court

HOUSTON — The combination of Luka Doncic and LeBron James was overpowering and enthralling for all to see during the Lakers’ dynamic 124-116 win over the Houston Rockets at Toyota Center on Wednesday.

Doncic was masterful with his near triple-double of 40 points, 10 assists and nine rebounds.

“I thought he definitely put on a clinic down the stretch,” Lakers coach JJ Redick said. “Whether it was in isolation, versus fires in isolations, versus the shock with (Alperen) Segun, he just got us good offense whether for himself or for his teammates every single time down the floor….We moved the basketball, so that kind of got us going and then when Luka came back in he was just fantastic.”

James was a force with 30 points, five rebounds and two assists.

He was super efficient, missing just one of his 14 shots and making both of his three-pointers.

“Look, he was awesome tonight and I think two, part of the evolution of him on this team has been, particularly in this stretch, it’s just been his patience,” Redick said. “His patience, knowing he’s going to get the ball and he’s going to have transition opportunities and he’s going to have plays called for him and he’s going to play off-ball and get a corner three…He was great.”

The tremendous play of Doncic and James is why the Lakers extended their winning streak to seven straight games and helped them take the three-game series over the Rockets, 2-1, winning both games here, one on Monday night.

And because Doncic and James were clutch down the stretch when the Lakers leaned on them to be clutch, they are the third-place team in the rugged Western Conference, holding a 1-½ lead over the Minnesota Timberwolves.

“You know, when you win, everything is easier,” Doncic said. “Winning is fun. So, just the way we play, I think it’s a lot of fun. And that’s what we just do, we win, have a good time.”

Doncic had 10 points and three assists in the fourth quarter.

But the beauty of the night was when Doncic threw a no-look lob pass to James for a dunk and then when Doncic drilled a three-pointer with 58.4 seconds left for a 120-111 Lakers lead.

Doncic yelled at the crowd and ran down court shaking his head. When the Rockets called a time out, the Lakers bench all ran over to Doncic, hugging him, slapping him and James nudging him for a job very well done.

Doncic was asked what the fan said to set him off.

“I don’t know, some guy. Some guy was talking crazy,” Doncic said. “Showed me his… I don’t know. Nevermind.”

Doncic speaks several languages, including English and his native Slovenian.

He was asked what language he spoke when talking to the fan.

“Off the camera, it was in English,” he said. “I made sure he understand.”

Luka Doncic celebrates after making a three-pointer against the Houston Rockets in the first half.

(David J. Phillip / Associated Press)

James had a steal in the first quarter and then threw down a dunk with Alperen Segen chasing him, leading to James to stare at Segun as he ran back down court, drawing cheers from the fans in awe at witnessing the 23-year veteran still making highlight plays at 41.

Early in the second quarter, James gave the fans even more to cheer about, catching a high lob pass from Marcus Smart and throwing down a one-handed dunk to oohs and aahs.

James wasn’t done, taking a pass from Jake LaRavia and throwing down another dunk later in the second quarter that brought the crowd out of its seats. That play gave the Lakers a 13-point lead.

James was at it again with a tip dunk off a Deandre Ayton missed shot late in the second quarter.

By the end of the first half, James had made all eight of his shots and scored 18 points in carrying the Lakers to a 12-point lead after the first 24 minutes of the game.

“Right now, I feel like….” James said after the game. ‘’Right now. But in the game I felt pretty good. Before the game I didn’t feel that great. I mean, I was yawning and tired and telling myself I was literally, just like talking to myself like, ‘Come on, here we go. Let’s figure it out. Let’s get through it.’ But I felt pretty good in the game and like I said I’m happy to make a few plays to help our team win.”

In many ways, it was easy to understand why he felt that way. He had just played in his 1,610th career NBA game, leaving him one shy of the all-time record held by Robert Parish (1,611).

So, James was asked, where did he find the energy to play 34 minutes and six seconds in such a high-level and intense game.

“I mean, if I’m in uniform I got to try to see what I can give,” James said. “And that’s where it stems from.”

The US defence secretary designated the AI company a ‘supply chain risk’ after it refused to remove guardrails on its technology.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has said in a court filing that the Pentagon’s blacklisting of Anthropic was justified and lawful, opposing the artificial intelligence company’s high-stakes lawsuit challenging the decision.

The administration made its comments in a court filing on Tuesday.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the maker of popular AI assistant Claude, a national security supply chain risk on March 3 after the company refused to remove guardrails against its technology being used for autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance.

The Trump administration’s filing says Anthropic is unlikely to succeed in its claims that the US government’s action violated speech protections under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, asserting that the dispute stems from contract negotiations and national security concerns, not retaliation.

“It was only when Anthropic refused to release the restrictions on the use of its products — which refusal is conduct, not protected speech — that the President directed all federal agencies to terminate their business relationships with Anthropic,” the administration’s legal filing said. The filing, from the US Justice Department, said that “no one has purported to restrict Anthropic’s expressive activity”.

Anthropic’s lawsuit in California federal court asks a judge to block the Pentagon’s decision while the case plays out. Some legal experts say the company appears to have a strong case that the government overreached.

In a statement, Anthropic said it was reviewing the government’s filing. The company said that “seeking judicial review does not change our longstanding commitment to harnessing AI to protect our national security, but this is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Supply chain risk

Trump has backed Hegseth’s move, which excludes Anthropic from a limited set of military contracts. But it could damage the company’s reputation and cause billions of dollars in losses this year, according to its executives.

The designation came after months of negotiations between the Pentagon and Anthropic reached an impasse, prompting Trump and Hegseth to denounce the company and accuse it of endangering American lives with its use restrictions.

Anthropic has disputed those claims and said AI is not yet safe enough to be used in autonomous weapons. The company said it opposes domestic surveillance as a matter of principle.

In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic said that the “unprecedented and unlawful” designation violated its free speech and due process rights, while running afoul of a law requiring federal agencies to follow specific procedures when making decisions.

The Pentagon separately designated Anthropic a supply chain risk under a different law that could expand the order to the entire government.

Anthropic is challenging that move in a second lawsuit in a Washington, DC, appeals court.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that had been extended in the past to migrants who live and work in the United States.

At issue are legal protections for about 6,000 Syrians and up to 350,000 Haitians.

The court’s announcement signals the justices want to resolve this issue in a written opinion rather through emergency appeals.

