court

Dems ‘ecstatic,’ GOP vows fight as court upholds healthcare law

WASHINGTON – In the moments after the Supreme Court’s landmark healthcare ruling, Capitol Hill was unnervingly quiet as legislators took time to absorb the ruling. The silence did not last long.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) headed to the Senate floor to mark the milestone.

“Passing the Affordable Care Act was the greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to affordable, quality healthcare for every person in America, regardless of where they live, how much money they make,” Reid said. “I’m happy and I’m pleased the Supreme Court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship.”

House Speaker John A. Boehner(R-Ohio) – and tea party groups — vowed to press forward on efforts to repeal the law.

“Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety,” Boehner said. “Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”

Republicans and their allies in this battle said the court ruling underscores the urgency of electing more conservatives to Congress to repeal the law.

“We are focused on taking control of the Senate, reinforcing our 2010 gains in the House, and defeating President Obama,” said Amy Kremer, chairman of Tea Party Express. “These key objectives will open the door for a wave of new conservatives in Washington who are committed to repealing Obamacare.”

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chairwoman of the Tea Party Caucus in the House, said: “Today’s Supreme Court decision raises the stakes for the coming months.”

House lawmakers from both parties had been meeting – separately – on Thursday morning behind closed doors before the decision became public. Boehner was expected to be reiterating to members not to “spike the ball” in the event of a favorable ruling. Both parties said they expect the fight to continue both in Congress and on the campaign trail.

“Our struggle isn’t over,’’ said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), expecting congressional Republicans to continue to try to dismantle the law “piece by piece.’’

As the court’s decision became known – and initial television reports gave confusing accounts of the outcome — one congressman, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego), was the among the first out with a statement: “In the wake of the Supreme Court declaring the ‘individual mandate’ portion of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, it is questionable as to whether the rest of the bill can stand,” he said.

Fifteen minutes later his office sent out an “updated” release: “Simply put, we cannot afford the president’s health care plan.”

Some Democrats, though, just savored the moment.

“We’re just ecstatic,’’ Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Lakewood) said. She was in a committee meeting, checking her iPad for word on the court ruling.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the minority leader – who had long predicted a 6-3 decision from the court – took her moment.

“This decision is a victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “In passing health reform, we made history for our nation and progress for the American people.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) was also in a committee meeting when he got conflicting messages about the ruling.

“I rushed back to the office to watch the coverage with staff,’’ he said. “Along the way, I could hear hoots and hollers from various congressional offices as the staff of different members reacted with elation or upset. Needless-to-say, we were on the elated side.”

He said was pleased by the ruling but said he also was pleased for another reason: “The court was at risk of becoming yet another partisan institution if it threw out decades of precedent. The chief justice chose a different legacy, and this was not only the correct legal decision, it was also enormously important to maintaining the independence and reputation of the court.”

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) called it a “sad day for liberty.’’

“The court’s misguided decision is an attack on freedom, an insult to our Constitution, and it will ultimately destroy the best healthcare system in the world,’’ he said. “Chief Justice Roberts once said that the Supreme Court’s job is to apply the law – ‘to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat.’ He couldn’t have been more right in saying so, and he couldn’t have been more wrong by choosing to circumvent the Constitution this morning. Even worse, I fear that the high court has opened Pandora’s box by blatantly disregarding the law, and there will no longer be any real limits to what the federal government will be able to force the American people to do.’’

Twitter.com/LisaMascaroinDC

Twitter.com/RichardSimon11



Source link

Son of jailed Mexican drug lord ‘El Chapo’ to plead guilty in US court | Drugs News

Joaquin Guzman Lopez, one of four sons of the Sinaloa cartel’s ‘El Chapo’, changes his plea to guilty, court documents show.

A son of notorious Mexican drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman will plead guilty next week in the United States to narcotics trafficking charges, according to federal court documents.

Joaquin Guzman Lopez, one of four sons of the jailed Sinaloa cartel leader “El Chapo”, originally pleaded not guilty after his arrest in July 2024 in Texas.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

But federal documents released on Friday show that Guzman Lopez is to change his plea at a hearing set for Monday at the US District Court in Chicago.

Another of his three brothers, Ovidio Guzman, as part of a plea deal struck in exchange for a reduced sentence, pleaded guilty in July 2025 to conspiracy related to drug trafficking and two counts of participating in the activities of a criminal enterprise.

Ovidio Guzman also admitted that he and his brothers, known collectively as “Los Chapitos” (Little Chapos), had taken over their father’s operations within the cartel following his arrest in 2016.

Mexican broadcaster MVS Noticias said Guzman Lopez’s guilty plea could mean “a new chapter in the history of drug trafficking is about to be written”.

“This move has raised numerous questions about the possible ongoing negotiations between him and US authorities,” the news outlet said.

The ABC 7 Chicago news channel said federal prosecutors have said they will not now seek the death sentence for Guzman Lopez, and that there “is talk of a plea deal now in the works”.

He is due to appear in court in Chicago at 1:30pm (19:30 GMT) on Monday.

Two other “Chapitos” brothers, Ivan Archivaldo Guzman Salazar and Jesus Alfredo Guzman Salazar, have also been indicted on drug trafficking charges in the US but remain at large.

Their 68-year-old father, “El Chapo”, is serving a life sentence at a supermax federal prison in Colorado following his arrest and conviction in 2019.

Guzman Lopez was taken into custody last year when he arrived in Texas on board a small private plane, along with the cofounder of the Sinaloa cartel, Ismael “Mayo” Zambada.

Zambada claimed to have been misled about the destination and that he was abducted by Guzman Lopez to be handed over against his will to authorities in the US.

Following the arrest, clashes intensified between two factions of the Sinaloa cartel, headed, respectively, by the “Los Chapitos” brothers and Zambada. The infighting led to approximately 1,200 deaths in Mexico and about 1,400 disappearances, according to official figures.

Officials in the US accuse the Sinaloa cartel of trafficking fentanyl to the country, where the synthetic drug has caused tens of thousands of overdose deaths in recent years, straining relations with Mexico.

The cartel is also one of six Mexican drug-trafficking groups that US President Donald Trump has designated as global terrorist organisations.

Additional sanctions against the two fugitive “Los Chapitos” brothers were announced by Washington in June for fentanyl trafficking, and the reward for their capture was increased to $10m each.

Source link

College freshman, flying home for Thanksgiving surprise, is instead deported despite court order

A college freshman trying to fly from Boston to Texas to surprise her family for Thanksgiving was instead deported to Honduras in violation of a court order, according to her attorney.

Any Lucia Lopez Belloza, 19, had already passed through security at Boston Logan International Airport on Nov. 20 when she was told there was an issue with her boarding pass, said attorney Todd Pomerleau. The Babson College student was then detained by immigration officials and within two days, sent to Texas and then Honduras, the country she left at age 7.

“She’s absolutely heartbroken,” Pomerleau said. “Her college dream has just been shattered.”

According to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an immigration judge ordered Lopez Belloza to be deported in 2015. Pomerleau said she wasn’t aware of any removal order, however, and the only record he’s found indicates her case was closed in 2017.

“They’re holding her responsible for something they claim happened a decade ago that she’s completely unaware of and not showing any of the proof,” the lawyer said.

The day after Lopez Belloza was arrested, a federal judge issued an emergency order prohibiting the government from moving her out of Massachusetts or the United States for at least 72 hours. ICE did not respond to an email Friday from the Associated Press seeking comment about violating that order. Babson College also did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Lopez Belloza, who is staying with her grandparents in Honduras, told the Boston Globe she had been looking forward to telling her parents and younger sisters about her first semester studying business.

“That was my dream,” she said. “I’m losing everything.”

Ramer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

The week’s bestselling books, Nov. 30

Hardcover fiction

1. The Correspondent by Virginia Evans (Crown: $28) A lifelong letter writer reckons with a painful past.

2. Brimstone by Callie Hart (Forever: $33) The deluxe limited edition continues the fantasy adventure begun in “Quicksilver.”

