case

Gov. Gavin Newsom appointed Nathan “Nate” Ballard, a former aide sentenced in connection with a domestic violence case, to the State Historical Resources Commission.

Ballard, 57, of Mill Valley, will serve alongside eight other commissioners tasked with designating state historical landmarks and preserving the state’s cultural heritage, following the appointment made Friday evening.

In 2020, Ballard was arrested after an incident at an upscale resort where the Napa County district attorney’s office said he pushed his then-wife into a glass door and held a pillow over his four-year-old daughter’s head. The following year, he pleaded no contest to misdemeanor corporal injury against his spouse and child endangerment, according to court records.

He was sentenced to four years’ probation and initially ordered to stay away from his ex-wife and two children for six years, which was later reduced to two years, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Ballard was Newsom’s communications director from 2007 to 2010, when the outgoing governor was mayor of San Francisco. He previously worked in similar roles for the Democratic National Committee and the California Democratic Party, and as John Kerry’s California press secretary during his 2004 presidential run. He now works as an attorney in private practice and runs a public relations firm.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Newsom said the governor “considers the experience, qualifications and suitability for each post in making appointments.”

“He believes that abuse of any individual is unacceptable, and that those who commit such conduct should face accountability,” the statement continued. “He also believes in second chances.”

Ballard, who grew up in Davis, told The Times he applied for the position and looks forward to returning to public service. He described the need “to preserve the things that we love so much about California, and also to alleviate some of the pressures that we’re feeling on housing costs.”

Ballard added that he and the governor have known each other for decades and worked together through “tough times.”

“It’s no surprise that my appointment is a little controversial and I’m grateful to have his support,” he said.

Some have criticized the governor’s move.

Ivy Lee, the head of the San Francisco Mayor’s Office for Victims’ Rights, told Mission Local, which broke the story, “Why elevate perpetrators of abuse?”

“When people in power do that, it shows us what they really think about survivors. And it’s not much,” she said. “Survivors deserve better.”

Nadia Rahman, former president of the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, told the outlet that the appointment was “egregious.”

“He should not be appointed to a body,” she said. “This sets him off on a road of normalizing his behavior and reintroducing him to powerful political circles in California.”

During a long career in politics, “I didn’t think twice about exploiting my opponent’s biggest weakness when I was in the middle of a policy battle,” Ballard said when asked about the pushback. “So when I hear somebody speaking up with conviction about an issue like this, I understand where they’re coming from.”

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has started research after the man died from animal illness – only detected for first time this summer

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has launched an investigation after the first-ever case of a brain disease was found in an EU country which is a favourite destination for UK tourists. Health officials in France raised the alarm following the first ever known case of Shamonda virus (SHAV) infection in a human.

The person concerned had not travelled outside the country in the preceding 12 months, the WHO said. WHO said: “The case was an immunocompromised older man from eastern France with no travel history during the preceding year. He developed severe neurological illness on 23 September 2026 and was diagnosed with severe encephalitis (brain inflammation). The patient died on 8 October 2026.”

It said there are ‘no previously documented human infections’ of the disease, which normally affects animals such as cattle, sheep, goats and horses. The WHO said: “As only one human case has been reported so far, information on the disease in humans remains limited. In this case, the patient was already seriously ill and experienced additional, brain-related symptoms that were considered to be linked to the Shamonda virus.”

Vector-borne transmission (via a bite from an infected midge) is thought to be the most likely source of infection. Officials are investigating the possibility of food-borne transmission, but said it’s unlikely.

WHO added: “As this is the first documented laboratory-confirmed human infection, WHO considers that the public health risk cannot yet be reliably assessed and recommends continued surveillance and investigation.”

The patient lived in rural eastern France, where animal SHAV transmission has been documented since July 2026, and had not travelled in the preceding year. The patient received multiple blood transfusions between February and October 2026 for his underlying illness.

SHAV was only found for the first time in Europe during the summer of 2026 with confirmed or suspected infections reported in cattle, horses and alpacas in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland.

As of October 21 2026, additional European countries and territories have reported SHAV detections in animals: Austria, Ireland, Jersey, Liechtenstein, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain.

It adds: “This first documented human infection with SHAV in 2026 demonstrates that human infection is possible. However, a single case is insufficient to assess the risk to the general population, including immunocompetent individuals, or to determine the frequency, clinical spectrum or severity of human infection. The route of infection and possible sources of exposure are unknown, though vector-borne transmission is a plausible hypothesis.”

The U.S. Justice Department moved Friday to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit challenging the counting of 20,000 ballots in California, arguing the relief it sought is now impossible given Tuesday’s midterm election has concluded.

The Justice Department had sought a court order requiring state and Los Angeles County election officials to set aside the ballots, which it alleged could be from noncitizen voters. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had both rejected that request, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Trump administration appeal to those lower court rulings — with no noted dissents.

Carter had ruled that the government’s request was probably unconstitutional, given the Constitution gives states and Congress power over elections, not the executive, and probably ran afoul of federal law barring sweeping vetting of voter rolls in the immediate run-up to an election.

However, he had set a schedule moving forward for additional fact-finding in the case — including by appointing a special master to dig into the data the federal government was relying on to assert the 20,000 voters were potentially noncitizens.

In a filing before Carter on Friday, Assistant U.S. Atty. Julie Hamill in Los Angeles wrote that that court process was no longer necessary, as it would not provide the relief that the federal government was seeking by filing its lawsuit.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s denial, the United States is evaluating how to best ensure that American votes are protected, including by preventing vote dilution by noncitizens. In addition, by the time of this Court’s hearing on Nov. 13 in this matter, California will have already commingled the challenged ballots with lawful ones,” Hamill wrote. “There is then no way to get the challenged ballots segregated. As a result, the relief the United States sought and needed is no longer available — rendering voluntary dismissal necessary.”

Hamill wrote that the Trump administration had sought to “protect American voters and to prevent the irreparable harm of state and local election officials including illegally cast votes in the final vote tabulation,” but had “exhausted its appeals to obtain timely relief” by going to — and being denied by — the Supreme Court.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli’s office in Los Angeles — where Hamill works — referred questions about the filing to the Justice Department.

Kiersten Pels, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the litigation at issue was “moot” but that the Trump administration “is not backing down” in its targeting of alleged noncitizen voters, including in a separate case in which it is still demanding that California “conduct proper list maintenance, including removing noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls — which will be crucial to ensure fair elections in the future.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a defendant in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, another defendant, said he was “pleased that the administration has accepted the clarity of the court findings” against it and ended its lawsuit.

“At each stage of this election, and in response to the Department of Justice, we have been clear that state and federal law sets well-defined standards for verifying and challenging voter eligibility,” Logan said. “Our commitment and focus remain on the fair, secure, accurate, and legal processes we are engaged in to complete and certify the election.”

California Atty. Gen Rob Bonta, in a statement, said that after losing in every court it tried, including the Supreme Court, “the Trump Administration has given up its latest unlawful effort to interfere with California’s elections and disenfranchise eligible voters.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured: California has and always will defend your fundamental right to vote.”

Tricia Webber, president of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election Officials, said state election officials “are very pleased” with the voluntary dismissal of the case — which she said “affirms that our elections are administered with the utmost integrity and care.”

“At the same time, we are under no illusions. We recognize that this issue is unlikely to go away permanently, and we remain fully prepared to continue defending California’s election administration against future challenges,” she said. “We will always stand ready to protect every eligible voter’s right to participate in a fair and secure election process.”

The administration’s filing — three days after President Trump’s party took a drubbing in the midterms — marks a sudden and unremarkable conclusion to an unprecedented court battle in the days leading up to the election, when the federal government sought permission from the courts to force state and local elections officials to set aside votes during an ongoing election.

Carter had rejected the administration’s request for immediate intervention in a blistering Oct. 28 ruling, calling its allegations about the ineligible voters “not credible” and warning that the proposed action could disenfranchise eligible voters and sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

While Justice Department officials characterized the relief it had requested from the court as “targeted and modest,” Carter had reached a sharply different conclusion — writing that the administration’s demands would “wreak havoc” on an ongoing election and “create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens.”

The reliability of the government’s list became a central issue in the litigation. Logan’s office said its review of about 200 flagged voters found that a substantial portion appeared to have been born in the United States, a finding Homeland Security officials disputed.

Election officials elsewhere in California also reported problems with the lists, including names of people who did not appear to live in their counties or to be registered voters. Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials across the state, demanding that they sequester flagged ballots and warning of potential criminal penalties if they failed to comply.

The three-judge 9th Circuit panel that heard the federal government’s appeal to Carter’s ruling — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — came to some of the same conclusions Carter did in a 2-1 ruling. One of the Trump appointees dissented, writing that he would have ruled for the administration.

Carter ordered an expedited hearing on the state’s and county’s motions to dismiss the case and the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He ordered all parties by Nov. 6 to submit witness lists, including experts, regarding the reliability of the list of voters and the methodology behind it. He ordered both sides to appear at the Nov. 13 hearing, with submitted witnesses prepared to take the stand.

Ending the litigation now will forestall that process to detail the origins of the administration’s list — which is still being used by federal prosecutors in California to target individual voters for criminal prosecution.

Nov. 6, 2026 2:09 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The top federal prosecutor in Miami who had been tasked with overseeing an investigation into foes of President Trump has resigned, joining other high-profile Justice Department officials departing in the wake of the midterm elections, officials said Friday.

Jason Reding Quiñones’ resignation follows frustrations among Washington officials with his management of the office assigned to lead the so-called grand conspiracy investigation, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel issues.

The Justice Department’s top national security official, John Eisenberg, also resigned Friday, Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche said. On Thursday, Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who led a radical overhaul of the department’s Civil Rights Division, also announced her departure.

Quiñones was confirmed by the Senate last year as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, where the Justice Department had centered its meandering probe into whether former law enforcement and intelligence officials conspired against the Republican president.

His departure comes as the investigation has shown signs of faltering amid a spate of staff turnovers and delays. Investigators in recent weeks have put off scheduled grand jury testimony of several witnesses, according to multiple people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation.

Blanche said in a social media post that the department is grateful for Quiñones’ “leadership in combating violent crime, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and transnational crime, including the indictment of Raúl Castro.”

Castro, the former Cuban president, was indicted by Quiñones’ office in May on charges related to the 1996 downing of civilian planes flown by Miami-based exiles.

Quiñones said Friday that he is leaving with “immense pride in what we accomplished together and profound gratitude for the opportunity to serve our great Nation.”

“I am grateful to President Trump for his trust and to the extraordinary men and women of the great Southern District of Florida for their dedication, friendship, and unwavering commitment to justice and the rule of law,” Quiñones wrote in a social media post.

The “grand conspiracy” investigation has proceeded in fits and starts for over a year with repeated setbacks and departures. Last April, a lead national security prosecutor in the investigation of former CIA Director John Brennan was replaced on the team after raising questions about the strength of the case.

