court

Aug. 28 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against a policy by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that greatly expanded detention for migrants living in the country for years.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has changed its policies to treat people with extensive ties to the United States as still “seeking admission.”

That policy shift allows the agency to subject people who have lived in the country for years to mandatory detention without bond.

On Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy, marking the eighth time ICE has been rejected over this same issue in federal appeals court.

In more than 13,000 cases challenging the policy, judges have ruled against ICE more than 90% of the time, Politico reported.

The federal panel said ICE’s policy is incongruent with the law, which is to be applied differently depending on how recently a specific person entered the country.

“Contrary to the Government’s view, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘IIRIRA’) retained two tracks for detention even though it overhauled the procedures for removing noncitizens from the United States,” the court wrote in its decision.

“Before IIRIRA, noncitizens arriving in the United States were subject to ‘exclusion’ and those already in the country were subject to ‘deportation’ — the former were held in mandatory detention while the latter were afforded bond.”

The appeals court also ruled that ICE’s policy violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

“The Supreme Court has recognized the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.'”

The court added: “Because Petitioners here have lived in the United States for decades, they have ‘established connections’ in the country and are entitled to due process rights beyond those provided to noncitizens at the border.”

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

A federal appeals court ruled in June that the military’s attempts to remove transgender Americans was “both arbitrary and based upon animus.”

On Friday, Solicitor General John D. Sauer appealed to the country’s top court to reverse the ruling.

“The court asserted that the policy likely denies equal protection because it reflects invidious discrimination against trans-identifying people,” Sauer wrote in his petition. “That gravely erroneous holding warrants this Court’s review.”

“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” he added. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review.”

President Donald Trump has targeted transgender service members since the first days of his second administration.

He signed an executive order saying transgender troops’ health needs are “inconsistent” with service in the military.

The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law sued in February, and the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs.

Judge Robert Wilkins said the ban on transgender service members “appears driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

“We are confident the Supreme Court will affirm that the Trump administration cannot base policies on hostility toward a group of people,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights, in a statement.

“As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards,” Levi added. “There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims.”

The Supreme Court is on summer recess and will return on Oct. 5.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — A Manhattan federal judge on Thursday signed off on a $72.5 million settlement between Bank of America and victims of Jeffrey Epstein over the banking giant’s involvement in the convicted sex offenders crimes.

Judge Jed Rakoff said the agreement was a move toward accountability for the victims, he added that the pain caused by Epstein could be undone. “No amount of money can ever fully compensate Epstein victims for the harm they’ve suffered,” he said.

Around 60 women who were trafficked or abused by Epstein or any of his associates between June 2008 and July 2019 will be covered by the settlement, attorneys for the women have said.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank was accused in a class-action lawsuit of ignoring red flags in Epstein’s transactions in the years after he was first charged with sexually abusing girls and young women.

The lawsuit, which was filed last October, accused Bank of America of “absolute loyalty” to Epstein.

According to Senate Finance Committee data, Bank of America filed suspicious activity reports about more than $170 million in suspicious transactions between billionaire Leon Black and Epstein.

Similar settlements have been reached with JPMorgan Chase for $290 million and Deutsche Bank for $75 million.

None of the banks have admitted wrongdoing.

European football’s governing body considers making a criminal complaint ​against Infantino over World Cup selloff plans.

UEFA has asked ⁠a US ⁠federal court for permission to obtain testimony and documents from FIFA entities in ⁠Florida for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against FIFA President ⁠Gianni Infantino, according to a court filing.

In an ex parte application filed under US law, European football’s governing body said it is considering ‌criminal proceedings against Infantino and potentially other FIFA officials and advisers over a now-abandoned plan to transfer commercial rights linked to men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup into a new ⁠subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

“UEFA is actively considering legal action arising out of and in connection with the … plan proposed by FIFA,” read the legal document filed in a Florida court in the United States, according to the AFP news agency.

“More specifically, UEFA and other interested parties are preparing to bring criminal claims in Switzerland against Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials and advisors for criminal mismanagement under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code.”

UEFA ⁠alleges Infantino developed the proposal in secret with a small group of advisers and investors, bypassing FIFA’s normal ⁠governance processes and failing to consult the FIFA Council, regional confederations ⁠or member associations.

The filing asks ⁠a US court to authorise discovery from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc. and FWC2026 US, Inc., two Florida-based FIFA entities. UEFA ‌said the organisations may possess documents and witnesses relevant to how the FFE transaction ‌was ‌conceived, structured, valued and approved.

Jeanie Buss is taking her siblings to court. Again.

Attorneys representing the Lakers’ controlling governor filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday to block her five siblings from trying to sell the family’s remaining 17.82% of the NBA franchise the Buss family has owned since 1979.

Jeanie contends that her siblings should abide by a 2017 court order that mandated the family’s co-trustees to “take all actions reasonably available to ensure that Jeanie is appointed and remains as the NBA controlling owner of the Lakers.” The 2017 legal battle installed Jeanie’s younger siblings, Janie and Joey, as her fellow co-trustees, two roles that were previously held by her older brothers Jim and Johnny, who were ousted after a failed attempt to wrestle control away from Jeanie.

The 97-page petition accuses Janie, Joey and the other siblings Jim, Johnny and Jesse of “devious behavior” for not including Jeanie in discussions to sell the family’s last stakes in the team earlier this month. While the other siblings elected to sell soon after Bob Iger and Joshua Kushner agreed to a record-breaking transaction with Mark Walter and released a statement attributed to the Buss family, Jeanie “never agreed to any sale, was never consulted and was never even informed,” the petition states.