Twice last year, the court’s conservatives set aside decisions from judges in San Francisco who said President Trump’s Homeland Security secretary had overstepped her authority.

Those cases involved the temporary protection status extended to about 600,000 Venezuelans.

But those decisions did not set clear precedents, and in recent weeks, judges in New York and Washington, D.C., blocked the administration’s plan to end the special protections for Haitians and Syrians.

Frustrated by what he labeled “indefensible” decisions, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer advised the court to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the issue.

The justices on Monday agreed to just that. Arguments will be heard in April, and a decision will be handed down by July.

Immigrant-rights advocates argued the repeal of the special protection would be cruel and unjust to migrants who have established lives and careers in this country.

In 1990, Congress authorized giving temporary shelter to non-citizens from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent them from returning there.

In 2012, the Homeland Security secretary extended this protection to Syrians in response to a “brutal crackdown” engineered by its then-President Bashar al-Assad.

Last year, citing Assad’s fall from power, Trump’s Secretary Kristi Noem proposed to cancel the temporary protection for Syrians. Lawyers for the Syrians questioned how this could be seen as an emergency requiring an immediate ruling.

They said about 6,100 Syrians who have lived here lawfully for years.

They are “highly sought-after doctors and medical professionals, reporters, students, teachers, business owners, caretakers, and others who have been repeatedly vetted and by definition have virtually no criminal history. The government apparently needs urgent authority to send them to a country in the middle of an active war,” the lawyers said.

In 2010, the Obama administration extended the protection to Haiti after an earthquake caused death and damage in Port-au-Prince, the capital.

Judges in New York and Washington blocked those repeals and said the high court had given “no explanation” for its decision upholding the repeal for Venezuelans.

Those judges said the Supreme Court’s earlier orders orders “involved a TPS designation of a different country, with different factual circumstances, and different grounds for resolution by the district court.”

Sauer pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that says judges have no authority to second-guess the government’s decision to end it.

“There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection,” the law says.

In the three weeks since Trump’s attorney filed his emergency appeal, there have been two significant changes since then.

Trump fired Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. And his war launched against Iran threatens countries throughout the Mideast, including Syria.

In agreeing to hear the pair of cases, the justices did not disturb the lower court rulings that blocked the repeals for now.

LONDON — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it.

The British national broadcaster said that the Florida court where the case is expected to be heard does not have jurisdiction over it. It also argued that Trump could not show that it intended to misrepresent him.

Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.

Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.

The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.

“We have therefore challenged jurisdiction of the Florida court and filed a motion to dismiss the president’s claim,” the corporation said in a statement.

In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”

Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it added.

The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.

Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.

Stating that she fears for her life, Sparks forward Rickea Jackson has filed a petition for protection against her ex-boyfriend, Atlanta Falcons edge rusher James Pearce Jr.

Miami-Dade (Fla.) County Judge Heloiza Correa granted Jackson’s initial request for protection Feb. 9, and a permanent injunction hearing is set for April 21. Pearce is under order not to have contact with Jackson or come within 500 feet of her home or place of employment.

“James has threatened to kill me, James has threatened to harm me, James has threatened to injure me, James has threatened to place a bag over my head, and James has verbally and physically abused me on more than one occasion,” Jackson wrote in her statement to the court.

Jackson, 24, also filed notice with the court that she is willing to testify against Pearce. Her original petition for injunction for protection against dating violence — essentially a restraining order — was filed two days after Pearce’s arrest Feb. 7 for allegedly ramming his Lamborghini SUV into her car more than once, and doing the same to a police car in Doral, Fla.

Pearce, 22, faces felony charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, aggravated stalking, aggravated battery and fleeing from a police officer. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of resisting an officer and nine traffic violations.

“Mr. Pearce maintains his innocence and urges the public to understand that while allegations have the power to shape a narrative, that it is hardly the full, complete story,” Pearce’s attorney, Jacob Nunez, told AP shortly after the arrest. “We look forward to vigorously defending our client.”

In a court filing, Jackson said that she broke up with Pearce weeks before the incident that led to his arrest. She said Pearce offered her $200,000 to remain in a relationship with him and that his behavior toward her became increasingly alarming. According to ESPN, at least seven other 911 calls to police ⁠in the months before the Feb. 7 incident reported Pearce to be stalking or harassing an unnamed girlfriend.

A police report says the relationship between Jackson and Pearce began three years ago when both were star athletes at Tennessee.

Pearce was taken by the Falcons in the first round of the 2025 draft with a pick acquired from the Rams. The 6-foot-5, 243-pound edge rusher finished third for AP Defensive Rookie of the Year after recording 10.5 sacks.

Jackson was a first-round pick of the Sparks in 2024. The 6-2 forward emerged as a star in her second season, picking up MVP votes after averaging 14.7 points, 3.2 rebounds and 1.7 assists.

“She’s a smooth person, smooth athlete, smooth basketball player,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said in 2025. “She makes hard things look really easy … she makes things look effortless, and I know they’re not.”

The relationship between Jackson and Pearce became volatile in January when the Falcons star admitted in a police report obtained by ESPN that he thought Jackson was cheating on him.

The Feb. 7 incident was described in Jackson’s court filing and a police report. Jackson was attempting to get away from Pearce, who followed her in his car, tried to open her car door at a stop and slammed into her car more than once while she tried to enter the Doral Police Department parking lot “because I knew James was going to hurt me,” Jackson said.

An officer pulled a gun on Pearce and ordered him to get on the ground. However, Pearce jumped back into his car. The officer attempted to open the door, but Pearce shut it and drove away, his car clipping an officer’s left knee.

Police gave chase and Pearce crashed at an intersection before fleeing on foot. Officers said that they caught up with him and he resisted arrest. He was released after posting a $20,500 bond.

Irish rapper Liam O’Hanna welcomes ruling in case he says was ‘never about any threat to the public, never about terrorism’.

British prosecutors have lost an appeal seeking to reinstate a “terrorism” charge against a member of Irish rap group Kneecap accused of waving a Hezbollah flag during a gig in London.

London’s High Court on Wednesday rejected prosecutors’ attempts to challenge a lower court’s decision to throw out the case against Liam O’Hanna in September due to a technical error.

The decision means the case will not proceed. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said the High Court had “clarified how the law applies” to such cases and that it accepted “the judgement and will update our processes accordingly”.