Shortly afterward, Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, took over the probe. DiGenova resigned from the Justice Department in September without bringing any criminal charges.

Eisenberg was sworn in as assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s National Security Division in June 2025 and oversaw cases involving espionage, terrorism, export control violations, cyber crimes and other matters.

Among the division’s most high-profile cases under his watch was the prosecution of former national security adviser John Bolton, who pleaded guilty this year to allegations of mishandling classified information and is awaiting sentencing.

“He has served with distinction, strengthening our nation’s ability to address threats, both foreign and domestic,” Blanche said in a statement.

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — New York appeals judges grilled President Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors Thursday about his bid to erase his historic hush money conviction, but the court didn’t signal how or when it would rule.

The judges delved into legal theory, presidential immunity and some evidence in Trump’s 2024 trial. Convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, Trump denies any wrongdoing. He has turned to state and federal courts in hopes of unwinding the verdict.

Trump, who denounced the case on social media as recently as September, didn’t attend Thursday’s court session.

Much of the back-and-forth focused on prosecutors’ theory that the hush money was meant to keep unflattering information about Trump away from the electorate before the 2016 vote, and that it amounted to an illegal campaign contribution under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. told the judges that Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg’s office has no place tying a case to a federal election law.

“We think it’s the most obvious ground for reversal,” he said.

Prosecutors argued that they weren’t prosecuting an alleged federal campaign finance offense, but rather presenting it as a factor underlying what they claim was a Trump-orchestrated conspiracy.

“So are you relying upon FECA in order to prove your falsifying business records [charge]?” Justice Troy Webber asked.

“Only partially,” replied Bragg’s appeals chief, Steven Wu, adding that it was “important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy.”

Judges drill down on question about White House conversations

The appeal also concerns whether jurors should have been allowed to hear testimony about supposed White House workflow and conversations — some with then-Communications Director Hope Hicks — and even Trump social media posts during his first term. His lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts, and they argue his official conduct included responding to the Daniels drama once it became public in 2018.

“Ms. Hicks was serving as a White House official,” talking with the president about how to respond to press inquiries that implicitly concerned his fitness for office, Giuffra told the appeals judges.

Wu countered later: “In this conversation, they were not speaking about a press response. … The president was talking to her about his private opinion.”

The appeals judges pressed both sides about the matter and the specifics of Hicks’ testimony. She told jurors that she asked Trump how he wanted to respond, but as for what he said, she testified only that he expressed relief that the Daniels story hadn’t emerged during the campaign.

Bragg’s office contends that all the White House-related evidence was fair game. The conversations were “unofficial conduct,” some of the other evidence was public record, and some was a general description of office practices, prosecutors say. They maintain that even if some of the evidence should have been excluded, its admission was a “harmless error” that doesn’t warrant overturning a conviction that rested on “a mountain” of other proof against Trump.

Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke wondered aloud about that.

“If you take all of those things cumulatively, right, and there’s a problem with this evidence, there’s a problem with this evidence, at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” she asked.

“It would have to be a lot more than there was in this case,” Wu responded.

Trump’s lawyers also have argued the case was political

While the appeal turns on complex legal disputes, political overtones aren’t hard to find. The very first paragraph of one of the Trump team’s court filings contended that the case was the flimsy product of “immense political pressure” on a Democratic prosecutor to go after Trump — rhetoric that echoes the Republican president’s own oft-repeated claims in the court of public opinion.

The May 2024 verdict made Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president with a criminal conviction. Though historic, it didn’t impede his return to the White House or subject him to any punishment.

The trial involved $130,000 that Daniels got from Trump’s then-fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, weeks before the 2016 election. The money bought, for a time, her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump a decade earlier. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.

Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, logging those payments as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers argue there’s only “weak” evidence that he even knew about Cohen’s dealings at the time. His trial attorneys also said that payments to Cohen were indeed legal expenses, and that any hush money expended on Trump’s behalf wasn’t hidden campaign spending, just an effort to avoid embarrassing his family.

The distinction matters because, under New York law, falsifying business records isn’t a felony unless it’s done with an intent to commit or conceal a separate crime.

While pursuing his state appeal, Trump also has been trying to shift the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge said no — for the third time — in August. Trump’s attorneys are appealing that decision, with arguments set for Nov. 16.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.

Gov. Gavin Newsom told the California Supreme Court Thursday that he will commute the death sentences of all 548 state prisoners awaiting execution, reducing their punishments to life in prison without parole.

Newsom can commute about 40% of the death sentences with the stroke of a pen, but the rest will require the high court’s approval in order to be finalized.

The mass commutation would apply to inmates convicted of some of the most heinous acts in the state’s history. Newsom and other opponents of capital punishment have long argued that the process is costly, cruel and discriminatory, with death sentences disproportionately handed down to defendants of color.

“I take this action because I firmly believe that state-sanctioned killing is incompatible with California’s values, undermines the foundation of our legal system, and diminishes each of us,” Newsom wrote in a letter to Californians explaining his decision. “I know we cannot execute people in our imperfect legal system and remain true to our core values, first among them justice and human decency.”

The move comes in Newsom’s final months as governor and as he considers a run for president. Reducing the death sentences could help him in a primary with a Democratic base of like-minded liberal voters, but potentially hurt him in a general election with a national electorate that supports capital punishment.

The decision to officially spare the condemned inmates is largely symbolic in a state that has not executed a prisoner since 2006, though experts say it could save millions of dollars in court costs every year. Only 13 inmates have been killed since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1978. The state’s electorate reaffirmed its support a decade ago, voting down a ballot initiative that would have abolished capital punishment. Polls show its popularity has waned in the years since.

Despite his outspoken opposition to state-sanctioned executions, the governor has declined to use his political influence with voters to pursue a ballot measure that would amend the state Constitution to align with his position and officially end the death penalty. Without changing state law, criminals can continue to be sentenced to death in California.

“California voters have voted to keep the death penalty on the books and I respect that,” Newsom wrote in the letter to Californians. “But the constitution also gave every governor clemency authority, and that power exists for moments when law as applied cannot be squared with justice. For me, this is that moment.”

Newsom made national headlines two months after his inauguration in 2019 when he issued a temporary moratorium on executions and vowed to dismantle the death chamber at San Quentin State Prison, now called San Quentin Rehabilitation Center.

Calling the death penalty system a “failure,” Newsom said the punishment is also often reserved for poor people who cannot afford expensive legal representation, fails to deter crime and wastes taxpayer money.

Careful to avoid elevating a death penalty debate in the midterm elections, Newsom intentionally waited until after the general election on Tuesday to go a step further and launch the process of commuting all California death penalty sentences.

The decision is another bold signature Newsom move that sits well with his base of support in California and wealthy, white and college-educated national voters who would be crucial to his success in a Democratic presidential primary, said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant.

However, his liberal stance on government executions could also create a vulnerability for him if he advances in the 2028 presidential election as the party’s nominee.

“Gavin’s exactly right with that base Democratic voter on that position,” Madrid said. “One hundred percent. It makes him a champion.”

But more moderate blue-collar voters who helped the party flip Congress in the midterms, Madrid added, are “not in line with him on this.”

A poll conducted in August by the Pew Research Center found that about two-thirds of voters nationally favor the death penalty for people convicted or murder.

Those numbers could shift following the botched lethal injection of Christa Pike in Tennessee in September and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s now-scuttled plan to livestream the execution of Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan by firing squad.

“Those events have really ripped the veneer off the death penalty in this country,” said attorney Natasha Minsker of the California Anti-Death Penalty Coalition. “The death penalty is an act of violence. It’s taking another life. I think that’s become clear to the entire country.”

The state spends more than $200 million a year to adjudicate automatic death penalty appeals and habeas corpus petitions for inmates who, in all likelihood, will never be executed, according to a 2025 report by the Habeas Corpus Resource Center.

The case of Clarence Ray Allen, the last inmate killed by lethal injection in California 20 years ago, is emblematic of how the law has failed, death penalty opponents say.

Allen was 76, making him the second-oldest person ever executed in the United States. He had been on death row for 23 years and his appeals cost the state more than $750,000. Many current condemned inmates are even older — some in their 80s and 90s — and their appeals even more drawn out and expensive.

“It’s just a broken system,” said Michael Hersek, former executive director of Habeas Corpus Resource Center and an ex-state public defender.

Taxpayers foot the bill for both the defense and the prosecution in post-conviction capital cases, as well as the administrative judicial costs associated with years of complicated appeals in state and federal court.

The existing appeal requirements were instituted to counter long-standing racial bias in capital sentencing. Attempts to reform and expedite the appeals process over the years have further gummed up the system.

“There is no indication that the situation has improved, and … [there are] data indicating that it has worsened,” Justice Leondra R. Kruger wrote for the California Supreme Court in 2024.

It’s estimated that death penalty appeals alone constitute about a quarter of the work of the California Supreme Court.

“It’s ludicrous, the amount of time, resources and energy put into these cases,” Hersek said.

Some victims’ families agree.

“The death penalty is this promise to people who are angry and broken that you’re somehow going to make them feel better by executing this person,” said Bethany Webb, whose sister Laura was among eight people killed in a mass shooting in Seal Beach in 2011.

Their mother was also shot and badly injured in the attack.

“It is brutalizing to family members, the whole system,” Webb said.

Others say Newsom’s latest move is a betrayal of the justice they were promised.

“It’s total disrespect for the victims. It’s a slap in the face,” said Sandy Friend, whose 8-year-old son Michael Lyons was abducted, raped and murdered in 1996.

She and other relatives stressed the unique brutality of many capital crimes, saying Newsom did not consider victims’ suffering when commuting their killers’ sentences.

The commutations would go to inmates such as Charles Ng, who was convicted of killing six men, three women and two infant boys in Northern California in 1984 and 1985. Also in line to benefit is Richard Allen Davis, who abducted and murdered 12-year-old Polly Klaas of Petaluma in 1993, sparking a months-long search that gripped the nation. Another condemned inmate, Christopher Cheary, was convicted of murdering, raping and torturing his girlfriend’s 3-year-old daughter, Sophia Acosta, in Tulare County.

Gov.-elect Xavier Becerra also opposes the death penalty. If state leaders wanted to resume executions, experts say it would take the better part of a decade and millions of dollars in new spending for the state to design and approve a workable protocol for lethal injections, rebuild a death chamber and secure the gray-market drugs necessary to perform executions.

Legal experts believe the end of the death penalty is likely inevitable in California, with or without Newsom’s involvement.

In 2024, the Office of the State Public Defender sued California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, arguing “persistent and pervasive racial disparities infect California’s death penalty system.”

This spring, the California Supreme Court ordered Bonta’s California Department of Justice to show cause why it should not declare the death penalty unconstitutional — a move widely read as signaling the justices’ ultimate intent to end it.