“Jeanie thought she had put all of her siblings’ scheming and manipulations behind her in 2017,” the petition reads. “Sadly, that was not the case — and Jeanie must respectfully request relief from this Court a second time.”

Among five points on the petition, Jeanie hopes to declare her siblings’ votes to sell the team void, remove Janie and Joey as co-trustees for “breach of fiduciary duty” and hold both in contempt of court and hold Jim, Johnny and Jesse in contempt and liable for “aiding and abetting.”

Jeanie, the third-oldest child of former Lakers owner Jerry Buss, was hand-picked by the family patriarch to oversee his prized investment that grew from a $67.5-million purchase into a $12.5-billion world-renowned brand. Iger, the former Disney chief executive, and Kushner, founder of a venture capital firm, bought a majority stake of the Lakers from Walter earlier this month at a record valuation, and reports of five of the Buss siblings’ plans to sell their ownership stake in the team came days later.

To remain on the NBA board of governors, Jeanie would need to own at least 15% of the team. She was to stay in the leadership role for at least the next four seasons after the Buss family relinquished control of the team to Walter in 2025.

That unique aspect of the 2025 sale “demonstrated the co-trustees could fulfill their duties under the trust — and honor Dr. Buss’s intent — while also delivering extraordinary financial returns to the beneficiaries,” the petition states.

Jeanie contends that not only is her latest fight to maintain her governor role a way to “enforce of her parents’ intent,” but the petition says Jeanie also believes remaining the governor can “protect the strategic decision by the trustees less than a year ago to sell a portion of the team and retain an interest sufficient to maintain control and to benefit from the continuously skyrocketing value.”

Since Jerry Buss built the Lakers into the NBA’s most glamorous franchise during four decades of stewardship, the team will now have a third controlling owner in as many years. Walter, who previously owned a minority stake in the team, took majority control in 2025 when the team was valued at $10 billion. His reign was short-lived; he shockingly sold his shares of the team to Iger and Kushner for a 25% profit 14 months after Walter’s purchase offer was accepted by the Buss family trust.

The sale from Walter to Iger and Kushner is not expected to be affected by the Buss family’s legal proceedings, according to a source close to the matter but not authorized to speak publicly.

The petition adds that Lakers minority owners Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times and said he plans to hold onto his 4% stake in the Lakers, and real estate developer Ed Roski Jr. believe Jeanie is “the right person to continue as controlling owner and NBA governor of the Lakers to help preserve and continue to grow the value of the Lakers stock investments.”

The Lakers functioned as a family-run business for decades under the Buss family. Each child held different roles, but Jeanie is now the only one left at the organization. Jim and Johnny were ousted in 2017. Janie, Joey and Jesse were all fired soon after Walter’s sale was approved in November. Joey was the chief executive of the G League affiliate South Bay Lakers and Jesse was the Lakers’ director of scouting. Janie led the organization’s charity efforts. ESPN reported that Jim and Johnny had returned to roles with the team and were among those fired in November.

After Jeanie and her legal team announced their intention to contest the siblings’ attempt to sell, the five other siblings released a statement saying they were “united” in their decision and intended to “move forward thoughtfully, respectfully and through appropriate process.”

“The Los Angeles Lakers have never been just a basketball team,” the statement released Aug. 18 continued. “They have been one of the greatest privileges of our lives. Our focus has always been on what we believe is best for the Lakers, the fans who have supported this franchise for generations and the greater Los Angeles community.”

A court hearing to review the request is scheduled for Nov. 5, according to the petition. The Lakers will be two weeks into their season at the time.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — A divided federal appeals court has ruled that Rep. LaMonica McIver is not immune from prosecution on charges stemming from a confrontation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents outside a federal immigration detention facility in 2025.

The New Jersey Democrat was charged with three federal counts of impeding and interfering with federal immigration officers over alleged conduct on May 9, 2025, as they were attempting to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka during an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility.

McIver denies the allegations and has sought their dismissal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 Wednesday that two of the three charges against McIver may proceed to trial, while the third was sent back to a lower court for reconsideration.

McIver said she disagrees with the ruling and was “exploring” her options.

“To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” McIver said in a statement.

“Today’s decision chills that authority and emboldens the Trump administration to continue persecuting our most vulnerable communities, those who try to defend them and anyone who dares hold the president or his lackeys accountable.

“I will not fold to this administration,” she continued. “The administration will not stop me from doing my job or standing for what is right. This is not over.”

Federal prosecutors charged McIver in a three-count indictment in June 2025, a month after the incident at Delaney Hall.

According to the court document, she and two other members of Congress were at the facility to conduct an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of the facility as a protest was occurring outside against the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

After arriving at the facility, Baraka entered but was informed by a federal officer he was not authorized to be there, according to federal prosecutors, who said McIver prevented the federal officers from arresting the mayor, who was allegedly given multiple warnings to leave.

Outside the facility, McIver allegedly placed herself in front of Baraka and wrapped her arms around him to prevent his arrest. During the situation she is accused of having “slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer,” whom she also allegedly tried to retrain by grabbing him.

Court documents also accuse her of striking a second officer with both of her forearms.

Video of the incident posted online shows a chaotic scene that day outside the facility.

