attorneys

Oct. 31, 2026 2:13 PM PT

ANCHORAGE — Alaska’s Republican-run state government Saturday urged a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed at President Trump’s direction to stop the certification of a possible Democratic win in that state’s pivotal U.S. Senate race, writing that there is “no reason for this Court to entertain this meritless lawsuit any longer.”

The scathing filing from the state’s attorney general’s office, headed by Republican acting Atty. Gen. Cori Mills, comes as U.S. District Judge Sharon L. Gleason set a deadline of Saturday for arguments over whether she should dismiss the lawsuit without even a hearing.

The complaint from the U.S. Department of Justice has been roundly criticized by election law experts. It demands that the judge halt certification — only in the event of a win by Democrat Mary Peltola — until it is determined whether voters were confused by the presence of a second candidate on the ballot with the same name as her main rival, Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan.

The Department of Justice on Friday added a request that the judge separate all ballots showing votes for the challenger Dan Sullivan until it can be determined whether voters were fooled into wasting their votes for a spoiler candidate. In its Saturday filing, Alaska said this was “both disturbing and impossible.” It added there would be no way to do that without violating voter privacy.

Trump also demanded that Peltola be prosecuted after the New York Times this week reported that internal texts and posts appeared to show the Democrat’s campaign was involved in recruiting the second Sullivan, a retired schoolteacher in the remote fishing village of Petersburg, onto the ballot. But the state filing notes that the two Sullivans are distinguished from each other on the ballot — the senator is listed as a Republican and the incumbent, and the other is simply “Daniel J. Sullivan Jr.” with no party affiliation.

“State officials carefully designed the ballot to minimize voter confusion,” Alaska officials wrote. “The Court should immediately dismiss this lawsuit with prejudice and allow state officials to conduct the general election — including ballot counting and certification — free from unwarranted federal interference.”

The Trump administration argued that a preamble to the 1990s law governing voter registration gave it the responsibility for ensuring states maintained the “integrity” of federal elections. It has claimed it is trying to combat fraud by preventing the Democrat from being declared the victor in a race that could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate.

The Department of Justice issued a wave of subpoenas and announced it was conducting a criminal investigation in the case as the administration has stepped up its use of its legal powers to support Trump’s side in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

Peltola has denied involvement in the presence of the challenger Sullivan on the ballot. The New York Times report was based on interviews with her former campaign manager, texts and contributions from a political group backing Peltola to an out-of-state Democratic consultant who recruited the second Sullivan.

Alaska’s Republican governor, Mike Dunleavy, who announced a state investigation into the situation after the Times article, has condemned the placement of the second Sullivan on the ballot. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled this summer that the second candidate fulfilled all legal requirements to stay on. The state government’s filing on Saturday says that the new revelations about the possible role of Peltola’s campaign don’t change the fact that both Sullivans are legally on the ballot.

“Not every wrong can be righted in federal court,” the state wrote.

Peltola’s campaign and voting rights groups also have urged Gleason to dismiss the case, putting them in unusual alignment with Alaska state officials.

“Imagine if the federal executive could pluck a few words like ‘election integrity’ from some statutory preamble and, on that basis alone, bend the machinery of state elections to his will, preemptively blocking certification of a U.S. Senate election to protect his preferred candidate from defeat and then subjecting voters to a law-enforcement-led inquest about who they ‘really’ supported,” the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a filing urging the lawsuit’s dismissal.

“Imagine that world and ask whether it is what the Framers wanted or precisely what they most feared.”

Riccardi and Bohrer write for the Associated Press.

The race for L.A. city attorney delivered a shock this spring when incumbent Hydee Feldstein Soto was ousted, an upset the likes of which hadn’t happened in nearly a century. The pair of candidates who remain have since laid out their widely differing visions of the job.

Here’s what you need to know.

The candidates

• John McKinney is an L.A. County deputy district attorney with nearly 30 years of legal experience. He vows to clean up what he calls a blighted downtown and work closely with his boss and backer, Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman, to reduce crime in the city.
• Marissa Roy is a deputy attorney general in the California Department of Justice. She plans to use the office to fight for tenant and wage workers. Her vision of the city attorney is to be the “people’s lawyer” for L.A.

In their own words

Here are the Q&As with each of the candidates.

State of the race

Roy is leading in the race to become the next Los Angeles city attorney. She was ahead by 10 percentage points in the most recent poll conducted by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Still, some local voters don’t know the candidates by name.

Issues

Criminal justice

• McKinney is focusing his campaign on tamping down quality-of-life crimes in the city such as organized retail theft, drug dealing and street racing. McKinney would prioritize public safety and vows to go after demonstrators who block freeways or engage in conduct similar to the 2024 pro-Palestine encampments on UCLA’s campus.
• Roy wants to funnel nonviolent offenders to diversion programs such as mental health treatment or vocational training.

Hefty legal payouts

• McKinney said he’d lean on his long experience as a trial attorney to quickly decide which incoming lawsuits against the city should be fought and which should be settled in order to reduce the city’s legal costs.
• Roy wants to bring civil litigation back in-house to rein in the millions spent on outside counsel. She also argues for beefing up the claims process so legitimate suits are settled effectively and frivolous ones are fought.

How each candidate would handle Trump

• McKinney would work to balance respecting federal authority as required by law against protecting the constitutional rights of city residents and defending local resources if threatened by federal overreach.
• Roy has made fighting the Trump administration a centerpiece in her campaign.

Homelessness

• McKinney wants to use the court system as a “last resort” to leverage people into accepting services or shelter.
• Roy says renter protections will be vital to stemming the city’s homeless crisis.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Friday she would open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.

The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’ declaration that the court would appoint a “special master” into whether agency officials, and Justice Department attorneys, had made misrepresentations in the court is a far cry from her relationship with the government until this month. She had rejected numerous motions from the plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys.

The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of a monumental arch that, at 250 feet, would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty is from its base to the top of the torch. The two projects are barely three miles apart.

The hearing on the golf course change began as other recent ones have: Reyes questioned Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward Jr. over how Trump’s desires to turn the golf course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility have become urgent plans that match his public pronouncements.

Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous transcripts of the trial as she questioned Woodward. Among things she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details in a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course’s closure and renovation?

At one point, Reyes read the code of conduct to government attorneys on presenting erroneous or false information during a hearing.

Reyes ordered Friday’s hearing after multiple Truth Social posts by Trump indicated that there were plans for the golf course and construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months while work goes on.

The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward when officials from the Interior Department, Justice and Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust. The Justice Department filed notice Wednesday night that the plans were real.

“On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events,” the notice said.

Reyes locked in on the filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.

At one point, as they talked about plans that Woodward said came about only this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure.

Reyes responded immediately: “News flash.” She allowed him to correct himself that the tree cutting, which occurred earlier this month, was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Park Golf Course.

The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration’s push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the federal areas of the capital near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.

Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was to hold a hearing on a motion asking that she call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.

“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. “This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination.”

Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases that test the limits of presidential power.

Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound, sometimes not, said David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

“But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal,” he said. “What we’re seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can’t stop you,” you can break the law.

That’s ”going to do long-term damage to the country,” Super said.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.