appeal

Russell’s case was complicated because his fall down the order was precipitated by a cascading series of events.

He was given the penalty for pit-lane speeding – by just 0.1km/h – before a safety-car period caused by a crash for Aston Martin’s Lance Stroll.

Russell pitted to change tyres under the safety car but in the confusion, failed to serve the penalty.

When the safety car pulled in, Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc crashed, which led to the race being suspended under a red flag.

During the race stoppage, it was announced that Russell had been given a drive-through penalty for not serving the five-second penalty correctly. He pleaded with officials not to make him serve that penalty when the race resumed and to discuss it afterwards, because the number of penalties suggested something was wrong.

They rejected his argument, and when the race restarted, Russell came in again to serve the drive-through penalty, which is what dropped him out of third place.

Under F1’s rules, Mercedes were able to ask only for a review of the five-second penalty, which they did not actually serve, regardless of whether it was incorrectly awarded.

The drive-through penalty was correctly awarded – on the basis he did fail to serve a penalty. Mercedes have looked into the legal complications around this and concluded there is no remedy for that available to them.

The initial right of review request, lodged at last weekend’s Barcelona-Catalunya Grand Prix, was made to buy Mercedes time to analyse the situation, as the FIA rules dictate a limited time period for teams to make right of review requests.

There is then a longer period during which a party can decide whether to continue with them.

A Mercedes spokesperson said: “It was important for us to explore all available options to address the impact of George’s pit-lane speeding penalty on his race result.

“We had a limited time window in which to apply for the right of review during the race weekend in Barcelona, and did so in order to reserve our position in this regard.

”Our subsequent collaborative discussion with FIA and Formula 1 has shown their determination to review the unique circumstances arising from the Monaco Grand Prix and to proactively address the factors that caused them.

“In the face of this clear determination, we have concluded that further pursuit of our right of review application will not serve our team or the sport and thus we have withdrawn our submission.”

PHOENIX — Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes is dismissing a sprawling criminal case that alleged President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others tried to overturn Trump’s 2020 loss in the state.

The decision, announced Thursday, marks the third such fake elector case filed by states to be dismissed, though the Democratic attorney general is vowing to bring it back to a grand jury in hopes of securing another indictment.

The legal maneuver is aimed at getting around a Friday deadline for starting new grand jury proceedings after Mayes lost an appeal earlier this month. The appeal was filed after defense attorneys argued successfully that the original grand jury hadn’t been shown the relevant parts of a law that governs how presidential contests are certified.

Courts have dismissed similar cases in Michigan and Georgia, and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Those cases ended after Trump defeated Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Nevada and Wisconsin.

The Nevada charges were dismissed in 2024 after a judge concluded Clark County, the state’s most populous county and home to Las Vegas, was the wrong venue for the case. Later that year, though, the case was refiled in Carson City, Nevada’s capital.

The Arizona case had been stalled for well over a year while Mayes pursued the appeal.

In Arizona, defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed. Federal law was amended in 2022 to specify that any given state could put forward only one slate of electors and that state governors are responsible for signing off.

Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

The state attorney general has faced steep challenges in making her case.

It was filed nearly three and a half years after the 2020 election and levels complicated conspiracy charges against the 18 defendants. A dozen dismissal requests filed by defense attorneys have slowed progress in court.

The first judge on the case recused himself in late 2024 after an email surfaced in which he told fellow judges to speak out against attacks on Harris’ campaign for the presidency. The next judge ordered the case to be sent back to a grand jury.

Of the 18 Arizona defendants, two were former Trump aides, five were lawyers working for Trump and 11 were Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona.

Three defendants have resolved their cases, including one who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge.

The rest pleaded not guilty. Some said they signed the certificate in case Trump won court challenges and a new slate of electors was needed urgently before Congress’ Jan. 6 deadline to tally votes.

The case has factored into Arizona’s attorney general race, where both Republican challengers to Mayes have publicly said they will dismiss the charges if they were elected to the post.

Billeaud writes for The Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The curtain started to come down for President Trump at the Kennedy Center on Saturday.