O’Hanna – also known as Liam Og O hAnnaid (his name in Gaeilge, the Irish language) and by the stage name Mo Chara (“My Friend”) – was charged in May of last year with displaying a Hezbollah flag during a November 2024 concert in London, in violation of the United Kingdom’s 2000 Terrorism Act.

Kneecap’s members –  who rap in Gaeilge and English and have been outspoken in their condemnation of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip – have called the attempted prosecution a “British state witch-hunt”.

O’Hanna welcomed the ruling on Wednesday, saying during a news conference in Belfast that the case was “never about me, never about any threat to the public and never about terrorism”.

“It was always about Palestine, about what happens if you dare to speak up, about what happens if you can reach large groups of people and expose their hypocrisy, about the lengths Britain will go to cover up Israeli and US war crimes,” he said.

Cheered by supporters at the event, O’Hanna was joined by Kneecap bandmates JJ O Dochartaigh and Naoise O Caireallain – better known by their respective stage names, DJ Provai and Moglai Bap.

“Your own High Court ruled against you,” O’Hanna added, addressing the UK government.

“The pathetic thing about this whole process is that you falsely tried to label me a terrorist when it is the British government ministers that are arming and assisting a genocide in Gaza, the destruction of Lebanon, and the senseless slaughter of schoolkids in Iran.”

INDIAN WELLS — Jessica Pegula never needed tennis.

She simply kept showing up for it anyway, through the long and often anonymous slog of the professional tour.

Now 32 and the oldest player in the top 10, Pegula is having her best season start yet.

The fifth-ranked American reached the Australian Open semifinals for the first time in January, falling to eventual champion Elena Rybakina. She followed that by capturing the Dubai 1000-level tournament, just a rung below the majors.

She is 15-2 so far in 2026, tied with Victoria Mboko in match wins and second only to Ukraine’s Elina Svitolina (17-3), who she defeated 6-2, 6-4 in the Dubai final.

Pegula is guaranteed to emerge from this week’s BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells as the top-ranked American, overtaking No. 4 Coco Gauff, if she reaches the final.

Jessica Pegula kisses the Dubai trophy after defeating Elina Svitolina in the finals on Feb. 21.

(Altaf Qadri / Associated Press)

First, she will have to get past No. 12-seed Belinda Bencic of Switzerland, her fourth-round opponent on Wednesday. Bencic has not dropped a set in four previous meetings with Pegula.

“That will be a challenge for me,” said the characteristically even-keeled Pegula after defeating former French Open champion Jelena Ostapenko in the third round on Monday.

A late bloomer, Pegula has taken the long road.

She failed to qualify for Grand Slam main draws in 12 of 14 attempts from 2011 to 2018, and didn’t reach the third round at a major until the 2020 U.S. Open at age 26. All three of her Grand Slam semifinal runs — along with her 2024 U.S. Open final — have come after she turned 30.

Pegula said this week that her patience and persistence stem from “always being a little more mature for my age even when I was younger.”

“I think as I’ve gotten older, your perspective changes as well,” she added.

Pegula, whose parents are principal owners of the NFL’s Buffalo Bills and the NHL’s Buffalo Sabres, acknowledges that her wealthy family background can cut two ways.

Financial security offers freedom to push through the sport’s early years on tour, when results are uncertain and the grind is relentless. That same cushion might make it easier to walk away if the climb becomes too frustrating.

Jessica Pegula plays a backhand against Donna Vekic during their match at the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells.

(Clive Brunskill / Getty Images)

Pegula says her motivation to pursue tennis came well before her family’s fortune grew.

“I’ve been wanting to be a professional tennis player and No. 1 in the world since I was like 7,” she said in a small interview room after beating Ostapenko this week.

“It’s a privilege, but at the same time I don’t want to do myself a disservice of not taking the opportunity as well,” she explained. “I’ve always looked at it that way.”

In the last few seasons, that maturity on the court has dovetailed with a growing leadership role off it.

Pegula has served for years on the WTA Player Council and was recently tapped to chair the tour’s new Tour Architecture Council, a working group tasked with examining the increasingly demanding schedule and structural pressures players say have intensified in recent seasons. The panel is expected to explore changes that could reshape the calendar and player workload in coming years.

Pegula said she hadn’t put up her hand to be involved but agreed after several players approached her to take the lead role — though she declined to say who they were.

“I think maybe as you mature … you realize how important it is to give back to the sport,” she said last week.

Life has also provided grounding and a wider lens.

Pegula’s mother, Kim, suffered a serious cardiac arrest in 2022, a situation she discussed in detail in a moving 2023 essay for “The Players’ Tribune.”

The Buffalo native and Florida resident also married businessman Taylor Gahagen in 2021. Gahagen helps “holds down the fort” at home with the couple’s dogs and travels with her when possible. He is with her in Indian Wells.

“I have an amazing support system,” Pegula says.

Despite winning 10 WTA singles titles, achieving a career singles high of No. 3 in 2022 and the No. 1 doubles ranking, Pegula’s low-key demeanor means she flies a bit under the radar.

She’s not one for fashion statements, outlandish antics or attention-seeking initiatives, her joint podcast with close friend Madison Keys notwithstanding.

Instead, Pegula tends to go about her business quietly, relying on a calm temperament and a methodical style that wears opponents down over time.

She gets the job done — the Tim Duncan of the women’s tour.

“She’s just all about lacing them up and competing between the lines, and then trying to be as big an asset as she can to her peers off the court,” says Mark Knowles, the former doubles standout who has shared coaching duties with Mark Merklein since early 2024.

“I think one of her great attributes is she’s very level-headed,” Knowles adds. “She doesn’t get too high, doesn’t get too low.”

Her tennis identity echoes her steadiness.

Instead of bludgeoning opponents with power, the 5-foot-7 Pegula beats them with savvy, steadiness and tactical variety. A careful student of the game, she studies matchups and patrols the court with a composed efficiency that incrementally drains big hitters and outmaneuvers most rivals long before the final score confirms it.

Keys calls that consistency her “superpower.”

“She doesn’t lose matches that she shouldn’t lose,” the 2025 Australian Open champion said this week.

Because of injuries in the early part of her career, Knowles says Pegula might have less wear-and-tear than other players her age. And he and her team have prioritized rest and recovery, which included the decision to skip the tournament in Doha last month following her tiring Australian Open run.

On brand, there was no panic in Pegula after dropping the first set in her two matches so far at Indian Wells. As she’s done all season, she steadied herself to earn three-set wins.

