challenge

Soon after a federal judge in Los Angeles sharply rejected a Trump administration effort to block 20,000 California ballots from voters it alleged may be noncitizens, the U.S. Justice Department announced it will appeal — leaving attorneys on both sides preparing Thursday for yet another court battle.

That was despite the lower court judge calling the request an unlawful threat to eligible voters in Tuesday’s midterm election and to free and fair American elections moving forward, and the same appellate court having already rejected the same plan days prior.

“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” wrote First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead prosecutor in L.A.

Early Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom swiped back at the Trump administration, writing, “A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.”

With just days to go until polls close, the heated election war between California and the Trump administration is showing no signs of slowing down, despite multiple court orders rejecting the administration’s central effort to interfere in the midterms by accusing state and county officials of willfully turning a blind eye to voter fraud.

That’s in part because lawyers within the U.S. Justice Department have been unrelenting in their pursuit of such control, both through court orders and threats to state and county officials. It’s also because those same officials have refused to yield, denouncing the threats in recent letters back to the Justice Department as unconvincing and illegal.

“Be aware that we consider DOJ’s efforts to threaten California election officials with criminal sanctions for following federal and state law to be an effort to unlawfully intimidate both election officials and California voters, which can undermine voters’ faith in the election process,” Susan K. Blitch, counsel for Monterey County, wrote in one.

Several elections experts warned the administration is trying to sow confusion and suspicion around an election in which the Republican Party is poised to lose ground, in part so they can reject the outcome. But they also said the courts have consistently rebuffed the Trump administration, and will continue to do so through Nov. 3 and after — with the recent rulings in the case over the 20,000 flagged ballots a perfect example.

“The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” said Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

Appeal, rebuke, appeal

Last week, Trump administration attorneys decided that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was not ruling quickly enough on their emergency request for a temporary restraining order to block California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from counting the 20,000 ballots it asserted were from “likely noncitizens” — so they appealed straight to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, a three-judge panel there — including two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because Carter hadn’t been given a chance to weigh in. However, two of the judges — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — also wrote separately to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits, too, for being likely unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

On Wednesday, Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, issued his own ruling, in which he wrote that the administration’s allegations about noncitizen voters were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“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.”

Carter wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

The ruling — forceful, unequivocal and based on several of the same arguments made by Bennett and Sanchez — was cheered by state officials and voting rights groups. Elections experts said it squared directly with their understanding of the law, and was appropriate in the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented, legally baseless effort to intervene in an ongoing state-run election.

Trump administration officials did not see it that way, and weren’t taking no for an answer. Justice Department lawyers promptly filed notice of appeal back to the 9th Circuit — where the case is likely, though not guaranteed, to land before the same three-judge panel that previously rejected the administration’s demands.

War of words

On Wednesday night, Newsom appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and predicted Trump will take sweeping steps to “literally suppress the vote, to set the conditions where he will then express doubt in the electoral outcome, and suggest that it was rigged.” But he also said California is fighting back and prepared.

“Right now, I am focused on getting over 1,000 poll workers, folks out there to monitor the DOJ monitors that Trump’s gonna send to try to steal this election,” Newsom said. “We have been running tabletop exercises. We have 1,000 volunteers. We have 134 election law attorneys that we’re sending out.”

On Thursday, Essayli replied to the latter deployment, writing, “You’re going to protect every legal or illegal vote? What about California citizens whose votes are being diluted by ineligible voters. Do their constitutional rights matter.”

Trump, meanwhile, asserted with no evidence that “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.” He said California has “very corrupt elections,” and that if it had honest ones, he “would have won it by a lot.”

The remarks were just the latest in a swirling and highly public war of words between state and federal officials.

In Carter’s courtroom Tuesday, Essayli claimed the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since it first demanded the state set aside ballots, and said he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials had been. But Essayli and other Justice Department officials have been engaged for weeks in an aggressive back and forth with California officials online — which is highly unusual for prosecutors actively litigating related cases.