Baraka was eventually arrested and charged with trespassing, though the case against him was later dropped.

McIver moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it violated the Speech or Debate Clause and the constitutional principle of separation of powers as well as under selective prosecution and enforcement claims, while also arguing selective and vindictive prosecution and enforcement.

All three counts accuse her of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with federal officers. However, the appeals court sent count three back to the lower court to review whether it includes conduct that can be considered legislative acts.

While counts one and two identify specifics act, count three encompasses a range of alleged conduct over a broad time frame, both inside and outside the facility, the court said.

Numerous Democrats came to McIver’s defense, arguing it is an attack on congressional oversight.

“Donald Trump wants Congressmembers to fall in line & not conduct oversight of detention centers,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said in a statement.

“And he wants to make an example out of @RepLaMonica. But we’re not letting up.”

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill similarly said that she continues to stand with her friend.

“Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to target members of Congress simply for doing their jobs is straight out of his corruption playbook,” she said in an online statement.

“It’s a brazen and unlawful abuse of power, and a direct attack on congressional oversight.”

A Maryland court has ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2028 elections.

The ruling Wednesday by a judge in the state’s capital city marks another setback in Democrats’ national attempts to counter a Republican redistricting movement pushed by President Trump ahead of this year’s elections. The judge ruled that the amendment cannot appear on the November ballot, but he paused the effect of that ruling to allow for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Democrats already control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore called lawmakers into a special session in August with a goal of making it easier to claim that final seat.

An amendment referred to the ballot by lawmakers seeks to sidestep a court ruling that struck down a previous Democratic redistricting plan in 2022. It would declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and take into account “natural boundaries” applies only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.

That would allow Democratic state lawmakers to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, reshaping a district east of the bay that is held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a law signed by Moore that set a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

The state attorney general’s office argued that deadline didn’t apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers wrote their own ballot summary for it, using their constitutional authority. The judge disagreed, instead siding with arguments by the conservative Oversight Project and Republican state lawmakers who sued.

Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court also invalidated a redistricting ballot measure because of procedural violations by state lawmakers. In that case, voters had already approved an amendment in April authorizing mid-decade redistricting when the court ruled that lawmakers last year had waited too long to take an initial step necessary to qualify it for the ballot.

Virginia and Maryland both were seeking to follow the path of California, where voters approved a Democratic-backed amendment authorizing mid-decade redistricting. Democrats hope to gain as many as five congressional seats from California’s redrawn districts, plus an additional seat from new districts in Utah.

But Republicans hope to win as many as 16 additional seats from new U.S. House districts enacted in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

Redistricting typically happens near the beginning of each decade, after new census data is released. But a mid-decade redistricting battle broke out after Trump urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts in hopes that it might help Republicans hold onto a slim House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has blocked Texas from banning drag performances as unconstitutional, ruling that the solution to the problem is for those who find such events offensive to just not attend.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 into law in June 2023 to ban “sexually oriented performances” via civil penalties on businesses that host them and criminal penalties on performers.

It has been debated in the courts since, with a court ruling it unconstitutional in 2023 and an appeals court in February allowing it to take effect while sending the case back to the district court for review.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Hittner, a Reagan appointee who issued the 2023 ruling, declared Senate Bill 12 an unconstitutional restriction on speech and ordered that the state be permanently enjoined from enforcing it.

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple … just don’t go,” Hittner said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for the U.S. Senate with President Donald Trump‘s endorsement, called the ruling in a statement “flawed,” arguing without proof that it will endanger children while being “an affront to Texas values.”

“I will appeal this decision immediately and continue to fight to protect our kids,” he said online.

Meanwhile, civil rights and LGBTQ advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that the legislature’s attempt to ban drag performances was unconstitutional from start to finish,” Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which filed the original lawsuit in August 2023, said in a statement.

“This law stifled free expression across our state and made people afraid to engage in or attend drag shows and other performances. But all Texans — no matter our gender or background — are guaranteed the right to free expression.”

Brigitte Bandit, a drag performer and a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was “a relief.”

“As a lifelong Texan, I’m sick of this state trying to censor art and stoke hatred and violence against drag artists and the LGBTQIA+ community. No one should be punished for performing drag, and I wish lawmakers would take steps to protect kids from real dangers in our state instead of trying to divide and marginalize us.”

Aug. 25 (UPI) — A man is facing federal charges for forging the signature of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and impersonating a federal agent.

Joshua M. Culver was indicted Friday in the Northern District of Indiana on four counts of falsely impersonating an officer of the United States and one count of forging the signature of a judge and court seal.

He was arrested in Colorado and has been assigned a public defender there.

The indictment alleges that Culver identified himself as a National Security Agency agent on at least two occasions in September 2025. He allegedly did so at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Office trying to get information about the location of a family member. The indictment also alleges that he made phone calls to someone at their employer threatening them and accusing them of breaking the law.

In January 2026, Culver allegedly claimed to be a “Special Master enforcing orders of the United States Supreme Court” to get a Lake County, Ind., judge to dismiss criminal cases and judgments against him.

He’s accused of forging Roberts’ signature and using a counterfeit seal on an order in September that told a Grant County, Ind., court to drop theft charges against him.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is not lazy, I’ll give him that.

During his unsuccessful run for governor this year, you may recall that the MAGA devotee found time to seize more than 650,000 ballots from the Proposition 50 redistricting race, claiming he suspected there were tens of thousands more votes cast than there should have been — a favorite (and false) complaint of election deniers.