Bucket-list goals remain, however. Chiefly, capturing a Grand Slam title.

Jessica Pegula returns a shot to Jelena Ostapenko during the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells on Monday.

(Matthew Stockman / Getty Images)

Pegula jokes that she briefly interrupted a run of American female success when she fell in the 2024 U.S. Open final to No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka. But seeing close friend and teenage phenom Keys capture her major in Melbourne last year — after many wondered if her window had passed — hit closer to home.

“I think Madison winning Australia just motivated me even more,” Pegula says.

Although Pegula believes she is among the best hardcourt players in women’s tennis, that confidence hasn’t translated into success in the California desert. She has reached the quarterfinals just once in 10 previous appearances in Indian Wells.

“Why not try and add that one to the resume?” says Knowles, noting that she had never won the title in Dubai until last month. “She’s playing still at a very high level.”

Pegula says the key to keeping things fresh is maintaining her love of the game by continuing to improve and experiment with new ideas, a process that keeps her engaged mentally and eager to compete.

“I’m not afraid to kind of take that risk of changing and working on different things,” she says, “which just keeps my mind working and problem solving.”

For a player who never needed tennis, she remains determined to see how much more it can give her.

March 6 (Asia Today) — A South Korean court has suspended a disciplinary penalty against lawmaker Bae Hyun-jin, intensifying internal criticism of People Power Party leader Jang Dong-hyuk and prompting calls for accountability within the main opposition party.

The court granted Bae’s request for an injunction blocking the party’s decision to suspend her membership rights for one year. The ruling effectively halted the punishment while the broader legal dispute proceeds.

The decision has fueled criticism of Jang’s leadership and sparked demands for the resignation of Yoon Min-woo, head of the party’s ethics committee that imposed the discipline.

Speaking on SBS radio Thursday, Bae sharply criticized the party leadership.

“Even if he had ten mouths, he would have nothing to say,” she said of Jang, accusing him of using the ethics committee to purge members who do not align with his political stance.

She also called on the party leader to apologize to members and the public.

Former party leader Han Dong-hoon also criticized the leadership in a Facebook post, saying the court ruling suggested the disciplinary move had raised constitutional concerns.

Han accused the leadership faction supporting former President Yoon Suk Yeol of remaining silent after the court decision and criticized what he described as attempts to shift responsibility to the ethics committee leadership.

Rep. Park Jeong-hoon, another party lawmaker, also condemned the move in a social media post, arguing that using the ethics committee to target political rivals had pushed the party toward what he called a constitutional crisis.

Rep. Cho Eun-hee, a member of a younger lawmakers’ group within the party called Alternative and Future, urged ethics committee chair Yoon to step down, saying the case showed the committee had operated in an arbitrary and biased manner.

Jang has not publicly commented on the court decision.

Party chief spokesperson Park Sung-hoon told reporters that Jang is currently focused on economic issues and preparations for upcoming local elections and has no plans to address the matter.

He also said the party is not considering additional legal action related to the court ruling.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260306010001731

The saga of “A Court of Thorns and Roses” will continue.

Author Sarah J. Maas announced on Alex Cooper’s “Call Her Daddy” podcast Wednesday that two new books will be released in the hugely popular romantasy series, ending a five-year drought since the fifth installment, “A Court of Silver Flames.” The sixth book will be published on Oct. 27, 2026, and the seventh on Jan. 12, 2027.

“It took me a while to find the right story and to be in the right headspace. And then, like what poured out of me was this and it poured out very quickly,” the author told Cooper. “The story that was finally ready to come out of me was big. Really, really big.”

Maas first teased the sixth book on Instagram in July, with the caption “First drafts DONE” on a video that drew nearly a million likes.

Maas did not share details about the book titles, cover art or whose point of view the stories will follow, but did mention that the character’s perspective was “one of the surprising things” for her while writing.

On Instagram, Maas thanked her fans for their patience, passion and “never letting the world fade.”

“I know how long you’ve waited. I know how much these characters mean to you. And I also know these stories deserve more than speed and deadlines. They deserve my best self. They deserve the right moment,” Maas wrote. “I’m so honored by the way you guys have always embraced Prythian as your own. I truly hope it feels like coming home for you like it did for me.”

The first installment of the “A Court of Thorns and Roses” series was released in 2015, but the franchise gained popularity on BookTok — a TikTok subcommunity dedicated to literature — during the COVID-19 pandemic. The books follow Feyre Archeron in the faerie lands of Prythian and her love story with the High Lord of the Night Court, Rhysand.

Maas has sold more than 70 million English copies between her interconnected “Throne of Glass,” “A Court of Thorns and Roses” and “Crescent City” series, according to her website. Maas is a major player in the romantasy — a portmanteau of romance and fantasy — genre, which has soared in popularity on TikTok.

“This is going to sound silly, and you probably won’t believe me, but just talking about things like legacy is beyond for me,” Maas told Cooper. “I’m still very much that girl in middle school or high school sneaking off to watch anime or drool over Legolas and getting to go play in these worlds in my head and do the thing that makes me come alive every day, that’s incredible.”

March 4 (Asia Today) — In U.S. history, only one president served four terms: Franklin D. Roosevelt. Facing the unprecedented economic crisis of the Great Depression, Roosevelt pushed forward sweeping New Deal legislation to revive the economy. With Congress controlled by his Democratic Party, the political environment initially seemed favorable.

However, Roosevelt’s New Deal soon faced a major obstacle: opposition from the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court. Several core New Deal laws were struck down as unconstitutional.

After winning re-election in 1936 with 61% of the vote, Roosevelt proposed a plan to expand the Supreme Court. Under the proposal, the president could appoint additional justices if sitting justices over the age of 70 years and six months did not retire. Because six justices were already over that age, the court could have expanded from nine members to as many as fifteen.

The proposal became known as “court packing” – an attempt to add justices favorable to the administration.

Opposition emerged from unexpected quarters. Not only Republicans but also members of Roosevelt’s own Democratic Party objected. Even Vice President John Nance Garner opposed the plan, warning it could create a dangerous precedent by allowing a president to reshape the judiciary for political purposes.

The proposal was ultimately withdrawn without a vote.

Another leader who reshaped the judiciary was Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. After taking power, Chávez expanded the number of Supreme Court justices and appointed individuals loyal to his government. Once the executive branch gained control over the judiciary, the court largely lost its ability to check the administration.