When Newsom’s office recently wrote that “Trump’s DOJ is so desperate to invent ‘widespread voter fraud,’ it sent California counties lists of people who NEVER voted — and voters from the WRONG COUNTY. Absolute clown show!,” Essayli shot back, “Hey Fraud King,” with a crown emoji. “We’re not waiting for them to vote.”

Also unusual have been the threats Justice Department attorneys have been sending to county elections officials in California, including in a series of Oct. 23 letters in which they asserted varying numbers of “likely aliens” per county, set a 48-hour deadline for the counties to cooperate with federal authorities to prove those voters are citizens.

In one letter to Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian flagged 407 potential noncitizens in the county, and said he was writing “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications” of processing any ballots from those voters.

On Wednesday, Thomas L. Geiger, Contra Costa County counsel, responded with his own letter, questioning the accuracy of the noncitizen claims and saying it would be “legally unsound” for Connelly to “disregard both California and federal law” in order to comply with Missakian’s demands.

Other county attorneys hit a sharper tone in their own responses. Tony Lopresti, an attorney for Santa Clara County, wrote that his county “reserves its rights to pursue all legal remedies against DOJ for its unlawful intimidation of election officials and California voters.”

At a new luxury yacht club, boats will be outfitted with slatted decks, hulls and portholes, but they won’t be bobbing in a marina. Instead, they will be anchored to the dusty desert floor — in Joshua Tree.

Lucky Find Hospitality, a boutique hotel development and management firm, says the company is less than a year away from breaking ground on Compass Yacht Club, a nautical themed hotel where guests will stay in yachts designed to serve as hotel rooms. These rooms — specifically, 30 two-level luxury yachts and 28 boat houses — will be arranged in a circle around a central clubhouse that will feature a restaurant, bar and swimming pool, all just a five-minute drive from the entrance to the national park.

A rendering of one of the 58 boats that guests could book during their stay.

(Compass Yacht Club)

“You fall asleep in a yacht, wake up in the desert with a view of the mountains, and you’re a few minutes from one of the most beautiful national parks in the country,” said Nick Ovanessoff, managing director of the firm. “It sounds a little crazy, and that’s exactly why we love it.”

The improbable nautical-themed resort has been a long, hard labor of love, said Lucky Find Hospitality’s CEO, Rigel Bitterman. Born in Idyllwild and raised on a sailboat in San Diego, Bitterman grew up camping and rock climbing in Joshua Tree National Park. After helping to launch close to 40 boutique hotel projects around the globe, his company purchased a 23-acre parcel across the highway from Auto Camp in 2023. The team has been working ever since to clear the many geotechnical, biological and cultural hurdles that make developing anything in the high desert so challenging.

“It’s wild how long it takes to get things done out there,” Bitterman said.

A rendering of the interior of a room.

(Compass Yacht Club)

The property was already zoned for commercial use when Lucky Find Hospitality purchased it, but a section of the parcel is in a FEMA flood zone, which meant that the company had to work through the federal government as well as local municipalities to obtain permits and entitlements. Lucky Find has also prioritized environmentally friendly development processes, spending extra time to ensure that the Compass Yacht Club will use minimal water and be constructed of sustainable materials. To cause minimal impact on the environment, the yachts will be built off-site and placed on the desert floor by a massive crane.

Yet another challenge came from the local community, which has historically been hostile to new development. Bitterman has tried to play nice, hosting ongoing quarterly town hall meetings to keep locals abreast of the project and receive feedback from them, but the meetings are inevitably confrontational.

“I’m tarred and feathered every time,” he said.

One community member described the project as “gentrification at its finest” at a town hall last December. Another suggested that Lucky Find Hospitality replace the hotel’s yacht theme with something more appropriate for the desert: spaceships.

It seemed to be a popular idea.

“The whole room started chanting ‘Spaceships, spaceships,’” Bitterman said.

Each luxury yacht will be constructed of sustainable materials.

(Compass Yacht Club)

Despite the expected — and unexpected — challenges, Bitterman is confident the project will move forward. Approval on the final conditional use permit should be coming by the end of the year, which will allow portions of the property to open to the general public in addition to hotel guests. If all goes according to an already elongated schedule, the team will break ground in 2027 and Compass Yacht Club will open by the end of 2030. In the meantime, Lucky Find Hospitality together with its design partner Rad Labs, has a modular yacht hotel room design ready to go.

