year and an All-Pro in 2021 and last season again was an All-Pro selection after leading the NFL with 127 catches, 1,708 receiving yards and 17 touchdowns.

This season he already has 79 receptions, including 16 for 161 yards in the Bengals’ 33-30 victory over the Steelers on Oct. 16. Last Sunday, however, he had only three catches for 30 yards in the 34-12 loss.

Despite the appeal, Bengals coach Zac Taylor made no excuses for Chase’s actions Monday.

“Obviously what happened is crossing the line, and we can’t have that,” Taylor said. “I know he’ll own up to that.”

Imprisoned rapper Tory Lanez has failed in his efforts to overturn his guilty verdict for shooting Megan Thee Stallion five years ago.

A three-judge panel from the California 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled against 33-year-old Lanez (legal name Daystar Peterson) on Wednesday, reinforcing his convictions on three felony counts stemming from the violent incident in 2020. Neither representatives for Peterson or Megan Thee Stallion (legal name Megan Pete) immediately responded to requests for comment on Thursday.

Peterson’s legal team can petition to have the California Supreme Court hear the appeal, despite Wednesday’s decision.

Canadian musician Peterson, who rose to popularity in the late 2000s, was convicted in December 2022 of assault and weapons offenses. He was convicted of assault with a firearm, illegal possession of a firearm and negligent discharge of a gun, following a two-week trial that featured tearful testimony from Pete.

He was sentenced to 10 years in prison in August 2023. Peterson is currently carrying out his sentence at the California Men’s Colony near San Luis Obispo. He was relocated there after he was stabbed by a fellow inmate at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi earlier this year.

“Savage” rapper Pete, on the other hand, is currently at the center of two legal disputes. One is a harassment suit filed against her in 2024, from a cameraman who alleges that she forced him to watch her have sex in a car while on tour in Europe. The other is a 2024 defamation lawsuit against blogger Milagro Gramz.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Nov. 7 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday night appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld a district judge’s order to pay full benefits in November to 42 million in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

A short time earlier, the 1st District Circuit left in place a decision on Thursday by Rhode Island federal Judge Jack McConnell, who ordered the administration to pay out the full benefits within one day, saying, “People have gone without for too long.”

The three-member appeals court’s decision means the U.S. Department of Agriculture must take steps to disperse the electronic payments, which are staggered each month. Earlier Friday, the agency said it notified states that it is working to process the payments.

The panel was Chief Appellate Judge David Barron, appointed by President Barack Obama, and Gustavo Atavo Gelpi Jr. and Julie Rikelman, both picked by President Joe Biden.

The judges said that they are still considering a bid for longer relief while assessing the appeal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi posted on X the Trump administration will ask the Supreme Court to stay the Rhode Island-based lower court judge’s ruling, which she called “judicial activism at its worst.”

“A single district court in Rhode Island should not be able to seize center stage in the shutdown, seek to upend political negotiations that could produce swift political solutions for SNAP and other programs, and dictate its own preferences for how scarce federal funds should be spent,” Bondi said.

Seven days ago, McDonnell and U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue. They were both nominated by Obama.

On Monday, the administration told the judge it only had reserved money to pay out 50% of the total $9 billion cost. Then, it was raised to 65%.

The judge directed USDA to find $4 billion “in the metaphorical couch cushions.”

McConnell said the administration could use Section 32 funds, which the USDA uses to help with child nutrition programs. But the administration rejected that plan.

In the appeal, DOJ claimed that the judge’s order “makes a mockery of the separation of powers.” Lawyers said transferring funds would mean diverting money from Child Nutrition Programs.

“Unfortunately, by injecting itself with its erroneous short-term solution, the district court has scrambled ongoing political negotiations, extending the shutdown and thus undercutting its own objective of ensuring adequate funding for SNAP and all other crucial safety-net programs,” they said.

Plaintiffs in the case, which are nonprofit organizations, asked for the full payment, and McConnell agreed.

“The evidence shows that people will go hungry, food pantries will be overburdened, and needless suffering will occur” if SNAP is not fully funded, he said.

“While the president of the United States professes a commitment to helping those it serves, the government’s actions tell a different story,” McConnell wrote in a written order.

The federal government has been shut down since Oct. 1, and the shutdown is now the longest in history.

In every past shutdown, emergency funds have been used to fund the program.

McConnell also mentioned a social media post that Trump made, saying he refused to release any more funds until “the radical-left Democrats open up government, which they can easily do, and not before.”

The post was used as evidence that the administration would ignore McConnell’s order.

Brazil’s top court rejects Bolsonaro’s coup sentence appeal, affirming his 27-year penalty for post-election power grab.

A five-member panel of Brazil’s Supreme Court has formed a majority to reject former President Jair Bolsonaro’s appeal challenging his 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup to remain in power after the 2022 presidential election.

The 70-year-old far-right firebrand was found guilty by the same court in September of attempting to prevent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking power. Prosecutors said the plan failed only because of a lack of support from the military’s top brass.

Justices Flavio Dino, Alexandre de Moraes and Cristiano Zanin voted to reject the appeal filed by Bolsonaro’s legal team. The remaining members of the panel have until November 14 to cast their votes in the Supreme Court’s system.

The former president will begin serving his sentence only after all appeals are exhausted.

Bolsonaro has been under house arrest since August for violating precautionary measures in a separate case. His lawyers are expected to request that he be allowed to serve his sentence under similar conditions due to health concerns.

Bolsonaro’s lawyers argued there had been “profound injustices” and “contradictions” in his conviction, and sought to have his prison sentence reduced.

Three of the Supreme Court judges weighing the appeal voted to reject it on Friday.

However, the result is not considered official until the court-imposed deadline at midnight on November 14.

Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over the trial, was the first to cast his vote electronically and wrote that arguments by Bolsonaro’s lawyers to have his sentence reduced were “without merit”.

Moraes, in a 141-page document seen by AFP, rejected defence claims they had been given an overwhelming amount of documents and digital files, preventing them from properly mounting their case.

He also rejected an argument that Bolsonaro had given up on the coup, saying it failed only because of external factors, not because the former president renounced it.

Moraes reaffirmed that there had been a deliberate coup attempt orchestrated under Bolsonaro’s leadership, with ample proof of his involvement.

He again underscored Bolsonaro’s role in instigating the January 8 assault on Brazil’s democratic institutions, when supporters demanded a military takeover to oust Lula.

‘Ruling justified’

Moraes ruled that the sentence of 27 years and 3 months was based on Bolsonaro’s high culpability as president and the severity and impact of the crimes. Moraes said Bolsonaro’s age had already been considered as a mitigating factor.

“The ruling justified all stages of the sentencing process,” Moraes wrote.

Two other judges voted in the same way shortly afterwards.

Because of health problems stemming from a stabbing attack in 2018, Bolsonaro could ask to serve his sentence under house arrest.

The trial against Bolsonaro angered his ally, US President Donald Trump, who imposed sanctions on Brazilian officials and punitive trade tariffs.

However, in recent months, tensions have thawed between Washington and Brasilia, with a meeting taking place between Trump and Lula and negotiations to reduce the tariffs.

An initiative from Bolsonaro supporters in Congress to push through an amnesty bill that could benefit him fizzled out after massive protests around the country.

Brazil’s large conservative electorate is currently without a champion heading into 2026 presidential elections, in which Lula, 80, has said he will seek a fourth term.