3. Heart the Lover by Lily King (Grove Press: $28) A woman reflects on a youthful love triangle and its consequences.

4. What We Can Know by Ian McEwan (Knopf: $30) A genre-bending love story about people and the words they leave behind.

5. Queen Esther by John Irving (Simon & Schuster: $30) The novelist revisits his bestselling “The Cider House Rules.”

6. The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny by Kiran Desai (Hogarth: $32) The fates of two young people intersect and diverge across continents and years.

7. Audition by Katie Kitamura (Riverhead Books: $28) An accomplished actor grapples with the varied roles she plays in her personal life.

8. Shadow Ticket by Thomas Pynchon (Penguin Press: $30) A private eye in 1932 Milwaukee is hired to find a missing dairy heiress.

9. The Black Wolf by Louise Penny (Minotaur Books: $30) The latest mystery in the Armand Gamache series.

10. Dog Show by Billy Collins, Pamela Sztybel (illustrator) (Random House: $20) The former U.S. poet laureate captures the essence of dogs in a collection of poems that includes watercolor canine portraits.

Hardcover nonfiction

1. 1929 by Andrew Ross Sorkin (Viking: $35) An exploration of the most infamous stock market crash in history.

2. Bread of Angels by Patti Smith (Random House: $30) A new memoir from the legendary writer and artist.

3. Nobody’s Girl by Virginia Roberts Giuffre (Knopf: $35) A posthumous memoir by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s most outspoken victim.

4. Something From Nothing by Alison Roman (Clarkson Potter: $38) More than 100 recipes that make the most of a well-stocked pantry.

5. The Uncool by Cameron Crowe (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $35) The filmmaker recounts his experiences as a teenage music journalist.

6. Lessons From Cats for Surviving Fascism by Stewart Reynolds (Grand Central Publishing: $13) A guide to channeling feline wisdom in the face of authoritarian nonsense.

7. Always Remember by Charlie Mackesy (Penguin Life: $27) Revisiting the world of “The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse.”

8. Book of Lives by Margaret Atwood (Doubleday: $35) The author of “The Handmaid’s Tale” tells her story.

9. Good Things by Samin Nosrat (Random House: $45) The celebrated chef shares 125 meticulously tested recipes.

10. The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins (Hay House: $30) How to stop wasting energy on things you can’t control.

Paperback fiction

1. On the Calculation of Volume (Book III) by Solvej Balle (New Directions: $16)

2. Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir (Ballantine: $22)

3. Hamnet by Maggie O’Farrell (Vintage: $19)

4. Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar (Vintage: $18)

5. I Who Have Never Known Men by Jacqueline Harpman (Transit Books: $17)

6. The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon (Vintage: $18)

7. Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt (Ecco: $20)

8. On the Calculation of Volume (Book I) by Solvej Balle, Barbara J. Haveland (translator) (New Directions: $16)

9. The Princess Bride by William Goldman (Harper Perennial: $22)

10. Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin (Vintage: $19)

Paperback nonfiction

1. Fight Oligarchy by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Crown: $15)

2. The Artist’s Way by Julia Cameron (TarcherPerigee: $24)

3. The White Album by Joan Didion (Farrar, Straus & Giroux: $18)

4. Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer (Milkweed Editions: $22)

5. Just Kids by Patti Smith (Ecco: $19)

6. The Most Human by Adam Nimoy (Chicago Review Press: $20)

7. The Art Thief by Michael Finkel (Vintage: $18)

8. All About Love by bell hooks (Morrow: $17)

9. The Best American Essays 2025 by Jia Tolentino and Kim Dana Kupperman (editors) (Mariner Books: $19)

10. Meditations for Mortals by Oliver Burkeman (Picador: $19)

Source link

Hollywood star Ioan Gruffudd welcomes baby with wife Bianca Wallace amid court battles with ex

HOLLYWOOD star Ioan Gruffud has welcomed a baby into the world with wife Bianca Wallace amid his court battles with his ex wife Alice Evans.

Bianca and Ioan, who is already a dad to two daughters with Alice, shared their happy news on social media today.

Bianca Wallace has given birth to her first child with Hollywood star husband Ioan Gruffud
Ioan and Bianca pictured at the 2024 Race To Erase MS Gala at Fairmont Century Plaza, California, last yearCredit: Getty
Ioan with ex Alice – the pair officially ended their marriage in 2023Credit: INSTAGRAM/ALICE EVANS

The couple wrote alongside a photo of them enjoying a kiss in the hospital: “November was a biggie…  Name: Mila Mae Gruffudd.

“Birth date: 2 November 2025. Due date: 2 December 2025.

“Bubba Bear and Rocky: Absolutely smitten. Daddy & Mummy: Completely and totally in love with our tiny little angel

“Extremely grateful this thanksgiving.”

READ MORE ON IOAN’S DIVORCE

EVANS & HELL

‘Homeless’ Alice Evans’ secret game plan as toxic divorce takes dark turn


FAMILY FEUD

Alice Evans KICKED OUT of court for taking photos of ex-husband during hearing

It comes more than two years after Fantastic Four star Ioan, 52, divorced British-American actress Alice, 57.

She played Chloe Simon in the film 102 Dalmatians as-well as Esther Mikaelson in the third season of the The Vampire Diaries.

The pair officially ended their marriage amid a bitter court battle and vicious custody row over their daughters.

Hollywood star Ioan also obtained a restraining order in 2022 against Alice.

Ioan and Bianca went public with their relationship in 2021.

The couple announced they were engaged in January 2024.

He revealed he was looking forward to giving marriage another go, captioning the photo on Instagram: “The most precious thing happened…”

They married in April this year and shared a video showing their romantic wedding ceremony.

Welsh actor Ioan could be seen wiping away tears as he expressed his love to Bianca.

Weeks later, they revealed they were expecting their first child together.

Australian actress and producer Bianca was diagnosed with incurable and aggressive MS (Multiple Sclerosis), an inflammatory disease which attacks the central nervous system and for which there is no cure, seven years ago.

She previously said she initially sought medical help when she struggled to pick up a pen to write, and admitted that “everything changed” thereafter.

Common symptoms of MS include fatigue, vision issues, and difficulties with walking or balance.

In September, Bianca was asked about her health and how she was coping being pregnant, and replied to a follower on Instagram: “Thank you for asking!

“The MS has been in remission and it’s been the most confronting, yet amazing thing to experience!

“I’ve heard breastfeeding also should help keep it at bay.

“My doctors have such great plan in place that I have a lot of hope that things won’t go back to how bad it was before pregnancy.”

Although there is no cure, various medicines and treatments can help alleviate some symptoms.

Speaking about her condition previously, she said in a lengthy post: “I celebrate this every single year. It pops up in my calendar and I have a happy moment …

“And so I’m at five years of MS today, not diagnosed, this is the day that the symptoms came up. I’m diagnosed October (2022), will be five years diagnosed.

“But I think it’s crucial and important to celebrate these moments and do not let them take you… these anniversaries, they really pack a punch in these kind of situations.”

Ioan announced he was going to be a dad again on Father’s Day this yearCredit: instagram

Source link

Bangkok court issues an arrest warrant for Thai co-owner of Miss Universe pageant

A court in Thailand said Wednesday that it has issued an arrest warrant for a co-owner of the Miss Universe Organization in connection with a fraud case.

Jakkaphong “Anne” Jakrajutatip was charged with fraud then released on bail in 2023. She failed to appear as required in a Bangkok court on Tuesday. Since she did not notify the court about her absence, she was deemed to be a flight risk, according to a statement from the Bangkok South District Court.

The court rescheduled the hearing for Dec. 26.

According to the court’s statement, Jakkaphong and her company, JKN Global Group Public Co. Ltd., were sued for allegedly defrauding Raweewat Maschamadol in selling him the company’s corporate bonds in 2023. Raweewat says the investment caused him to lose $930,362.

Financially troubled JKN defaulted on payments to investors beginning in 2023 and began debt rehabilitation procedures with the Central Bankruptcy Court in 2024. The company says it has debts totaling about $93 million.

JKN acquired the rights to the Miss Universe pageant from IMG Worldwide LLC in 2022. In 2023, it sold 50% of its Miss Universe shares to Legacy Holding Group USA, which is owned by a Mexican businessman, Raúl Rocha Cantú.

Jakkaphong resigned from all of the company’s positions in June after being accused by Thailand’s Securities and Exchange Commission of falsifying the company’s 2023 financial statements. She remains its largest shareholder.