Over the past 10 years Lucky Find Hospitality has helped launch hotels where guests sleep in yurts, treehouses, glamping tents and Airstreams and. But Bitterman said Compass Yacht Club has been the company’s wildest, hardest and most dear to his heart projects yet.

“It’s partly my origin story, growing up on a boat and always being fascinated by boat design,” he said. “Everything we do is small and unique, but I’ve never been able to bring something to market quite like this.”

England’s preparations have also been affected by the Prem schedule, with players involved in Sunday’s fixtures having less time for full squad training.

“We had a session today really that was affected obviously by the fact that we had a Sunday game in Prem Rugby,” Borthwick explained.

“Fortunately, we don’t have any Sunday games this coming week in Prem Rugby, which I’m pleased about.

“So that should allow players to be recovered in a proper run into the Test match.”

Borthwick acknowledged the challenge of balancing club and international commitments, but said playing at the weekend could benefit England.

“They’ll go back and play the rugby and in so many ways that will be a positive for us for next weekend,” he said.

“The players are match fit at club level, playing regularly at club level, and as long as they don’t get injured, then they’re all available for selection next week, then that will be positive.

“I’d say on one side, I think it’s a real strength of English rugby that the players have such great loyalty and passion for their clubs as we saw very evidently in this last round with the derbies that went on.

“They are team-mates and best of mates the next day for a couple of days [with England] and then they go back to being rivals again until they come back into camp next week.”

Borthwick also identified the breakdown as an area where England need to adapt to the demands of international rugby.

He pointed to the recent European fixtures, in which English clubs collectively lost more of their own breakdown ball and won less opposition breakdown ball than teams from other competing nations.

“Part of my job is identify those bits of where I need to bridge from where the players are in Prem rugby to where they are in Test rugby,” he said.

“The level of competition [at the breakdown] is at a different level in Test rugby.”

With just over two weeks left until election day, Democrats can barely contain their glee.

Control of the House seems about to fall into their eager laps. Senate races in states that are normally cardinal red — Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Texas among them — have grown fiercely competitive.

And, for the first time since 2010, a Democrat may soon be sitting in the governor’s office in more than half the 50 states. As recently as 2017, just 16 of them had Democratic governors — the lowest number in nearly a century.

The party owes a big thank you to President Trump, whose political standing seems to be sinking, like a depth charge, lower by the day. The only question is how much damage he inflicts on fellow Republicans.

There are, however, exceptions to every political trend, outliers in every election, a contest that zigs when races just about everywhere else are zagging.

Oregon, that crunchy and damp citadel of Left Coast liberalism, hasn’t elected a Republican governor since President Reagan was midway through his first term. In 2024, Kamala Harris walloped Donald Trump by more than 14 percentage points, extending a decades-long Democratic presidential winning streak.

And yet the state’s Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, is on the defensive as she fights for a second term in November, burdened by a dismal approval rating and a sense that things have been pretty lousy in Oregon under her leadership.

The state “hasn’t thrived in the last decade, and certainly hasn’t thrived since COVID, the way other states have,” said John Horvick, one of Oregon’s leading independent pollsters.

Kotek, a former speaker of the state House — and a highly effective lawmaker in that role — made some very concrete promises.

“She was going to build 36,000 new homes. She was going to improve our educational outcomes and make improvements to behavioral health in the state,” Horvick said. “Voters give her poor marks on all those.”

Most notably, perhaps, the epidemic of homelessness — which has curdled Portland’s hipster image and agitated Oregonians more than just about any issue in recent years — hasn’t abated under Kotek, despite a promise to make the problem her top priority.

Gov. Tina Kotek speaks to opponents of data center development during a demonstration at the state Capitol in Salem, Ore., on Sept. 8, 2026.

