court

California’s slow vote counting process — still underway and causing friction after last week’s primary — may be forced to change before November’s midterm elections, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether mail ballots must be received by election day to count.

Whether those changes will speed things up — and help tamp down baseless claims from President Trump and others that the slow count is evidence of fraud — will depend on a variety of factors, election experts said, including how the high court rules, how state lawmakers and local elections officials respond, and whether they push any additional steps to quicken the count.

“We’re all on the edge of our seats, waiting to see what the Supreme Court does,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

“We’re certainly planning for a bad Supreme Court decision in this case, but we don’t really know all of our options for how to respond until we see the court’s decision,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), chair of the Assembly Elections Committee and a former top elections official in Santa Cruz County.

Pellerin said she has been working on contingency plans with other state officials — including some from the offices of Gov. Gavin Newsom, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — and has requested $35 million in state funds to educate voters on any new midterm deadlines, though that funding has not been appropriated.

Federal law has, since 1872, set “election day” as the first Tuesday following a Monday in November, and gives Congress oversight over elections for the president and members of Congress. However, most authority for running elections falls to the states.

California currently provides a grace period for ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by and received within seven days of election day. More than a dozen states have similar laws that allow for counting late-arriving ballots, and most states accept such mail ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.

In March, the nation’s high court heard arguments about a five-day grace period in Mississippi, with the court’s conservative majority appearing skeptical. Many observers expect from those arguments that the high court will rule, by the end of this month, that ballots — at least for federal races — must be received by election day to count.

That outcome — in the case Watson vs. Republican National Committee — is considered likely but not assured, and some elections experts believe the high court has little legal precedent to support such a conclusion.

“That is a bogus interpretation of the statute,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law. “It violates what the statute says as a matter of text and history, and just how it’s been understood since the Civil War basically.”

Hasen and others also doubt that such a change would have much impact on the speed of California’s vote counting process, given that huge volumes of mail ballots that are placed in ballot drop boxes or arrive at processing facilities on or just before election day would still count — and would still drag the counting process out for days after the election.

In 2024, California counted more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots, but they represented only about 2.5% of the statewide total.

“The main bottleneck is really not ballots that arrive after election day. The bottleneck is ballots arriving before or on election day,” Hasen said. “So I don’t think the Watson case — however it comes out — is going to appreciably change California’s timing on when they’ll get enough ballots counted in a close race for it to be able to be called by news organizations.”

Nonetheless, state and local elections officials are preparing for changes — and looking for other ways to speed up the vote count, which, as of Monday, had resulted in more than 7.7 million ballots counted from last week’s primary, but more than 1.7 million left to process.

State plans unclear

If the Supreme Court were to rule that votes cast in federal elections must be received by election day, California would need to respond quickly.

It would need to craft a messaging campaign to inform millions of voters of the new rules, and determine when to tell voters they must mail their ballots by in order for their votes to count, experts said. That calculation may be shaped in part by efforts by the Trump administration to assert federal control over the mail ballot process through the U.S. Postal Service, which California and other states are fighting in court.

California officials may also need to determine whether they will create a “bifurcated counting process” with different rules for primary and general elections and different rules for federal races and state and local races on the same ballots, Alexander said, as a narrow Supreme Court ruling may not apply to them all equally.

“That’s a big policy decision that lawmakers will need to make, and I’m not sure how that would go,” Alexander said, citing a lack of detailed public plans from state and local elections officials.

Weber — who urged voters to cast ballots early in last week’s election — did not respond to a request for comment.

Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor’s office doesn’t comment on “hypotheticals,” but that Newsom “is planning for all eventualities, including but not limited to attacks on our democracy and disruptions in our elections.”

Bonta’s office said it is “in communication with election officials and actively preparing for the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could require changes to California’s election procedures,” but that it could not provide details.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said he was “not in a position to discuss specific contingency planning details” given the high court has yet to rule, but that his office “is closely monitoring the case and has begun evaluating potential impacts to election administration.”

If changes are required by the court, Logan said his office “is prepared to undertake a comprehensive voter education and outreach effort to ensure voters understand any new requirements, deadlines, or voting options,” which would be “multilingual, multi-channel, and designed to reach voters directly across Los Angeles County, particularly in communities that rely heavily on voting by mail and those that have historically done so.”

Funds needed for faster count

Alexander’s group has backed Pellerin’s request for $35 million for a marketing campaign to encourage voters to send midterm ballots in early, and advocated for another $55 million in state funding to support county efforts to build up their vote processing capabilities.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said it would be “premature” to comment on those requests, but “discussions have been underway and are continuing.”

Both Alexander and Hasen said California should be investing more in its ballot processing capabilities even if the current process is fair and secure and the claims of fraud are baseless, because those claims have succeeded in diminishing trust.

“On the one hand, this is a manufactured crisis. There is nothing that is intrinsically bad about a slow count for a race,” Hasen said. “On the other hand, we live in an era of profound distrust in institutions and in the integrity of elections, in no small part because of Donald Trump.”

In 2012, slightly over half of all California votes were cast via mail ballots. However, that number has increased dramatically since, thanks in part to an expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic, and nearly 89% of ballots were cast by mail in last year’s special election.

Alexander said that throughout that same period, California lawmakers have passed new laws to expand access to the ballot but have not provided counties with the necessary funding to keep up with the volume — meaning “counties are left holding the bag.”

Alexander said California should fix that by providing consistent state funding for new ballot counting machines, more modern and efficient county processing facilities, and an expansion of a program backed by Pellerin and available in some counties already that allows voters dropping off ballot envelopes in person to essentially convert those ballots into in-person votes on the spot — which Alexander called a “hybrid” option that saves counties a huge amount of processing time.

She said the state spent millions to educate voters on new COVID-related vote-by-mail protocols and deadlines in 2020, and it led to both record turnout and a faster count — proving access and speed are not mutually exclusive.

“We’re being asked to make a false choice,” Alexander said. “It is possible to have accessible, secure, reliable and verified elections, and also an accelerated vote count.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Monday struck down the Trump administration’s $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas, contradicting an earlier federal court ruling upholding the fee hike.

The administration announced the much-higher fee as a way of preventing foreign workers from taking American jobs.

But U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston sided with 20 states and struck down the visa policy, concluding that the executive branch exceeded its authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

“The Court finds that the Policy imposes a tax on H-1B petitions without the requisite delegation by Congress,” Sorokin wrote.

H-1B visas are meant for high-skill jobs that are difficult to find American workers to fill. Deep-pocketed technology companies are the biggest users, with nearly three-quarters of approvals going to workers from India. The states argued that using the H-1B program to fill vacancies for much-needed doctors and teachers was already difficult before the higher fee.

Most H-1B visa applications cost several thousand dollars before the announced increase set off a wave of panic among confused employers, students and workers in the United States and abroad and led to several lawsuits, including in Boston.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also sued, in federal court in Washington, D.C., and has appealed a denial of a summary judgment against the fee hike. That left the higher fee in effect, at least until September, when it is scheduled to expire. Monday’s ruling is also a summary judgment, to the opposite effect. Still another lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco, by religious groups and labor organizations, setting up the possibility of divided rulings in three appellate court circuits.

The states argued that the policy impedes their ability to hire primary and secondary school educators and to staff public colleges and universities, will stymie academic research and will lead to a decline in medical workers.

“The Proclamation makes various overtures to domestic economic policy goals to justify the unprecedented $100,000 fee,” plaintiffs wrote in their complaint. “But the Proclamation gives no indication that the President gave any consideration to how the fee would affect Plaintiff States and their ability to provide their residents access to education, healthcare, and other basic human needs.”

A Department of Homeland Security statement said the agency disagrees with “this blatant judicial activism dismantling President Trump’s historic efforts for immigration reform.”

“Under President Trump and Secretary [Markwayne] Mullin, our immigration system is being reformed to serve American citizens, American workers, and American families and to preserve our national identity — not to rapidly import foreigners who take American jobs, commit crimes, burden our welfare system, and erode our cultural and social fabric.”

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

Texas Tech quarterback Brendan Sorsby has been granted a temporary injunction that allows him to practice and play with the Red Raiders in 2026 despite having been permanently banned by the NCAA for wagering on college sports.

Texas judge Ken Curry ruled Monday that the NCAA cannot block Sorsby’s final year of eligibililty. The Cincinnati transfer will have to miss the first two games of the season as one of the conditions of the ruling.

In his ruling, Curry stated that Sorsby would “suffer a probable, imminent and irreparable injury” without the injunction by missing out on the “elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie, and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide.”

“I’m very grateful for the endless support I have received throughout this entire process. I am also grateful for the chance to rejoin my teammates,” Sorsby wrote in a statement posted Monday on Instagram. “This opportunity comes with the responsibility to remain focused on my personal growth, the ability to learn from this experience, and to be able to use my situation to help others going forward.”