Her whereabouts remain unclear. She did not appear at the 74th Miss Universe competition, which was held in Bangkok earlier this month.

This year’s competition was marred by various problems, including a sharp-tongued scolding by a Thai organizer of Fátima Bosch Fernández of Mexico, who was crowned Miss Universe 2025 on Nov. 19. Two judges reportedly dropped out, with one suggesting that there was an element of rigging to the contest. Separately, Thai police investigated allegations that publicity for the event included illegal promotion of online casinos.

On Monday, JKN denied rumors that Jakkaphong had liquidated the company’s assets and fled the country, but there has been no immediate reaction regarding the arrest warrant. She could not be reached for comment.

Jakkaphong is a well-known celebrity in Thailand who has starred in reality shows and is outspoken about her identity as a transgender woman.

Saksornchai writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Supreme Court strikes down key section of Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the historic Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, ruling that Southern states may no longer be forced to seek federal approval before making changes in their election laws.

The ruling came on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaking for the court.

Roberts said the 1965 law had been a “resounding success” and has ensured that blacks now register and vote at the same rate as whites.

But he said it was no longer fair or rational to subject these states and municipalities to special scrutiny based on a formula that is more than 40 years old.

“States must beseech the federal government for permission to implement laws that they would otherwise have a right to enact and execute on their own,” he wrote. This conflicts with the principle that all the states enjoy “equal sovereignty” and cannot be subjected to different federal laws, he said.

PHOTOS: 2013’s memorable political moments

“Our country has changed in the last 50 years,” the chief justice said. He said that Congress needs to “speak to current conditions.”

As it currently stand, nine states are covered by the law based on voting data from the 1960s and early 1970s.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined with the chief justice.

The decision may have an immediate impact. Texas has been fighting federal courts over its voter ID law and plans to redistrict its congressional districts. Those state actions were halted under the part of the law struck down Tuesday.

The decision leaves open the possibility that Congress could adopt a new formula to target states or municipalities for special scrutiny.

The decision leaves intact the rest of the Voting Rights Act, which makes it illegal to adopt or enforce laws that have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. But civil rights advocates say the provision struck down Tuesday was still needed because it stopped discriminatory measures before they could take effect.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for the four dissenters. She said the court had made an “egregious” error by striking down a law that had been extended in 2006 by a near unanimous vote in Congress.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook

[email protected]



Source link

Colombian court sentences Alvaro Uribe’s brother to 28 years in prison | Courts News

Bogota, Colombia – Santiago Uribe, the brother of former Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, has been sentenced to 28 years and three months in prison for aggravated homicide and conspiracy to commit a crime while leading a paramilitary group.

In Tuesday’s verdict, a three-judge panel in the northwestern province of Antioquia ruled that, in the early 1990s, Uribe “formed and led an illegal armed group”.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Under Uribe’s leadership, the group allegedly “carried out a plan to systematically murder and exterminate people considered undesirable”.

Uribe has denied having any associations with paramilitary groups. His defence team plans to appeal.

The ruling reverses a lower court’s acquittal last year. The case will now pass to Colombia’s Supreme Court for a final verdict.

The conviction is the latest twist in a longstanding criminal investigation into the Uribe family and its alleged paramilitary ties.

Alvaro Uribe
Former President Alvaro Uribe has likewise been investigated for ties to paramilitary groups [File: Miguel Lopez/AP Photo]

Critics have accused Uribe and his brother, the former president, of maintaining ties to groups involved in grave human rights abuses during Colombia’s six-decade-long internal conflict.

Tuesday’s conviction relates to activities that took place on and around the Uribe family’s La Carolina cattle ranch, located in Antioquia.

In its 307-page ruling, the court detailed how the ranch was used as a base for The 12 Apostles, a far-right paramilitary group formed by ranchers in the early 1990s to combat leftist rebels, notably the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

The court described The 12 Apostles as a “death squad”, saying it performed “social cleansing” by killing “undesirables” including sex workers, drug users, people with mental illnesses and suspected leftist sympathisers.

Not only did the paramilitary group hold meetings at La Carolina, but training and weapons distribution were also carried out on site, according to the ruling.

Those were “acts with which crimes against humanity were committed”, the judges wrote.

Describing Uribe as the leader of The 12 Apostles, the court found him responsible for ordering the murder of Camilo Barrientos, a bus driver who was shot near La Carolina in 1994 for being a suspected rebel collaborator.

Tuesday’s ruling also highlighted collusion between paramilitaries and state security forces, saying the militia “enjoyed the cooperation, through action and inaction, of agents of the State”.

Uribe was first investigated for his involvement with The 12 Apostles in the late 1990s, but the investigation was dropped in 1999 due to a lack of evidence.

Colombian authorities resumed their investigation in 2010, detaining Uribe in 2016 on charges of homicide.

Alvaro Uribe speaks to reporting scrum
Former President Alvaro Uribe addresses his brother Santiago’s arrest during a news conference on March 6, 2016 [File: Luis Benavides/AP Photo]

While the trial ended in 2020, the lower court announced its verdict years later, in November 2024. The judge overseeing the case at the time, Jaime Herrera Nino, ruled there was insufficient evidence and acquitted Uribe.

Tuesday’s decision overturns that verdict. Human rights advocates applauded the ruling as a step towards accountability, even at the highest levels of power.

“The sentence is extremely important,” said Laura Bonilla, a deputy director at Colombia’s Peace and Reconciliation Foundation (Pares). “It shows the level of penetration that paramilitarism had in Colombian society.”

Gerson Arias, a conflict and security investigator at the Ideas for Peace Foundation, a Colombian think tank, said the complexity of the case reflects the power structures involved.

“Paramilitarism was deeply rooted in the upper echelons of society, and therefore clarifying what happened takes years,” he said.

“It is therefore likely that many of the collective things we know about paramilitarism are still pending resolution and discovery.”

The defendant’s brother, former President Alvaro Uribe, led Colombia from 2002 to 2010.

The ex-president himself was found guilty earlier this year of bribing former paramilitary members not to testify to his involvement with them.

The ruling was overturned in October, after a court ruled the evidence was gathered through an unlawful wiretap. It also cited “structural deficiencies” in the prosecution’s arguments.

The former president remains a powerful figure in right-wing politics in Colombia, and he has pledged to form a coalition to oppose a left-wing government in the 2026 elections.

“I feel deep pain over the sentence against my brother. May God help him,” the ex-president wrote on the social media platform X following Tuesday’s ruling.

Source link

European Court of Justice orders Poland to recognize same-sex marriage

The European Court of Justice, the continent’s highest court, ruled Tuesday that under EU law, Poland must recognize the marriage of two men who relocated from Germany. However, judges ruled Poland was not required to lift its ban on gay marriage. File photo by Julien Warnand/EPA-EFE

Nov. 25 (UPI) — The European Court of Justice ruled Thursday that European Union member nations must recognize the same-sex marriages of couples relocating from another EU state, even if same-sex unions are not permitted under their domestic law.

Judges in the court in Luxembourg, ruling in the case of two men lawfully married in Germany who were denied recognition of their union by authorities in Poland on their return to their home country, said it violated their fundamental right to a “normal family life,” the ECJ said in a news release.

The case was referred to the ECJ by Poland’s Supreme Court where the men were appealing against authorities’ refusal to transcribe their German marriage certificate into the civil register so that their marriage would be recognized, on grounds same-sex marriage is not legal in Poland.

Poland is a largely Catholic, socially conservative nation where LGBT rights are highly controversial import from permissive societies and LGBT-free zones are common.

The landmark decision said that while rules governing marriage fell under individual member states’ domestic law, they must comply with EU law in exercising that power.

Given EU citizens’ right to move and reside in any of the 27 member nations, couples who have built a family life in a host country “must have the certainty to be able to pursue that family life upon returning to their member state of origin,” the ruling said.

The judge said that where couples had opted to move, bans may cause serious inconvenience at administrative, professional and private levels, forcing spouses to “live as unmarried persons” in their own country.

“Such a refusal is contrary to EU law. It infringes not only the freedom to move and reside, but also the fundamental right to respect for private and family life,” the ruling states.