“The statistical findings in the studies invoked by petitioners are extraordinarily disturbing,” Bonta wrote in his reply to the order in August. “Evidence of pervasive racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty could show that California’s capital punishment system gives rise to a constitutionally intolerable risk of arbitrariness.”

Around 60% of the inmates in line for commutations would require review and approval by the California Supreme Court before Newsom’s term ends in January. Those cases involve prisoners who had a felony conviction on their record prior to receiving a death sentence, or racked up additional crimes while awaiting execution.

The high court previously rejected 10 clemency cases without much clarification when Gov. Jerry Brown submitted them in 2018 months before he left office.

If approved by the California Supreme Court, the immediate effect could be relatively muted. The death chamber was taken down and all but a handful of the remaining condemned inmates were relocated from segregated housing in San Quentin to other facilities across the state after Newsom’s 2019 moratorium.

The decision to formally pause executions drew support from the late Pope Francis during Newsom’s 2024 trip to the Vatican, according to the governor’s retelling of a brief conversation between the two men.

In a subsequent interview, the governor said his Catholic background and the inequities in the criminal justice system influenced his refusal to sign off on executions. His father, the late William Newsom, also opposed the death penalty.

His father and grandfather were involved in the case of Pete Pianezzi, a friend who was wrongfully convicted of first-degree murder in the shooting and killing of a gambler and busboy in Los Angeles in 1937.

Pianezzi escaped the death penalty by a single vote and served 13 years in prison. He was later exonerated.

Even if it were possible to limit inequity and wrongful convictions in the criminal justice system, Newsom has said he would still be against the death penalty.

“The decision is among the most difficult in my career, not because I doubt its necessity for our state but because I know its announcement may surface excruciating memories for victims’ families,” Newsom wrote in the letter to Californians. “Today I am acting on my long and deeply held conviction that individually and collectively we are stronger as a society when we reject state-sanctioned killing.”

It’s the first week of November, and that means it’s officially the holiday season, which is my favorite time to visit our local theme parks. Disneyland is first out of the gate, unveiling its full slate of holiday programming on Nov. 13. Universal Studios Hollywood and Knott’s Berry Farm will follow the weekend of Nov. 20.

For many, it’s also a season of gift giving, which can be one of the most daunting parts of this time of year. Thankfully, our theme parks are here to help — enter any of them and it’s difficult to walk more than a few feet without passing a souvenir shop, stand or stall.

To celebrate the start of the holiday season — and to coincide with the launch of The Times’ extensive gift guide — I’ve decided to dedicate this newsletter to some of my favorite items currently available at our theme parks. A word of warning, however. I’m a bit of a dork for monorails, and I like silly things, so this list does possess a slight personal bias. But like our paper’s guides to stocking stuffers or unique, made-in-L.A. items, consider it primarily a source of inspiration.

Or a reminder, perhaps, to schedule a visit to one of our theme parks this holiday season and bring home a little gift for yourself.

Disneyland

My favorite new item available at Disneyland is essentially a flip book, albeit one styled as a vintage ‘50s-style TV with brown casing that can house multiple oversize flip books. Turn it on, and it springs into action, playing scenes from either “Steamboat Willie,” “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” or “Flowers and Trees,” all classic pieces of Disney animation. The images unfold, of course, where the screen would be, and the set also plays music from the animated works. This Disney Animation Television (pictured above) is $99, and you can find it at Disney California Adventure’s Off the Page. It is a park exclusive.

I warned I was a monorail fiend, and new this year at the Disneyland Hotel is a collection from midcentury artist Scott “Scooter” Burroughs. I know many a Disneyland fan is a mug collector, so I’m highlighting this Burroughs-designed Disneyland Hotel item, which has the hotel’s vintage logo on one side, and Mickey and Minnie carrying luggage in front of one of the hotel’s towers and monorail on the other. The teal Disneyland Hotel coffee mug (pictured above), complete with an ornate Disney “D” handle, is $24.99 and available in the hotel’s gift shop.

I’m also showcasing the $24.99 monorail salt & pepper shakers (pictured above), which despite having been available for multiple years, remains my favorite gift at the resort. Yes, they’re in the style of Walt Disney World’s current monorails. but I love the mini track holder and smile every time I use them. Available throughout the resort, including Disney Home in Downtown Disney.

A new Fantasyland sweatshirt has arrived at Disneyland.

(Todd Martens / Los Angeles Times)

The Disneyland Resort has in recent years upped its fashion game. Too often I’d spy a shirt or sweatshirt I liked, and turn it around only to find the understated design on the front was paired with a garish creation on the back. Thankfully, the park seems to be moving away from that style, and this year debuted a gorgeous, restrained yet artful Fantasyland sweatshirt featuring a flying pirate galleon from “Peter Pan.” It’s $69.99 and available at multiple shops, including the Disneyland Hotel or the Emporium on Main Street, U.S.A. I love its minimal use of colors, pairing a creamy white with a royal blue.

For the last Disney item, I’m going to pivot slightly to include a selection from Walt Disney World. As I write this newsletter I’m listening to the newly released “Epcot” vinyl (pictured above), a two-LP set that spans the history of the Florida park. As someone who visited the park yearly as a child, it’s a nostalgic joy, featuring music from “Journey into Imagination,” “Universe of Energy,” “The Land” and more, but the primary keepers for me are some of the Future World instrumentals. This is available online from the Disney Music Emporium for $32.99.

Universal Studios

I can’t resist when Universal Studios Hollywood releases items that center the park’s tram tour. So I immediately wanted this King Kong plush (pictured above) that features the giant gorilla cradling a mini tram vehicle. This, in my mind, is a nod to the attraction when it featured a large animatronic of Kong that would create the illusion of rocking the ride vehicles, so in addition to being cuddly, it has a sort of vintage coolness. This park exclusive item is $30, and can be found in the Universal Studio Store near the entrance.

I don’t think the kitchen cupboard of any Universal Studios Hollywood fan is complete without a few pieces of the park’s retro glassware (pictured above). I have the one styled after the late great E.T. Adventure ride, which opened here in 1991 but sadly left the park in 2003. The ‘80s-style graphic cups have mini ride summaries. Each one is $10, and the park also has glassware styled after the “Back to the Future” ride (RIP) and the Kong section of the tram tour. The items can be found in the Universal Studio Store.

There’s a whole lot of Yoshi’s in this colorful shirt at Universal Studios Hollywood.

(Todd Martens / Los Angeles Times)

Universal Studios Hollywood is also the go-to shop for fans of the “Harry Potter” franchise and Nintendo. I’m a bigger fan of the latter, so I’m going to focus on a couple of my favorite Nintendo items. I’ve long been eyeing this Yoshi camp shirt, but I’m not yet persuaded I can pull it off; one of these days I’m sure I’ll be break down and buy the $75 item. I love its mix of green and pinks, and dig the soft, playful vibe. Plus, everyone adores Yoshi.

Universal Studios Hollywood’s mini-”Jaws” puzzle is an ideal stocking stuffer.

(Todd Martens / Los Angeles Times)

The park also has a fair amount of Nintendo toys, including Mario, Bowser and Yoshi, but I’m a big fan of the dancing Piranha Plant, which spins and rotates when exposed to noise. It’s $37 and a little goofy, but I can’t have plants in my apartment because my cat instantly destroys them, so I’m always on the prowl for toys that double as greenery.

The Universal Studio Store has small sections dedicated to a number of the films featured in the park, and I was smitten with this mini “Jaws” puzzle, which would make an excellent stocking stuffer for fans of the Steven Spielberg classic. It’s $15, comes in an easy-to-store capsule, and features bright, cartoonish poster art.

Knott’s Berry Farm

I love all things boysenberry and at any time throughout the year you can find numerous boysenberry items around my apartment. Lately, I’ve been using the park’s boysenberry cream hand soap, which sells for $16.99. Look for it at numerous shops at the theme park, including the main store just outside the park or the hotel gift shop. It does have a powerful berry fragrance, but I don’t mind as it allows me to pretend I’m spending the night at the park. If you can’t make it to the park, Knott’s sells a $12.99 boysenberry bath bomb online.

The boysenberry, a Knott’s creation, is a delight, a sort of midpoint between a blackberry and a raspberry, although sweeter than both. That’s why I never don’t have a jar of boysenberry jam (pictured above) on hand. They’re $12.99 and available pretty much everywhere at the park but also online. The boysenberry jam is a hearty jelly, its taste reminding me of fall, as it’s not a thin, easily-spreadable jam.

Knott’s stages its annual boysenberry fest each spring, and it’s always a good time to sample dozens of boysenberry-infused foods. Typically, I prefer a more subtle touch, which is why I’ve become a big fan of the park’s boysenberry pancake mix, which sells for $7.99 and is available throughout the park and online. Each bundle is good for a number of meals, although I tend to use more than the recommended dose for thicker, larger pancakes. It’s not a heavy boysenberry flavor, so if you want to go overboard you can pair them with boysenberry syrup, which sells for $12.99 per bottle.

While I focused on boysenberry items in this list, it would be derelict of me not to mention that Knott’s Berry Farm is a prime source for all things “Peanuts.” The boysenberry, however, is such a SoCal original that I’ve been known to visit the park for the sole purpose of snaring a boysenberry pie, which I should mention is a perfect Thanksgiving dessert.

This week in SoCal theme parks

Layoffs last week hit Disney’s experiences division, which oversees its theme parks.

(AaronP / Bauer-Griffin / GC Images)

• Layoffs hit Walt Disney Imagineering. Last week The Times revealed that just under 200 people would be cut from Disney’s experiences division, which includes Disney’s theme parks, cruise line and Aulani resort and spa in Hawaii. Many of those involved, sources say, were with Walt Disney Imagineering. None of the currently announced projects for the Disneyland Resort are believed to be affected.
• Another coaster is coming to Magic Mountain. Six Flags’ Valencia park is soon going to be home to ArieForce One, which previously resided at the now-shuttered Fun Spot America near Atlanta. Six Flags purchased the coaster earlier this year, but at the time did not announce where it would be relocated. Magic Mountain hopes to open ArieForce One in 2028, according to a park spokesperson. The news was first reported by Brady MacDonald of the OC Register.
• Express access comes to Fast & Furious: Hollywood Drift. Getting on Universal’s fancy new coaster will now be a little easier, at least for those who are willing to pay to skip the line. Universal Studios Hollywood is now selling a paid line-skipping pass for $19.95 per person. This will give you an entry time to return to the attraction.
• Happy holidays! The Disneyland Resort is giving us a beer stand. Set to open in the coming days at Disney California Adventure is Bountiful Valley Brews, a new beer stall that will also sell a pepperoni pizza egg roll. In addition to local ales, Bountiful Valley will also sell a margarita and a Southern whiskey peach tea. The kiosk will be located near the entrance to Avengers Campus.
• A new immersive experience is coming to Anaheim. TeamLab, the Japan-born, tech-heavy immersive art collective, is plotting its first permanent U.S. exhibition in Anaheim. The group, stylized as teamLab, is moving into a 110,000-square-foot space at OCVibe, the 100-acre mixed-use entertainment district currently in development near the Honda Center. The teamLab spot is not estimated to open until 2030, but a press release specifies this will be a new exhibition and not a re-creation of one of the collective’s popular international exhibits.