There were not.

Undaunted by reality, and likely law, Bianco announced he was going to have his deputies recount the votes, even though this kind of interference in the chain of custody of ballots never had occurred anywhere in the United States.

This unprecedented seizure of ballots — something election-denier-in-chief President Trump has been hinting at trying himself for years — quickly became a national news story, and a national concern.

With midterms looming and more than one MAGA sheriff out there, what would stop another conspiracy-minded, badge-wearing maverick from doing something similar this November, potentially throwing our national election into turmoil?

The specter of Bianco setting a precedent for like-minded conspiracists to follow prompted two significant lawsuits — one led by the election experts at the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the other from state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments in those cases Monday, and while we’ll have to wait for the official rulings, things did not seem to go well for the sheriff.

What surprised me most, or maybe just relieved me, was how thin Bianco’s arguments were to support his actions. In the end, his legal team came with little more than contortions and cartwheels, trying to twist Bianco’s overreach into existing law.

His lawyer, Bradley Hertz, attempted to argue that legislators, when crafting laws protecting ballots, meant different rules to apply to investigations of elections preceding formal prosecutions. If that sounds confusing, it’s because it is.

Hertz seemingly was trying to convince the court that Bianco legally could pull his shenanigans as long as he didn’t actually find criminal wrongdoing, which would trigger a different set of rules.

“That seems bizarre,” Justice Goodwin H. Liu said during a back-and-forth with Hertz.

Indeed.

But it was Justice Joshua Groban who hit at the national implications of what Bianco had done — and what it could mean for the midterms if this court ruled in his favor.

“It seems like under your broad view of the warrant power … the sheriff could could seize ballots even before election day, right?” Groban asked. “Even before they were counted.”

It’s terrible to have ballots seized after they’re counted. It’s devastating if they were to be taken before there was an official tally, because how would anyone trust that there hadn’t been tampering? Simply seizing uncounted ballots, no matter what happens next, would create such paranoia and uncertainty that the election results almost certainly would be called into question — something that could play into the favor of, say, a wannabe authoritarian who fears he’s likely to lose a fair vote count.

Even Hertz seemed to acknowledge such a scenario was bad.

“If search warrants were allowed during the election or preelection, that would obviously wreak havoc,” he said. “There would be, kind of, a cat out of the bag, so to speak. You can’t count ballots if they’re not in the possession of the registrar.”

But then Hertz tried to come up with logic that what Bianco was arguing wouldn’t mean that ballots could be seized anytime, anyhow, and that instead courts could find a way to allow seizing only after the official count. The court did not seem convinced that this was a good idea, or that that is what the law should or did allow.

If that case didn’t go well for Bianco, it was the second case brought by Bonta that really might end up being a hard loss.

For years, decades really, in California and across the country, there has been a group of sheriffs who have argued they are a law onto themselves because they are elected, not hired or appointed. Some of these sheriffs argue that they are literally above federal law.

In California, there has at times been momentum to rein in this line of thinking by creating clear boundaries in law, but the state Legislature always has backed down in the face of opposition from law enforcement.

One potential curb on sheriffs’ power comes from a single line in our state Constitution that seems to say the state attorney general has supervisory power over them. But the meaning and power of this particular clause has long been debated and seldom invoked.

Bonta, however, invoked it against Bianco, claiming the the sheriff had to back off the ballot-seizing because Bonta had authority to order him to stop. Bianco did stop, to his credit. But the standoff was heard by the court Monday and likely will force clarity on an issue that has long lacked it.

Here again, the justices seemed amenable to Bonta’s argument that sheriffs, at least to some extent, answer to him as the state’s chief law enforcement officer. But the justices seemed far more cautious on this issue, and even the state’s attorney conceded that “it’s actually pretty remarkable how little our Constitution says about county sheriffs.”

If Bianco loses on this issue, it would be huge. It would mean that Bianco not only overstepped his power by seizing the ballots, but that he also had forever lessened the power of California sheriffs by clarifying they do answer to the attorney general. I’m sure that will be very popular with other sheriffs.

We’ll see what the justices say, but at least it seems likely that this embarrassing chapter of California election history will end in favor of the law, and democracy.

Maybe Bianco really does believe his conspiracy theories. After all, “there are some people who believe they had breakfast with Elvis on Sunday,” pointed out Chad Dunn, who argued the case for the Voting Rights Project.

“We can’t satisfy them,” Dunn warned.

More importantly, we shouldn’t — even when they wear a badge. Our laws already have robust protections for elections, and rogue sheriffs aren’t one of them.

California Supreme Court justices hammered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco over his seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots in a pair of back-to-back hearings on Monday, appearing poised to order the ballots returned and sharply limit the sheriff’s power to snatch similar election materials in the future.

Bianco, a Republican who came in fourth in this spring’s crowded California gubernatorial primary, carted off truckloads of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in February, after securing a warrant based on claims that the office allowed fraudulent votes in the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts last fall.

According to a sworn declaration by one of Bianco’s sergeants, armed deputies from Riverside County’s Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Response Team and SWAT unit were sent to sweep up pallets of sealed votes and bring them to the Moreno Valley Sheriff’s Station on Feb. 26 — a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber ordered Bianco to stand down.

In the days that followed, deputies began their own ad hoc recount — an activity they’d never been trained for, and which state officials and civil liberties groups say flies in the face of the plain language of the state’s election law that says “in no event shall ballots be moved.”