(Alex Milan Tracy / Sipa USA / Associated Press)

The Democrat still remains the favorite to win reelection. Oregon’s gubernatorial races tend to be closer than presidential contests and voters have been shown a reluctance to heave their governor from office, even when they tell pollsters they’re not happy with the incumbent or the state of their state.

“We watch this movie every four years in Oregon, where it looks really, really close and then, in the end, the Democrat wins,” said Kari Chisholm, a political strategist in Portland.

That may happen again. But Kotek’s travails show the perils of incumbency this angry election season, even for a Democratic swimming with a blue tide.

Thirty-six states are electing governors in November. Most of the contests lean toward one party or the other, like in California, where Democrat Xavier Becerra appears a shoo-in to replace Gavin Newsom.

But a dozen races are at least somewhat competitive, including toss-ups in Georgia, Nevada, Ohio and Wisconsin. All of the hardest-fought contests are in states that Trump carried in 2024 — several by double-digits — with Oregon being the lone exception.

Kotek, who’s been rated one of the least popular governors in America, is facing a rematch against Christine Drazan, a former GOP state House leader who now serves in the state Senate. In 2022, she lost narrowly lost to Kotek, 47% to 44%, in a three-way contest.

Unlike four years ago, Kotek has a gubernatorial record to defend and the case Drazan makes against her is succinct.

“Tina Kotek told Oregonians that she would solve the problems and challenges facing our state,” Drazan said in the candidates’ first debate this month. “She hasn’t.”

In a recent Fox News interview, Drazan elaborated.

“We have record high businesses that have gone out of business, bankruptcies, businesses that are leaving, family bankruptcies are at an all-time high,” Drazan said, exaggerating some. “Oregon is uniquely bad right now. It’s not a national issue, it’s here at home.”

Suggesting the state’s problems are indigenous is an obvious effort to lay responsibility on Kotek and absolve Trump, whose policies — ruinous tariffs, a reckless war, budget cuts — have slashed healthcare benefits, stoked inflation and driven fuel prices to all-time highs.

Further distancing herself from the Republican brand, Drazan has undergone a distinct makeover since winning the GOP primary in May. “Tough. Tested. Conservative,” is no longer the descriptive shorthand she uses on her campaign website. Now it’s “Mom. Public Servant. Champion for All.”

Drazan’s revised campaign biography also omits her opposition to various Democratic-backed policies, such as gun control, and her culture-warrior vow to “protect girls’ sports and keep men out of their locker rooms.” Instead, the Oregonian newspaper noted, her emphasis is now affordability and relatability.

Despite that, Kotek has continued wielding her sharpest-pronged political weapon, tying Drazan — an “out-of-touch MAGA extremist,” in her campaign’s parlance — to the unpopular president.

“I think we all know that there have been a lot of challenges facing our state and they’re still coming at us because of the confusion and disruption coming from Washington, D.C.,” Kotek said during the candidates’ third and final debate last week. “It’s just a fact. It’s upending who we are as a state and it is … making it harder for us to solve the problems that we have ahead of us.”

Passing the buck and pointing her finger is not exactly a message of triumph, uplift and achievement, but it may be enough to win Kotek a second term.

Grudgingly.

Edinburgh: Piers O’Conor, Malelili Satala, Matt Currie, Mosese Tuipulotu, Darcy Graham, James Grayson, Hector Patterson; Pierre Schoeman, Ewan Ashman, Ollie Blyth-Lafferty, Callum Hunter-Hill, Glen Young, Tom Currie, Freddy Douglas, Magnus Bradbury.

Replacements: Jerry Blyth-Lafferty, Jamie Stewart, Paul Hill, Grant Gilchrist, Euan McVie, Conor McAlpine, Geordie Gwynn, Rory McHaffie.

Toulon: Melvyn Jaminet, Seta Tuicuvu, Antoine Frisch, Jeremy Sinzelle, Apete Narogo, Mateo Garcia, Ben White; Jean-Baptiste Gros, Gianmarco Lucchesi, Beka Gigashvili, Swan Rebbadj, Corentin Mezou, Zach Mercer, Estaban Abadie, Patrick Tuifua.