The NCAA can appeal the injunction but did not immediately indicate its next steps in the matter. It is unclear how long such a process would take. Texas Tech’s season starts Sept. 5, with Sorsby first eligible to play when the Red Raiders host Houston on Sept. 18.

“The NCAA strongly disagrees with the court’s ruling in Sorsby’s case and is deeply concerned about the damaging, far-reaching and broadly destabilizing ramifications of this outcome — which undermines and corrupts the integrity of sports,” the association said in a statement.

“The NCAA is committed to supporting student-athlete mental health but must continue to aggressively defend against actions that defraud college athletics and threaten competitive integrity, such as betting on one’s own sport.”

Last month, Sorsby’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in Lubbock County District Court requesting that he be declared eligible for all team activities because the NCAA “failed to comply with its contractual commitments” to him as a student athlete and therefore “is precluded from enforcing its gambling bylaws against Mr. Sorsby to deny or withhold his reinstatement.”

Sorsby spent two years at Indiana and two at Cincinnati before transferring to Texas Tech this offseason for a reported multimillion-dollar deal. In late April, he and Texas Tech jointly announced that he had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction and would be away from the team for an indefinite period of time.

According to court records, Sorsby has admitted to betting at least $90,000 during his time as an NCAA student athlete, including 40 bets on Indiana football games he was not participating in as a freshman backup with the Hoosiers in 2022.

NCAA guidelines state that student athletes who bet on their own games or on other sports at their school could “potentially face permanent loss of collegiate eligibility.” Texas Tech was informed of an NCAA investigation into Sorsby’s gambling activity in March, according to court records, and declared him ineligible according to the association’s bylaws.

The NCAA has since denied two petitions from Texas Tech to have Sorsby’s eligibility reinstated.

“As we have said before, we do not believe that the circumstances of Brendan’s case warranted permanent ineligibility,” Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt said Monday in a statement. “As he returns to our football program, we remain committed to supporting Brendan’s recovery and ensuring his compliance with the court’s order. A comprehensive support structure, including clinical care, monitoring, and compliance checks, will remain fully in place for the duration of Brendan’s time as a student at Texas Tech.”

Georgia athletic director Josh Brooks, a member of the NCAA Football Oversight Committee, told Yahoo Sports that there should “be serious conversations about not playing Texas Tech in any sports” as a result of Monday’s decision.

“This is not about Texas Tech. It’s about protecting our own locker room,” Brooks said. “We cannot in good conscience put our student-athletes on a field where the competitive integrity of the contest is compromised and overridden by the courts.

“All [Football Bowl Subdivision] schools should only take the field against programs operating under a uniform, trustworthy standard of fairness. We’ve officially reached the point of no return.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A relentless push by President Trump to reshape Washington‘s cityscape is facing mounting resistance, threatening a slate of transformative monuments intended to cement his legacy in the nation’s capital.

Eager to see his projects completed before leaving office, Trump has responded to growing legal and political obstacles by pushing ahead, attempting to force approvals through faster than opponents can challenge them. But the scramble to fast-track construction has inflated their costs for taxpayers, imperiling his plans and amplifying his political risks as the midterm elections approach.

Urban design has become a preoccupation for Trump since the start of his second term. Cranes dot the skyline of the city, and construction fences block access to many of its most cherished parks and venues less than a month before the nation celebrates 250 years since its founding on July 4.

Cranes from the White House East Wing ballroom construction project rise from behind the U.S. Treasury Department building on Thursday in Washington, D.C.

(Kevin Carter/Getty Images)

Government lawyers are defending the president’s use of the wrecking ball, arguing in court that he has unfettered power to build and destroy. Should he ever choose to tear down the Statue of Liberty, the Justice Department told a judge Friday, no one could stop him.

Yet a recent series of legal setbacks, as well as increasing Republican opposition on Capitol Hill, have cast doubt on the fate of his most lavish designs, including the construction of an imposing ballroom at the White House and the erection of a massive triumphal arch on the sightline of the National Mall.

It’s become a race against time for the president, who could soon confront a Democratic-controlled Congress armed with renewed oversight authority and subpoena power, further gumming the works of elaborate construction projects, which could stymie their completion before he leaves office.

“This is very much on the committee’s radar,” said one Democratic source with the House Oversight Committee, citing “serious concerns surrounding corruption.”

Visitors at the Mall gather in front of the Lincoln Memorial and near the Reflecting Pool, which is under renovation on Friday in Washington, D.C. President Trump dismissed criticism of the recent Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool renovations, rejecting claims the project amounted to merely a “paint job.”

(Roberto Schmidt / Getty Images)

Trump as ‘builder-in-chief’

Several of Trump’s more modest initiatives, referred to by the administration as beautification projects, are complete or well underway.

At the White House, a historic rose garden conceived by Jacqueline Kennedy was paved over, and its adjoining colonnade refurbished with black granite and gilded presidential portraits. The Palm Room foyer was decked in marble and chandeliers. New flagpoles fly supersized American flags on the North and South lawns.

The en suite bath of the Lincoln Bedroom in the residence has been gutted and renovated. And the Oval Office now practically drips in gold, while an adjoining study, once used by Franklin Roosevelt to scrutinize war maps and Lyndon Johnson to monitor the space race, was converted into the president’s personal swag shop.

A temporary Ultimate Fighting Championship arena constructed on the White House South Lawn is another example of how Trump is leaving a visual mark on the presidential residence. The structure, which towers over the White House, was paid for by the UFC, which is scheduled to host a series of fights on the premises.

Outside the White House complex, fountains across the city are coming back to life after decades of neglect, from DuPont Circle to Freedom Plaza and Union Station. The idyllic Logan Circle, surrounded by historic mansions, is being revitalized by the National Park Service, as is Lafayette Square, the site of an infamous clash between Trump and protesters shortly after George Floyd’s murder in 2020.

1

2

1. National Park Service Conservator for the National Mall and Memorial Parks Ali Cavicchio puts a clear coat over the recently repainted “I Have a Dream” marker at the Lincoln Memorial on June 05, 2026 in Washington, DC. The marker’s letters are carved into stairs of the Lincoln Memorial where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood and delivered his “I Have A Dream” speech in 1963. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images) 2. Members of the West Branch Area School District in Morrisdale, Pennsylvania, student marching band perform at the Lincoln Memorial on the National Mall on June 05, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

In some parks, even the turf is getting a makeover.

“People are all thanking me because Washington is beautiful again,” Trump told reporters last week. “The parks are open, we changed the grass. You know, grass has a life, also. Like people, grass has a life, and that grass hasn’t changed in 70 or 80 years.”

On Friday morning, several people sat by the restored cascading fountain at Meridian Hill Park. They walked their dogs, read books and exercised by the water.

Jean Luc, 33, was one of them. As he took a stroll with his 2-month-old daughter, Juno, he said it had been nice to see the government fix up the park, which he says he tries to enjoy with his daughter daily.

“It’s been nice to see the whole process,” he said. “I love it.”

President Trump displays a chart titled “Our Pool is Bigger than Skyscrapers” while discussing his renovations to the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool on Wednesday in the Oval Office.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool has been painted over in “American Flag Blue” by a firm that Trump said had worked on the swimming pool at his golf club in Virginia. Millions will be spent to regild the hulking Art Deco statues that buttress Arlington Memorial Bridge. And Trump has plans to connect the Lincoln Memorial to the Potomac River by building a promenade, one of many projects he has said may be named after himself.

Federal contracting data show that the Virginia firm Terra Site Constructors has been awarded roughly $60 million in contracts from the National Park Service to complete work on the various fountain rehabilitation projects across the city.

Another Virginia firm, Atlantic Industrial Coatings, holds a contract for $14.2 million to paint the reflecting pool.

The funding for both contracts comes from the entrance fees paid by national park visitors.

“How fortunate are we to have the builder in chief?” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said Thursday in the Oval Office. “Someone who both has the vision and the understanding of how to get projects done that would make our city safe and beautiful.”

Construction continues on the White House East Wing ballroom on May 29, 2026.

(Kevin Carter / Getty Images)

‘The finest ballroom anywhere in the world’

Yet other, more controversial projects, exacting irreversible change to capital institutions, are facing greater opposition.

On Thursday, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts directed its staff to begin removing Trump’s name from its facade after a judge ruled that the attempted name change, and his effort to close the venue for two years of dramatic renovations, were illegal.

Angered by the court’s decision, Trump directed the Commerce Department to make arrangements to transfer control of the Kennedy Center to Congress. The move would give lawmakers power over the center’s operations, maintenance and management. It was originally an act of Congress that gave the Kennedy Center its name and mandate.