Tell us your stories. Ask us your questions.

Have a theme park tale to share? Whether it was a good day or less-than-perfect day, I would love to hear about it. Have a question? A tip? A fun photo from the parks to share? Email me at todd.martens@latimes.com. I may feature your note in an upcoming newsletter.

Ride on,

Todd Martens

—

This newsletter is free thanks to the support of L.A. Times subscribers. If you’re not yet a subscriber, explore subscription packages to unlock unlimited digital access and support award-winning local reporting.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday dismissed a criminal complaint against two former FBI officials accused of making false statements to Congress about Hunter Biden, saying the investigation that produced the charges was rushed, overtly political and dogged by “critical mistakes.”

“What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization,” U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui said in a scathing ruling from the bench that dismissed the case against former officials Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides.

He noted that the investigation was opened a day after a primetime speech by President Trump in which he rehashed grievances over his 2020 election loss and that it was mandated and closely tracked by FBI Director Kash Patel. He also pointed out that the Justice Department could have brought the case, which arises from statements made in 2023, at any time but opted to do so two weeks ago, in the run-up to Tuesday’s midterm voting.

“I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend that I cannot read a calendar,” Faruqui said.

The decision followed a dramatic hearing in which he scolded prosecutors for their unorthodox maneuvers and an FBI agent who worked the case testified that he had been concerned the investigation would be seen as “political.”

The Justice Department may still have an opportunity to pursue a grand jury indictment against the two former officials, whose lawyers had pressed for dismissal of the charges. But the judge’s ruling nonetheless represents an unmistakable setback for the Justice Department, particularly given the difficulty it has had in persuading grand juries in the nation’s capital to return indictments in politically charged prosecutions like this one.

The judge’s concerns about the case were apparent almost immediately, when he raised questions about why the Justice Department had charged the case through a criminal complaint — which is more typically done when investigators have a pressing need to take a defendant into custody — as opposed to an indictment that requires a grand jury’s approval.

Then, at a preliminary hearing last week, he criticized the Justice Department for filing overnight an amended complaint with an additional criminal charge straight to the docket instead of first clearing the new charge with the court — something he said he had never seen before.

The hearing also featured testimony from an FBI agent who worked the case, who said that the investigation had been opened right after Trump gave an election security speech last July and that it had been mandated by FBI Director Kash Patel, who kept close watch on it.

The case accused the two former FBI officials of misleading Congress in 2023 about their involvement in, and knowledge of, efforts to investigate a laptop the Justice Department says was dropped off by Hunter Biden, former President Joe Biden’s son, at a Delaware computer repair shop in 2019.

But it also sought to echo longstanding grievances by Trump and his Republican allies that the FBI attempted to suppress information during the 2020 presidential campaign that was seen as potentially harmful to the Biden family. Candidate Joe Biden, a Democrat, ultimately defeated Trump, the Republican incumbent, in the 2020 election.

The Justice Department’s case noted, for instance, how Floris and Benavides had given lawmakers in 2020 a “defensive briefing” that Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have said was used to undermine their investigation into the Biden administration and link it to Russian disinformation.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 1, 2026 11:10 AM PT

JUNEAU, Alaska — A federal judge on Sunday dismissed a Justice Department lawsuit seeking to block certification of Alaska’s U.S. Senate race if Republican incumbent Dan Sullivan loses.

Sullivan, an ally of President Trump, faces Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola in one of the country’s most closely watched races, with Senate control at stake. Tuesday’s ranked-choice election also includes two candidates who have done little campaigning, one of whom shares the incumbent’s name.

The lawsuit, filed less than two weeks before the election and with early voting underway, called for an investigation into whether votes for retired teacher Dan J. Sullivan were intended for the senator. The state said the case lacked merit and argued there would be no way to determine that without violating voter privacy.

U.S. District Judge Sharon Gleason wrote in the order that the relief the United States seeks is “infeasible” because many voters have already cast their ballots. She said the cast ballots have been mixed together to the point where they cannot be matched to specific voters.

“More fundamentally, the United States provides no workable plan as to how it proposes to segregate ballots cast for Daniel J. Sullivan on Election Day and then conduct a court-ordered unspecified ‘investigation’ of those ballots in a manner that would preserve voter secrecy,” she wrote.

Attorneys for the Republican-led state government, Peltola’s campaign and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee argued that the case lacked any legal basis and amounted to interference. The senator and his allies, including Trump, for months have portrayed Dan J. Sullivan as a sham candidate intent on confusing voters and helping Peltola.

In the week before election day, the New York Times reported that Peltola’s campaign was involved in efforts to recruit the challenger Sullivan. Dan J. Sullivan in June, shortly after entering the race, said he’d had no contact with the campaign about running. He did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report.

Peltola’s campaign responded by saying the campaign “has no involvement with either Sullivan campaign” — a statement similar to one it released after Dan J. Sullivan launched his bid.

“I am not interested in tricking voters,” she said during a recent campaign event.

State courts, including the Alaska Supreme Court, rejected Republican-backed efforts to block the retired teacher from the August open primary ballot on which he appeared as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr., with no party affiliation. The senator was listed as Dan S. Sullivan, Republican and incumbent.

Both Sullivans appear the same way on the general election ballot. Peltola placed first in the primary, followed by the senator. Dan J. Sullivan received about 2.5% of the primary vote, but that was enough to finish within the top four and qualify for the Nov. 3 ranked-choice election.

Attorneys for the Alaska Department of Law, led by Republican acting Atty. Gen. Cori Mills, represented state elections officials in the case and asked Gleason, who was appointed by President Obama, to toss the lawsuit. They filed a scathing response to the federal government’s complaint, calling it “meritless.”

Alaska also said the state had taken “significant steps” to distinguish the two Sullivans on the ballot. Voters who still might be confused could ask for help or look up candidate biographies and other information in state-distributed election pamphlets.

Gleason wrote that the administration’s attempt to block certification ran counter to the Constitution, which gives states the authority to run elections. She also cited the Supreme Court’s Purcell principle, which holds that federal courts should generally not change election rules too close to an election.

Alaska’s ranked voting system also offers a solution to possible confusion, the state wrote, allowing voters to rank the Sullivans as first and second choices, if they choose.

“That way, if the voter’s first-ranked Sullivan is eliminated, his vote would transfer to the other Sullivan,” attorneys Rachel Witty, Margaret Paton Walsh and Laura Fox wrote. “The voter’s vote would not ‘be transferred to Peltola’ as the complaint asserts, unless the voter chose to rank Peltola as his next choice instead of the other Sullivan.”

Trump for years has railed against Alaska’s use of ranked-choice voting in general elections. Republican state leaders have said that while they don’t like ranked voting, they want voters to “rank every Republican” candidate on this year’s ballot, especially with a high-stakes governor’s race featuring one Democrat and three Republicans.

On Thursday, the Justice Department escalated a criminal investigation over the same-named candidates on the Alaska ballot, issuing a raft of new grand jury subpoenas, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press. The FBI also has begun contacting people who donated to Dan J. Sullivan, some of whom told the AP that the agents were asking if they had been misled about which candidate they were supporting.

Riccardi and Bohrer write for the Associated Press. AP photographer Lindsey Wasson in Anchorage contributed to this report.

In a cascade of rulings in the days before Tuesday’s elections, federal judges have rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to wrest control over state voting processes, pressure state and local elections officials into complying with their demands and turn the midterm vote into another opportunity for immigration enforcement.

In Northern California late Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson granted labor unions representing California poll workers a sweeping order barring the Trump administration from an array of election-related actions, including demanding that those workers set aside ballots from voters whose eligibility the administration has questioned, and threatening them with criminal sanctions if they refuse to do so.

“Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

A Justice Department spokesperson criticized Thompson for ruling “without even waiting to hear from the United States,” and said her decision was part of a “two-track system of justice” in which other federal judges have delayed the Trump administration’s “own urgent election claims” until after election day.

“The Department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options,” the spokesperson said.

The ruling followed three others — one in district court in Los Angeles and two in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — in which federal judges blocked the administration’s effort to force California elections officials to immediately set aside the ballots of 20,000 voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens, instead setting a schedule for more fact-finding in the case after polls close.

It followed a ruling in a separate case in Washington, D.C., in which a federal judge demanded that the Trump administration turn over its list of alleged noncitizen voters to advocacy groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Data analysts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project wrote in court Saturday that their review of the provided list found it “contains extensive errors” and includes citizens and thousands of others who are not on California’s voter list.

And it came about the same time as a decision late Friday by the full 9th Circuit not to reconsider a ruling by a smaller three-judge panel upholding an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin in Oakland. She had barred federal immigration agents looking for noncitizen voters from conducting door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states.

The administration’s losses — in cases with broad scope and real implications in an election that will determine control of Congress — are the result of legal challenges from a coalition of liberal states such as California, localities such as Los Angeles County, and immigration, voting rights and labor groups.

But they are also the product of a bipartisan stable of federal judges — including appointees of President Trump — who have described the administration’s efforts as unconstitutional and a threat to one of the most core functions of American democracy.

Those judges weighed that threat against the alleged threats to election integrity from noncitizen voters that the Trump administration claimed, and found the former to be greater than the latter.

“To be sure, there are countervailing public interests at stake. There is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of elections. But as discussed, the district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California’s established voter-eligibility procedures,” wrote the 9th Circuit majority — one Trump appointee, one President Biden appointee — that refused to block the 20,000 votes. “In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County’s entire election.”

Those in the coalition resisting the administration’s efforts celebrated the rulings and praised the courts.

“The judicial smack down on Trump’s unlawful efforts to undermine our elections continues,” wrote California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has litigated several of the cases, in response to Thompson’s Friday night ruling in favor of the labor unions. “Trump is racking up loss after loss as he enters the final death throes of this election and desperately and wildly lashes out against the will of the voters.”

“4 DAYS UNTIL ELECTION DAY. Remember: Your vote matters. Don’t be intimidated. Keep voting as normal,” wrote Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in response to the same ruling. “The courts are upholding the rule of law, and states — not Donald Trump — run our elections.”

“We said we would not let the Trump administration bully election workers, and today we won a critical court order blocking those threats,” SEIU International President April Verrett said. “This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve.”