The consequences were severe. Venezuela’s political system deteriorated, and the power structure Chávez built has remained firmly in place under his successor, Nicolás Maduro.

In South Korea, a revision to the Court Organization Act aimed at expanding the number of Supreme Court justices passed the National Assembly on Feb. 28 with 173 votes in favor, 73 against and one abstention. The legislation now awaits promulgation by the president.

If enacted, the number of Supreme Court justices will increase from 14 to 26. President Lee Jae-myung would have the authority to appoint not only the 12 newly added justices but also replacements for 10 justices whose terms are set to expire, including Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae. In total, the president could appoint 22 of the court’s 26 justices during his term.

Expanding the number of justices is not simply a matter of increasing seats.

In Venezuela, Chávez filled the court with allies and during his tenure the Supreme Court issued virtually no rulings against the government. The judiciary effectively lost its role as an independent check on executive power.

Even Roosevelt – widely admired in American history – saw his attempt to expand the Supreme Court become one of the most controversial episodes of his presidency.

History offers clear lessons about the consequences of governments attempting to dominate the judiciary. Once the independence of the courts is compromised and the balance of powers between branches of government is weakened, any leader risks being viewed as moving toward authoritarian rule.

— Kim Chae-yeon, Asia Today

The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the publication.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

WASHINGTON, March 4 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday considered whether the brokers who connect shippers with trucking companies can be held liable for irresponsible drivers.

The case, Montgomery vs. Caribe Transport II LLC, stems from a 2017 incident in which Shawn Montgomery, the petitioner, suffered significant injuries after a tractor-trailer hit his parked truck on the side of an Illinois highway.

A key part of the case is the interpretation of part of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994. It prevents state laws “related to a price, route or service” of trucking companies or brokers that connect them to shippers.

However, the statute also provides an exception, stating that it will “not restrict the safety regulatory authority of a state with respect to motor vehicles.”

The outcome could redefine liability standards for freight brokers and impact the broader transportation industry and interstate commerce landscape.

The driver of the tractor-trailer, Yosniel Varela-Mojena, had been involved in a crash months earlier, but was still employed by Caribe Transport II, an interstate trucking company. Freight broker C.H. Robinson recruited Caribe II to deliver a cross-country shipment. After the crash, Montgomery sued the broker for negligent hiring under Illinois state laws.

During the arguments, the two sides disagreed about whether the phrase “with respect to motor vehicles” includes brokers.

“We do believe that ‘with respect to motor vehicles’ is the crucial question here,” said Theodore Boutrous Jr., Caribe II’s counsel. He argued Congress did not intend for brokers to be included.

The attorney for the United States agreed that the two different sections of the law being discussed should, in context, be taken altogether to mean that brokers are not included in the realm of “motor vehicles.”

“Paragraph one uses the phrase ‘with respect to the transportation of property,’ [and] paragraph two [says] ‘with respect to motor vehicles,'” said Sopan Joshi, assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. “That seems like a conscious choice that Congress made to parallel the language, but change the noun to a much narrower noun.”

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned Paul Clement, Montgomery’s counsel, on how brokers would address safety concerns if the court were to rule in favor of Montgomery and say that brokers are liable for consequences of negligent hiring.

For instance, Kavanaugh suggested drivers should be proficient in English to ensure safety. In April 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to enforce English-language requirements for commercial motor vehicle drivers.

“If you’re hiring drivers who can’t read the signs, that seems like a safety issue,” Kavanaugh said.

Clement said brokers could work with larger trucking companies with deeper pockets and check that they have adequate programs in place to test drivers for drug use, check on prior accidents and address other potential concerns.

“One of the reasons, I think, that you do want [brokers] to have some duty of care in these circumstances is this is a margin business,” Clement said. “If they don’t have any sort of incentive to internalize any of the cost of not asking the question, they really have no good reason to ask the question. They want the cheapest carrier.”

Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Joshi to explain why he thought Congress did not think brokers should share responsibility for safety given the language in the 1994 law.

“The problem, I think, with the argument in the way that you’ve set it up is that you are assuming away any responsibility that a broker might have for safety,” Jackson said.

Joshi argued that Congress did not intend for brokers to have responsibility regarding safety and could have worded the law differently if it did.

“Congress has an entire chapter, several chapters, of the U.S. Code in Title 49 that deal with safety addressing carriers, safety of motor vehicles, driver qualifications, and they’re all addressed at carriers,” Joshi said. “Not a single one is addressed at brokers.”

Joshi acknowledged that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is “understaffed,” “overworked” and unable to review all of the federally registered carriers. However, he said Congress has provided ways of bringing consequences against carriers who violate federal requirements and regulations.

In his closing rebuttal, Clement told the court that 94% of registered carriers on the road do not have meaningful federal safety inspections — a number derived from 2021 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data.

He said state tort law could provide a “backstop to the federal system.”

“This case doesn’t have to be that hard. The thing that triggers state tort liability is an 80,000-pound motor vehicle. That’s what devastatingly injured my client,” Clement said.

The court is expected to issue a ruling by summer.

After years of ticketing complaints and frustrations, the trial for the Department of Justice’s antitrust lawsuit against Live Nation is officially underway.

As part of its case, the DOJ has accused Live Nation of requiring artists to use its promotional services when they play a Live Nation-owned venue. Because so many venues are owned by the company, the government claims Live Nation’s alleged practices are anti-competitive.

Jury selection began Monday in a New York federal court and opening statements are expected Tuesday for the complaint first filed in 2024. Since then, the antitrust case against the Beverly Hills-based company has been streamlined — examining whether Live Nation uses illegal anti-competitive practices and whether the company and Ticketmaster should be broken up.

The legal proceeding is expected to last around a month, with Judge Arun Subramanian, who also presided over Sean Combs’ sentencing last year, at the helm.

Live Nation’s presidents Michael Rapino and Joe Berchtold, executives from competing companies like Anschutz Entertainment Group and Irving Azoff, the former Ticketmaster CEO, are expected to testify. Musicians like Ben Lovett of Mumford & Sons and entertainer Kid Rock could also take the stand.

Key claims in the lawsuit

The original lawsuit led by a cadre of interested parties including the federal government, 39 states and the District of Columbia alleged that Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster have monopolies in various aspects of the live music industry, such as concert promotion, venue operations, artist management and ticketing services.