In other areas of the city, preservationists have successfully delayed the president’s bid to paint over the natural gray granite of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. And Republican lawmakers have refused to vote to fund the construction of a ballroom at the White House that has already laid waste to the East Wing and, if completed, would dwarf the landmark residence.

Construction crews began tearing down the East Wing in October to make way for the 90,000-square-foot facility. Trump, who built a career as a real estate developer, has frequently touted the project, gushing over the sounds of jackhammers and excavation trucks.

Construction continues on the White House South Lawn on June 1, 2026, for an upcoming UFC match. President Trump is hosting a UFC match on the White House grounds to mark the nation’s 250th birthday.

(Kevin Carter / Getty Images)

“Oh, that’s music to my ears. I love that sound,” Trump told Republican senators at a White House event last fall. “A lot of people don’t like it. When I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.”

The ballroom project was initially expected to cost $200 million, a price that has since doubled. It is being financed by private donors and Trump, who has called it a “gift to the United States.”

“We are building what will be the finest ballroom anywhere in the world,” the president said last month.

More than half of the publicly identified donors of the ballroom projects — 14 of the 27 known corporate contributors — have won new or bigger federal contracts worth more than $50 billion in the six months since construction began, according to a report released by Public Citizen, a watchdog group.

“These giant corporations aren’t funding the Trump ballroom fiasco out of the goodness of their hearts,” said Jon Golinger, a public policy advocate at Public Citizen and author of the report. “They have massive interests before the federal government and they hope to curry favor with, and receive favorable treatment, from the Trump administration.”

White House military aides stand next to the giant mirror that hangs along the Rose Garden Colonnade at the White House on May 21, 2026.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

The White House has challenged the report’s assertions, saying critics of how the project is being funded are “only people who suffer from a severe and incurable disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

“President Trump is making the White House beautiful and giving it the glory it deserves at no cost to taxpayers — something everyone should celebrate,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement.

The report came out as the ballroom project has faced persistent hurdles in court and Congress.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued to stop construction, arguing the administration had not followed the legally required review process and had not secured congressional approval. In March, a federal judge halted aboveground construction, but an appeals court quickly allowed work to resume through June while the case proceeds.

On Friday, the panel heard the case and expressed skepticism about Trump’s push to build the ballroom without congressional approval.

On Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans dropped a proposal to set aside $1 billion in security funding for the ballroom after several GOP senators said it lacked the votes to pass.

Trump has insisted the funding is not necessary to complete the project, though he said it would help secure the complex. Without it, he told reporters last month, “the White House won’t be a very secure place.”

(Los Angeles Times photo illustration; Photo by Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

Arc de Trump

The president is also seeking to build a 250-foot-tall “triumphal arch” near Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River at the foot of Memorial Bridge.

Renderings show the arch would be twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial, crowned by a golden statue of Lady Liberty sporting outstretched wings. An observation deck on its roof would offer sweeping views of the city.

Preservationists have criticized the plan as disrupting a sacred sightline between the memorials to Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee, designed as a statement of unity after the Civil War. Even advocates of adding an arch in Washington have criticized the size of Trump’s proposed structure as overbearing. And a group of Vietnam War veterans has sued to try to stop its construction, arguing the project lacks congressional approval and would “dishonor their military and foreign service” because it would block the view of the cemetery.

Commission of Fine Arts member Pamela Hughes Patenaude, left, hands colleague Matthew Taylor a model of President Trump’s proposed triumphal arch to commemorate the country’s 250th anniversary during the commission’s public meeting at the National Building Museum in Washington on April 16, 2026.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

Despite public opposition, the National Capital Planning Commission last week advanced the project in its review process.

Trump praised the planning commission’s support, saying that “when completed, it will be, without question, the Greatest Arch of them all!”

The president has yet more plans to leave his mark — in some cases with his name, in others with his face.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has proposed a $22-billion overhaul of Dulles International Airport outside the capital that would include a new terminal brandishing Trump’s name. Limited-edition U.S. passports will feature his portrait. And the Treasury has plans to mint a $250 bill featuring Trump’s mugshot from his 2023 Fulton County arrest, pending congressional approval — an unlikely prospect.

A walkway with the numbers “45” and “47” leading to construction on the new ballroom extension of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 19. President Trump said a military hospital and research facilities will be built on the site of his planned White House ballroom, offering more details about the scope of the sprawling, controversial project.

(Samuel Corum/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In a moment that went viral on social media, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), who is generating buzz over a potential run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, offered a theory on what’s driving the president.

“He’s trying to put his face on the money. He’s building a monument to himself,” Ossoff told a crowd of supporters.

“But see, Atlanta, he’s doing these things now because no one will honor him when he’s gone,” he added, “because he’s a failed president and a national disgrace.”

Wilner reported from Los Angeles and Ceballos from Washington. Times staff writer Ben Wieder contributed to this report.

Zverev had long been dubbed the best player of his generation to have never won a Grand Slam after a string of near misses – including three defeats in major finals.

At the US Open in 2020, he lost the final despite being two sets up against Dominic Thiem and having served for the championship at 5-3 in the final set.

Zverev then led Carlos Alcaraz by two sets to one in the 2024 French Open final but it was the Spaniard who ended up lifting his first Coupe des Mousquetaires.

At the Australian Open in 2025, he was outclassed in a merciless performance by Jannik Sinner that left Zverev saying he felt mentally “empty” a few months later.

“Last year was one of the most difficult moments in my tennis career,” Zverev said.

“This year is one of the happiest moments. It’s a very different feeling right now.”

It seemed like the pressure of a Grand Slam final might prove too much for a fourth time when 24-year-old Cobolli, who had twice fought back from a set down, forced a deciding fifth set.

But Zverev, who has struggled with his emotions on court in the past, held his nerve to end his major final curse.

After falling flat on his back in celebration, Zverev dedicated his victory to his team, which includes his father and brother.

“We have been through injury, heartbreaks, losses. We have been losers at times in the most important moments,” Zverev said.

“At the end of the day, we are Grand Slam champions now and that is what counts.

“I was laying on this court with an injury that I didn’t know if I will ever come back from. All of those memories, they’re not wiped out,” he said.

“They’re still with me but this one will beat all of them.”

PARIS — Alexander Zverev is no longer one of the best players never to win a major title.

He’s finally a Grand Slam champion.

In his fourth major final, Zverev beat Flavio Cobolli 6-1, 4-6, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 6-1 for the French Open title on Sunday.

It was a unique opportunity for Zverev without Jannik Sinner or Carlos Alcaraz across the net and the third-ranked German took full advantage on the red clay of Roland Garros.

When Cobolli missed an overhead on the second championship point after more than four hours of the five-set encounter, Zverev dropped on his back to the clay and covered his face with his hands as he began sobbing. When he got up, with his shirt and arms covered in clay, Zverev put his hands back on his face before he lifted both arms in celebration.

When Zverev was handed the Coupe des Mousquetaires trophy, he lifted it with both hands and let out a liberating roar.

“This court is so special to me in so many ways. I’ve had the best moments of my life on this court; I had the worst moment of my life on these courts,” Zverev said, referring to when he was injured and pushed off on a wheelchair during a semifinal against Rafael Nadal in 2022.

“I was laying in that corner over there four years ago with seven broken ligaments and two fractured bones,” Zverev said. “I lost a Grand Slam final here two years ago but now finally it’s a happy end.”

Zverev has now joined an elite group of players that captured their first major in their fourth final: Eight-time major champion Andre Agassi, 2001 Wimbledon winner Goran Ivanisevic and 2020 U.S. Open champion Dominic Thiem.

No Sinner or Alcaraz

Zverev had been an overwhelming favorite for the title ever since the top-ranked Sinner struggled in the first week’s heat wave and wasted a two set and 5-1 lead against Juan Manuel Cerundolo in the second round. A day later, 24-time Grand Slam champion Novak Djokovic was also eliminated.

Alcaraz, the two-time reigning champion, withdrew before the tournament with an injured right wrist.

It was Zverev’s second French Open final, having wasted a lead of two sets to one against Alcaraz in the 2024 championship match.

Zverev had an even bigger advantage — two sets to none — in the 2020 U.S. Open final and lost that one, too, to Thiem. He was also beaten in straight sets by Sinner in the 2025 Australian Open final.

It was the 25th title of Zverev’s career.

Cobolli’s first Slam final

The 14th-ranked Cobolli had never been past a Grand Slam quarterfinal until this week. He was attempting to become the first Italian man to raise the singles trophy at Roland Garros since Adriano Panatta 50 years ago.

Cobolli comes from the same tennis club in Rome as Panatta did and Panatta was asked by tournament organizers to present the trophy to the champion to celebrate the anniversary of his 1976 triumph.