However, while the decision sets a precedent for recognition of same-sex marriage across the bloc it only mandates equal treatment of marriages conducted abroad, regardless of the sex of the couples.

It does not override national laws prohibiting same-sex marriage or require member states to provide for marriage between persons of the same sex.

The matter now returns to the Polish court, which must instruct authorities to officially recognize the couple’s marriage, but it can decide how that is done.

The case is an extension of a historic 2018 ECJ ruling that said married same-sex couples who were EU citizens had the legal right to live in any EU country, including nations that did not recognize same-sex unions.

Of the bloc’s 27 member states. at least two — Slovakia and Hungary — have legal or constitutional bans on same-sex marriage.

However, both allow same-sex couples a mechanism for their relationship to be legally recognized.

Source link

In Texas case, it’s politics vs. race at the Supreme Court

The Texas redistricting case now before the Supreme Court turns on a question that often divides judges: Were the voting districts drawn based on politics, or race?

The answer, likely to come in a few days, could shift five congressional seats and tip political control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, who oversees appeals from Texas, put a temporary hold on a judicial ruling that branded the newly drawn Texas voting map a “racial gerrymander.”

The state’s lawyers asked for a decision by Monday, noting that candidates have a Dec. 8 deadline to file for election.

They said the judges violated the so-called Purcell principle by making major changes in the election map “midway through the candidate filing period,” and that alone calls for blocking it.

Texas Republicans have reason to be confident the court’s conservative majority will side with them.

“We start with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith,” Alito wrote for a 6-3 majority last year in a South Carolina case.

That state’s Republican lawmakers had moved tens of thousands of Black voters in or out of newly drawn congressional districts and said they did so not because of their race but because they were likely to vote as Democrats.

In 2019, the conservatives upheld partisan gerrymandering by a 5-4 vote, ruling that drawing election districts is a “political question” left to states and their lawmakers, not judges.

All the justices — conservative and liberal — say drawing districts based on the race of the voters violates the Constitution and its ban on racial discrimination. But the conservatives say it’s hard to separate race from politics.

They also looked poised to restrict the reach of the Voting Rights Act in a pending case from Louisiana.

For decades, the civil rights law has sometimes required states to draw one or more districts that would give Black or Latino voters a fair chance to “elect representatives of their choice.”

The Trump administration joined in support of Louisiana’s Republicans in October and claimed the voting rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action” that should be ended.

If so, election law experts warned that Republican-led states across the South could erase the districts of more than a dozen Black Democrats who serve in Congress.

The Texas mid-decade redistricting case did not look to trigger a major legal clash because the partisan motives were so obvious.

In July, President Trump called for Texas Republicans to redraw the state map of 38 congressional districts in order to flip five seats to oust Democrats and replace them with Republicans.

At stake was control of the closely divided House after the 2026 midterm elections.

Gov. Greg Abbott agreed, and by the end of August, he signed into law a map with redrawn districts in and around Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth and San Antonio.

But last week federal judges, in a 2-1 decision, blocked the new map from taking effect, ruling that it appeared to be unconstitutional.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” wrote U.S. District Judge Jeffrey V. Brown in the opening of a 160-page opinion. “To be sure, politics played a role” but “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

He said the strongest evidence came from Harmeet Dhillon, the Trump administration’s top civil rights lawyer at the Justice Department. She had sent Abbott a letter on July 7 threatening legal action if the state did not dismantle four “coalition districts.”

This term, which was unfamiliar to many, referred to districts where no racial or ethnic group had a majority. In one Houston district that was targeted, 45% of the eligible voters were Black and 25% were Latino. In a nearby district, 38% of voters were Black and 30% were Latino.

She said the Trump administration views these as “unconstitutional racial gerrymanders,” citing a recent ruling by the conservative 5th Circuit Court.

The Texas governor then cited these “constitutional concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Justice” when he called for the special session of the Legislature to redraw the state map.

Voting rights advocates saw a violation.

“They said their aim was to get rid of the coalition districts. And to do so, they had to draw new districts along racial lines,” said Chad Dunn, a Texas attorney and legal director of UCLA’s Voting Rights Project.

Brown, a Trump appointee from Galveston, wrote that Dhillon was “clearly wrong” in believing these coalition districts were unconstitutional, and he said the state was wrong to rely on her advice as basis for redrawing its election map.

He was joined by a second district judge in putting the new map on hold and requiring the state to use the 2021 map that had been drawn by the same Texas Republicans.

The third judge on the panel was Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee on the 5th Circuit Court, and he issued an angry 104-page dissent. Much of it was devoted to attacking Brown and liberals such as 95-year-old investor and philanthropist George Soros and California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“In 37 years as a federal judge, I’ve served on hundreds of three-judge panels. This is the most blatant exercise of judicial activism that I have ever witnessed,” Smith wrote. “The main winners from Judge Brown’s opinion are George Soros and Gavin Newsom. The obvious losers are the People of Texas.”

The “obvious reason for the 2025 redistricting, of course, is partisan gain,” Smith wrote, adding that “Judge Brown commits grave error in concluding that the Texas Legislature is more bigoted than political.”

Most federal cases go before a district judge, and they may be appealed first to a U.S. appeals court and then the Supreme Court.
Election-related cases are different. A three-judge panel weighs the facts and issues a ruling, which then goes directly to the Supreme Court to be affirmed or reversed.

Late Friday, Texas attorneys filed an emergency appeal and asked the justices to put on hold the decision by Brown.

The first paragraph of their 40-page appeal noted that Texas is not alone in pursuing a political advantage by redrawing its election maps.

“California is working to add more Democratic seats to its congressional delegation to offset the new Texas districts, despite Democrats already controlling 43 out of 52 of California’s congressional seats,” they said.

They argued that the “last-minute disruption to state election procedures — and resulting candidate and voter confusion —demonstrates” the need to block the lower court ruling.

Election law experts question that claim. “This is a problem of Texas’ own making,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The state opted for a fast-track, mid-decade redistricting at the behest of Trump.

On Monday, Dunn, the Texas voting rights attorney, responded to the state’s appeal and told the justices they should deny it.

“The election is over a year away. No one will be confused by using the map that has governed Texas’ congressional elections for the past four years,” he said.

“The governor of Texas called a special session to dismantle districts on account of their racial composition,” he said, and the judges heard clear and detailed evidence that lawmakers did just that.

In recent election disputes, however, the court’s conservatives have frequently invoked the Purcell principle to free states from new judicial rulings that came too close to the election.

Granting a stay would allow Texas to use its new GOP friendly map for the 2026 election.

The justices may then choose to hear arguments on the legal questions early next year.

Source link

Immigration crackdown in Chicago eases, leaving lawsuits, investigations and anxiety

Chicago has entered what many consider a new uneasy phase of a Trump administration immigration crackdown that has already led to thousands of arrests.

While a U.S. Border Patrol commander known for leading intense and controversial surges moved on to North Carolina, federal agents are still arresting immigrants across the nation’s third-largest city and suburbs.

A growing number of lawsuits stemming from the crackdown are winding through the courts. Authorities are investigating agents’ actions, including a fatal shooting. Activists say they are not letting their guard down in case things ramp up again, while many residents in the Democratic stronghold remain anxious.

“I feel a sense of paranoia over when they might be back,” said Santani Silva, an employee at a vintage store in the predominantly Mexican American neighborhood of Pilsen. “People are still afraid.”

Intensity slows, but arrests continue

For more than two months, the Chicago area was the focus of an aggressive operation led by Gregory Bovino, a Border Patrol commander behind similar efforts in Los Angeles and soon Louisiana.

Armed and masked agents used unmarked SUVs and helicopters throughout the city of 2.7 million and its suburbs to target suspected criminals and immigration violators. Arrests often led to intense standoffs with bystanders, from wealthy neighborhoods to working-class suburbs.

While the intensity has died down in the week since Bovino left, reports of arrests still pop up. Activists tracking immigration agents said they confirmed 142 daily sightings at the height of the operation last month. The number is now roughly six a day.

“It’s not over,” said Brandon Lee with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. “I don’t think it will be over.”

Suburb under siege

Bearing the brunt of the operation has been Broadview, a Chicago suburb of roughly 8,000 people that has housed a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement processing center for years.