After a day of legal maneuvers and thunderstorms, workers began the process in the early morning hours of removing the letters spelling out Trump’s name from the facade of the performing arts venue. They were a few hours past a court-ordered deadline and did their work shrouded by a tarp, much to the frustration of onlookers who had gathered for hours hoping to witness a dramatic moment symbolizing the limits of Trump’s power.

As the sun rose over Washington, the tarp remained in place, leaving it impossible to determine whether all the letters had been removed. Shortly after midnight, the Kennedy Center asked a judge to extend the deadline until noon Eastern time, citing the storms for delaying the work. The court agreed to that request Saturday morning.

The removal of Trump’s name closes one of the more unusual chapters in the history of the Kennedy Center, which began construction in 1964 and was dedicated to the memory of the slain president, John F. Kennedy. At what is typically one of the few relatively nonpartisan spaces in Washington, Trump has exerted unprecedented executive influence over the congressionally created venue during his second term.

Though he rarely discussed the Kennedy Center during his 2024 campaign, Trump moved quickly to oust the institution’s leadership when he returned to office in January 2025 and replaced it with a board of trustees that named him chairman. It rebranded the venue the “Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts” and his name was quickly added to the building’s exterior, though an official name change would require an act of Congress.

While the removal of his name marks a setback for Trump, he is moving forward with other plans to reshape the physical landscape of the nation’s capital in ways that have few modern parallels.

He demolished the East Wing of the White House and is building a controversial ballroom in its place. He remodeled the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and plans extensive renovations of a golf course in East Potomac Park, moves that could significantly reduce the public’s access to running and biking paths. He is also moving forward with a triumphal arch that would sit near Arlington National Cemetery across the Potomac River in Virginia.

Indeed, as Trump’s name is being removed from the Kennedy Center, the South Lawn of the White House has been transformed into a venue for a UFC match intended to celebrate the 250th anniversary of American independence but also coinciding with Trump’s birthday on Sunday.

Back at the Kennedy Center, there are many questions about the institution’s future. The same May court decision that ordered Trump’s name to be removed from the building also blocked a planned two-year closure for renovations that was set to begin next month.

The Kennedy Center’s calendar for the weeks ahead include performances of “Moulin Rouge! The Musical” and “Bluey’s Big Play.” Comedian Bill Maher is to be awarded the Mark Twain Award for American Humor during a ceremony on June 28.

But little is scheduled for the stages beyond that and, after the Kennedy Center substantially reduced staff, it is unclear how quickly it could build out a robust performance list. Trump, angered by the court’s order to remove his name, has said he would turn the Kennedy Center over to Congress and has suggested it might simply shutter because of public safety concerns.

In its unsuccessful appeal Friday seeking a pause on the order removing Trump’s name, the Kennedy Center’s leadership argued, in terms similar to the president’s use of language and framing of the argument, that the lower court was interfering with needed renovations.

“The District Court is not allowing us to close in order to properly fix up and repair the Building, including potentially life threatening structural damage like beams and parking garage ceilings that are rusted, and in serious danger of falling onto people below,” according to the appeal. “Indeed, total collapse!”

The institution also suggested that the president’s name could return to the building if the Kennedy Center later wins its appeal.

If the court denied the venue’s request for a pause, the Kennedy Center argued that it would “be forced to squander time and money — by both removing the signage and then potentially returning it after appeal.”

Sloan writes for the Associated Press.

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has denied a prosecutor’s appeal of an order that the state’s fake elector case against President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others over the 2020 presidential election be sent back to a grand jury.

The decision marks another setback for Democratic Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes as she struggles to push the sprawling case through the courts. Mayes’ office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution.

The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.

A lower-court judge in Phoenix concluded in May that the case’s first grand jury hadn’t been shown the text of the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.

Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed, though it was amended in 2022 to specify that a state could put forward only one slate of electors and that it was the governor who would sign off.

There has been no movement in the Arizona case at the trial court level since mid-May.

Former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.

The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.

Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.

Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.

The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.

Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.

“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.

In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.

“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”

Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.

Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.

Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”

“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

Erin Patterson was found guilty of killing three family members as she served them a lunch laced with poisonous fungi.