Replacements: Teddy Baubigny, Samuel Jean-Christophe, Owen Sorhaindo, Luciano Asevedo, Lewis Ludlam, Joe Quere Karaba, Baptiste Serin, Luka Keletaona.

Referee: Ben Breakspear

Dragons: De Beer; Dyer, Inisi, Owen, Rosser; J Lloyd, Hope; R Jones, Coghlan, O James, Langton-Cryer, Carter (capt), Lewis-Hughes, Beddall, Keddie.

Replacements: Dee, W Jones, Lewis, Screech, Minto, R Williams, F Paea, Tuitavuki.

Perpignan: Tedder; Toganiyadrava, Reece, de la Fuente (capt), Granell; McIntyre, McGrath; Boyer-Gallardo, Malolo, Riccioni, Chinarro, Tanguy, J van Tonder, Coulon, Dvali.

Replacements: Lotrian, Tetrashvili, Amituanai, Velarte, Taty, Tuilagi, Aucagne, Mascarenc.

Referee: Hanru van Rooyen (South Africa)

Assistant referees: Alex Thomas (England), Hamish Grant (England)

TMO: David Rose (England).

“That is where we need to get him,” said the Gunners boss before the game. “And if he misses the chance, so be it. At the end, the more volume we generate, the bigger the probability of him scoring more goals.”

Saka’s strike against Lille was a confident one-touch finish and came after he missed a late one-on-one opportunity in Saturday’s Premier League victory over Leeds.

“He has been getting in great positions, getting shots, getting one-touch finishes and tap-ins,” added Arteta.

“That is the kind of unpredictability we have with that player, otherwise we know how the opponent is going to defend him. He is doing well, he could have had another four or five goals by now, easily. But if he continues like that, we know.

“When he talks about scoring a certain amount of goals, he needs to be thinking about scoring a certain amount of goals per game. If that shifts, that mentality, he will get into those positions and score more goals.”

Saka has scored 20 goals in a season just once in his career, which came in the 2023-24 campaign and 16 in the Premier League.

But the winger has also been in good goalscoring form for England with five in his last four matches and scored a double in the 7-0 Nations League demolition of Croatia in the recent international break.

Saka is now on 19 goals in major European competitions for Arsenal, only behind Thierry Henry (42), while he has nine assists in the Champions League which puts him behind Henry (16) and Cesc Fabregas (14).

He has refused to disclose the targets he has set himself, but Arteta welcomed Saka’s response following his message to do more in front of goal.

The Spaniard said: “I don’t know if that’s the case, but I am very happy.

“He wasn’t feeling that good yesterday and today, as he had some sort of illness. He wasn’t ready to start but he was really wanting to contribute to the team if it was needed and he came on and made a huge impact and delivered with real quality.”

Arteta revealed he also spoke to Saka after telling the media about his desire for the player to have a greater impact.

“After the press conference I went, he was on the massage table, and I said, ‘Bukayo I just killed you in the press conference, good luck tomorrow’, he added.

“He was laughing. He knows that we have discussed these kind of things and he takes it because he wants to be the best version of himself.

“In order to do that, you have to put big objectives and challenges and try to reason by working and being consistent – and when it doesn’t work, keep going because he has the ability to do it.”

Chancellor John Healey is facing a funding gap of up to £35bn and must set out “credible” spending plans in his first Budget on 28 October, an influential think tank has warned.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that if the government wants to increase defence spending to 3% of national income by 2030 and lift health spending without squeezing other departments, it will need a “top-up” of billions of pounds.

Higher inflation, caused by the Iran war, could eat into what the government hoped to spend on public services, meaning Healey will have to choose between spending cuts, tax rises, or a mixture of both, the IFS warned.

The Treasury declined to comment on “rumour and speculation”.

The IFS urged the government to ensure its spending plans are credible, as opposed to proposing unrealistic future cuts to make the Budget add up.

The government is under growing pressure to show financial markets that it has a tight grip on finances as the cost of borrowing rises.

The IFS cautioned Healey about making any spending announcements in the 28 October Budget speech he has no intention of honouring.

“A ‘steady-as-she-goes’ Budget is not an option available to the chancellor,” said IFS director Helen Miller.

