appeal

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.