Protests outside the facility have grown increasingly tense as federal agents used chemical agents that area neighbors felt. Broadview police also launched three criminal investigations into federal agents’ tactics.

Community leaders took the unusual step of declaring a civil emergency last week and moving public meetings online.

Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson said the community has faced bomb threats, death threats and violent protests because of the crackdown.

“I will not allow threats of violence or intimidation to disrupt the essential functions of our government,” Thompson said.

Questionable arrests and detentions

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has touted more than 3,000 arrests, but the agency has provided details on only a few cases in which immigrants without legal permission to live in the country also had a criminal history.

The Trump administration posts photos on social media of supposed violent criminals apprehended in immigration operations, but the federal government’s own data paint a different picture.

Of 614 immigrants arrested and detained in recent months around Chicago, only 16, less than 3%, had criminal records representing a “high public safety risk,” according to federal government data submitted to the court as part of a 2022 consent decree about ICE arrests. Those records included domestic battery and drunk driving.

A judge in the cases said hundreds of immigrant detainees qualify to be released on bond, though an appeals court has paused their release. Attorneys say many more cases will follow as they get details from the government about arrests.

“None of this has quite added up,” said Ed Yohnka with the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, which has been involved in several lawsuits. “What was this all about? What did this serve? What did any of this do?”

Investigations and lawsuits

The number of lawsuits triggered by the crackdown is growing, including on agents’ use of force and conditions at the Broadview center. In recent days, clergy members filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging they were being blocked from ministering inside a facility.

Federal prosecutors have also repeatedly dropped charges against protesters and other bystanders, including dismissing charges against a woman who was shot several times by a Border Patrol agent last month.

Meanwhile, federal agents are also under investigation in connection with the death of a suburban man fatally shot by ICE agents during a traffic stop. Mexico’s president has called for a thorough investigation, while ICE has said it did not use excessive force.

An autopsy report, obtained by the Associated Press last week, showed Silverio Villegas González died from a gunshot fired at “close range” to his neck. The death was declared a homicide.

In October, the body of the 38-year-old father who spent two decades in the U.S. was buried in the western Mexico state of Michoacan.

A chilling effect

Many of the once bustling business corridors in the Chicago area’s largely immigrant communities that had quieted down were seeing a buzz again with some street vendors slowly returning to their usual posts.

Andrea Melendez, the owner of Pink Flores Bakery and Cafe, said she has seen an increase in sales after struggling for months.

“As a new business, I was a bit scared when we saw sales drop,” she said. “But this week I’m feeling a bit more hope that things may get better.”

Eleanor Lara, 52, has spent months avoiding unnecessary trips outside her Chicago home, fearful that an encounter with immigration agents could have dire consequences.

Even as a U.S. citizen, she is afraid and carries her birth certificate. She is married to a Venezuelan man whose legal status is in limbo.

“We’re still sticking home,” she said.

Tareen and Fernando write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Houthi court sentences 17 to death accused of spying for Israel, West | Israel-Palestine conflict News

Houthi authorities in Yemen want to publicly execute the convicted individuals, and also sentenced two others to prison.

Houthi judges working with prosecutors in Yemen have sentenced 17 people to death by firing squad over alleged espionage on behalf of Israel and its western allies.

The Specialized Criminal Court in the capital Sanaa handed down the sentences on Saturday morning in the cases of “espionage cells within a spy network affiliated with American, Israeli, and Saudi intelligence”, Houthi-run media said.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The court sentenced the 17 men to execution “to be carried out in a public place as a deterrent”, Saba and other outlets said, also publishing a list of names.

A woman and a man were sentenced to 10 years in prison, while another man was acquitted of all charges, bringing the total number of people put on trial in this case to 20.

Houthi-run media said state prosecutors had charged the defendants, who can theoretically appeal the sentences, with “espionage for foreign countries hostile to Yemen” in 2024 and 2025, which also included the United Kingdom.

Israel’s Mossad spying agency reportedly “directed” intelligence officers who were in contact with the accused Yemeni citizens, whose work allegedly “led to the targeting of several military, security, and civilian sites and resulting in the killing of dozens and the destruction of extensive infrastructure”.

The United States and the UK conducted dozens of deadly joint air strikes across Yemen after the start of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023, as the Houthis launched attacks on Israel and international maritime transit through the Red Sea in a stated attempt to support Palestinians under fire.

The Houthis have stopped their attacks since last month’s Gaza ceasefire deal.

Israel has also unleashed huge air attacks on Yemen and its infrastructure, repeatedly hitting fuel tanks, power stations and a critical port city where desperately needed humanitarian aid flows through, killing political leaders and dozens of civilians.

In August, the Houthis confirmed that an Israeli air raid killed the prime minister of their government in Sanaa.

Ahmed al-Rahawi was killed with “several” other ministers, the Houthis said in a statement at the time.

Houthi authorities, who control Sanaa and parts of Yemen to the north after an armed takeover more than a decade ago, made no mention of any links with the United Nations or other international agencies in the cases announced Saturday.

But they have, over the past year, increasingly raided UN and NGO offices, detaining dozens of mostly local but also international staff and confiscating equipment.

Amid condemnation and calls for the release of staff by the UN and international stakeholders, the Houthis have framed the efforts as necessary to stave off Israeli operations.

Source link

With Blackbeard’s ship, an argument about 21st century piracy lands in Supreme Court

More than 300 years ago, Edward Teach, better known as Blackbeard, whose whiskered visage virtually defines the image of the 18th century pirate, ran his flagship aground near Beaufort, N.C.

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal involving that ship to resolve a question of alleged 21st century piracy: Can the state of North Carolina be sued for taking someone’s copyrighted work?

At issue in the case, brought by a videographer who has filmed the wreckage of the Queen Anne’s Revenge since it was discovered in 1996, is a broad question of whether authors, musicians, video producers and others may sue a state agency and collect damages if the government makes use of their works without permission.

The high court has created a broad “sovereign immunity” shield that protects states from many types of lawsuits. In this case, the Recording Industry Assn. and experts in copyright law are urging the justices to shrink that shield, at least in copyright cases.

Recent rulings have left “states free to infringe copyrights with impunity, with nothing to deter them from that bad behavior,” the recording industry said in its brief supporting the appeal.

“Digital piracy of sound recordings and musical works, including by states, can be quick and easy to accomplish.”

The case began with the discovery of the wreckage of Blackbeard’s flagship, which sank in November 1718 and was found by a private research group in 1996.

A model of Queen Anne's Revenge, flagship of the 18th century pirate Blackbeard, at the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort, N.C.

A model of Queen Anne’s Revenge, flagship of the 18th century pirate Blackbeard, at the North Carolina Maritime Museum in Beaufort, N.C.

(David Zucchino / Los Angeles Times)

The discoverers hired Frederick Allen and his Nautilus Productions to film the wreckage and the salvage operation. His videos were copyrighted, but in 2013, North Carolina’s Department of Natural and Cultural Resources began posting the videos online.

Allen and the state entered into a settlement that paid Nautilus $15,000, but according to the videographer, the state violated the agreement by converting his works into “public record” materials that were free to all.

Allen sued the state for copyright infringement and won before a federal judge.

But the 4th Circuit Court based in Virginia ruled last year that the state and its officials were immune from such claims.

In 1990, Congress passed a law to protect copyrights from infringement by state agencies, but a few years later, the Supreme Court handed down a series of rulings that gave states “sovereign immunity” from being sued for damages in federal courts. One of those decisions, Florida Prepaid vs. College Savings Bank in 1999, threw out patent and copyright claims against a Florida agency.

The 4th Circuit cited that decision in blocking the videographer’s suit over Blackbeard’s ship.

His lawyers argued in their appeal that the Constitution gave Congress the power to protect the work of “authors and inventors.” The decision by Congress to enact a federal law allowing the suit to go ahead should override a state’s claim of immunity, they said.

The Supreme Court announced Monday it had voted to hear the case of Allen vs. Cooper in the term that begins in the fall.

More stories from David G. Savage »

Source link

Abortion is illegal again in North Dakota, state Supreme Court rules

Abortion is again illegal in North Dakota after the state’s Supreme Court on Friday couldn’t muster the required majority to uphold a judge’s ruling that struck down the state’s ban last year.