“Choosing to stay the course with the inherited tax and spending plans would mean allowing inflation to blow departments’ spending plans off course.

“Simply pencilling in implicit cuts that he has no intention of delivering would make the Budget a work of fiction,” she added.

Speaking ahead of the annual International Monetary Fund meeting this week, Healey said: “The consequences of conflict in the Middle East and Europe are hitting countries worldwide, leading to higher prices at the pumps and more expensive mortgages at home.

“But Britain and our allies can face up to these challenges together.”

He said his Budget “will build on this approach with fiscal discipline helping to deliver economic resilience” and give people “breathing space”.

Miller told the BBC’s Today programme that Healey has inherited spending plans for government departments where spending growth would slow in the coming years.

“[It] already looked likely that he would have to make spending cuts just to live within those,” she said. “Now, along comes the Middle East war, inflation goes up and those spending plans look very tight indeed.”

Added to that, the chancellor has said he wants to get defence spending up to 3% of national income. Under Keir Starmer’s leadership, Healey resigned as defence secretary in June in a battle with the Treasury over military spending.

Miller said: “You put all that together, if he wanted to do all of that within current spending plans he’s looking at having to cut some other services by something like £35bn.”

The chancellor does not have to address spending totals in this Budget, and may choose to leave such decisions until future events – for example, next year’s Spring Statement or Spending Review – by which time the outlook for the economy could look very different.

But the IFS warned not addressing it would cast doubt on the credibility of the government’s plans.

Previous chancellors have relied on a similar strategy of pencilling in unrealistic future spending plans to ensure that they meet the fiscal rules on the day – only to change the plans further down the line.

Miller said Healey’s focus on fiscal discipline was a “good first start but what he needs to do is not just say he’s going to cut borrowing in coming years but actually deliver on those plans.”

The NFL Referees Assn. says the suspensions handed out by the league to two game officials this week went too far and that it will attempt to get them reduced.

On Monday, the NFL issued a two-game suspension for line judge Jeff Seeman and a one-game suspension for referee Adrian Hill for separate instances of “unprofessional conduct toward a player” during games they were working the previous day.

The NFLRA said in a news release Tuesday that it “believes the suspensions imposed by the NFL on two officials following incidents this past weekend were excessive and inconsistent with past precedent.”

“Given these concerns, the NFLRA will challenge the severity of those suspensions and meet with the NFL Officiating Department to discuss the League’s disciplinary standards,” the NFLRA said. “The association also plans to meet with NFL Players Association leadership to address on-field conduct and the growing levels of confrontation between players and officials.”

Late in the Arizona Cardinals’ 36-24 loss to the New York Giants, Cardinals tight end Trey McBride argued a non-call with Seeman. A video of part of the interaction between McBride and Seeman, posted on X by ESPN’s Adam Schefter, appears to show the line judge shouting profane language at McBride.

“This kind of behavior from an official towards a player is unacceptable,” NFL Players Assn. executive director JC Tretter wrote with a repost of the footage. “Players are consistently held accountable when the roles are reversed. We expect the NFL to hold officials to the same standard.”

Early in the Minnesota Vikings’ 15-10 victory over the Miami Dolphins, Vikings linebacker Eric Wilson appeared to be shoved into Hill, who was knocked to the ground. When Wilson attempted to help Hill to his feet, the official jumped up and appeared to yell at the player and point for him to move away.

“I ended up apologizing to him and explained the situation,” Wilson told reporters after the game. “He was cool about it. He understood what was happening. He just said he was trying to get me — he didn’t want us fighting apparently, me and the Dolphins guy. So he was just trying to break us up.”

NFLRA executive director Scott Green acknowledged that both officials “fell short” in conducting themselves professionally on the field, but he also suggested that players often do the same.

“Officials are routinely subjected to highly charged interactions and, at times, verbal abuse from players and coaches,” Green said in the association’s news release. “While that never excuses misconduct by an official, it shouldn’t be dismissed as simply part of the game. The League expects the highest level of professionalism from its officials, and it should demand the same from everyone on the field.