The flurry of rulings has been prompted in part by the administration itself, as Justice Department officials have worked to push the cases through the courts at breakneck speed in search of relief ahead of election day.

The 9th Circuit has already ruled twice in the case over the 20,000 California ballots, for instance, because Justice Department lawyers appealed the matter before the district court ever ruled, on the notion that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was taking too long to make a decision.

When the 9th Circuit rejected that effort and kicked the case back down to Carter, he issued one of the most striking rulings of the week.

“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection. Individuals who have met the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors,” Carter wrote. “The public interest also favors the protection of election staff, who are working diligently to ensure that all citizens can cast their votes.”

When the Trump administration appealed that ruling once more to the 9th Circuit, the same panel majority — Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — slapped it back again. They wrote that the administration’s arguments were legally flawed in multiple ways, not least in that they sought clearly unconstitutional executive authority to intervene in an election.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” they wrote.

The Trump administration’s immediate response was striking — in that there was none.

After weeks of denouncing California officials for continuing to tabulate ballots and stressing to the courts that such counting constituted an emergency from which it required immediate relief, rapidly appealing adverse rulings and arguing over the merits of each twist with California officials on social media, the administration was silent.

The administration missed a deadline for requesting that the three-judge panel’s ruling be revisited by the full appellate court. It made no immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A. who argued the case before Carter and has vociferously defended the case on social media, was silent. Neither the Justice Department nor Essayli’s office responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

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.

Former president faces renewed death penalty demand as he appeals life sentence for insurrection.

South Korean prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for former President Yoon Suk-yeol over his failed attempt to impose military rule.

The team led by special prosecutor Cho Eun-suk renewed the demand at an appeal hearing in Seoul on Thursday, arguing that Yoon’s actions threatened South Korea‘s democracy.

He was sentenced to life imprisonment in February after being convicted of leading an insurrection.

Prosecutors had previously sought the death penalty at Yoon’s original trial in January, but the court sentenced him to life imprisonment the following month.

At Thursday’s hearing at the Seoul High Court, a prosecutor said there was “no reason to hesitate” over imposing the death penalty, according to South Korea’s Yonhap news agency.

South Korea retains the death penalty but has not carried out an execution since 1997.

Prosecutors argued that this long pause should not prevent judges from sentencing Yoon to death.

Yoon declared martial law on December 3, 2024, deploying soldiers and police to the National Assembly, South Korea’s parliament.

Lawmakers overcame a security blockade to vote down the measure, forcing the government to withdraw it about six hours after it was announced.

The lower court found that Yoon had tried to stop parliament from functioning, detain political opponents and remain in control of the country for an extended period.

Yoon’s lawyers told reporters on Thursday that he had intended to warn an opposition-controlled parliament against what he considered attempts to obstruct his government, not to establish authoritarian rule.

Speaking at the Seoul High Court on October 27, Yoon also denied seeking to establish a long-term dictatorship, according to the Hankyoreh newspaper.

The crisis led parliament to impeach Yoon in December 2024. South Korea’s Constitutional Court, which decides whether to uphold impeachments, removed him from office in April 2025.

The appeals court plans two more hearings, including Yoon’s final statement on November 5.

Officials in South Carolina announced Wednesday that an investigation found Hayden Panettiere’s Aug. 16 death to be accidental and the case is now closed.

“Based on the Medical Examiner’s determination and the findings of the investigation, Hayden Panettiere’s death has been ruled accidental,” officials in Greenville, S.C., said.

Paramedics and police found Panettiere in cardiac arrest, according to the coroner’s office. Dispatch audio recordings from Broadcastify.com reference a possible overdose and CPR in progress. Narcan was reportedly administered, and paramedics tried to resuscitate her. She was declared dead at 2:31 p.m.

Federal authorities probing the death of Panettiere are focusing their investigation in Los Angeles and looking into whether the actor procured nonprescription pills from an area dealer.

Drug Enforcement Administration agents and local investigators have questioned several people about the circumstances of her death.

Such counterfeit pills have repeatedly been found laced with fentanyl, which can be deadly when taken in small amounts.

Panettiere starred on “Nashville” (2012-18) and, before that, “Heroes” (2006-10). Her early work as a child actor included roles in the 1990s on the soap operas “One Life to Live” and “Guiding Light.” She was a model and a singer, having released several singles.

Panettiere also starred in the “Scream” horror movie franchise as well as in hits “I Love You, Beth Cooper” and “Remember the Titans.”

She gained widespread attention with “Heroes,” in which she played a cheerleader with superpowers.

On “Nashville,” she played a troubled country music star, doing her own singing. She received two Golden Globe nominations for best supporting actress for the role.

Oct. 28, 2026 8:08 AM PT

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Tuesday failed to secure a grand jury indictment against a former White House staffer who provided dramatic but disputed testimony against President Trump before a House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol insurrection, according to two people familiar with the matter.

A grand jury in Washington rejected prosecutors’ request to return an indictment against Cassidy Hutchinson, said the people, who spoke to the Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the case. It’s the latest setback in the Justice Department’s efforts to persuade grand jurors in the nation’s capital to bring politically sensitive cases.

Details of prosecutors’ allegations against Hutchinson were not immediately clear, but Republican lawmakers had accused her of lying under oath in her explosive testimony in 2022 about Trump’s behavior on Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol to halt the congressional certification of his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

The effort to indict Hutchinson was hardly isolated. It is part of a surge in politically sensitive actions by the Justice Department in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections targeting perceived adversaries of the president, including a new attempt to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey and a search by federal agents of the home of outspoken Trump critic and Democratic U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.

It’s highly unusual for grand juries to decline to return indictments, but the Justice Department under Trump has been rebuked by citizens in the nation’s capital in a number of high-profile cases. A grand jury in Washington earlier this year declined to indict Democratic lawmakers in connection with a video they recorded urging U.S. service members to follow established military protocols and reject orders they believe to be unlawful.

Hutchinson declined to comment through her lawyer on Tuesday.

Hutchinson said Trump was angry and defiant on Jan. 6

Hutchinson’s testimony, at a surprise hearing announced just 24 hours earlier, was seen at the time as particularly compelling given her proximity to power as special assistant to Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff.

She described an angry, defiant president who was trying to let armed protesters avoid security screenings at a rally that morning to protest his 2020 election defeat and who later grabbed at the steering wheel of the presidential SUV when the Secret Service refused to let him go to the Capitol. And when the events at the Capitol spiraled toward violence, with the crowd chanting “Hang Mike Pence,” she testified that Trump declined to intervene.

Trump at the time denied on his social media platform, Truth Social, much of what Hutchinson said. He called her a “total phony” and “bad news.”

Hutchinson’s description of the altercation inside the presidential SUV was regarded as particularly explosive, even as she acknowledged during her testimony that she was relaying what she had heard from a White House security official and did not have firsthand knowledge of the episode because she was not there.

Her account was quickly disputed.

In March 2024, House Republicans released a previously undisclosed transcript of the Select Committee’s interview with a Secret Service officer who drove the presidential SUV. That transcript of the presidential limo driver contradicted some of Hutchinson’s testimony but corroborated other aspects of her account, including Trump’s attempt to join the mob scene at the Capitol.

The driver described the president as insistent on going to the Capitol but said he did not see the altercation that Hutchinson described. The driver said Trump “never grabbed the steering wheel” and also said: “I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all.”

Hutchinson has alleged that members of Trump’s inner circle dangled job opportunities and financial assistance while she was cooperating with the committee. She also testified in a closed-door interview released by the committee that a former lawyer of hers — a former ethics counsel in the Trump White House — told her “the less you remember, the better.”

“It feels ridiculous, because in my heart I knew where my loyalties lied, and my loyalties lied with the truth,” she told the committee. “And I never wanted to diverge from that.” The former attorney has disputed that account.

The U.S. House of Representatives impeached Trump in 2021 on allegations that he incited the mob that attacked the Capitol, but he was later acquitted by the Senate. The Justice Department under Biden charged Trump with felony offenses, accusing him of illegally working to overturn his 2020 election loss in the run-up to the Capitol attack, but then-special counsel Jack Smith abandoned the case after Trump’s 2024 presidential victory. Longstanding Justice Department policy says sitting presidents cannot face criminal prosecution.

Hutchinson, a native of Pennington, New Jersey, previously worked in the White House Office of Legislative Affairs and interned for Republicans, including Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

Richer and Tucker write for the Associated Press.

Oct. 27, 2026 12:06 PM PT

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Tuesday scolded the Justice Department for its unorthodox handling of a criminal case against two former FBI officials accused of making false statements to Congress about their knowledge of a laptop the Justice Department says belonged to Hunter Biden, the son of former President Biden.

U.S. Magistrate Zia Faruqui struck from the record an amended criminal complaint filed in the middle of the night by the Justice Department that added a new obstruction charge against the two former officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides. Such charging documents require sign-off from a judge that probable cause exists that a crime was committed by a defendant, and this complaint lacked that.

“It is not our court’s practice — and I think it is appropriately not our practice — that unsigned complaints are filed on the docket,” Faruqui said.

He later added: “I want to know why the United States is reticent or averse to putting before a probable cause determination that you must believe is righteous. Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases?”

The dismissal of the superseding complaint was an embarrassing setback for a Justice Department that has undertaken a series of splashy and politically charged investigative actions in the run-up to next week’s midterm elections. But the original false statements case against the former officials, announced Friday, remained intact as Faruqui proceeded Tuesday with a preliminary hearing.

The case says officials falsely minimized what they knew

The case accuses the former officials of falsely playing down their knowledge about a laptop the Justice Department says Hunter Biden abandoned at a computer repair shop in 2019.

But beyond that, it represents a Trump administration broadside against a since-disbanded FBI task force that was set up to monitor foreign influence. Congressional Republicans have long criticized the task force, saying it tried to discredit their own investigations into the Biden family.

Defense lawyers were set to challenge the case at the preliminary hearing Tuesday in Washington’s federal court, including by highlighting the unusual fact that the ex-FBI officials were charged via a criminal complaint signed by a magistrate judge rather than an indictment voted on by a grand jury. The Justice Department repeatedly has struggled in high-profile cases to persuade grand juries in the nation’s capital to return indictments.

Hours before the hearing, the Justice Department added a new obstruction charge that said the former officials’ alleged false statements allowed them to avoid questioning about their knowledge of Hunter Biden and impeded an investigation by House lawmakers into the Bidens.

“What is going on at the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office?” lawyers for Floris asked in a statement early Tuesday. “In the middle of the night, the government filed an unsigned and unsworn complaint attempting to fix the issues with their original charge against Ms. Floris and adding a new charge just as meritless as the first one.”

“In our combined decades of DOJ service,” the lawyers said, “we have never seen or even heard of something like this being filed.”