The law makes it a felony crime for anyone to perform an abortion, though it specifically protects patients from prosecution. Doctors could be prosecuted and penalized by as much as five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Three justices agreed that the ban is unconstitutionally vague. The other two justices said the law is not unconstitutional.

The North Dakota Constitution requires at least four of the five justices to agree for a law to be found unconstitutional, a high bar. Not enough members of the court joined together to affirm the lower court ruling.

In his opinion, Justice Jerod Tufte said the natural rights guaranteed by the state constitution in 1889 do not extend to abortion rights. He also said the law “provides adequate and fair warning to those attempting to comply.”

North Dakota Republican Atty. Gen. Drew Wrigley welcomed the ruling, saying, “The Supreme Court has upheld this important pro-life legislation, enacted by the people’s Legislature. The attorney general’s office has the solemn responsibility of defending the laws of North Dakota, and today those laws have been upheld.”

Republican state Sen. Janne Myrdal, who introduced the 2023 legislation that became the law banning abortion, said she was “thrilled and grateful that two justices that are highly respected saw the truth of the matter, that this is fully constitutional for the mother and for the unborn child and thereafter for that sake.”

The challengers called the decision “a devastating loss for pregnant North Dakotans.”

“As a majority of the Court found, this cruel and confusing ban is incomprehensible to physicians. The ban forces doctors to choose between providing care and going to prison,” Center for Reproductive Rights senior staff attorney Meetra Mehdizadeh said. “Abortion is healthcare, and North Dakotans deserve to be able to access this care without delay caused by confusion about what the law allows.”

The ruling means access to abortion in North Dakota will be outlawed. Even after a judge had struck down the ban last year, the only scenarios for a patient to obtain an abortion in North Dakota had been for life- or health-preserving reasons in a hospital.

The state’s only abortion provider relocated in 2022 from Fargo to nearby Moorhead, Minn.

Justice Daniel Crothers, one of the three judges to vote against the ban, wrote that the district court decision wasn’t wrong.

“The vagueness in the law relates to when an abortion can be performed to preserve the life and health of the mother,” Crothers wrote. “After striking this invalid provision, the remaining portions of the law would be inoperable.”

North Dakota’s newly confirmed ban prohibits the performance of an abortion and declares it a felony. The only exceptions are for rape or incest for an abortion in the first six weeks of pregnancy — before many women know they are pregnant — and to prevent the woman’s death or a “serious health risk” to her.

North Dakota joins 12 other states enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Four others bar it at or around six weeks of gestational age.

Judge Bruce Romanick had struck down the ban the GOP-led Legislature passed in 2023, less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade and opened the door to the state-level bans, largely turning the abortion battle to state courts and legislatures.

The Red River Women’s Clinic — the formerly sole abortion clinic in North Dakota — and several physicians challenged the law. The state appealed the 2024 ruling that overturned the ban.

The judge and the Supreme Court each denied requests by the state to keep the abortion ban in effect during the appeal. Those decisions allowed patients with pregnancy complications to seek care without fear of delay because of the law, Mehdizadeh previously said.

Dura writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

US Supreme Court blocks order on likely racial bias in new Texas voter map | Elections News

Texas redrew its voting map as part of US President Donald Trump’s plan to win extra Republican seats in the 2026 midterm elections.

The United States Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found the Texas 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed on Friday by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map, which is favourable to Republicans, to be used in the US midterm elections next year.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling, which had granted an “administrative stay” and temporarily stopped the lower court’s “injunction against Texas’s map”.

“Radical left-wing activists are abusing the judicial system to derail the Republican agenda and steal the US House for Democrats. I am fighting to stop this blatant attempt to upend our political system,” Paxton said in an earlier post on social media.

Texas redrew its congressional map in August as part of US President Donald Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives in next year’s mid-term elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle between Republicans and Democrats.

The new redistricting map for Texas was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 on Tuesday, saying that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

The redrawn map was likely racially discriminatory in violation of US constitutional protections, the court found.

Nonprofit news outlet The Texas Tribune said the state is now back to using, temporarily, its 2025 congressional map for voting as the Supreme Court has not yet decided what map Texas should ultimately use, and the “legality of the map” will play out in court over the coming weeks and months.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands on redistricting. Missouri and North Carolina followed Texas with new redistricting maps that would add an additional Republican seat each.

To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats there.

Redrawn voter maps are now facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

Republicans currently hold slim majorities in both chambers of Congress, and ceding control of either the House or Senate to the Democrats in the November 2026 midterm elections would imperil Trump’s legislative agenda in the second half of his latest term in office.

There have been legal fights at the Supreme Court for decades over the practice known as gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral district boundaries to marginalise a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others.

The court issued its most important ruling to date on the matter in 2019, declaring that gerrymandering for partisan reasons – to boost the electoral chances of one’s own party and weaken one’s political opponent – could not be challenged in federal courts.

But gerrymandering driven primarily by race remains unlawful under the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law and 15th Amendment prohibition on racial discrimination in voting.

Source link

Supreme Court temporarily blocks ruling that thwarted Texas’ redistricting plan

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling that found Texas’ 2026 congressional redistricting plan likely discriminates on the basis of race.

The order signed by Justice Samuel Alito will remain in place at least for the next few days while the court considers whether to allow the new map favorable to Republicans to be used in the midterm elections.

The court’s conservative majority has blocked similar lower court rulings because they have come too close to elections.

The order came about an hour after the state called on the high court to intervene to avoid confusion as congressional primary elections approach in March. The justices have blocked past lower-court rulings in congressional redistricting cases, most recently in Alabama and Louisiana, that came several months before elections.

The order was signed by Alito because he is the justice who handles emergency appeals from Texas.

Texas redrew its congressional map in the summer as part of Trump’s efforts to preserve a slim Republican majority in the House in next year’s elections, touching off a nationwide redistricting battle.

The new redistricting map was engineered to give Republicans five additional House seats, but a panel of federal judges in El Paso ruled 2-1 Tuesday that the civil rights groups that challenged the map on behalf of Black and Hispanic voters were likely to win their case.

If the ruling holds for now, Texas could be forced to hold elections next year using the map drawn by the GOP-controlled Legislature in 2021 based on the 2020 census.

Texas was the first state to meet Trump’s demands in what has become an expanding national battle over redistricting. Republicans drew the state’s new map to give the GOP five additional seats, and Missouri and North Carolina followed with new maps adding an additional Republican seat each. To counter those moves, California voters approved a ballot initiative to give Democrats an additional five seats.

The redrawn maps are facing court challenges in California, Missouri and North Carolina.

The Supreme Court is separately considering a case from Louisiana that could further limit race-based districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s not entirely clear how the current round of redistricting would be affected by the outcome in the Louisiana case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Supreme Court justice halts ruling throwing out Texas’ new House maps

Nov. 21 (UPI) — A U.S. Supreme Court justice on Friday night at least temporarily paused a lower court’s decision to throw out Texas’ new congressional map to potentially add five House seats for Republicans.

Justie Samuel Alito, chosen to decide on emergency appeals in the state, granted the request, writing it “is hereby administratively stayed” with a response to the application to be filed by 5 p.m. Monday.

So, this puts the block on hold until the full court decides.

Earlier Friday, state lawyers formally asked for an emergency stay to allow the map borders that were approved this summer by the legislature.

On Tuesday, a three-member panel in the U.S. District Court of Western Texas threw out the mapsin a 2-1 vote.

President Donald Trump had urged Texas to change the maps to favor Republicans.

After the state filed its appeal, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a news release: “Texas engaged in partisan redistricting solely to secure more Republican seats in Congress and thereby better represent our state and Texans. For years, Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered their states and only cry foul and hurl baseless ‘racism’ accusations because they are losing.”

He described the legislation signed by Gov. Greg Abbott in August as Texas’ “Big Beautiful Map.”

The state had asked the high court by Monday night to decide on pausing the lower court ruling.

The lower court’s decision caused “chaos” for the election, the state said.

“Campaigning had already begun, candidates had already gathered signatures and filed applications to appear on the ballot under the 2025 map, and early voting for the March 3, 2026, primary was only 91 days away,” Texas officials told the Supreme Court.