“We will defend the principle that discipline must be fair, consistent and proportionate,” Green continued. “Holding officials accountable while ignoring or minimizing the conduct directed at them is neither fair nor an effective way to address this issue. We look forward to working with the League and NFLPA toward that shared goal.”

Caracas, October 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The US Justice Department has urged New York District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to reject Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores’ sovereign immunity claims amid their ongoing legal case.

In a court filing submitted on October 2, prosecutors told the court that Maduro and Flores’ motions to dismiss their indictments “should be denied.”

The Venezuelan president and first lady, who is also a legislator, were kidnapped in Caracas by US forces on January 3. They were charged with drug trafficking conspiracy and weapons possession, with Maduro additionally facing a “narco-terrorism” accusation.

The pair’s defense teams filed motions to dismiss the case in September, arguing that their respective positions in the Venezuelan government should make them immune to criminal prosecution in a third country.

In response, the Justice Department stated that the recognition of a foreign head of state is the exclusive competency of the executive branch, and that Washington has not recognized Maduro since 2019. Historically, US courts have deferred to the White House and State Department on foreign policy matters.

However, in the ongoing case, Justice Department officials sought to bolster their argument by stating that the Venezuelan government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, has declined to invoke immunity for Maduro and Flores.

“If Venezuela wished to assert its view that the defendants were entitled to immunity in this, it could have,“ the submitted document read. “The defendants’ attempt to claim the contrary is an admission that such silence is devastating to their claims.”

The prosecutors pointed to an ongoing civil lawsuit in Florida against Maduro, Rodríguez, and other defendants, where the Venezuelan government, through its US embassy, requested that the Trump administration communicate to the respective court that the acting president should “enjoy absolute immunity from judicial proceedings in foreign domestic courts.”

The State Department sent a letter in June calling on the Florida district court to “promptly dismiss the proceedings.” The White House likewise communicated to the court that all claims against Rodríguez should be “dismissed without prejudice.”

In August 2025, three US nationals who were imprisoned in Venezuela sued Maduro, Rodríguez, and several other current and former state officials. The plaintiffs claimed to have suffered “torture” and to have been used in “hostage diplomacy.” The judge issued a default ruling after Maduro and other defendants failed to show and awarded $314 million in damages to the plaintiffs.

“Venezuela did not request immunity in this case, despite every opportunity to do so. Indeed, there is no doubt that the current Venezuelan government knows how to request immunity,” the Justice Department’s recent filing continued.

Prosecutors went on to claim that the Trump administration’s foreign policy views, coupled with the Venezuelan government not explicitly invoking immunity, should outweigh the defense’s assertion that the United Nations recognized Maduro’s presidency.

Hellerstein is scheduled to hear oral arguments on the pre-trial motions to dismiss on November 17 before issuing a ruling. If the trial goes forward, it will begin on June 1, 2027.

Caracas has not commented on the latest developments in Maduro and Flores’ legal case. In recent months, Venezuelan officials have occasionally expressed hope that the two will eventually return to the country but without demanding their immediate release.

Rodríguez made no mention of Maduro and Flores’ kidnapping and prosecution during her recent trip to New York for the 81st session of the UN General Assembly. In a July interview, she claimed that Maduro has the right to “demonstrate the truth” before the US Justice system but did not call for his liberation.

The Venezuelan government is covering the pair’s legal defense costs after the US Treasury Department lifted restrictions blocking it.

In his UN speech on September 22, Trump celebrated the military operation that led to the abduction of Maduro, whom he called an “outlaw dictator.” Trump and Rodríguez met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, with the Venezuelan leader thanking the US president for supporting “Venezuela’s reinsertion into multilateral spaces.”

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

London, United Kingdom– At a meeting organised by a Muslim group in London ahead of a closely watched by-election, candidates from the Green and Liberal Democrat parties made their cases to residents beside empty seats. Their Labour and Conservative peers did not turn up.

Labour candidate Sagal Abdi Wali, a Somali-Muslim woman, told The Guardian she did not attend because she had a prior obligation and the invite had come too late. But the organiser, the Camden Muslim Network, pushed back, saying that she was invited earlier.