Voters sued. So did Bonta. In oral arguments on both cases Monday morning, California‘s seven Supreme Court justices appeared at times flabbergasted by claims that the move was not only permitted but blessed under state law — and that California’s top cop had no power to block it.

“I’m just wondering … why didn’t the sheriff’s office contemplate the available routes under the elections code for resolving the alleged disparity?” asked Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu. “Isn’t there a procedure for resolving this?”

“Certainly there are other paths,” said Bianco’s attorney, Bradley W. Hertz.

Hertz, who argued the sheriff’s case after Riverside’s county counsel largely sided with the plaintiffs, said Bianco simply exercised his legal discretion.

“This wasn’t come in with guns blaring and take the documents,” Hertz said.

The dispute began over handwritten notes made as part of an experimental program to increase voter confidence in the county’s election procedures. That informal tally fell about 46,000 votes short of the official count, prompting accusations of fraud.

Officials contend the discrepancy between the computer count and the paper tally is “a good deed that went punished” — the result of exhausted officials being handed an extra-credit project they couldn’t quite execute.

“It was a pilot program that the registrar implemented at the request of the public, on top of all their other duties, to do these handwritten logs to try to track 350,000 pieces of mail that come in,” said Dale Larson, who represented Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco at the hearing.

Both times it was attempted, the hand tally produced a significant undercount, prompting officials to cancel the pilot, Larson said.

Bianco and his allies insist the difference is evidence of maleficence, and that criminal law authorizes the sheriff to sidestep the state’s detailed election code and the attorney general’s sweeping authority to get to the bottom of it.

The justices repeatedly pressed on Hertz to explain how the general authority conferred to the sheriff under criminal law could trump the specificity of the state’s election rules — a position that would seem to upend foundational rules of American law.

They also cast doubt on Bianco’s “counterintuitive” claim that Bonta’s “supervisory” role over the state’s elected sheriffs was merely advisory and did not carry the authority of law.

“It’s not just counterintiitive — again, we’ve said a million times, we’ve got to just look at the plain language,” said Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban. “Nobody would think that’s what ‘supervised’ means, so why should we think that here?”

The court battle has played out with the UCLA Voting Rights Project bringing the suit on behalf of voters, and the Riverside County district attorney’s Office and the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. backing many of Bianco’s claims.
But it has also pitted the sheriff against the registrar, who was named as a co-defendent in the UCLA suit despite siding with plaintiffs in all but a narrow subset of its claims.

In court filings, Riverside County Counsel Minh C. Tran co-signed claims that Bonta and the voters had it right, carving out a narrow disagreement over whether Tinoco should have ignored the sealed warrant and faced arrest rather than allow ballots to be taken. They also questioned whether he was obligated to go to court himself to stop the seizure.

UCLA hit back at that claim, saying it was “the responsibility of the registrar to go to jail rather than hand over the ballots.”

“I know that’s strong medicine,” said Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “The registrar has a duty to announce publicly and get into court immediately, or at least allow the public to get into court immediately to contest the movement of ballots before it occurs.”

The decision looms as the Trump administration has moved to restrict mail-in voting and signaled it could contest results of the upcoming midterms — partisan flash points UCLA urged the court to address.

“This is bound to be repeated again,” Dunn said. “These are the public’s ballots, that’s why the election code is crafted the way it is, so that the public have a right to weigh in.”

Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can begin implementing measures from an executive order intended to restrict mail-in voting in many states and Washington, D.C.

However, legal challenges to that order could still cause issues for that plan before the midterm elections in November.

The ruling Monday means that the Department of Homeland Security can begin moving forward with compiling state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the states — all led by Democrats – that had challenged the executive order.

Another part of the executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to submit lists of eligible voters with information allowing those ballots to be tracked by the government. A lower court had blocked that policy nationwide in a separate case, meaning that more legal action will be needed before the postal service can continue.

The high court’s ruling did not address the overall legality of the executive order.

“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, theymay challenge that rule,” the ruling said.

The postal service entered an unpublished version of that final rule into the Federal Register late Friday despite the court injunctions against it.

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail-in voting is “inherently corrupt” and full of fraud, although voting experts have criticized the order and say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, NPR reported.

The high court handed down the ruling in an unsigned order over the dissent of three of its members: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a dissent, Jackson said the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” CNN reported.

She noted that, in the past, the Supreme Court has turned away challenges to election law because they were too close to elections. “Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring.”

When Lane Kiffin dials a number, the person on the other end usually answers and takes the call.

Todd Monken crossed paths with Kiffin many times while both crisscrossed the country for decades, taking this job and that, as head coaches and assistants at top colleges and in the NFL.

Monken became an NFL head coach for the first time in January, taking over the Cleveland Browns. Kiffin is about to begin his first season as the Louisiana State head coach, so Monken didn’t know why Kiffin’s number popped up on his screen over the weekend.

“I wondered why Lane Kiffin reached out to me a week ago,” Monken told reporters Sunday. “Now I know. I didn’t call him back. I guess I should have.”

Kiffin called to tell Monken something the rookie NFL coach learned later in the day. Dae’Quan Wright, a tight end the Browns waived Sunday morning, plans to play for LSU if he clears waivers, his agents told ESPN.

Dae’Quan Wright of the Cleveland Browns warms up before a preseason game against the Buffalo Bills at Huntington Bank Field on Aug. 22.