Those seeking to run for House seats must declare their candidacy by Dec. 8.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Brown, appointed by President Trump in his first term, and David Guaderrama, appointed by President Obama, threw out the maps.

Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith, nominated by President Ronald Reagan, dissented, writing: “In my 37 years on the federal bench, this is the most outrageous conduct by a judge that I have ever encountered in a case in which I have been involved.

“If, however, there were a Nobel prize for fiction, Judge Brown’s opinion would be a prime candidate.”

In the 107 pages, he mentioned billionaire George Soros, a donor for Democrats, 17 times.

Brown, writing the majority opinion, directed the state to correct four districts because they were illegal racial gerrymanders.

Brown focused on how the new map would affect the racial makeup of Texas’ congressional districts.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics,” Brown wrote. “To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 map.”

But Texas disagreed, saying: politics, not race, drove the new maps.

“This summer, the Texas Legislature did what legislatures do: politics,” the state told the high court.

Texas said the lower court ruling “erroneously rests on speculation and inferences of bad faith.” And it said the state GOP’s chief mapmaker worked with data on partisanship rather than race.

After the decision, Paxton wrote in a post on X that he would appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court. He added that he expects the Supreme Court to “uphold Texas’ sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

Republicans now hold 25 of Texas’ 38 House seats.

Missouri and North Carolina approved a new map that could create another Republican-leaning district in each state.

Unlike those Republican-dominant states, California voters approved the new map that potentially can add five Democratic seats. Proposition 50 was approved by a 64.4-35.6%. The breakdown now is 43 Democrats and nine Republicans.

Other states are considering changes.

The U.S. House party breakdown is 219 Republicans, 213 Democrats and three vacancies. On Thursday, Democrat Mikie Sherill resigned her seat because she was elected New Jersey’s governor earlier this month.

Source link

Another judge rejects ex-sheriff’s lawsuit over ‘do not rehire’ label

A state judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva that alleged the county defamed him, violated his rights and unfairly flagged his personnel file with a “do not rehire” tag.

In a 26-page order, Superior Court Judge Gary D. Roberts on Wednesday granted a request by the county to reject the lawsuit under California’s Anti-SLAPP law, writing that Villanueva’s claims lack “minimal merit.”

The case’s dismissal is “a major victory,” according to Jason Tokoro, an attorney for the county.

“We are pleased that the Court agreed with the County that former Sheriff Alex Villanueva’s claims are barred by California’s anti-SLAPP statute and had no merit,” he wrote in an emailed statement Thursday. “The County can now close this chapter.”

The decision marks the third time a court has dismissed Villanueva’s assertions that the county had treated him unfairly and caused him to suffer “humiliation, severe emotional distress, mental and physical pain and anguish, and compensatory damages.”

The complaint in Villanueva’s lawsuit filed in June said it was an “attempt to clear his name, vindicate his reputation, and be made whole for the emotional distress defendants’ actions have caused him.”

Villanueva previously tried to sue in federal court. In September 2024, a judge in the Central District of California rejected the former sheriff’s $25-million federal lawsuit over the allegations, then did so again in May after Villanueva refiled the case.

Villanueva did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. The Sheriff’s Department declined to comment.

The dispute began after Inspector General Max Hunstman claimed in 2022 that Villanueva engaged in a “racially based attack” by insisting on calling Huntsman by the name he was given at birth, Max-Gustaf. Villanueva also described Huntsman as a Holocaust denier, an allegation for which he did not provide any evidence and which the inspector general has denied.

The county investigated Huntsman’s allegation and slapped the former sheriff with the “do not rehire” label. Each year, a county panel recommends dozens of government employees be disciplined for a wide range of unethical behavior ranging from theft to privacy violations by adding “do not hire” or other restrictions to their personnel files.

In his state lawsuit, Villanueva argued it was unfair for him to be subject to a “do not hire” designation while multiple public officials who had engaged in illegal conduct avoided the tag. Villanueva has maintained that he never discriminated against or harassed anyone.

“The unprecedented decision by the Board to place Villanueva on a ‘Do Not Hire’ was the result of a defamatory charge of discrimination and harassment,” the former sheriff wrote in the June complaint.

Around the same time Huntsman made his allegation, Esther Lim, then-justice deputy for county Supervisor Hilda Solis, made a complaint alleging that Villanueva had a pattern of harassing women of color during livestreams on social media. The allegation also prompted an investigation and a “do not hire” tag, which Villanueva has disputed.

Source link

Border Patrol is monitoring U.S. drivers and detaining those with ‘suspicious’ travel patterns

The U.S. Border Patrol is monitoring millions of American drivers nationwide in a secretive program to identify and detain people whose travel patterns it deems suspicious, the Associated Press has found.

The predictive intelligence program has resulted in people being stopped, searched and in some cases arrested. A network of cameras scans and records vehicle license plate information, and an algorithm flags vehicles deemed suspicious based on where they came from, where they were going and which route they took. Federal agents in turn may then flag local law enforcement.

Suddenly, drivers find themselves pulled over — often for reasons cited such as speeding, failure to signal, the wrong window tint or even a dangling air freshener blocking the view. They are then aggressively questioned and searched, with no inkling that the roads they drove put them on law enforcement’s radar.

Once limited to policing the nation’s boundaries, the Border Patrol has built a surveillance system stretching into the country’s interior that can monitor ordinary Americans’ daily actions and connections for anomalies instead of simply targeting wanted suspects. Started about a decade ago to fight illegal border-related activities and the trafficking of drugs and people, it has expanded over the last five years.

The Border Patrol has recently grown even more powerful through collaborations with other agencies, drawing information from license plate readers nationwide run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, private companies and, increasingly, local law enforcement programs funded through federal grants. Texas law enforcement agencies have asked Border Patrol to use facial recognition to identify drivers, documents show.

This active role beyond the borders is part of the quiet transformation of its parent agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, into something more akin to a domestic intelligence operation. Under the Trump administration’s heightened immigration enforcement efforts, CBP is now poised to get more than $2.7 billion to build out border surveillance systems such as the license plate reader program by layering in artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies.

The result is a mass surveillance network with a particularly American focus: cars.

This investigation, the first to reveal details of how the program works on America’s roads, is based on interviews with eight former government officials with direct knowledge of the program who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to speak to the media, as well as dozens of federal, state and local officials, attorneys and privacy experts. The AP also reviewed thousands of pages of court and government documents, state grant and law enforcement data, and arrest reports.

The Border Patrol has for years hidden details of its license plate reader program, trying to keep any mention of the program out of court documents and police reports, former officials say, even going so far as to propose dropping charges rather than risk revealing any details about the placement and use of their covert license plate readers. Readers are often disguised along highways in traffic safety equipment like drums and barrels.

The Border Patrol has defined its own criteria for which drivers’ behavior should be deemed suspicious or tied to drug or human trafficking, stopping people for anything from driving on backcountry roads, being in a rental car or making short trips to the border region. The agency’s network of cameras now extends along the southern border in Texas, Arizona and California, and also monitors drivers traveling near the U.S.-Canada border.

And it reaches far into the interior, affecting residents of big metropolitan areas and people driving to and from large cities such as Chicago and Detroit, as well as from Los Angeles, San Antonio and Houston to and from the Mexican border region. In one example, AP found the agency has placed at least four cameras in the greater Phoenix area over the years, one of which was more than 120 miles from the Mexican frontier, beyond the agency’s usual jurisdiction of 100 miles from a land or sea border. The AP also identified several camera locations in metropolitan Detroit, as well as one placed near the Michigan-Indiana border to capture traffic headed toward Chicago or Gary, Ind., or other nearby destinations.

Border Patrol’s parent agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, said it uses license plate readers to help identify threats and disrupt criminal networks and are “governed by a stringent, multi-layered policy framework, as well as federal law and constitutional protections, to ensure the technology is applied responsibly and for clearly defined security purposes.”

“For national security reasons, we do not detail the specific operational applications,” the agency said. While the U.S. Border Patrol primarily operates within 100 miles of the border, it is legally allowed “to operate anywhere in the United States,” the agency added.