It is a very intricate saga

The prosecution, a rare Justice Department criminal case against a former employee, revisits a tangled saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race after the New York Post revealed the existence of a laptop it said had been dropped off by the younger Biden at a Delaware computer repair shop about a year earlier.

The Post said it obtained a hard drive of the laptop from Rudy Giuliani, a close ally of President Trump, and reported on some of the contents of the computer, including emails that appeared to show some of Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings.

The curious circumstances of the laptop’s discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about the possibility of Russian involvement, particularly when the Trump administration’s own intelligence community had assessed that Moscow was attempting to undermine the candidacy of Democratic nominee Joe Biden, who went on to defeat Trump in 2020, and as Giuliani had traveled abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens.

But Trump’s then-national intelligence director, John Ratcliffe, quickly sought to quell speculation about the laptop’s provenance by saying there were no signs it had anything to do with Russian actors. The FBI said it had nothing to add to Ratcliffe’s statement and investigated the younger Biden on gun and tax charges that later resulted in felony convictions. President Biden pardoned his son in late 2024.

The accused led the Foreign Influence Task Force

The FBI officials under scrutiny, Floris and Benavides, were leaders of the Foreign Influence Task Force, which was established in the first Trump administration to police influence campaigns staged by Russia and other nations aimed at sowing discord, undermining democracy and spreading disinformation.

In that capacity, the FBI officials briefed Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson in August 2020 as the lawmakers were doing their own investigation into Hunter Biden’s work in Ukraine. News of the briefing leaked, and the senators lashed out at the FBI, saying their efforts to scrutinize the Biden family had been discredited and falsely linked to Russian disinformation.

The criminal complaint accuses them of lying to lawmakers in 2023 by denying contemporaneous knowledge of the Biden laptop or participating in internal FBI conversations about it. Their lawyers have denied any allegations of wrongdoing.

The task force was disbanded in February 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Tucker, Kunzelman and Richer write for the Associated Press.

“Night Watch” has an easy hook, starting with its setting. The immersive monster show is staged inside an ominous white van.

Yes, a real van. It’s creepy, and pulls equal inspiration from immersive theater, video games, escape rooms and environmental design. At a little over 30 minutes or so, it’s refreshingly approachable, a bite-sized slice of interactive, participatory theater that lingered with me long after I saw it. And not just because there were moments that startled me. “Night Watch,” like any good monster story, has metaphors on its mind.

“Night Watch” is the creation of Sara Biel and KJ Knies, a husband-and-wife creative team with day jobs working for a themed entertainment design firm. On their own, however, they go by Bee’s Knees. There’s buzz around “Night Watch.” Its initial October dates sold out nearly instantly, but the couple is extending the run at least into mid-November. Additional tickets will go on sale Wednesday at 9 p.m., and those interested are advised to join the waitlist.

The couple’s experience in theme park design is evident in “Night Watch,” as its small cargo van is ripe for exploration, with TVs, monitors, filing cabinets and more outfitted with vintage tech and lore-building corporate paraphernalia. Before the show properly began, I started frantically combing through folders and flipping through notebooks.

KJ Knies and Sara Biel are the creators of “Night Watch,” an immersive horror story set in a van.

(Bee’s Knees)

Yet I soon learned my goal here was not so much to find clues, like in a typical escape room, but to build a personality profile. Participants are assigned the role of an overnight security guard to monitor a mysterious tech firm. You’re unaware, at least at the start, of what kind of business the company is in, but “Night Watch” wants you to get to know the person who held the job before you. The van is outfitted with posters of national parks, hinting at someone who was longing for a life with more freedom and travel than a working-class career provides.

“Night Watch,” off the bat, wants us to grapple with how personal dreams can clash — or become lost — with the corporate world. It feels personal, and that’s no accident, says Biel, as the show was informed by the couple’s own talks about their future.

Throughout “Night Watch,” attendees are tasked with examining security footage.

(Bee’s Knees)

“I moved to L.A. to become a writer. KJ moved to L.A. to become a filmmaker,” Biel says. “Now we’re on this different corporate path. Is this the path that we should be on or should we have listened to our gut and went a more artistic direction? I feel like all of our friends are going through this. You move to this city to do one thing, and you fall into a different path. That’s not bad. I’m of the opinion that you follow the doors that open as you go, but that’s what we were grappling with and what we wanted to bring into this show.”

With monsters, of course.

I completed “Night Watch” solo, but the show can accommodate up to four people (tickets for two start at $90). You’ll interact with an actor who plays your co-worker during the production, primarily via a two-way radio. At times, you’ll monitor the action outside of the van. Other moments have you digging into the digital files of the previous security guard, who is said to have mysteriously left his job. But mostly you’ll just talk with your unseen co-worker, who might push you into philosophical discussions about your hopes for a better life. This creates an inherent tension in “Night Watch.” You might know on one level that this is a monster story, and yet like me, find yourself opening up about personal details, trying to manifest a better day for yourself.

Details inside the van.

(Bee’s Knees)

With “Night Watch’s” emphasis on security footage and old computer logs, Knies says he was influenced by full-motion video games, citing the work of Sam Barlow and his voyeuristic crime game “Her Story.” It isn’t hard to see the show as a thinly veiled statement about our current tech-obsessed era, with each day bringing with it seemingly fresh announcements about some new site, social media add-on, gadget or AI tool that promises to improve our lives (but rarely, if ever, does). There’s a moment when you start to wonder if the business you’re providing security for is actually one of the “good guys.”

The project’s story, says Knies, began with a simple sketch from Biel: “The first idea that Sara pitched me was a monster sucking souls and pooping gold.” It spiraled from there, and the last half of “Night Watch” comes quick as we unravel its multiple mysteries. And that’s where the frights, heightened by the intimacy of the van, come in.

“We really wanted to play with having a confined space that we could manipulate to our advantage,” Biel says. “We wanted to play with the effects of moving the van and shaking the van and closing off your viewpoint.”

The confined venue — a dimly lit storage van — helps participants narrow in on the mission.

(Bee’s Knees)

The van has other benefits, too, especially in L.A. where it’s hard to find a unique venue for a limited-run show. “The cheapest and easiest places you can get are white walls with tile floor, but then you’re going to spend so much money decking that out to make it feel like a lived-in space,” Knies says.

“Night Watch” is currently staged outside of Hatch Escapes, home to some of the city’s finest escape rooms, in Arlington Heights. Biel says the two are talking to Hatch about hosting the show there long-term, but there is one hitch. The van is a rental, and at some point it will need to be returned.

“Don’t tell Enterprise that we painted on their walls,” Knies says.

This week in SoCal theme parks

An audio-animatronic Indiana Jones figure hangs above guests on Disneyland’s Indiana Jones Adventure.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

• Indiana Jones is adventuring again. Disneyland’s popular Indiana Jones Adventure reopened after a six-week refurbishment on Friday with a number of changes. Most of them will be invisible to guests, but Disneyland engineers worked behind-the-scenes to make the attraction more reliable and found ways to increase its capacity. They also added some spiders. Read all the details here from my walk-through of the attraction last week.
• A bookstore for us immersive, theme park geeks. Coming next year to Los Angeles, near the corner of Melrose and Fairfax avenues, is Genres Book Society, boasting a design led by former Walt Disney Imagineer Ann Morrow Johnson. Genres is part bookshop, part speakeasy and part immersive venue. There’s a dragon, a secret bar and a tree with glowing books. Read more about this bookshop dreamed up by Clare Grant and Karissa Marston here.
• Nikki, meet Nikki. One of my highlights of this year’s Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios Hollywood was interacting with a scare actor playing the role of Nikki from the film “Obsession.” The other week, the actor who initiated the role in the movie, Inde Navarrette, visited the horror event and had her own dalliance with one of the park’s Nikki performers.
• Still need Halloween plans? The doors of downtown’s Clifton’s, a venue some say inspired Walt Disney (although this isn’t really confirmed by any official sources), will be open for an immersive theater dinner show. Expect roving actors, multiple storylines to follow and an otherworldly wedding that may or may not involve monsters. The current operators of the historic space have big plans for programming similar such events throughout the holiday season. “The Dark Wedding” runs Friday through Sunday, and tickets start at $65.

A farewell to Halloween season (but mostly just to Cars Land’s zombie car)

A mostly deceased “zombie car” struggles to come to life at Cars Land in Disney California Adventure.

(Todd Martens / Los Angeles Times)

The first Oogie Boogie Bash at Disney California Adventure was held this year on Aug. 18, which means Halloween season is coming to a close after a 2½-month celebration. Our local theme parks will be wrapping up Halloween festivities this weekend, and it was a good one. Universal Studios Hollywood shined with a “Sinners”-inspired maze, but the star of the event was its dedication to Ozzy Osbourne. And Knott’s Berry Farm was wise to partner with the Magic Castle.

But in terms of pure decor, the Disneyland Resort has everyone beat, and I wanted to take a moment to salute my favorite Halloween adornment. I was initially nervous, as when the resort debuted its Halloween look in August the zombie automobile in Cars Land was missing. I make a beeline to it each season because it’s such a demented tale that I want to make sure it hasn’t left the park. This mostly dead skeleton car sits outside Radiator Springs Curios, owned by the character of Lizzie. Lizzie is a widow, lovesick at the loss of her husband Stanley.

The shop was under refurbishment earlier in the season, hence the reason for the zombie car’s late arrival, but I was relieved when it finally materialized a couple weeks ago, its body trying to emerge from the ground from under a tree. It’s a morbid story. Lizzie, see, has created a “ghoul-ant” (coolant, get it?) in the hopes of bringing dead cars back to life. She wants to use it on Stanley, but not until its perfected. It’s not. This mostly lifeless car struggles every few seconds to get its engine going. Occasionally, it musters enough strength to get the radio powered on. But it’s mostly just trapped in a near-dead state.

This zombie car is nothing more than the result of a failed experiment, and the implication is there will be more, as Lizzie will not stop until she’s reunited with Stanley. It’s more than a little sick, but also a statement about the way a lost love can forever haunt us. In that sense, it’s perfect, and I adore it. See you, hopefully, next year, zombie car.

The best thing I ate at the parks this week

The short rib lasagna from the Hearthstone Lounge.

(Todd Martens / Los Angeles Times)

With the heat briefly lifting a little bit ago, it was time to revisit my favorite dish at the Disneyland Resort. It’s heavy, hence the reason I was eager to tackle it when things cooled down. I’ve ordered the short rib lasagna from the Grand Californian’s Hearthstone Lounge three or four times over the past year, and I’m now convinced it’s among the best items on the menu at any restaurant at the resort, including the high-end fine dining establishment Napa Rose. It’s that good. And yes, it’s pricey at $42, but it’s a large portion and could easily be split. In fact, I wish I had done the latter, but I was at the park solo and had to immediately end my night after feasting on this decadent dish because I was simply too full to continue exploring. The tender short rib easily peels apart with a fork, and it’s plentiful. A trio of cheeses, and a heavily creamy Bechamel sauce, coupled with a buttery Mascarpone, make this the perfect winter dish. I’ll be at Disneyland on Thanksgiving, and am half thinking of making this my holiday meal rather than turkey.