(Nick Cammett / Diamond Images via Getty Images)

Wright, who went undrafted after playing for Kiffin at Mississippi, is believed to be the first player to have an agreement to return to college football after signing with an NFL team. He was with the Browns for fewer than two weeks after the Philadelphia Eagles signed him as an undrafted free agent and placed him on waivers in early August.

Although Wright didn’t play in the Browns’ two preseason games, he suited up Saturday against the Buffalo Bills because injuries to other players created a potential need. He never left the sideline.

Another NFL player being courted by Kiffin, however, saw action. . Tampa Bay Buccaneers rookie linebacker Jack Pyburn recorded two sacks in a preseason victory over the New York Jets on Friday.

Pyburn, who also went undrafted after playing three years at Florida and his senior year at LSU, can regain his college eligibility if he terminates his contract with the Bucs and repays earnings. Pyburn’s deal guaranteed him $115,000 and included a $15,000 signing bonus.

LSU could pay him an estimated $1 million for his NIL, exceeding the NFL full-season rookie minimum of $885,000.

“I’m kind of caught in the middle of a whirlwind,” Pyburn told the Athletic, “and I’m just trying to play football.”

Wright and Pyburn are two of about 30 athletes who filed a lawsuit in Louisiana and were granted a temporary restraining order to return to college for one more season.

The lawsuit challenges new NCAA eligibility rules that give athletes a five-year window to compete in college sports. The plaintiffs are 2022 high school graduates whose college eligibility expired last spring under the previous rules. The NCAA did not include them in implementation of age-based eligibility, prompting lawsuits.

Several state courts have ruled in the players’ favor, and they have eligibility in the upcoming school year until appeals are ruled on. Most of the plaintiffs are basketball players, but Wright and Pyburn are two of 16 football players benefiting from the temporary restraining order granted by Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for President Trump to seek new limits on the use of mail ballots, but they are not likely to take effect this year.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the court’s conservatives granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked new federal regulations on states and their use of mail ballots.

It’s not clear, however, what happens now, since the midterm elections are less than three months away.

About 30% of the nation’s voters — and 80% of Californians — cast their ballots by mail in 2024. Trump, however, has long maintained the voting by mail leads to fraud, including voting by noncitizens.

The court’s order stressed the new regulations do not put new requirements on the states this year.

Trump’s executive order “is internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch,” the court said.

The Department of Homeland Security will compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are over 18 and eligible to vote.

“States are not required to use the Lists,” the court said, although they could lead to future prosecutions.

The most disputed provision could have authorized the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots to those who are on the Homeland Security lists, but that is a future proposal, not a rule that will take effect this year.

The unsigned order spoke for the six Republican appointees. The three liberals, all Democratic appointees, dissented into two separate opinions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Trump’s order was unlawful and should have been struck down. “It needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” she said.

“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. “Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”

Trump issued his executive order on March 31 with the aim of “ensuring citizenship verification” in federal elections. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued a few days later and said Trump sought to use the Postal Service to impose new restrictions on voting by mail. They also argued the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to regulate elections, not the president.

A federal judge in Boston and 1st Circuit Court agreed with the challengers and blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect for the November elections.

The case on appeal was Trump vs. California because California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta was a leader of the Democratic state attorneys who sued.

Aug. 22 (UPI) — The United States Postal Service has prepared a final rule changing how mail voting is administered under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump despite a pair of court injunctions against it, documents show.

An unpublished version of the rule was entered into the Federal Register late on Friday, indicating the USPS intends to press ahead with implementation of a measure the administration says is necessary to prevent fraud in mail-in voting — a popular method of casting ballots that Trump has called “inherently corrupt.”

But critics contend actual fraud in mail-in voting is exceedingly rare and have denounced the measure as one of the most serious attempts by the administration to federalize control of elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves such power for the states.

A federal judge 10 days ago expanded an earlier injunction against Trump’s executive order, under which the USPS would be required to decide who will get mail-in ballots.

The injunction blocked it from implementing Section 3 of the order for this year’s midterm elections, which most polls shows will likely favor Democratic congressional candidates.

Despite the court rulings, USPS promulgated the final rule with Friday’s filing, thus making it available to be officially published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. After that it would theoretically take effect immediately, even though it will be blocked for this year’s midterm elections unless a court decides otherwise.

The current filing is an amended version of the initial proposal which received more than 200,000 comments during its review phase.

Trump signed the order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a list of citizens from federal data, which would then be sent to state election officials.

The USPS would then only send absentee or mail-in ballots to people it has determined are eligible to vote, and the U.S. Attorney General would investigate and prosecute election officials who issue federal ballots to those ineligible to vote.

Twenty-three mostly Democratic-led states sued to block the order and U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed with the plaintiffs.

The administration appealed the decision and failed. It appealed again on July 27 to the Supreme Court, which has yet to make a ruling.

“Yesterday’s new mail-in voting rule is an attempt to weaponize USPS as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to take over elections,” Michael McNulty of the bipartisan political reform group Issue One said in a statement issued Saturday.

“If it holds up in court, it would mean postal workers shift from neutral transporters of a state-led process to a federal gatekeeper of states’ outbound mail ballots — requiring states to provide USPS with voter-level ballot information and giving USPS authority to reject ballots that do not meet the new federal requirements.”