While collecting license plates from cars on public roads has generally been upheld by courts, some legal scholars see the growth of large digital surveillance networks such as Border Patrol’s as raising constitutional questions. Courts have started to recognize that “large-scale surveillance technology that’s capturing everyone and everywhere at every time” might be unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment, which protects people from unreasonable searches, said Andrew Ferguson, a law professor at George Washington University.

Today, predictive surveillance is embedded into America’s roadways. Mass surveillance techniques are also used in other countries, including authoritarian governments such as China and, increasingly, democracies in the United Kingdom and Europe in the name of national security and public safety.

“They are collecting mass amounts of information about who people are, where they go, what they do, and who they know … engaging in dragnet surveillance of Americans on the streets, on the highways, in their cities, in their communities,” Nicole Ozer, the executive director of the Center for Constitutional Democracy at UC Law San Francisco, said in response to the AP’s findings. “These surveillance systems do not make communities safer.”

‘We did everything right and had nothing to hide’

In February, Lorenzo Gutierrez Lugo, a driver for a small trucking company that specializes in transporting furniture, clothing and other belongings to families in Mexico, was driving south to the border city of Brownsville, Texas, carrying packages from immigrant communities in South Carolina’s low country.

Gutierrez Lugo was pulled over by a local police officer in Kingsville, a small Texas city near Corpus Christi that lies about 100 miles from the Mexico border. The officer, Richard Beltran, cited the truck’s speed of 50 mph in a 45 mph zone as the reason for the stop.

But speeding was a pretext: Border Patrol had requested the stop and said the black Dodge pickup with a white trailer could contain contraband, according to police and court records. U.S. Route 77 passes through Kingsville, a route that state and federal authorities scrutinize for trafficking of drugs, money and people.

Gutierrez Lugo, who through a lawyer declined to comment, was interrogated about the route he drove, based on license plate reader data, per the police report and court records. He consented to a search of his car by Beltran and Border Patrol agents, who eventually arrived to assist.

They unearthed no contraband. But Beltran arrested Gutierrez Lugo on suspicion of money laundering and engaging in organized criminal activity because he was carrying thousands of dollars in cash — money his supervisor said came directly from customers in local Latino communities, who are accustomed to paying in cash. No criminal charges were brought against Gutierrez Lugo and an effort by prosecutors to seize the cash, vehicle and trailer as contraband was eventually dropped.

Luis Barrios owns the trucking company, Paquetería El Guero, that employed the driver. He told AP he hires people with work authorization in the United States and was taken aback by the treatment of his employee and his trailer.

“We did everything right and had nothing to hide, and that was ultimately what they found,” said Barrios, who estimates he spent $20,000 in legal fees to clear his driver’s name and get the trailer out of impound.

Border Patrol agents and local police have many names for these kinds of stops: “whisper,” “intel” or “wall” stops. Those stops are meant to conceal — or wall off — that the true reason for the stop is a tip from federal agents sitting miles away, watching data feeds showing who’s traveling on America’s roads and predicting who is “suspicious,” according to documents and people interviewed by the AP.

In 2022, a man from Houston had his car searched from top to bottom by Texas sheriff’s deputies outside San Antonio after they got a similar tipoff from Border Patrol agents about the driver, Alek Schott.

Federal agents observed that Schott had made an overnight trip from Houston to Carrizo Springs, Texas, and back, court records show. They knew he stayed overnight in a hotel about 80 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border.

At Border Patrol’s request, Schott was pulled over by Bexar County sheriff’s deputies. The deputies held Schott by the side of the road for more than an hour, searched his car and found nothing.

“The beautiful thing about the Texas Traffic Code is there’s thousands of things you can stop a vehicle for,” said Joel Babb, the sheriff’s deputy who stopped Schott’s car, in a deposition in a lawsuit Schott has filed alleging violations of his constitutional rights.

According to testimony and documents released as part of Schott’s lawsuit, Babb was on a group chat with federal agents called Northwest Highway. Babb deleted the WhatsApp chat off his phone but Schott’s lawyers were able to recover some of the text messages.

Through a public records act request, the AP also obtained more than 70 pages of the Northwest Highway group chats from June and July of this year from a Texas county that had at least one sheriff’s deputy active in the chat.

The chat logs show Border Patrol agents and Texas sheriff’s deputies trading tips about vehicles’ travel patterns — based on suspicions about little more than someone taking a quick trip to the border region and back.

In Schott’s case, Babb testified that federal agents “actually watch travel patterns on the highway” through license plate scans and other surveillance technologies. He added: “I just know that they have a lot of toys over there on the federal side.”

After finding nothing in Schott’s car, Babb said: “Nine times out of 10, this is what happens” — a phrase Schott’s lawyers claimed in court filings shows the sheriff’s department finds nothing suspicious in most of its searches.

Babb did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The Bexar County sheriff’s office referred questions about the case to the county’s district attorney, who did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is pending in federal court in Texas. In an interview, Schott: said: “I didn’t know it was illegal to drive in Texas.”

Tau and Burke write for the Associated Press. Tau reported from Washington, Laredo, San Antonio, Kingsville and Victoria, Texas. Burke reported from San Francisco.

Source link

LeBron James’ Lakers return shows he can fit in. Will it continue?

While the game didn’t provide any definitive answers about what LeBron James will do in his record-breaking 23rd season, it offered promising signs about what he won’t do.

He won’t disrupt what the Lakers are doing.

James indirectly said that leading up to his season debut on Tuesday and he indirectly said that again after.

The point was made most emphatically by how he played in the 140-126 victory over the Utah Jazz at Crypto.com Arena.

In the 30 minutes he played, James shot the ball only seven times, less than any other Lakers starter.

He didn’t have problems with Luka Doncic and Austin Reaves remaining the team’s primary options.

He didn’t mind picking his spots.

He didn’t mind spending most of the game as a peripheral figure on the court.

“Just thought he played with the right spirit,” coach JJ Redick said. “Very unselfish all night. Willing passer. Didn’t force it. Took his drive and his shots when they were there.”

The 40-year-old James acknowledged that his conditioning remained a problem — “Wind was low,” he said — but he played so much within himself that he never looked visibly fatigued.

This is what the Lakers needed from James on Tuesday, as it allowed them to build on the 10-4 record they compiled in the games he missed because of sciatica. And this could be the kind of mindset the Lakers will need James to adopt for the remainder of the season, especially if Doncic and Reaves continue to score at their current rates.

“I don’t have to worry about [chemistry],” James said.

James sounded offended by questions implying he could have trouble fitting in with the team.

“I don’t even understand why that was a question,” he said.

Concerns over his ability to meld with his particular team were never based on his basketball IQ or skillset but instead how open he would be to accepting a reduced role.

This is a player who was the centerpiece of every team on which he’d ever played. This is also a player who craves attention and is notoriously passive aggressive.

In retrospect, suggesting that James couldn’t adapt to a new role might have sold him short. Whatever he’s said off the court, he’s usually made the right decisions on them.

“There’s not one team, not one club, in the world that I cannot fit in and play for,” James said the day before his return. “I can do everything on the floor. So whatever this team needs me to do, I can do it when I’m back to myself.”

Or even before that.

James scored only 11 points against the Jazz, but he still had his moments.

Starting in the final second of the third quarter, James assisted on seven of the next eight Lakers baskets, a four-minute-30-second stretch over which the team extended its lead from eight to 17.

From the left wing, James found Gabe Vincent in the opposite corner for an open three.

Double-teamed at the top of the key, James dropped a bounce pass to Jaxson Hayes, who soared for an open dunk.

James flipped a couple of no-look passes to Deandre Ayton and delivered a backdoor assist from the post to Jake LaRavia.

James finished with a game-high 12 assists.

“Good player,” Reaves said.

Describing his frustration over not playing the previous 14 games, James said he was grateful to just be playing.

“A lot of joy,” he said. “You probably saw me smiling and talking a lot on the court today.”

But he also sounded as if he wanted to prove something.

“I said it, was it yesterday’s practice, post practice?” James said. “I can fit in with anybody.”

Carefully watching his teammates in the games that he missed, James said he pictured where he could position himself and how he could contribute.

James will average more than 11 points this season. He’s still too good to not. But the Lakers almost certainly won’t need him to average 24 points as he did last season. How open he is to that could determine if they are just a playoff team or a legitimate contender.

The start was optimistic.

Source link