The honors, however, went to Zverev.

Russian teenager Mirra Andreeva won the women’s singles trophy on Saturday.

Zverev took control early on

The match was played in perfect conditions and Zverev’s game was almost flawless at the start.

Zverev broke Cobolli’s serve in a long opening game when Cobolli shanked a forehand into the first row of the stands. The break came after Zverev had a bit of luck when a backhand return hit the net but dribbled over on game point for Cobolli.

A group of women in the stands held up letters to form Zverev’s nickname: “Sascha.”

Cobolli likes to stand way over near the corner of the court and hit big kick serves out wide into the ad court. Zverev knew what was coming and returned one such kick serve early in the first set with a backhand that he wrapped around the outside of the net post. Cobolli ended up winning the point, but it was a message from Zverev that he knew how to handle his opponent’s tactics.

The next time Zverev hit a wrap-around-the-net-post return, Cobolli couldn’t handle it and Zverev won the point.

Cobolli’s supporters in his box were all dressed in blue, the color of Italy’s national teams, and as Cobolli worked his way back into the match, there were chants of “Ole, Ole, Ole; Flavio, Flavio.”

After Zverev held for a 6-5 lead in the fourth, he had his upper right leg treated by a trainer. Then Zverev wasted a 3-1 lead in the tiebreaker, which Cobolli concluded with a forehand winner up the line that produced a roar from the crowd.

But Cobolli appeared to run out of energy in the fifth, running down a drop shot only for Zverev to then pass him up the line for a 3-0 lead and a double break.

Abuse allegations

Moments after Zverev’s previous Grand Slam final in Australia in 2025, a person in the stadium yelled out the names of two of his ex-girlfriends who accused him of physical abuse.

One case was resolved following an agreement between German prosecutors, lawyers for Zverev and his former partner. The ATP Tour investigated another case and concluded there was insufficient evidence.

Dampf writes for the Associated Press. Samuel Petrequin and Jerome Pugmire contributed to this report.

PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court has denied a prosecutor’s appeal of an order that the state’s fake elector case against President Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and others over the 2020 presidential election be sent back to a grand jury.

The decision marks another setback for Democratic Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes as she struggles to push the sprawling case through the courts. Mayes’ office said it will again present the case in its entirety to a grand jury rather than end the prosecution.

The ruling came after similar cases in Michigan and Georgia were dismissed by the courts and a special prosecutor dropped a federal case in late 2024 that charged Trump with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election. Cases related to the fake elector scheme remain in Arizona, Nevada and Wisconsin.

A lower-court judge in Phoenix concluded in May that the case’s first grand jury hadn’t been shown the text of the Electoral Count Act, a 19th century law that governs the certification of presidential contests and was invoked by those charged in defending themselves.

Defense lawyers argued the law allowed for multiple slates of electors to be submitted to Congress in case the results were disputed, though it was amended in 2022 to specify that a state could put forward only one slate of electors and that it was the governor who would sign off.

There has been no movement in the Arizona case at the trial court level since mid-May.

Former President Joe Biden won Arizona in 2020 by 10,457 votes.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

Israel’s Supreme Court rejects government ban on prisoner visits, affirming Red Cross access under international law.

Israel’s Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a government policy banning representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) from visiting Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

The court ruled on Wednesday that by preventing the Red Cross from visiting prisoners, the government had contravened Israeli and international law, and therefore the policy must be repealed.

It also ruled that the government failed to present a legal foundation for its policy on annulling all visits after the Hamas-led attack on October 2023, in which more than 1,100 people were killed and more than 240 were taken captive.

The assault triggered a brutal war in Gaza, which has been defined as a genocide by several prominent scholars and an independent United Nations inquiry. The Israeli army killed more than 72,950 people in the enclave, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and reduced most of the besieged territory to rubble, and forced the displacement of nearly 1.9 million Palestinians.

Violence across the occupied West Bank perpetrated by Israeli forces also intensified to unprecedented levels. All visits to prisoners were halted, and information about them was not shared – something that used to be standard practice before the war. Back then, Israeli authorities accused Hamas of failing to secure access to the captives in Gaza.

It was the first time in 50 years that Israel prevented Red Cross visits, according to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), which filed the petition.

“For the first time in nearly three years, the over 9,000 Palestinian security prisoners being held in Israeli prisons and military detention centers will receive Red Cross visits,” ACRI said. The ban remained in place even after a “ceasefire” was agreed last October.

Initial petition

The petition by ACRI, Physicians for Human Rights, Israeli rights group HaMoked and Israeli NGO Gisha against the government policy was first filed in Israel’s High Court in February 2024. But the state of Israel asked for 27 extensions before a hearing was held at the end of October last year.

The ICRC welcomed the decision, saying it was ready to resume its visits. “We are continuing our dialogue with the Israeli authorities to resume our work in detention as soon as possible,” it said in a statement. It added that access to detainees and the ability to meet with them privately are obligations under international law.

Wednesday’s decision comes amid growing concerns over the ill-treatment of Palestinian detainees in Israeli prisons.

Last week, the United Nations released its annual report on conflict-related sexual violence verified in 2025. It cited torture, rape, gang rape, forced nudity and “cavity searches conducted without apparent security justification perpetrated” by Israeli armed forces and security forces primarily during detention and interrogation and across several sites, including the infamous Sde Teiman military camp, among others.

LOVE Island’s Millie Court has stepped into her “hot girl summer” era with a series of sizzling new bikini snaps after her split from All Star boyfriend Zac Woodworth.

The Essex girl and the American hunk shocked fans when they called time on their romance last month, having been one of the villa’s big success stories earlier in the year.

Millie hasn’t resigned herself to the sofa eating ice cream since the split, instead she’s looking better than ever.

Just days after wowing on the catwalk in Miami, she showcased her toned body in white swimwear beside a pool.

Unsurprisingly, the comments were packed full of compliments, with pals like Sophie Piper and Chloe Burrows championing her.

Another follower said the pics gave them “goosebumps”, while another urged a man out there to “wife her up”.

DUMPED & DONE?

TWO Love Island stars dumped in shock axing – as secret twist rocks villa

All the eliminations from Love Island 2026: Find out who has left series 13 so far

Just days ago, Millie and Zac came face-to-face for the first time since ending their relationship, supposedly due to the transatlantic distance keeping them apart.

They crossed paths during a group gathering with fellow Islanders, and fans believe their body language was telling.

Love Island‘s Yamen Sanders captured the moment the former couple reunited and shared a hug, joking that they were “back together” and his girlfriend Whitney Adebayo agreed with the tease.

However, Millie looked far from impressed by the joke, appearing awkward as she briefly hugged Zac before turning to her friends and asking them to “stop”.

Her reaction caught fans’ attention, with many claiming it suggested Millie was the one who dumped Zac.

One wrote: “Millie’s like no thanks”.

A second said: “Millie said hell nah ahahahahaha.”

A third shared: “Millie looks less than impressed”.

Opposition leader and dozens of other defendants handed lengthy prison terms for ‘forming a terrorist alliance’.

A Tunisian court has handed down sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment against opposition leader Rached Ghannouchi and dozens of other defendants in the so-called “secret apparatus” case involving the Ennahdha party.

The Tunis Court of First Instance on Tuesday sentenced Ghannouchi, the leader of Ennahdha and a former parliamentary speaker, to life in prison plus 30 years on terrorism-related charges, reported Tunis Afrique Presse, Tunisia’s official news agency.

Eleven other defendants, including Ali Laarayedh, an adviser to former Tunisian Prime Minister Ali Laarayedh, were handed life sentences in addition to prison terms of up to 96 years, Tunis Afrique Presse reported.

Thirteen others were handed prison terms of between 10 and 48 years, according to the news agency.

The court found Ghannouchi and the other defendants guilty of “forming a terrorist alliance” and other crimes, including “placing skills and expertise at the disposal of a terrorist alliance and of persons linked to terrorist crimes”, according to Tunis Afrique Presse.

The court ordered all defendants to be placed under administrative monitoring for five years.

Authorities opened the case against Ghannouchi and his co-defendants in early 2022 following a complaint by the public prosecutor’s office and lawyers for the families of leftist politicians Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi, vocal Ennahdha critics who were assassinated in 2013.

Lawyers representing Belaid and Brahmi’s families accused what they called Ennahda’s “secret apparatus” of involvement in the assassinations, as well as “conducting espionage and infiltrating state institutions”.

Ennahdha denied the allegations, describing them as “politically motivated”.

The public prosecutor’s office at the Ariana Court of First Instance initially took up the case, before handing it over to the judicial counterterrorism unit in 2023.

In April, Ennahdha said Ghannouchi had been urgently transferred from prison to hospital after a sharp deterioration in his health and called for his immediate release.