Tell us your stories. Ask us your questions.

Have a theme park tale to share? Whether it was a good day or less-than-perfect day, I would love to hear about it. Have a question? A tip? A fun photo from the parks to share? Email me at todd.martens@latimes.com. I may feature your note in an upcoming newsletter.

Ride on,

Todd Martens

P.S.

Morning crowds at Disneyland just after park opening, known as “rope drop.”

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Late breaking theme park news arrived Tuesday morning courtesy of trade group the Themed Entertainment Assn., which released its 2025 global attendance report. The news for the theme park sector is … mixed? Here in SoCal, attendance at Disneyland Park and Disney California Adventure increased ever-so-slightly, at 0.4% each. Disneyland drew 17.4 million in 2025, making it once again the second most-visited park in the world, behind only Walt Disney World’s Magic Kingdom. Just over 10 million visitors took in California Adventure.

Universal Studios Hollywood fared less great, suffering an attendance dip of 8%. The report attributes the downtown to our devastating wildfires early in the year, as well as a decline in international tourism to the region. It’s worth noting that the park in 2023 opened Super Nintendo World, and it’s newness may have worn off a bit for local visits last year. Overall, the park drew 8 million guests.

Also suffering declines in attendance were Knott’s Berry Farm and Six Flags’ Magic Mountain, each dipping about 4%. Knott’s drew 4.3 million attendees while the Valencia park brought in 3.2 million visitors.

—

This newsletter is free thanks to the support of L.A. Times subscribers. If you’re not yet a subscriber, explore subscription packages to unlock unlimited digital access and support award-winning local reporting.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Tom Jones has postponed two California concerts after coming down with a “bad case of the flu.”

Hours before he was expected to take the stage on Monday at the Greek Theatre, the Welsh crooner announced on Instagram that he was rescheduling his L.A. and San Diego concerts on doctor’s orders.

“I’ve had a great time these last few weeks, completing 20 shows and singing for wonderful audiences across the USA, but unexpectedly I’ve been hit with a bad case of the flu,” Jones wrote. “Following doctor’s advice, I unfortunately have to reschedule tonight’s show in Los Angeles and tomorrow’s show in San Diego.”

Monday’s Greek Theatre show will now happen on Nov. 4. His show at the Rady Shell at Jacobs Park has been postponed until Nov. 3.

According to the Instagram statement, all tickets for the original shows will be honored for the new dates. Those who are unable to attend the rescheduled concerts are advised to request a refund through the original point of purchase.

The 86-year-old “It’s Not Unusual” singer is on the tail end of his “Come Gather Round Tour.” His San Francisco show on Nov. 1 was expected to be the finale, but the tour will now wrap in L.A. Jones is scheduled to perform next at Yaamava’ Theater on Thursday.

“I’m truly sorry for any inconvenience caused,” Jones said. “I look forward to seeing you all soon.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed Monday to extend an order blocking the Trump administration’s renovation plans for a century-old public golf course in the nation’s capital.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily bars the government from removing or damaging any additional trees on the East Potomac Golf Course. The administration must give 10 days’ notice in writing before making any “irreparable modification” to any “forms or features” of the course while the lawsuit is active.

“The Court earlier stated, ‘I am not the Lorax. I do not speak for the trees.’ The Court still does not speak for the trees. It speaks only for the rule of law,” Reyes wrote.

Reyes expressed astonishment that the government has asked her to “not to believe the sitting President” and disregard Trump’s statements about his plans for the golf course renovations.

“This started as a case about golf. That good walk spoiled. But it has become much more,” Reyes wrote. “It now forces the Court to reconcile assertions by President Donald J. Trump with the sworn testimony of multiple government employees and the argument of senior Department of Justice attorneys.”

On Oct. 18, Trump announced plans on social media to close the golf course for 15 months, starting Nov. 15, and redevelop the 106-year-old park and course despite a court challenge by the D.C. Preservation League and two golfers. A day later, Trump posted that the work would start immediately.

Reyes, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Biden, previously ordered the administration to suspend work on the project until at least Oct. 26.

Trump was asked about the case late Monday night as he arrived back at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland following a rally in Mississippi and indicated that work on the golf course will proceed as planned.

“It has the go-ahead. The judge feels that she would like to approve it as it goes along. And I didn’t know she was an architectural critic of golf courses,” Trump said sarcastically.

He added of the judge: “She knows nothing about that, so we’ll appeal that” while also calling his planned overhaul a “beautiful project for Washington, D.C.”

Trump later in a social media post reiterated a statement he made Oct. 18 that the course would close for 15 months. “We are closing the East Potomac Golf Course Site as scheduled on November 15th in order to renovate and rebuild for Competitive (with other such projects!), Safety, Modernization, and Aesthetic reasons,” he wrote.

The plaintiffs challenging the project, DC Preservation League and two golfers, claim the work is inflicting irreversible damage. At a hearing, the judge excoriated the government after workers cut down at least 400 trees over a holiday weekend with little notice to the plaintiffs.

The course renovation project is part of the Republican president’s aggressive campaign to leave his personal imprint on Washington’s historic landscape. Those plans include construction of a huge ballroom at the White House, a massive arch and the creation of a National Garden of American Heroes in West Potomac Park. DC Preservation League is part of a coalition of organizations, including the Cultural Landscape Foundation and one D.C. resident, who have filed lawsuit challenging those plans.

Reyes rejected the administration’s request for her to recuse herself from the case. The government questioned her impartiality and accused her of engaging in “egregious” behavior from the bench during an emergency hearing in the case.

In Monday’s ruling Reyes stressed that she had hoped the parties could have resolved their dispute without judicial intervention. She noted that she had denied plaintiffs’ previous requests.

“The Court would much prefer not to have to resolve Lorax v. Once‑ler redux. Indeed, for months, the Court declined to intervene,” she wrote.

But she said the government forced her hand by bulldozing hundreds of trees without any notice, doing “what it assured all it would not do.”

Reyes quoted from a golf-related opinion written by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon, in stressing the temporary nature of her own decision.

“Here, golf and government have again clashed,” Reyes wrote. “By issuing this preliminary injunction, the Court does not end the round: it simply marks the ball until the parties can fully and fairly litigate this case.

Democracy Forward President & CEO Skye Perryman, whose organization is co-counsel representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a big win that will rightly protect East Potomac Park from further irreparable harm.” She added, in an email, that the move will stop activities “while the case continues, and we are eager to argue the case in court.”

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Gary Fields and Will Weissert contributed to this report.

My fellow Californians, let us begin with an intelligence test.

Our great state has been voting since early October. Folks have been mailing in their ballots, dropping them off at collection sites and even showing up at in-person centers.

So raise your hand if you know — or even just assume — elections officials have been doing something with those ballots as they arrive, other than just throwing them in a pile.

Congratulations, hand-raisers. You are now officially smarter than the entire U.S. Department of Justice. Or at least more honest.

On Sunday, the lawyers for the DOJ managed to get a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to convene a rare emergency hearing because, OMG, people are actually voting and California is processing ballots!

Who could have possibly known?

Even though it’s literally law that counties count ballots in a timely manner; even though it’s happened in every other election; even though the daily tallies of how many ballots are received are posted online by the secretary of State; even though there are live camera feeds of ballots being processed in Los Angeles — somehow the U.S. government didn’t know this normal election procedure was happening, it claimed.

It wasn’t until late Friday, when DOJ lawyers read a filing by California DOJ lawyers laying out that L.A. is, like, actually opening mail-in ballots, that the U.S. DOJ realized that ballots are being opened. About 600,000 so far in L.A.

That seemed “absurd on its face,” argued California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel.

Armed with this previously unknowable information, Trump’s lawyers were begging the appeals court to take their flimsy, constitutionally questionable case away from the judge who had already promised to rule on their requests on Tuesday and immediately give them an injunction to further their election conspiracy claims.

Most folks are aware of the background of this drama, but here’s the quick recap.

President Trump for years has falsely but incessantly claimed that Democrats are colluding with undocumented people to help them sneak into the country in exchange for illegally voting in mass numbers for Democrats. This is not happening, but the president is obsessed with this conspiracy, so much so that he is weaponizing the Department of Justice to attack states, California in particular, in a bid to prove his delusions correct, and perhaps as a bonus, undermine democracy.

A few months ago, the DOJ came to the state of California and claimed it had a list of 190,000 people it believed were illegally registered to vote. That list has since dropped to 20,000. But with all the investigative power of the government hard at work on this, only 28 people in California have been indicted by the feds during this no-holds-barred effort, and it looks as though not all of those cases will hold up.

Undeterred, Trump lawyers tried to get a California judge to order the state (and Los Angeles) to set aside ballots that it claims to have doubts about. They asked the judge in that case for a temporary restraining order forcing L.A. County to do that, and the judge agreed to rule on that request early next week, in an already-expedited fashion.

But then the Trump lawyers learned about all that ballot processing and demanded the judge instead rule by Saturday afternoon — though the reasoning here seems iffy. When the federal judge assigned to the case didn’t rule by Saturday, an absurd ask that didn’t even allow enough time for lawyers to file briefs, the feds ran to the 9th Circuit, claiming that failing to rule on Saturday was a de facto denial of their request.

Basically, it seems the Trump lawyers were arguing two things. First, that once ballots are counted, they can’t be uncounted, and if there are illegal ballots, that hurts all voters. Sure, OK.

But again, there is no evidence this is happening in any widespread fashion, and the lists of potential vote scofflaws compiled by the government have been shown to be error-ridden. They may also involve the use of a mysterious non-government “third party” to gather the information that not even the Trump lawyers could identify Sunday.

DOJ lawyers also claimed they had just learned that once a ballot is taken out of the envelope, there was no way to reconnect that ballot to the voter who cast it — because our votes are anonymous. Therefore, the 20,000 ballots had to be grabbed before they were separated from the documents inside.

The lawyers did not explain why they needed to know how a person voted to confirm they illegally voted. The envelopes are retained by county elections officials, but apparently the Trump lawyers feel it’s critical to tie them to particular votes.

But here’s the thing — there are simply not enough illegal voters to sway a Los Angeles election, or a California one for that matter. We have a system to ferrets out problematic ballots right now, and a separate criminal system that can hold illegal voters accountable. Two weeks before an election isn’t a time to demand ballots be withheld — unless you’re trying to undermine trust.

The appellate judges did not seem impressed by the federal laywers’ arguments, questioning more than once if the 9th Circuit even had jurisdiction since states are in charge of elections, not the federal government. There was even some reading of the 10th Amendment. You know, the one the don’t-tread-on-me types love that reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.”