The lawsuit states that Live Nation manages over 400 artists and controls more than 265 venues in North America. Ticketmaster simultaneously controls around 80% of the primary ticket marketplace and is also increasing its involvement in the resale market.

Many of the large monopoly claims were thrown out during a pretrial hearing with Judge Subramanian last month, including an allegation that Live Nation’s industry power raises ticket prices and harms consumers.

The claim with arguably the greatest potential impact centers on whether Live Nation should own Ticketmaster. The two companies merged in 2010, a move that has frequently been considered controversial. Beyond the ownership of Ticketmaster, the DOJ claims Live Nation forces venues to sign exclusive contracts with Ticketmaster, barring the inclusion of other ticket vendors.

“For over a decade, Ticketmaster and Live Nation have promised reform, but meaningful competition has remained out of reach. The industry now stands at an inflection point: restore a competitive marketplace that supports innovation, or allow the status quo to continue narrowing options for American consumers,” Dustin Brighton of the Coalition for Ticket Fairness said in a statement.

“Yet the very competitors that could check this monopoly and restore balance are routinely boxed out by restrictive practices that limit innovation and reduce consumer options,” Brighton added.

Live Nation did not respond to a request for comment. When the complaint was first filed, the company called the claims “baseless.”

“Calling Ticketmaster a monopoly may be a PR win for the DOJ in the short term, but it will lose in court because it ignores the basic economics of live entertainment,” wrote Live Nation in a previous statement.

Next steps after the trial

If Live Nation loses the trial, the judge will decide how the company should be restructured, which could mean selling Ticketmaster to a competitor. Live Nation maintains the right to appeal such a decision, if it materializes, and take the matter to a higher court.

“If the court finds Live Nation violated the law, monetary penalties and behavioral commitments alone will not be sufficient,” Stephen Parker, executive director of the Independent Venue Association, said in a statement.

“The relief must be proportionate to the harm,” Parker added, “and that means structural separation of primary ticketing, resale ticketing, venue operation, national tours, advertising/sponsorship, and artist management must be seriously considered.”

Beyond the current DOJ trial, Live Nation is also facing a lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission and a handful of class action lawsuits from groups of concertgoers.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court revived a San Diego judge’s order Monday and said parents have a right to know about their child’s gender identity at school.

The decision came in a 6-3 order granting an emergency appeal from lawyers for Chicago-based Thomas More Society.

They said the student privacy policy enforced in California infringes parents’ rights and the free exercise of religion.

“The parents object that these policies prevent schools from telling them about their children’s efforts to engage in gender transitioning at school unless the children consent to parental notification,” the court said. “The parents also take issue with California’s requirement that schools use children’s preferred names and pronouns regardless of their parents’ wishes.”

The judge’s injunction “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only for those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious exemptions,” the justices added.

The six conservatives were in the majority, while the three liberals dissented.

Religious liberty advocates hailed the decision.

“Parents’ fundamental right to raise their children according to their faith doesn’t stop at the schoolhouse door,” said Mark Rienzi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “California tried cutting parents out of their children’s lives while forcing teachers to hide the school’s behavior from parents. We’re glad the Court stepped in to block this anti-family, anti-American policy.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had put on hold a late December ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who held that the student privacy rules enforced by California school officials were unconstitutional.

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence,” Benitez wrote. “Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence.”

Escondido public schoolteachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori Ann West, who described themselves as “devout Catholics,” sued in 2023, and they were later joined by parents in Pasadena and Clovis.

The Supreme Court’s ruling refers only to the parents.

The parents who brought the case “have sincere religious beliefs about sex and gender, and they feel a religious obligation to raise their children in accordance with those beliefs,” the court said.

The court added: “Gender dysphoria is a condition that has an important bearing on a child’s mental health, but when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria at school, California’s policies conceal that information from parents and facilitate a degree of gender transitioning during school hours.”

“This is a watershed moment for parental rights in America,” said Paul M. Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “The Supreme Court has told California and every state in the nation in no uncertain terms: you cannot secretly transition a child behind a parent’s back.”

The 9th Circuit had agreed with the state’s attorneys who said the judge had misstated California law.

“The state does not categorically forbid disclosure of information about students’ gender identities to parents without student consent,” they said in a 3-0 decision.

“For example, guidance from the California Attorney General expressly states that schools can ‘allow disclosure where a student does not consent where there is a compelling need to do so to protect the student’s wellbeing,’ and California Education Code allows disclosure to avert a clear danger to the well-being of a child.”

In their parents’ rights appeal to the Supreme Court, attorneys said school employees are secretly encouraging gender transitions.

“California is requiring public schools to hide children’s expressed transgender status at school from their own parents — including religious parents — and to actively facilitate those children’s social transitions over their parents’ express objection,” they told the court.

“Right now, California’s parental deception scheme is keeping families in the dark and causing irreparable harm. That’s why we’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene immediately,” Jonna wrote in his appeal. “Every day these gender secrecy policies stay in effect, children suffer and parents are left in the dark.”

California state attorneys had urged the court to put the case on hold while it is under appeal.

They said the judge’s order “appears to categorically bar schools across the State from ever respecting a student’s desire for privacy about their gender identity or expression — or respecting a student’s request to be addressed by a particular name or pronouns—over a parent’s objection.”

They said the order “would allow no exceptions, even for extreme cases where students or teachers reasonably fear that the student will suffer physical or mental abuse.”

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court to limit the reach of the 2nd Amendment and deny gun rights to “habitual” users of drugs, including marijuana.

But most of the justices sounded skeptical. They questioned whether marijuana users are so dangerous they should not have firearms.

They noted too that President Trump signed a recent executive order to reclassify marijuana as lesser controlled substance.

“Why is this a test case?,” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

Federal laws on “controlled substances” and the 2nd Amendment created a conflict between gun rights and illegal drugs, but Gorsuch said marijuana users are not seen as a particular danger to the public.

“This is an odd case to have chosen” to resolve this legal dispute, he said.

Most of the justices said they were wary of ruling broadly to decide the legal status of other addictive drugs.

At issue was a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which forbids gun possession by any person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Justice Department says about 300 people per year are charged with a crime under this provision. They include Hunter Biden, the former president’s son, who was charged and convicted of lying about his drug addiction when he applied for a handgun permit.

The case brought together civil libertarians and gun rights advocates, who said millions of Americans could face criminal charges if the government’s view is upheld.