The opposition National Salvation Front also called for Ghannouchi’s release, citing his deteriorating health.

Tunisian security forces arrested Ghannouchi at his home during a Ramadan gathering in 2023, before a court of first instance ordered his imprisonment on charges of making statements that “incite chaos and disobedience”.

On April 15, a court sentenced Ghannouchi and three other Ennahdha leaders to 20 years in prison in what came to be known as the “Ramadan soirée case”.

Tunisian authorities have denied accusations that Ghannouchi and the other detainees are being held on political grounds.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday night that Alabama Republican leaders may redraw their congressional voting districts to oust a Black Democrat and elect a white Republican.

The court’s conservatives, who ruled for Louisiana Republicans in a redistricting dispute, extended that decision to Alabama. The three liberals dissented.

The decision clears the way for the governor and state lawmakers to redraw their congressional voting map with six districts that favor Republicans and one that favors a Democrat.

“Weeks ago, I warned that vacating the District Court’s injunction in these cases would ‘unleash chaos and … confuse voters,’ ” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent. “Yet just as Alabama doubled down on racial discrimination, the Court today doubles down on chaos. Because I choose to defend the rule of law and the right of all Alabamians to participate equally in democracy, I respectfully dissent.”

The justices granted an emergency appeal that was backed by the Trump administration and set aside the decision of a three-judge panel in Alabama.

The court in a brief opinion said the three judges should not have blocked Alabama’s new map.

“While federal courts should not impose changes close to an election, states are free to decide for themselves whether last-minute changes to an election are in their best interests,” the court said.

Alabama’s emergency appeal went to Justice Clarence Thomas, who referred it to the full court.

Those three judges, two of them Trump appointees, ruled that Alabama’s state lawmakers discriminated against Black voters, who made up a near majority in the center of the state.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices upheld the creation of a second district in the center of the state where Black voters had a near majority.

The result then was an Alabama state voting map that favored five Republicans and two Democrats for the House of Representatives.

But last month, in the wake of the Louisiana decision, Alabama’s lawmakers went back to court, arguing that the state may return to the voting map with only a single Black majority district.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Alabama’s Atty. Gen. Steven Marshall argued that the high court’s decision in favor of Louisiana “vindicates Alabama position on the lawfulness” of its earlier voting map. He said the state should not be penalized for “refusing to intentionally discriminate” to favor Black voters.

The court’s decision has cleared the way for Republican-led states in the South to flip congressional districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, Florida and now Alabama.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Tuesday heard from voting rights groups and a coalition of two dozen states that want the courts to halt President Trump’s executive order seeking to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.

The plaintiffs argued in two lawsuits that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. They also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on state election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution.

“This is going to be a sea change in the way that some states administer their ballots,” said Michael Cohen, who was part of a team representing California, adding that “it will be difficult to overstate the disruption that this will cause.”

Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.

His latest order is being challenged through multiple lawsuits, including two filed in U.S. District Court in Boston.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the League of Women Voters in one of the two Boston cases, has called the order “a dangerous attempt to disenfranchise eligible voters nationwide.” The group said the order transforms “the U.S. Postal Service from a neutral mail carrier to an arbiter of who may cast a ballot by mail.”

“This case challenges an extraordinary and abusive assertion of executive power over the administration of federal elections,” the organization said in its complaint.

The hearing comes less than a week after another judge declined to halt the order. U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee in Washington, agreed with the Trump administration’s contention that it was too early to block the order because it has yet to be implemented.

The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits, argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims. They also argued the motions are premature and that plaintiffs lack the legal basis to bring their Administrative Procedure Act claim, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, said the harms the plaintiffs referred to were subjective, since much can change with the voting list before it is finalized. He also said no one would be prosecuted for violating the executive order.

Missouri Solicitor Gen. Lou Capozzi, speaking for the states supporting the list, argued it was too early to say how his state might use the list, but that it was “unlikely” any voter would be removed this year from the voter rolls because of it.

“We are not exactly sure how we would use it,” Capozzi said, adding that “we don’t want this process to be strangled in the crib, so to speak.”

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani took the requests for motions to halt the order, along with motions to dismiss the cases under advisement.

During oral arguments, Talwani expressed concerns about whether the federal system envisioned under the executive order could be ready for the upcoming midterm elections and about the risks posed to election workers who rely on a state list that differs from the federal one. She also raised doubts about the reliability of a federal list — noting, for example, women who changed their names after getting married or someone who has moved from state to state might be missed.

“Isn’t there a reasonable fear and concern on behalf of voters that they will be precluded?” Talwani asked.

Trump issued the order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government create a list of eligible voters and then directed the postal service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list. Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos, and the postal union has objected to the idea of mail carriers policing ballots.

The postal service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.

Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigations, including ones run by Republicans, found it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, under intense grilling at a Senate hearing Tuesday, refused to commit to abiding by federal court orders.

Mullin also conceded that his predecessor as secretary, Kristi Noem, had inaccurately described two shootings involving immigration officers in Minneapolis.

His refusal to commit to complying with court orders came during a testy exchange with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.). Murphy quoted Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz in Minnesota — a Republican appointee — who said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had violated nearly 100 court orders and had “likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”

When Murphy asked Mullin to commit to complying with court orders in the future, Mullin replied that his agency would not break the law.

“But that doesn’t sound like the same thing as committing that you will obey a court order,” Murphy said.

“If we didn’t think the courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that. But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for political opinion and not just the rule of law,” Mullin said.

“So you’ll pick and choose which court orders you’ll obey?” Murphy asked,

Mullin told Murphy not to put words in his mouth.

Addressing his fellow senators, Murphy said, “If you’re a Democrat or a Republican on this committee, you should be really, really freaked out.”

Murphy later returned to the court orders question, saying that ignoring judges erodes democracy.

“I agree that there is politics involved in judicial decisions,” he said. “I do not think that gives an excuse to either Democratic or Republican administrations to ignore those court orders. I think that’s actually the end of our republic, if the administration willfully ignores a court order because they disagree with it or its motivation.”

Mullin faced the Senate Appropriations Committee amid scrutiny over the agency’s budget and immigration enforcement ahead of the World Cup. President Trump tapped Mullin to take over leadership of the embattled Department of Homeland Security after Noem was fired in March.

Mullin’s appearance came as the Senate is considering legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies through the end of Trump’s term. Republicans intend to use a legislative maneuver that would bypass the need for support from Democrats, who have pushed for reforms since two U.S. citizens were killed by immigration agents in Minneapolis.

During his previous appearance before senators, Mullin projected himself as diplomatic, saying he would work to bring confidence to the agency and keep it out of the news. But recently, he has set the travel industry on edge by threatening to remove Customs and Border Protection officers from airports in so-called sanctuary cities, which limit collaboration with immigration enforcement agents.

Millions of people are preparing to visit the United States for the World Cup, which starts June 11 and includes host cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Mullin said he will attend his first soccer game June 12 in Los Angeles.

Murphy, the committee’s top Democrat, made note of Mullin’s promise to keep Homeland Security out of the news. He said the agency has repeatedly broken the law, wasted billions in taxpayer dollars and lined the pockets of private prison corporations.

“Nothing has really gotten better,” he said. “In fact, you spent the first two months of your tenure threatening to suspend international arrivals in states represented by Democrats. Not only would that throw our entire air travel system into chaos, it’s completely illegal.”

Mullin took issue with Murphy’s characterization of the agency’s behavior, calling it political theater. Murphy sat with his head propped up on his hand, looking directly back at his former Senate colleague.

Mullin said threats against immigration agents are up significantly and that Murphy’s “reckless tone is getting people hurt.”

Protests erupted last month outside an immigrant detention facility in New Jersey after detainees launched a hunger and labor strike over what they called inhumane conditions such as rotten food and medical neglect. Tensions have escalated over several days as protesters clashed with law enforcement and counterprotesters.

On Monday in Dallas, Mullin said he would pull Customs officers from airports around the country to help with the security in Newark, if it became necessary.

Addressing the issue of officer training, Mullin said Tuesday that the agency will return next month to 72 days of training for new recruits, including training on crowd control. Last year, then-acting ICE Director Todd Lyons told Congress the agency had reduced the number of training days to 42.

He also said the agency is not “actively patrolling” sensitive locations, such as schools, and said that the agency has stopped relying on administrative warrants to enter a residence by force and is now seeking judicial warrants before doing so in most cases.

Asked by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) about body-worn cameras, Mullin said the agency doesn’t have the money to supply enough body cameras for every immigration officer. Homeland Security received an unprecedented windfall last year of $170 billion under Trump’s sweeping tax bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Mullin said the agency suffered a blow to morale because of the historic 76-day shutdown of ICE and CBP after a congressional stalemate over funding.