An Australian court has confirmed that an appeal hearing for Erin Patterson, commonly referred to as the “mushroom murderer,” will be held in August.

The Supreme Court of Victoria announced on Friday that the hearing will take place on August 19 and 20. Patterson’s lawyers formally applied to appeal her life sentence in November, arguing that there had been a “substantial miscarriage of justice” during her trial.

Patterson was sentenced to life in prison in September after being found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband’s relatives by serving them a lunch laced with poisonous fungi.

During the two-day hearing, the court will also consider an appeal from prosecutors, who argue that her sentence, which allows her to be considered for parole after 33 years, is “manifestly inadequate”.

Prosecutors unsuccessfully argued during the trial that her sentence should have been life imprisonment without parole.

In July, a jury found Patterson guilty of killing her estranged husband’s parents after serving them a lunch of beef Wellington laced with toxic mushrooms.

The case attracted worldwide attention, with more than 250 journalists registering for updates from the court, and the judge deciding to broadcast the sentencing live.

Both Gail Patterson and Donald Patterson died in August 2023. Patterson was also found guilty of murdering Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, who died that same month, and of attempting to kill Wilkinson’s husband, Ian. He spent seven weeks in hospital following the poisoning and received a liver transplant.

Patterson is appealing her conviction on seven grounds, including what her lawyers described as a “fundamental irregularity” relating to the sequestration of the jury, who stayed in the same hotel as key figures in the case, including a police witness and two prosecutors.

Patterson’s lawyers also argue that several pieces of evidence presented during the trial were either irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial, and that the prosecution’s cross-examination of her was “unfair and oppressive”.

Patterson maintains her innocence, arguing that the poisoning was accidental.

Southampton’s appeal against being thrown out of the Championship play-off final for spying has been rejected.

The match will now go ahead on Saturday between Hull City and Middlesbrough (15:30 BST kick-off), with a place in the Premier League on the line.

An EFL independent disciplinary commission on Tuesday evening expelled Southampton from the play-offs and reinstated Middlesbrough, who had lost 2-1 to the Saints on aggregate in the semi-finals.

Southampton appealed against their removal, calling it “manifestly disproportionate to every previous sanction in the history of the English game”. However, the EPL has rejected Saints’ appeal and upheld the punishment.

“A league arbitration panel has tonight dismissed Southampton Football Club’s appeal against the independent disciplinary commission’s sanction following the admittance of multiple breaches of EFL regulations,” the EFL said on Wednesday.

“The determination means that the original sanction of expulsion from the Championship play-offs remains in place, as does the four-point deduction to be applied to the 2026-27 Championship table and the reprimand in respect of all charges.”

The decision is final and there is no further right of appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Southampton issued a statement calling the decision “an extremely disappointing outcome”.

It added: “While we fully acknowledge the seriousness of this matter and the scrutiny that has followed, the club has consistently believed the original sporting sanction was disproportionate, a view that has been widely shared by many in the football community over the last 24 hours.

“While tonight is a painful moment, this football club will respond with humility, accountability and determination to put things right.”

Earlier on Wednesday, Southampton chief executive Phil Parsons said the club could not “accept a sanction which bears no proportion to the offence”.

Parsons pointed to a £200,000 fine issued to Leeds United in 2019 for spying on Derby as evidence of precedent.

However, when Leeds were punished seven years ago, regulation 127 – which expressly forbids observing an opponent within 72 hours of a game – did not exist. It was introduced as a result of Leeds’ wrongdoing.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw which turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day’.”

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted prior to that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.
But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.

Judges say Trump’s order for swift removal at the border ‘cast aside federal laws affording’ right to seek asylum.

An appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s ban on asylum applications in the United States is unlawful, dealing a setback to the administration’s immigration crackdown.

In a decision released on Friday, a three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, found that existing laws — namely the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) — give people the right to apply for asylum at the border.

Trump had issued the asylum ban in a proclamation on January 20, 2025, on the first day of his second term.

But the appeals court questioned whether suspending asylum unilaterally was within the president’s power.

“Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts,” the ruling said.

“The Proclamation and Guidance are thus unlawful to the extent that they circumvent the INA’s removal procedures and cast aside federal laws affording individuals the right to apply and be considered for asylum or withholding of removal protections.”

The decision validated a ruling by a lower court. While the judges blocked Trump’s order, it is unclear what its immediate impact will be. Already, the White House has signalled it plans to appeal.

Trump made immigration a major pillar of his 2024 re-election campaign, pledging to repel what he describes as an “invasion” of migrants by shutting down the southern border of the US.

Asylum in the US can be granted to people facing “persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group”. Such protections have been recognised as a fundamental human right under international law.

But unauthorised border crossings reached record levels during the administration of President Joe Biden, which had itself imposed asylum restrictions.

Millions of migrants — many suffering from gang violence and political persecution in Central and South America — have claimed asylum upon reaching the US.

Nearly 945,000 filed for asylum in 2023, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

In his January 2025 decree, Trump suspended “the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States across the southern border”.

The proclamation was quickly challenged in court, as other measures in Trump’s immigration crackdown have been.

But the appeals court panel concluded that the INA does not authorise the president to remove the plaintiffs under “procedures of his own making”.

Nor does it allow him to suspend the plaintiffs’ right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating claims of torture and persecution.

“The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA’s mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals,” wrote Judge J Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee.

The Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling to the full appellate court and subsequently to the Supreme Court.

The White House stressed after the court’s decision that banning asylum is part of Trump’s constitutional powers as commander-in-chief.

“We have liberal judges across the country who are acting against this president for political purposes. They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens,” White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

European football’s governing body has already rejected one appeal by Barca about their quarterfinals against Atletico.

Barcelona have lodged another complaint with UEFA, after their protest about a handball incident in the first leg of their Champions League quarterfinal defeat to Atletico Madrid was rejected this week.

The Spanish club said in a statement on Thursday that several refereeing decisions across both legs of the tie, which Atletico won 3-2 on aggregate, “did not comply with the Laws of the Game, resulting from an incorrect application of the regulations and a lack of appropriate intervention by the VAR system in incidents of clear significance”.

The Catalan club, which finished both matches with 10 men after the dismissals of Pau Cubarsi and then Eric Garcia, believe they were on the wrong end of several contentious decisions, including two potential penalty situations that did not trigger VAR intervention.

“The accumulation of these errors had a direct impact on the course of the matches and on the final outcome of the tie, causing significant sporting and financial harm to the club,” the reigning Spanish champions added.

Barcelona said the club “reiterates the requests previously made to UEFA” and offer to “collaborate with the organisation with the aim of improving the refereeing system to ensure a more rigorous, fair and transparent application” of the regulations.

On Tuesday, UEFA had rejected as “inadmissible” the five-time Champions League winners’ initial complaint regarding a handball on a goal kick by Atletico defender Marc Pubill in the first leg, which his side won 2-0.

Lakers guard Luka Doncic will be eligible for postseason awards after the NBA and NBA Players Association announced Thursday they ruled in his favor on his extraordinary circumstances appeal of the 65-game rule.

Doncic, a leading candidate for most valuable player and a lock for his sixth All-NBA team, played in only 64 games before he suffered a regular-season ending left hamstring injury on April 2. The league’s latest collective bargaining agreement requires players to appear in at least 65 games to be eligible for postseason awards, but Doncic and Detroit Pistons star Cade Cunningham both won appeals under the CBA’s extraordinary circumstances provision.

Doncic missed two games in December to attend the birth of his daughter in Slovenia and Cunningham, whose career season led the Pistons to the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference, missed 12 games because of a collapsed lung suffered on March 17.

Doncic earned his second league scoring title this season with 33.5 points per game. He surged back into the most valuable player race with a magical March when he was just the second player to score 600 points in March, joining Michael Jordan. He had four consecutive games of 40 or more points and 12 of 30 or more before injuring his hamstring on April 2. He and guard Austin Reaves (oblique) are out indefinitely as the Lakers begin the playoffs Saturday against the Houston Rockets.