Fifteen candidates are in the race for former Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s old seat, including Green Party leader, Zack Polanski, who hopes to become a member of parliament.

Since the seat was created in Holborn and St Pancras in 1983, the Labour Party has held it. Starmer was first elected in 2015 and held it until his resignation, which triggered the by-election.

At the meeting, the conversation ranged from local issues such as housing to Israel and Palestine.

Lib Dem candidate Patrick Stillman said his party had long called for Palestinian statehood but would not support a full boycott.

But Polanski had a different opinion.

“I think the Labour government’s position is deeply cynical to apologise over Gaza, to recognise that mistakes have been made but to continue to sell arms to Israel, a country that’s committing a genocide,” he said to applause, adding that his party, which recently voted to describe Zionism as racism, supports a full boycott.

‘Vote Palestine’

In leaflets sent to constituency residents, the Green Party focused on Abdi-Wali’s time as a Labour councillor and, more recently, as leader of Camden council – a role she secured in May.

One reads: “Bring change, Replace Labour, Vote Green”. On its reverse: “Every single Camden Labour councillor refused to sign the Palestine solidarity pledge or support pension fund divestment. Only Greens continue to stand firm on Palestine.”

Last month, Abdi-Wali spoke to the Camden New Journal, a local newspaper, about Gaza and the Green Party’s leaflets.

It was “obviously inaccurate” to say the Labour council did not feel strongly about the issue, she told the paper. “I want to focus on making sure that we’re able to put the message of what [Foreign Secretary] Ed Miliband is now doing with the government and on Palestine and Israel and Gaza and the West Bank.”

In January, Camden Friends of Palestine (CFOP), a local group that formed in response to Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, presented a petition to the local council with 4,000 signatures calling for the council to divest its pension fund from companies involved in Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Abdi-Wali, then a Labour councillor, did not support the motion. Rather than committing to divestment, most councillors voted to refer the question to the pension board for review.

“My impression of her and her politics is that she’s just really incredibly silent on everything, if there isn’t a career motive for her, and that’s kind of disappointing,” said 38-year-old Shadin, a resident and CFOP organiser, who plans to vote for Polanski.

“Watching a livestreamed genocide has made a lot of people that I know … disengage from mainstream politics or parliamentary politics”.

Like many London constituencies, a key issue is housing.

According to a “2026 state of the borough” report by Camden council, 8,380 households were on the waiting list for social housing at the end of March 2025, “an increase of 9.5 percent on the year before.”

On Friday, in the constituency’s more affluent area of Primrose Hill, one resident said they would vote for Labour in the upcoming election, while another believed that regardless of who wins, life will not change.

In Camden, another resident told Al Jazeera that while they live in the area, they were not aware of the election, as Labour canvassers buzzed to gain entry into a nearby estate in the background.

As both parties make their final efforts to secure victory, recent polls predict a close race.

In the 2024 general election, Starmer won the seat with 49 percent. Andrew Feinstein, a pro-Palestine independent candidate came second, with 19 percent. The British gambling firm Ladbrokes and Stats for Lefties, which examines polling, both predict Labour will win.

A challenge to the decision to allow a controversial Orange Order parade to go down a predominantly nationalist road is being heard in court.

The deadlock over the proposed march in Portadown – opposed by residents of the Garvaghy Road – has lasted since last Sunday morning.

The stalemate has reopened what was once the most bitter parading dispute in Northern Ireland, with stand-offs in the mid-to-late 90s accompanied by riots, roadblocks and killings.

The fresh Court of Appeal application argues that the Parades Commission, the organisation that approved the march, had “materially misdirected itself” on the police assessment of the potential for disorder.

The application also said the commission had not given an “accurate representation” of PSNI evidence in its decision.

The Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition (GRRC) and their legal representatives arrived at the court on Monday morning.

Loyalist activist Jamie Bryson, who has been acting as legal advisor to the Portadown District, Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP Carla Lockhart and Orange Order legal representatives also arrived.

The hearing began in Belfast at about 10:30 BST.