“Some people couldn’t sustain it,” he said. “We lost a tremendous amount of workforce, about 8%.”

During an exchange with Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mullin acknowledged that Noem had unfairly and inaccurately described two shootings involving immigration officers in Minneapolis.

An ICE agent was recently arrested over the nonfatal shooting of a Venezuelan man, whom Noem had called an attempted murderer.

“That’s an untrue statement, isn’t it?” Van Hollen said.

“From what we have been briefed on, yes,” Mullin replied.

Next, Van Hollen brought up Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by CBP agents. Noem called him a domestic terrorist.

“You agree the facts don’t support that statement?” Van Hollen said.

“The investigation would say that’s probably not accurate,” Mullin replied.

Mullin was scheduled to appear before the House on Wednesday.

NEW ORLEANS — A sharply divided Louisiana Supreme Court on Monday signed off on abolishing an elected office won by a New Orleans exoneree who had spent nearly 30 years in prison for murder before his conviction was vacated.

The 4-3 decision leaves Calvin Duncan with little path forward to try assuming the role of Orleans Parish clerk of criminal court, a job he won in a landmark election last year before Republican lawmakers raced to eliminate the office this spring.

In a blistering dissent, the court’s Democratic justices said the ruling opened the door to allowing Louisiana lawmakers to subvert the will of voters. The court’s conservative majority disagreed, writing that “this change was entirely within the authority of the Legislature.”

The court also rejected the New Orleans City Council’s attempt to hold a special election, which would have given Duncan the option to run again.

“At a time when our voting rights are under unprecedented attack, this decision clarifies that if we want to live in a democracy, we have to fight for it with every tool our system of government provides,” Duncan said in a statement.

Signed by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry, the bill eliminating the New Orleans clerk’s office was championed by GOP lawmakers as a necessary step toward government efficiency. Supporters denied that it had anything to do with Duncan or his past.

Democrats blasted the change as overreach from a largely white, conservative Legislature that they accused of seeking to thwart the will of a predominantly Black city. Those tensions surfaced again last month when Landry signed a new congressional map that eliminated one of the state’s two majority-Black House districts.

Duncan was convicted of a 1981 murder and was released from prison in 2011. In 2021, an Orleans Parish district judge vacated Duncan’s sentence, finding he had been unjustly convicted and the charges against him were dropped. Duncan is listed on the National Registry of Exonerations.

Brook writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is backing away from plans to create a $1.8-billion fund to compensate people who claim the government was weaponized against them, a retreat that comes amid a cascade of legal setbacks and a revolt within members of the Republican Party.

But Senate Democrats say the concession is not enough, and are pushing legislation to ensure no president can ever attempt the creation of such a fund again.

“If Republicans are serious about ending this brazenly corrupt scheme, they should have no problem voting for legislation banning any president from creating such a slush fund in the future,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) wrote Monday in a post on X.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) added that Democrats plan to force a vote on a measure to ensure that Trump and Republicans are “truly abandoning this corrupt scheme.”

“Trump’s word is nowhere near enough,” Schumer wrote on X. Earlier in the day, Schumer vowed to force a floor vote to make Republican lawmakers take a public stance on the issue.

Schiff, along with Sens. Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, introduced the “Drain the Slush Fund Act” on Monday. The bill, if approved, would bar any payout arising from a lawsuit filed by a president or vice president, language that is designed to permanently foreclose the fund, or anything like it, from being put in place by a future administration.

The White House did not comment on the president’s thinking. But in a statement, the Department of Justice said the decision to scrap the fund was in response to a federal judge’s ruling last week that temporarily blocked payouts from the fund while legal challenges remain pending. The department said it “disagrees strongly” with the move, but stopped short of saying it would challenge the decision.

“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,” the statement read. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”

U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was nominated to the bench by President Clinton, a Democrat, has scheduled a June 12 hearing for argument on whether to extend the order blocking the fund.

While the court ruling is not permanent, the unraveling over the fund is a notable defeat for Trump, who has cast it as a long-overdue reckoning for Americans he says were targeted by “an evil, corrupt and weaponized Biden administration.” For Republicans who publicly criticized the fund, it may come as a relief as the concept had been widely seen as a political liability heading into the midterm elections.

The Department of Justice created the fund to settle a lawsuit Trump personally brought against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax returns. The settlement also includes a clause permanently barring the IRS from pursuing any tax claims against Trump and his businesses that were filed before May 19 — a provision that, according to an analysis by Forbes, would save Trump and his family more than $600 million.

The White House declined to comment on whether the administration would also make changes to the tax immunity clause. The Democrats’ bill does not address that provision.

“Congress doesn’t need to pass a law to remind the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche] that he doesn’t have the authority to grant a blanket pardon for tax crimes by the president, much less when the AG is his personal attorney,” a Schiff spokesperson said in a statement. “The attempt at IRS immunity is corrupt and undoubtedly illegal — and we look forward to seeing it exposed as a fraud.”

Beyond Trump’s own legal disputes with the IRS, the fund was structured to accept claims from anyone who said they had been targeted by the government, a category the administration made clear could include those who were convicted for attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

Trump pardoned and commuted the prison sentences of 1,500 people who were charged in connection with the attack, and neither he nor Vice President JD Vance ruled out the possibility that those individuals would be able to receive money from the fund.

That possibility immediately ran into trouble with lawmakers. Senate Republicans, many of whom were caught off guard by the arrangement, publicly revolted against the fund and derailed plans to vote on legislation to fund Trump’s immigration crackdown amid the deep disagreement.

A closed-door meeting last month between Blanche and GOP senators grew heated, with lawmakers demanding answers the administration was seemingly not prepared to give.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who attended the meeting, described it as “angry” in an episode of his podcast last month. Cruz said that roughly 45 Senate Republicans had attended and estimated that “at least half of them were blasting the attorney general.” Based on those reactions, Cruz predicted the administration would need to amend its position on the fund.

“We will see the administration announcing at a minimum a modification of this, because if they don’t they’ve got a full-on revolt in the Senate,” he said.

The fund also led to criticism outside of Congress. Former Vice President Mike Pence, who served in Trump’s first administration, told NBC News in an interview Sunday that it was a “bad idea from the start.”

“I would encourage the administration just to drop it,” Pence said.

BOSTON — Former Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell used one of his first major public appearances since leaving office to defend independent institutions while accepting an award Sunday honoring his efforts to preserve the central bank’s independence.

Speaking at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library overlooking Boston Harbor, Powell called universities, courts, Congress and the central bank “the foundation and the embodiment of our democracy” and argued that the Fed’s independence was a “priceless asset” that must be protected.

It was one of his most direct defenses of Fed independence, warning that a single administration’s decision to remove bank officials over policy differences would open the way for future elected officials to follow suit, ultimately undermining the credibility that the Fed has spent decades building.

Powell, who frequently clashed with President Trump during his eight years as chair, stepped down as his term expired in May. He was succeeded by Kevin Warsh, whom Trump selected to lead the central bank.

After stepping down as chair, Powell took the unusual step of keeping his seat on the Fed’s governing board, which he has until January 2028. By doing so, he has deprived the Trump administration of an opportunity to appoint another member of the board.

The Trump administration has also sought to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook, which would open an additional seat on the rate-setting committee the president could fill. Yet Cook sued and the courts have so far let her keep her seat.

While Powell never mentioned Trump by name Sunday, he repeatedly returned to the importance of protecting institutions from political pressure and preserving public trust in their independence.

“Like many other institutions, the Fed has been undergoing a stress test,” he said. “Congress wisely chose to insulate monetary policy decisions from political pressure. All other advanced economy nations have done the same.”

Since 1989, the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award has recognized public servants who make what the foundation describes as courageous decisions of conscience despite personal or professional consequences.

Previous recipients include former Presidents Barack Obama and George H. W. Bush, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former Vice President Mike Pence.

In March, the foundation said it was awarding Powell for protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve “despite years of personal attacks and threats from the highest levels of government.”

Trump harshly criticized Powell throughout his tenure as chair, frequently attacking the Fed’s interest-rate decisions and urging the central bank to cut borrowing costs more aggressively.

Beyond the Federal Reserve, Powell defended U.S. universities and research institutions, the Constitution, Congress and the court system.

“The United States has long been the leader of the world’s freedom-seeking people — the indispensable nation. Other countries know us as a nation built on integrity, and that integrity must be maintained,” he said.

In his remarks, Powell indirectly acknowledged mistakes as chair. The Fed is legally required to seek stable prices, but inflation surged amid the pandemic’s supply chain crunch. Many economists believe the central bank should have raised interest rates more quickly in response.

“At the Fed, we are, of course, human and thus imperfect,” Powell said. “When we make mistakes, we acknowledge them and change course.”