He dismissed Trump’s oft-stated concerns about voter fraud as “tired, debunked conspiracy theories to justify gaining control over secure, verified, and effective methods of voting, including mail-in voting, to tilt the playing field” in favor of Republican candidates.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed construction on President Donald Trump‘s White House ballroom to continue, staying a lower court injunction demanding that it stop.

In a one-page order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court for now blocked an injunction issued in April by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruling that only that security-related, underground components of the $400 million project could move go ahead without congressional approval.

Leon’s ruling found that construction at the White House requires authorization from Congress and ordered the construction to halt while a legal challenge brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation plays out.

He carved out an exception for the government to continue underground work deemed necessary for the White House’s safety and security.

The administration quickly appealed that order, citing a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as evidence that the 90,000-square-foot ballroom is a security necessity.

Trump, meanwhile, harshly criticized Leon, calling him an “out of control Trump hating” judge whose ruling “severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House.”

The administration said in Supreme Court filings last week that construction on the ballroom is already 65% complete as a 250-person crew is working on it nearly 24 hours per day.

Leon’s ruling would “halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, while also claiming the group does not have standing to sue.

The National Trust, meanwhile, contended the administration is illegally trying to complete construction as soon as possible in a bid to “outrun judicial review” and push the project “beyond the point of no return.”

But its efforts “to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded with a stay that allows [it] to complete a ballroom [it] lacked any authority to commence in the first place,” the Trust argued.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is weighing President Trump’s claim that his new White House ballroom is urgently needed to protect him, his staff and guests from attacks by drones, terrorists and snipers.

On Friday, with a lower-court order about to go into effect halting construction on the controversial project, Chief Justice John G. Roberts decided that the court needed more time. He issued a temporary order pausing the case and allowing construction to continue while the justices decide on a pending legal challenge.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers described the East Wing ballroom as an “integrated military complex” that is “vitally required by national security.” They argued that a judge’s order blocking further construction threatened the safety of the president and must be overturned. They also said the project is nearly two-thirds completed.

At issue is whether the president acting on his own may build a huge new ballroom complex that is expected to dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

It is a confrontation over the boundaries of executive power at a moment when Trump has repeatedly tested the ability of courts, Congress and independent institutions to constrain his agenda.

Trump bulldozed the historic East Wing before the courts had resolved whether the administration had the authority to proceed, leaving opponents to argue the project could become effectively irreversible before judicial review was complete.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December and argued that the president had overstepped his authority.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon agreed and ordered a stop to the above-ground construction — that is, on the ballroom. He said the work on the underground bunker may proceed.

The U.S. court of appeals affirmed his order by a 2-1 vote on Aug. 7 but put the decision on hold until Friday. Roberts’ order did not explain the reason for the delay, or how soon the court might rule.

In a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump administration lawyers sought to refocus the case as one about national security and the president’s safety.

“Given the current unprecedented levels of danger … every day the President does not have access to the vital security features of the military complex presents unacceptable risk,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Wednesday in his final brief to the court.

Construction continues on the White House East Wing ballroom on Aug. 20.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Constitution and federal law say new buildings may not be erected on public property in the District of Columbia “without the express authority of Congress.”

But acting on his own, Trump ordered the East Wing of the White House torn down in October and work began on a new and much larger building to replace it.

He said the new ballroom could provide safe and secure seating for 1,000 dinner guests. He did not ask Congress to weigh in or approve the massive project.

In defense, Trump administration lawyers pointed to an annual appropriation from Congress that funds “the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing” and other such improvements at the White House.

They also said private donations would pay most of the $400-million cost of the new ballroom. One estimate placed the cost of the ballroom and the bunker at $600 million, with taxpayers covering half, the Washington Post reported.

The president, his family and White House employees would have secure underground space, Sauer said, while a “totally secure ballroom space” would provide a new level of protection for guests and foreign dignitaries.

Otherwise, they would be seated outside in tents on the lawn, Trump said, which was neither appealing nor safe.

President Trump speaks to the media as the construction of a new helipad on the South Lawn of the White House continues on Aug. 19.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

His solicitor general also argued it was too late to stop the project.

“A 250-person crew is working 20 hours a day, seven days a week to keep the project ahead of schedule and under budget,” he wrote on Aug. 13. “Today, the project is 65% complete in its entirety, and moving quickly toward total completion.”

Trump’s signature construction project has fueled accusations from his political opponents that he is abusing his power to build a lavish space for entertaining guests as ordinary Americans struggle with affordability.

In April, Republicans in Congress sought to put federal money behind the project, despite Trump’s earlier insistence that private donors would pay for the ballroom.

The effort never became law, faced with bipartisan opposition to a bill that would tie them to the unpopular project, leaving the administration to proceed with a privately financed effort whose legal authority was already being challenged in court.

The Society for the Rule of Law and a group of former White House lawyers warned the court against accepting Trump’s broad claims of power.

“Under the executive’s view, the President could bulldoze the entire White House and replace it with a new building of his own design, including a skyscraper. No other President has asserted such transformative power,” they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.

“The invocation of national security is not a magic incantation that suspends the rule of law,” they added.

The biggest hurdle facing the challengers may be the issue of standing.

The court’s conservatives are often skeptical of lawsuits if it is not clear the plaintiffs have or will suffer a distinct injury that goes beyond their opposition to a government policy.

In this case, the National Trust said its historians and preservationists will be disturbed to walk by the White House grounds if there is a massive new structure that is not in keeping with the historic Executive Mansion.