Deputy Solicitor Gen. Sarah Harris, representing the administration, said the court should uphold the law to deny guns to habitual users of unlawful drugs.

“Congress decided it is dangerous to mix firearms with controlled substances,” she said.

But Erin Murphy, a Washington attorney, said gun owners have not been notice that having a handgun at home could lead to a criminal prosecution if they sometimes use marijuana.

She said the court should hand down a “narrow” decision that spares her client.

Ali Hemani, a Texas man, was investigated by the FBI in 2020 for his family’s suspected ties to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated terrorist group.

When the FBI obtained a warrant to search his home, agents found a Glock pistol and 60 grams of marijuana as well as 4.7 grams of cocaine in his mother’s room. Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with illegal gun possession because he was an unlawful drug user.

But citing the 2nd Amendment, a federal judge and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the charges on the grounds that he was not under the influence of drugs at the time of his arrest.

Appealing, the Trump administration said the Supreme Court should uphold the 1968 law and deny guns to those who are “habitual users” of illegal drugs.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said this prosecution “falls well within Congress’s authority to temporarily disarm categories of dangerous persons — here, habitual drug users.”

From the nation’s founding, “habitual drunkards” could be prohibited from having guns and that historic principle supports denying guns to habitual drug users.

The American Civil Liberties Union defended Hemani said the government’s view threatens to broadly extend the reach of the criminal law.

“Like tens of millions of Americans, Ali Hemani owned a handgun for self-defense, keeping it safely secured at home. Like many of those same Americans, he also consumed marijuana a few days a week,” they said in their brief.

“According to the government, those two facts alone sufficed to make him an ‘unlawful user’ of a controlled substance who could face criminal penalties.”

March 1 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will determine whether people who regularly smoke marijuana will be allowed to own guns.

In United States v. Hemani, which goes before the Supreme Court on Monday, the Trump administration will attempt to uphold their prosecution of Ali Danial Hemani, who lives in Texas.

In 2022, FBI officials found that Hemani, who is a dual citizen in the United States and Pakistan, owned a pistol while in possession of marijuana and cocaine.

When Hemani said that he engaged in marijuana use approximately every other day, he was indicted, facing up to 15 years behind bars, but the charge was dismissed.

The 1968 law he allegedly violated was meant to disarm people who used drugs.

An appeals court stated that there was not enough “tradition of gun regulation” to “support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage,” USA Today reported.

“I think what the court is being asked to decide, and I would imagine the reason it took the case, is to give some more guidance about what kinds of people can be disarmed without violating the Second Amendment,” said Joseph Blocher, one of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, CBS News reported.

Fundamentally, that’s what this case is about,” Blocher said.

Feb. 27 (Asia Today) — Park Young-jae, chief of the National Court Administration, has offered to step down, just over 40 days after taking office, as the ruling party moves ahead with a package of judicial reform bills.

According to court officials, Park conveyed his intention to resign Thursday morning to Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae.

In a statement, Park said, “Considering recent discussions both inside and outside the judiciary, I concluded that stepping down would better serve the public and the courts.”

“I regret leaving at a time when the judiciary faces many challenges,” he added, expressing hope that discussions on reforming the judicial system would proceed “in a direction that benefits the public.”

His resignation is widely seen as linked to the National Assembly’s handling of three controversial reform measures: the creation of a new crime of “distorting the law,” the introduction of a system allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings and an increase in the number of Supreme Court justices.

The National Assembly has been processing the bills in plenary sessions since Monday. Lawmakers passed a revised version of the “distortion of law” bill Wednesday, narrowing its scope to criminal cases and adjusting the elements required to establish the offense. A separate bill to allow constitutional petitions against court decisions was expected to be voted on later Thursday.

Since his appointment last month as successor to former court administration chief Cheon Dae-yeop, Park had repeatedly voiced concerns about the reform package.

He warned that the proposed “distortion of law” offense could be abused and lacked sufficient clarity, raising potential constitutional issues. On the plan to allow constitutional complaints against court rulings, he said it risked plunging citizens into excessive litigation. Regarding the proposal to expand the number of Supreme Court justices, Park said it could weaken lower courts by drawing experienced judges away without a clear plan to fill the gaps.

Earlier this week, he convened an emergency meeting of court presidents nationwide, saying the three bills could bring fundamental changes to the courts’ role and directly affect the public. He stressed that the judiciary’s views should be reflected in the legislative deliberation process.

Park had also faced criticism from some lawmakers over his prior involvement in an appeal case related to President Lee Jae-myung under the Public Official Election Act before his appointment as court administration chief.

His departure comes as tensions between the judiciary and the legislature intensify over the scope and direction of judicial reform.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260227010008381

California’s landmark single-use plastic law is slowly being eroded by pressures within the state. Now legal attacks from outside threaten to kneecap it entirely.

Earlier this month, a federal district court judge in Oregon put parts of its single-use plastic law, which is similar to California’s, on hold while he decides whether it violates antitrust and consumer protection laws.

At the same time, 10 Republican attorneys general sent letters directly to companies that are taking part in plastic reduction campaigns, telling them to stop.

They threatened legal action against Costco, Unilever, Coca-Cola and 75 other companies for participating in the Plastic Pact, the Consumer Goods Forum and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. These efforts all include industry as an active partner in reducing plastics, but the letters say the companies are colluding against consumers “to remove products from the market without considering consumer demand, product effectiveness, or the cost and impact on consumers of a replacement product.”

Charges of corporate collusion and conspiracy are central to both cases.

Anti-waste advocates and attorneys well versed in packaging say the lawsuit and the letters to Costco and the other companies highlight vulnerabilities in several of California’s waste laws, including the seminal Senate Bill 54 — the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act. At issue are what are known as Extended Producer Responsibility laws.

These put the cost of cleanup and waste disposal on the companies that make materials — plastic, paint or carpet — rather than on consumers, cities and municipalities.

In 2024, a report from California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta estimated that collectively, the state’s cities spend more than $1 billion each year on litter management. In 2023, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic (or 171.4 billion pieces) were sold or distributed, according to one state analysis.

These producer responsibility laws emphasize the idea of “circular economy”: that the producer of a material must consider its fate — making sure it can be reused or recycled, or at least reduced.

The laws organize companies into entities, called Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs), that generally oversee the management of the laws, set fees and collect them from members.