Powell was honored alongside residents of Minnesota’s Twin Cities, who received the award for what the Kennedy Foundation described as acts of courage during a federal immigration crackdown that led to thousands of arrests and the deaths of Minneapolis mother Renée Good and nurse Alex Pretti, both of whom were killed while observing or documenting enforcement activity.

“It’s wonderful just to be invited, honoring Renée,” Good’s father, Tim Granger, said as he entered the library with family members.

Kennedy’s only surviving child, Caroline Kennedy, and her son, Jack Schlossberg, said in a statement that without people like Powell and those in Minnesota “willing to put their lives on the line to hold America to its promises, our democracy can’t survive.”

Attendee U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who is running for governor of Minnesota next year, reflected that the award was unusual because it recognized ordinary residents rather than elected officials.

“This didn’t go to an elected leader for a reason,” Klobuchar said. “It’s because the people stood up. They stood up by marching 50,000 strong. They stood by bringing kids they didn’t even know — strangers’ kids — to school, by bringing them groceries and they didn’t blink. And that’s what this award is about. It’s about courage.”

Willingham writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Christopher Rugaber contributed to this report from Washington.

WASHINGTON — A Trump administration policy illegally banned transgender troops from military service, a divided panel of federal appeal court judges ruled on Monday.

The majority opinion by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit largely upholds a March 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes in Washington, D.C. Reyes concluded that President Trump’s executive order to exclude transgender troops from military service likely violates their constitutional rights.

The administration appealed after Reyes issued a preliminary injunction requested by attorneys for six transgender people who are active-duty service members and two others seeking to join the military. The appeal court’s majority decided that the injunction should be narrowed to the plaintiffs currently serving in the military but not those seeking to join.

The ruling won’t immediately go into effect, allowing the administration time to ask the full appeals court to hear the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed the transgender military ban to go into effect last year, as litigation continues to play out. Another lawsuit challenging the ban was filed in Washington state and led to a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs challenging the policy in that case.

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order that claims the sexual identity of transgender service members “conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life” and is harmful to military readiness.

In response to the order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth issued a policy that presumptively disqualifies people with gender dysphoria from military service. Gender dysphoria is the distress that a person feels because their assigned gender and gender identity don’t match. The medical condition has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts.

The policy “appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote for the majority. Wilkins was nominated to the court by Democratic President Obama.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Justin Walker said judges lack the power to second-guess the decision to exclude transgender troops.

“We have neither the expertise nor the authority to decide whether the military can exclude the plaintiffs from its ranks. The Constitution assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief,” wrote Walker, who was nominated by Trump, a Republican.

Judge Judith Rogers, who was nominated by Democratic President Clinton, joined Wilkins’ opinion but also partially dissented.

Kunzelman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

A Paralympic athlete died “in an accident waiting to happen” when a metal bar fell on him, a sentencing hearing at the Old Bailey has been told.

Abdullah Hayayei, a wheelchair using shot putter from the United Arab Emirates, was killed when a training cage collapsed in a gust of wind at a training facility in Newham, London, as he practised for the World Athletics Championships in July 2017.

UK Athletics, the event’s organiser, is being sentenced for corporate manslaughter.

Keith Davies, 78, UK Athletics’ former head of sport, is being sentenced for a breach of health and safety law. Both Mr Davies and UK Athletics pleaded guilty at a hearing earlier this year.

Prosecuting, John Price KC told judge Richard Marks KC that the equipment that killed Mr Hayayei, 36, was missing key components.

The entire structure collapsed in the wind, and a heavy metal bar weighing 25kg hit the athlete on the head. Mr Hayayei, who had a history of cerebral palsy, died at the scene.

The court heard a victim impact statement from Badriah Rashid Zayed Al-Yahyaei, the victim’s widow, who described how her husband’s death had left her alone with five young children.

“It was a huge shock to me because I was waiting for the news of his victory and success,” she said.

“Suddenly the news reached me. I could not comprehend it at first and refused to believe it, and today that moment is still in my mind.

“What happened was a result of gross negligence that could have been avoided had safety rules been adhered to.

“My husband went out to represent his country, raise the name of the UAE, and returned as a corpse.”

Mr Davies and representatives from UK Athletics listened as the prosecutor explained how key base support components from the heavy shot-putting cage had been missing that afternoon.

The KC said Mr Davies had told investigators that the equipment had been assembled according to the instructions.

“At the very least,” argued Mr Price, the official “ought to have known that it was incorrect”.

He added: “The evidence shows he actually knew it and therefore this was not a truthful statement by him.”

An expert called to the Newham site after the accident said some of the bolts were missing, and the KC claimed there was a “culture and practice” of assembling the cage without key pieces.

“It was an accident waiting to happen,” he told the court.

A legal statement which UK Athletics produced years after the incident was described by the prosecutor as ‘”a deeply unworthy document by a national sporting body and one of which it should be ashamed”.

UK Athletics, said the KC, had attempted to lay all the blame upon Mr Davies “and even appear to have pointed the finger at the Newham venue”.

Representing Mr Davies, Mark Balysz KC said his client had written to the court in advance of the sentencing.

Mr Davies says he has found it “so very hard” to come to come to terms with the athlete’s death.

“I have woken every night thinking about his loss, and his poor family,” he said.

“These feelings have intensified since I found out about the investigation for manslaughter.”

The hearing continues, and Judge Marks is expected to hand down his sentencing decisions on Tuesday.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court heads into the final month of its yearly term facing decisions on birthright citizenship, gun rights, transgender athletes and President Trump’s power over independent agencies.

Unlike in years past, the term’s most significant rulings were not left for the last week in June.

The court dealt Trump a major defeat in February by striking down his sweeping worldwide tariffs. The president is likely to suffer a second defeat when the justices reject his plan to revise the citizenship laws via an executive order.

Republicans won when the court struck down a Louisiana congressional district that favored a Black Democrat.

That decision has already shifted several congressional districts toward the GOP, but its greatest impact will be seen in 2028 and 2030.

Republicans are likely to prevail in two other pending cases.

One would free party committees to raise and spend more money to support their candidates. A second would change state laws to bar counting of mail ballots that arrive after election day.

The justices have 26 cases waiting to be decided before they go on a summer recess. Here are the major cases due for decision:

Trump and birthright citizenship

Does the 14th Amendment of 1868 mean what it says about who is a citizen?

It declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

The Supreme Court upheld that understanding in 1898, ruling that Wong Kim Ark, who was born to Chinese parents in San Francisco, was a U.S. citizen at birth. Congress adopted birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1940 and 1952.

But on his first day back in the White House, Trump issued an executive order to deny citizenship to the newborns of parents who in the country unlawfully or temporarily on a student, work or tourist visa.

Judges blocked the order from taking effect, and in April, the justices gave a skeptical hearing to Trump’s lawyers as the president sat in the gallery.

The best outcome for Trump would be a ruling that rejects his executive order based on U.S. immigration law alone. Although a defeat, that could in theory permit Congress to revise the law and deny citizenship to the newborns of so-called “birth tourists.” (Trump vs. Barbara)

Guns and drugs

Can the government make it a crime for “habitual users of unlawful drugs” to have a gun, or does that violate 2nd Amendment rights?

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a Texas case struck down this provision as unconstitutional, except for someone who is “under an impairing influence” of drugs at the time of his arrest.

The Trump administration appealed and urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law against “habitual users of unlawful drugs,” including regular users of marijuana. (U.S. vs. Hemani)

In a second gun rights case, the court will decide whether Hawaii, California and three other states led by Democrats may forbid licensed gun owners from carrying a firearm into stores or private businesses open to the public unless they have the “express authorization” of the owners. (Wolford vs. Lopez)

Transgender athletes and school sports

Can states maintain separate sports teams for boys and girls “based on biological sex determined at birth” or does excluding transgender girls violate the Title IX law or the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?

The justices heard appeals from West Virginia and Idaho after lower courts ruled they had discriminated against transgender girls, and most of them sounded ready to rule for the states.

The only question was whether the court will rule narrowly to uphold laws in the red states or go further to decide how Title IX applies nationwide. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. and Little vs. Hecox)

Trump and independent agencies

Can the president fire the leaders of special agencies who were given a fixed term by Congress?

For most of American history, Congress created new boards or commissions with a specific mission, such as regulating railroad rates in the 1880s or nuclear power in the 1970s. By law, these agencies are led by a bipartisan board of experts who had a fixed term and could be fired only for cause.

But Trump and the court’s conservatives believe the president has the executive authority to control the government and to fire agency officials — but with one exception. The majority wants to preserve the independence of the Federal Reserve Board. (Trump vs. Slaughter)

Separately, the court will rule on whether Trump had the power to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook for cause. He alleged she engaged in mortgage fraud and dismissed her in a social media post. The justices blocked her removal and sounded ready to rule she deserved due process of law and a full hearing to contest the allegations. (Trump vs. Cook)

Temporary Protected Status

Can the Trump administration cancel legal protection for more than 300,000 Haitians and Syrians who are living and working in this country?