We should expect a ruling sooner rather than later, but the real question remains, why the emergency? The DOJ is involved in another voting lawsuit in Washington, D.C., where the plaintiffs, led by the UCLA Voting Rights Project, have asked for a restraining order of their own stopping the government from creating national lists of who it thinks should vote, and using janky, secretive information gathering to do it.

It’s also true that the original case was reassigned from a Trump-appointed judge to one appointed by Bill Clinton. There has been speculation the switch may have been viewed unfavorably by the feds, though the Clinton-appointed judge, David O. Carter, was given the case because of his experience in the subject matter.

The D.C. restraining order could be decided in the next few days. I’m not saying the cases are related, or that the judge should or does matter, but the Trump DOJ’s argument in California is basically that its list of 20,000 is really solid, reliable information.

If the D.C. federal judge rules first that the government information gathering is potentially both an overreach and sloppy, it makes it that much harder for another judge, or the appellate court for that matter, to rule that the list is so critical that they must step in.

So maybe there is an emergency.

Just not the one the government is claiming.

In a rare Sunday hearing, a federal appeals court judge appointed by President Trump questioned how the Trump administration’s request to intervene in California’s ongoing midterm election in order to force state officials to set aside 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship it questions squares with the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Mark J. Bennett said that while the executive branch is “unhappy” with what California law requires for ensuring voters are citizens, the state has the right to determine the manner of its elections under the Elections Clause of the Constitution and Congress has not challenged that process, despite having the ability to do so.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”

Matthew Donnelly, a Justice Department attorney, said the Trump administration has good reason to believe those ballots are from ineligible noncitizen voters, and has the legal right under seperate federal criminal law to challenge their tabulation until state officials can prove otherwise.

Donnelly said both federal criminal law and state election law bar noncitizen voters from casting ballots, but “the problem is that California isn’t interested in enforcing that provision.”

The exchange came during an hour-long hearing before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, over the Justice Department’s unprecedented emergency request that the court order California Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan to immediately stop counting ballots from the 20,000 flagged voters until they can definitively prove those voters are U.S. citizens.

The appellate panel — on which Bennett was joined by circuit Judges Patrick J. Bumatay, another Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, an appointee of President Biden — did not issue a ruling, though a decision is expected soon given the emergency nature of the appeal.

How it will rule is unclear, though both Bennett and Sanchez hammered Donnelly with questions about how the Trump administration’s position squared with the law.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law, wrote online Sunday that the court seemed “very likely to reject” the Trump administration’s appeal, with Bennett and Sanchez having “expressed great skepticism on both jurisdiction and the merits.”

In addition to questioning its constitutionality, Bennett also questioned how the appellate court even had jurisdiction over the case, given that the Trump administration appealed the matter to the appellate court before the lower district court had a chance to assess the facts in the case or issue an order.

“How do we have jurisdiction when the district court has said it’s going to rule expeditiously?” Bennett said. “I don’t see how we have jurisdiction.”

Bennett also questioned why the appellate court should ignore the claims of state elections officials that having to comply with the Trump administration’s demands in the few remaining days before the Nov. 3 election would be catastrophically disruptive to the election, given that the lower court has had no chance to assess those claims.

“Isn’t that sufficient to give us pause as to whether we should do exactly what [a state expert] avers is going to cause a catastrophe?” Bennett asked.

Bennett’s questions evoked many of the arguments made by the state in its own filings in the matter, which were repeated by California Deputy Solicitor Gen. Samuel P. Siegel during the hearing.

Siegel said there was “nothing” for the appellate court to review, given there has been no fact finding and no order out of the lower court, and that the administration’s demands were unconstitutional and illegal. He said the court did not have to wrestle with many of the arguments being put forward by the Trump administration, because it should simply reject the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and send the matter back down to the lower court.

Bumatay appeared most interested of the three judges in the damage done when noncitizens do vote, and the underlying question of how the state should handle objections to alleged noncitizen voters when they arise.

Siegel and Seth Waxman, an attorney for Logan, said there are existing processes for that — which require the challenger to present extraordinary proof, which they said the Trump administration has not done for the 20,000 voters it has flagged.

Sanchez repeatedly questioned the provenance of the administration’s list, asking which third parties were involved in providing the data. Donnelly could not answer, which Sanchez said raised questions about the reliability of the list.

The Justice Department appealed the case after a lower district court judge declined to immediately rule last week on its request for a temporary restraining order barring California officials from tabulating the flagged ballots.

In court filings, the administration argued that once mail ballots are removed from their envelopes in California, or a ballot has been cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate it from other cast ballots.

Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued the demands are illegal, impossible to comply with before the Nov. 3 election and based on deeply flawed federal immigration and third-party data sets shown to be inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.

In court filings, they have argued that the Trump administration’s argument “rests on mere suspicion, aroused by suspect data,” and that its lawsuit is at best “a reckless political stunt” and at worst “threatens to disenfranchise thousands of Californians this election.”

Independent elections experts have said the Justice Department’s efforts break with longstanding department policy of not wading into election-related issues within 90 days of an election, to avoid disenfranchising legitimate voters.

They also have said the Trump administration’s lists of alleged noncitizen voters and its authority to intervene are both questionable, including because the U.S. Constitution empowers states to run elections with oversight from Congress, not the executive branch.

The Justice Department sued California, Weber and Logan on Oct. 15, two days after Acting Deputy Atty. Gen. Trent McCotter wrote to Weber and Logan giving them 48 hours to set aside the ballots for the 20,000 flagged voters — whom McCotter claimed were “likely noncitizens.”

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A., has claimed federal authorities have “overwhelming evidence” that tens of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote in California, and has defended the methods used to identify those voters. He and other federal prosecutors in the state also recently charged 28 legal permanent residents in California with election-related crimes, including illegally registering to vote.

On Friday, the Justice Department sent letters to county elections offices statewide with demands that they segregate ballots from voters the Trump administration believes are noncitizens, drawing from the same list of 20,000 at issue in the case against Weber and Logan. In those letters, the Justice Department gave the county officials 48 hours to comply, and threatened them with criminal punishment if they refuse.

State officials have said neither Essayli nor other Trump administration officials have provided proof to back up their claims, and that their list of 20,000 voters is clearly inaccurate. Logan said a preliminary review of a subset of those voters found many were born in the U.S., weren’t registered and had never voted.

More than 3 million people have already cast ballots in California — and more than 500,000 have already done so in Los Angeles County.

The challenge to the 20,000 ballots in California is just the latest Trump administration attempt to intervene in state-run elections ahead of the midterms.

Federal judges in dozens of states have rejected Justice Department lawsuits demanding the states turn over their voter rolls to the Trump administration. Federal judges also have rejected multiple Trump executive orders trying to institute national voter ID and citizenship checks, and his administration’s attempt to empower the U.S. Postal Service to vet mail ballots.

Other cases — including over the Trump administration using unproven and inaccurate federal data sets to question the citizenship of state voters — are pending.

Democrats and voting rights groups are also bracing for fresh litigation from the Trump administration to challenge the outcome of pivotal election results the president doesn’t like — and are already defending against a lawsuit the Justice Department brought at Trump’s urging in Alaska, preemptively challenging a Democratic win in the Senate race there based on a third candidate sharing a similar name as the Republican incumbent.

Times staff writer Brittny Mejia contributed to this report.

Oct. 23, 2026 9:08 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Two former FBI intelligence officials who specialized in foreign election interference were charged on Friday with making false statements to Congress about their roles in investigating Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election.

Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides surrendered Friday and made their first appearance in federal court in Washington, where their lawyers pressed for a speedy hearing at which they could contest the allegations against them.

The Department of Justice says Floris and Benavides lied to Congress in 2023 about the involvement of a specialized foreign-influence task force in investigations into Biden as well as their knowledge of the laptop.

Floris’ attorneys called her “a patriot” and said she has “served our nation as a dedicated FBI intelligence officer for nearly 20 years.”

“Yet today, the DOJ has accused her falsely of a crime on the say-so of politicians, not on the facts,” her attorneys said in a statement. “It’s no coincidence the government is filing these nonsense charges now, years later, on the eve of an election.”

The case was filed 10 days before the Nov. 3 elections and marks the latest in a series of splashy and politically charged investigative actions the Department of Justice has undertaken in the run-up to the midterm contests.

The prosecution, a rare Department of Justice criminal case against a former employee, revisits a tangled and peculiar saga that roiled the final weeks of the 2020 race. It also comes amid a broader, backward-looking effort by FBI Director Kash Patel, who before taking over the nation’s premier law enforcement agency was a harsh critic of it, to scrutinize high-profile episodes from the bureau’s recent past that for years have animated President Trump’s conservative base.

“Lying to Congress by senior FBI officials strikes at the heart of our system. No one is above the law,” Patel said in a statement posted on X.

The revelation of the laptop’s existence in October 2020 injected a thorny storyline in the race between Trump, the Republican incumbent, and Hunter Biden’s father, Joe Biden, Trump’s Democratic challenger, who went on to win the race.

The laptop’s contents were publicized by the New York Post, which said it had obtained from Trump ally Rudy Giuliani a hard drive of a computer dropped off by Hunter Biden at a Wilmington, Delaware, repair shop. The laptop contained emails that appeared to show discussions of the younger Biden’s foreign business dealings.

The peculiar circumstances of the laptop’s discovery raised concerns among Democrats and former intelligence officials about the possibility of Russian disinformation, particularly when the Trump administration’s own intelligence community was assessing that Russia was attempting to interfere on Trump’s behalf in the election and as Giuliani had traveled abroad looking for dirt on the Bidens.

Hunter Biden was subsequently charged with, and convicted of, gun and tax offenses during his father’s administration. President Biden pardoned him in his final weeks in office.

The Justice Department historically looks to avoid public and overt investigative acts in the direct lead-up to an election that involve candidates or that risk influencing an outcome. But officials in the last two weeks have made a series of bold moves in cases with political undertones, including a search of Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar’s house in an immigration fraud investigation and a corruption indictment unsealed Thursday against powerful Democratic Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas.

Floris and Benavides, two experienced intelligence officials, led the FBI’s since-disbanded Foreign Intelligence Task Force, or FITF, when the laptop was discovered. They are accused by the Justice Department of making false statements in Congress in 2023 by saying that the FITF was not involved in investigations related to Hunter Biden when contemporaneous messages proved otherwise, according to a criminal complaint filed against them.

The case brings renewed attention to the work of the task force, which was established in the first Trump administration to police influence campaigns staged by Russia and other nations aimed at sowing discord, undermining democracy and spreading disinformation. The task force became a magnet of congressional Republican criticism during the Biden investigation and was disbanded in February 2025 by then-Attorney General Pam Bondi in one of her first acts on the job.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press.