In the Oregon lawsuit, the National Assn. of Wholesaler-Distributors alleges a state-sanctioned product responsibility organization levied fees on trade group members that were onerous and opaque.

“Their fee structure was designed in secret by board members of the PRO,” said Eric Hoplin, president and chief executive of the group.

“Oregon is attempting to build a statewide recycling system by granting vast authority to a private entity to impose what amount to hidden taxes on businesses and consumers,” said Brian Wild, chief government relations officer for the wholesalers. “This law raises prices, shields decision-making from scrutiny, and advantages large, vertically integrated companies at the expense of smaller competitors.”

The group he references, the Circular Action Alliance, is the same one that oversees California’s single-use plastic law. Amazon, Colgate-Palmolive, General Mills and Procter & Gamble are part of it.

Others, however, say California’s laws are strong.

People shop at Costco in Glendale, Calif., on April 10.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

“Extended Producer Responsibility laws are public policies passed by legislatures and implemented with government oversight,” said Heidi Sanborn, the executive director and CEO of the National Stewardship Action Council, which advocates for the laws and a more circular economy.

She helped craft many of California’s waste laws, including SB 54 and was also involved in Oregon’s law. “They create clear, consistent rules so all producers contribute fairly to the cost of recycling and waste management,” she said.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who wrote SB 54, said California’s plastic bill was designed to avoid violating antitrust laws.

CalRecycle declined to comment.

Some advocates actually hope the California laws fall. They include Jan Dell, of Last Beach Cleanup, an anti-plastic group based in Laguna Beach.

Extended Producer Responsibility “programs are based on the false premise that plastic is recyclable and are counterproductive because they green wash plastics and preempt proven solutions like strategic bans on the worst forms of plastic pollution (e.g. single use bags, six pack rings),” Dell wrote in an email.

Even those, however, can be problematic if they’re not enforced. Dell pointed to SB 54’s de facto ban on polystyrene, which went into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

“There is still Styrofoam stuff sold in 250 Smart and Final stores across the state!” she said. “It is totally noncredible and outrageous to claim that CalRecycle will ever enforce regulations on thousands of types of packaging when they can’t enforce the regulations on JUST ONE!”

Surprise ruling comes weeks after the media mogul was convicted and jailed for 20 years on national security charges.

A Hong Kong appellate court has overturned a fraud conviction against pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai in a surprise ruling weeks after his jailing for 20 years on a separate national security charge.

The ruling by the Court of First Instance on Thursday said that it allowed the appeal from Lai and ⁠another defendant in the case to proceed as a lower court judge had “erred”.

“[We] allow the appeals, quash the convictions and set aside the sentences,” the judges wrote.

The conviction that was overturned was from an earlier fraud case in which prosecutors alleged that a consultancy firm operated by Lai, 78, for his personal use had taken up office space that his now defunct media business – Apple Daily – rented for publication and printing purposes.

This was in breach of the terms of the lease Apple Daily signed with a government company and amounted to fraud, prosecutors said.

Lai had been sentenced to five years and nine months in prison in 2022 on the two fraud charges.

Former Apple Daily executive Wong Wai-keung was also charged in the same case and jailed for 21 months.

Judges at the Court of Appeal wrote in their judgement that while Apple Daily Printing had breached the lease terms by allowing the firm to use part of the space, it didn’t owe a duty to disclose its breach. They said even if it had owed and breached that duty, the same could not be attributed to Lai and Wong as a matter of law.

The trial judges’ “reasoning in concluding that the applicants were liable for the concealment as the prosecution contended is unsupportable”, they said.

Neither defendant appeared in court.

The ruling would slightly reduce Lai’s total prison time. The judges handling Lai’s national security case allowed the two sentences to be served concurrently for only two years, with the other 18 years to be added after the fraud sentence.

The lengthy sentence – over ‌two counts of conspiracy to collude with foreign forces and one for publishing seditious materials – has raised concerns that he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

Lai’s children have expressed hopes that a visit by United States President Donald Trump to Beijing could help secure the release of their father, a British citizen. The White House has confirmed that Trump will travel to China on March 31 through April 2 to meet Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

United Kingdom Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has said Lai was sentenced for exercising his right to freedom of expression and called on the Hong Kong authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds.

Chinese and Hong Kong authorities have defended Lai’s sentencing in the national security case, saying it reflected the spirit of the rule of law. They also insisted the security law is necessary for the city’s stability.

In a separate ruling on Thursday, a Hong Kong court sentenced the father of a wanted pro-democracy activist to eight months in prison under the city’s national security law for attempting to withdraw funds belonging to an “absconder”.

Kwok Yin-sang, 69, was found guilty on February 11 for “attempting to deal with, directly or indirectly, any funds or other financial assets or economic resources” after he tried to terminate his daughter Anna Kwok’s insurance policy and withdraw the funds.

He is the first person in the city to be charged and convicted of the offence.

He had pleaded not guilty and did not testify at the trial.

Feb. 25 (Asia Today) — Senior judges from courts across South Korea expressed “serious regret” Tuesday over a package of judicial reform bills advanced by the ruling party, warning of potential side effects and calling for broader consultation.

At an extraordinary meeting held at the Supreme Court in Seoul, court presidents reviewed the so-called three judicial reform bills – which include creating a new offense of “distortion of law,” introducing a constitutional complaint system against court rulings and expanding the number of Supreme Court justices.

The meeting was led by Court Administration Chief Park Young-jae and attended by chief judges from courts nationwide.

In a joint statement, the judges said fundamental changes to the judicial system could produce irreversible and significant consequences and should be subject to in-depth discussion through a consultative body that includes multiple institutions and experts.

Regarding the proposed “distortion of law” offense, the judges said the elements of the crime remain abstract even under a revised draft and warned that the scope of punishment could be overly broad. They cautioned that the measure could lead to a surge in complaints and accusations against judges, potentially undermining the swift administration of justice and the protection of citizens’ fundamental rights.

On the proposed constitutional complaint system against court rulings, the court presidents said it could delay the finality of judgments and subject litigants to repeated proceedings.

While acknowledging the need to increase the number of justices at the Supreme Court of Korea, the judges said adding a large number in a short period could weaken trial quality. They suggested first expanding the bench by four justices and reviewing the impact before considering further increases.

In opening remarks, Park said the bills would significantly affect the judiciary’s core role in safeguarding constitutional order and citizens’ rights and stressed that the courts’ views should be reflected in the legislative process.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260225010007747