In 1990, Congress created this protected status for foreign nationals who could not return home safely because of armed conflicts or natural disasters.

The Obama administration extended protection to Haitians and Syrians. Last year, Trump’s then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem sought to terminate it, but judges blocked her orders because it was still dangerous and unsafe in those countries.

Before the Supreme Court, Trump’s lawyers argued the law forbids “judicial review” of these executive decisions. (Mullin vs. Doe)

Campaign funds and political parties

Do the 50-year-old limits on how much political party committees can raise and spend to directly support their candidates violate the 1st Amendment?

During the Watergate era, Congress adopted limits on money in political campaigns, but the court has struck down the spending limits on free speech grounds. Left standing were the limits on direct contributions to candidates, including from political parties.

Republicans led by then-Sen. JD Vance sued, arguing the party limits were outdated and unwise in an era when super PACs are free to spend huge sums on campaigns. (National Republican Senatorial Committee vs. FEC)

The court also will rule on the GOP’s bid to strike down laws in California and most states that allow for counting mail ballots that were postmarked by election day but arrive a few days later. (Watson vs. Republican National Committee)

NEW YORK — American businesses big and small have started receiving tariff refunds after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that President Trump lacked the constitutional authority to impose higher import taxes on goods from nearly every other country.

The process could grind to a halt, however, after the Trump administration said Friday that it intended to appeal a federal judge’s order to allow all companies that paid the illegal import taxes to seek refunds, not just the ones that filed lawsuits.

Until the Department of Justice informed the judge of its planned appeal, the refund system overseen by U.S. Customs and Border Protection had been working fairly smoothly. Refunds reached the bank accounts of the first successful applicants on May 12, about three weeks after American importers and their customs brokers could start submitting claims through an online system, according to CBP.

Applications for refunds totaling $85 billion — more than half of the $166 billion the agency estimated the government owes to companies that paid the illegal tariffs on imported goods — were accepted for processing as of May 22, CBP reported in a legal filing earlier in the week. It said it had so far directed the Treasury Department to issue $20.6 billion in refunds.

The administration revealed its appeal preparations while objecting to a demand by Judge Richard K. Eaton for CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott to appear in the U.S. Court of International Trade to answer questions about how long it would take to repay all 330,000 importers that might be eligible for refunds. The judge has scheduled a June 9 hearing on why he shouldn’t require the government do whatever it takes to speed up the process.

Justice Department lawyers asked Eaton to allow one or two of Scott’s deputies to appear in his place, arguing that as a high-ranking presidential appointee, the CBP chief could not be compelled to testify in court. They also argued that Eaton exceeded his own authority when he determined in March that the Supreme Court’s ruling entitled “all importers of record’’ to refunds.

“For that reason, defendants intend to appeal the court’s universal injunction,” the lawyers wrote, adding that CBP would continue to move “as quickly as it can to process refunds in a phased approach” for businesses that filed some 485 pending trade court complaints to assert their rights to refunds.

In a terse reply Friday, Eaton said he needed to hear directly from Scott whether the government would return all of the money it collected between when Trump imposed what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods from most countries in April 2025 and when the Supreme Court struck them down in late February.

“This case involves $166 billion,” the judge wrote. “It is undisputed that the remedy for this unlawful collection is for the United States government to refund the unlawfully collected duties.”

Some national retail chains said they planned to use their tariff refunds to lower customer prices on some items. Walmart Chief Financial Officer John David Rainey told analysts last week that the company would implement price cuts even though the maximum refund it might be eligible for represented less than half of 1% of Walmart’s $483 billion in annual U.S. sales.

Some smaller companies told the Associated Press that the partial refunds they’ve received so far would go toward paying remaining or future tariffs, reducing debt or just keeping the lights on after more than a year of uncertainty and additional import costs.

Jay Foreman, chief executive of toy company Basic Fun, said he received about $450,000, or 7% of his total claim, over two consecutive days this month. He took the initial repayment as a positive sign but said that after having less than $10,000 refunded since then, the process seemed like a “total slow roll.”

“It’s time to release the funds back into the economy, especially given how much we and others need these funds to support our businesses and fund our operations,” Foreman said.

Anderson writes for the Associated Press.

US President Donald Trump has announced he plans to withdraw his leadership from the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, after a federal judge ruled he could no longer have his name on the building.

On Friday, in a 580-word post, Trump blasted Judge Christopher Cooper as reckless. He also painted the performing arts centre as a dilapidated structure only he could restore.

“Unfortunately, Judge Cooper and the Radical Left would rather see it DIE than have President Trump transform it into something that everyone could be proud of,” Trump wrote, referring to himself in third person.

But Trump’s interventions at the Kennedy Center, a national performing arts centre in Washington, DC, have been controversial from the start.

Construction on the building began in 1964, shortly after President John F Kennedy was assassinated.

That year, his successor, Lyndon B Johnson, signed into law an act of Congress that established the site as a “living memorial” to the slain leader.

But since starting his second term, Trump has sought to reshape Washington, DC, in his own image, undertaking construction projects and erecting banners with his photograph.

Within weeks of his inauguration, in February 2025, he fired Democratic members of the Kennedy Center’s bipartisan board and replaced them with his picks.

He also terminated the leadership of the centre’s longtime president, Deborah Rutter. The board quickly elected Trump as chair instead.

But some of the biggest backlash came in December, when the board went a step further and voted to rename the building “The Donald J Trump and the John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts”.

Within a day, construction crews were seen outside the arts centre, adding Trump’s name to the outside of the edifice.

Critics immediately denounced the effort as a violation of the 1964 law, not to mention a sign of disrespect towards the late Kennedy.

Amid public pressure and a string of cancellations from performers, Trump announced in February he would shutter the arts centre for two years, starting in July. He cited renovations as his rationale for the sudden closure.

US Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center trustee, sued to stop the closure from happening. She also sought the removal of Trump’s name.

Inside the court’s ruling

In Friday’s ruling, Judge Cooper — an appointee of former President Barack Obama — sided with Beatty’s requests.

He ordered that Trump’s name must be removed from the theatre’s facade, as well as any other signage or official materials, within 14 days, citing the 1964 law.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” Cooper wrote.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it.”

Cooper also overturned the Trump-led board’s decision to strip trustees like Beatty of the right to vote on Kennedy Center matters. Beatty is one of several bipartisan trustees who have a seat on the board by virtue of an act of Congress.

“If trustees presumptively possess the right to vote, what, if anything, authorizes the Board to unilaterally strip certain trustees of voting rights?” Cooper asked in his decision, striking down the Trump-era policy.

“Absent Congressional authorization, the Board may not deprive a duly-appointed Kennedy Center trustee of her right to vote on Board matters on which all other trustees are entitled to vote.”

In the last part of his 94-page decision, Cooper turned his attention to the Kennedy Center’s imminent closure.

He pointed to statements and plans from Trump administration officials touting the use of the performing arts facility before the July closure date, saying they undermined the assertion that the building was somehow hazardous.

“Former Kennedy Center President [Richard] Grenell emphasized that the Center would be one of the ‘premiere spots’ for America’s 250th celebration — quite a concerning idea if the Center is as dangerous as the Defendants now represent,” Cooper wrote, alluding to events scheduled for the coming weeks.

He later added, “Up until February 1, the Center was planning to proceed apace with some form of phased construction and cited no safety concerns about that plan.”

While closing the Kennedy Center is within the board’s powers, Cooper concluded that the board had likely violated its duty to administer the centre “as a prudent person would” under the law.

He therefore issued a temporary injunction against the centre’s closure. “The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

Reactions to the ruling

The ruling prompted an incensed rebuttal from Trump on his Truth Social platform. The president pledged to transfer oversight of the facility to Congress, under whose mandate the centre already operates.

“We are going to be working with Congress to transfer this failing Institution back to them so they can make a determination as to what to do with it,” Trump wrote.

He also blasted Cooper as a partisan actor who had treated him “unfairly”, echoing similar criticisms he had levied against other judges.

“Judge Cooper should be ashamed of himself! I cannot be involved with a situation where danger to the Public is allowed to flourish in plain and open sight,” Trump said.

“Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into ‘NEVER NEVER LAND.’”

Beatty, meanwhile, applauded the ruling as a victory against unchecked power, unfettered by the law.

“The Kennedy Center is an institution that belongs to the American people, not to Donald Trump,” she wrote.

“He has desecrated this sacred memorial for his own vanity. I am proud to have fought for the rule of law and to protect this sacred institution.”