Construction continues on the East Wing ballroom at the White House on Aug. 10, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“The subjective displeasure of an offended observer does not amount to a concrete injury,” Sauer said.

The D.C. Circuit judges were also split on the threshold issue of standing.

Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee, ruled the suit may proceed because the plaintiffs suffered injuries to their “aesthetic, cultural and historical interests.”

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented and said the preservationists walking by the White House would not suffer the kind of concrete injury that gives them standing.

Court cuts Infowars founder’s penalty for false claims that school shooting was a ‘hoax’ from $50m to $1.5m.

A court in the US state of Texas has slashed a fine that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was ordered to pay for capitalising on false claims that the deadly 2012 Sandy Hook elementary school mass shooting was a “hoax”.

The unanimous opinion by the Texas Third Court of Appeals on Friday reduced the $50m judgment to $1.5m. The court found that parents Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose six-year-old son was one of 20 children and six staff killed in the shooting, did not provide enough evidence of harassment to pass the state’s $750,000 cap on damages.

“The families care not at all about this irrelevant ruling which affects only two of the 19 claims they all share. Jones still faces over a billion dollars of liability, so this changes absolutely nothing. All it does is highlight the absurdity of Texas law,” said Mark Bankston, an attorney for Heslin and Lewis in Texas.

The decision does not affect a separate ruling against Jones in Connecticut that ordered him to pay $1.25bn for his claims that the shooting was a hoax perpetrated by the government to justify gun regulations.

The case centred on the allegation that Jones knowingly pushed false claims about the victims and their families – including that the children who were killed were actors – to capitalise on attention around the shooting for his Infowars platform, even as his claims led to a torrent of abuse for the families of victims. Many said they faced death threats and were forced to relocate as a result.

Jones and his company have filed for bankruptcy, and he gave up the Infowars brand in April. He has continued to broadcast online and share his shows on the social media platform X.

Jones called the Friday ruling a “gigantic victory for the First Amendment”, which protects freedom of expression in the US Constitution, adding that he will continue to appeal the case to the Texas state Supreme Court in a bid to have the remaining charges dismissed.

“I got lawyers who are good constitutional lawyers and they are not backing down,” Jones said.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is allowing the White House to continue construction on President Trump’s $400 million ballroom project for now.

Roberts signed a temporary order on Friday allowing work to continue while the court considers an emergency appeal from the Trump administration.

Lower courts had ordered a halt to the project, finding that it must have congressional approval. That ruling was set to take effect on Friday. Roberts signed the order because he oversees appeals of Washington-based cases.

The case comes before the nation’s highest court as Trump, a Republican, exercises unparalleled assertions of presidential power and increasingly seeks to mold the capital in his own image.

The Trump administration has scored a series of victories on the high court’s emergency docket, though the justices have ruled against some of the president’s signature policies after fuller review.

The administration has argued that the president has total authority to renovate the White House and other federal buildings as he sees fit and that the ballroom project must be completed due to national security concerns.

When Trump first announced the plans for a new ballroom, he did not emphasize national security. He said the project would be funded by private donations, including from himself.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, which has included demolishing the East Wing. Lawyers for the preservation group accused the White House of trying to “outrun the courts” by accelerating construction.

The Trump administration says 65% of work has already been completed on the planned 90,000-square-foot (8,400-square-meter) ballroom, where the East Wing stood before the president ordered its demolition. Crews are working 20 hours a day, seven days a week on the project, where about $200 million in private donations has been spent or committed, Justice Department attorneys said in court documents.

A district court judge ordered a stop to aboveground construction of the planned ballroom in April in a ruling that was suspended before being upheld by an appeals court panel. The order from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington allows belowground work on bunkers and military installations to continue. Leon was nominated by President George W. Bush, a Republican.

Two appeals-court judges appointed by Democratic presidents found the project was for Congress to decide and “not a matter for Executive self-help.” A third judge, appointed by Trump, found that the preservationist group that challenged the project had no legal right to sue.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer picked up on that argument, calling the decision halting the work “extraordinary and unlawful.” He said the completion of the project was “vitally required by national security.”

Whitehurst and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

A lawsuit filed in Northern California federal court by former high school football player Dominik Calhoun against the California Interscholastic Federation was dismissed for a second time on Thursday after a hearing held by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler, who granted an 84 motion.

The judge will allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint by Sept. 10. There’s also the chance to appeal.

Calhoun has been challenging CIF rules on high school transfers and NIL.

The CIF had stopped considering possible changes in several policies, including transfers, while the lawsuit played out.

The question is whether discussions will resume about possible transfer reforms that were discussed in April of 2025.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — A Missouri judge has allowed new U.S. House districts backed by President Trump to be used in the November elections, rejecting a bid by to put the Republican-friendly districts to a statewide vote of the people.

The ruling Wednesday by Cole County Circuit Judge Daniel Green is a victory for Republicans seeking to hold onto their slim majority in the U.S. House. But the case is likely to end up in the state Supreme Court.

Missouri’s new districts already were used in the August primaries. On that same day, Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected a petition with thousands of signatures seeking to force a November referendum on the map. Hoskins asserted that Missouri’s Constitution doesn’t allow a referendum on congressional redistricting.

The judge agreed with Hoskins and other Republicans, who joined in defense of the new map.

“The Missouri Constitution does not supply any statement — let alone a clear one — reallocating authority over congressional redistricting away from the General Assembly to a referendum process,” Green wrote in the ruling.

Opponents of the redistricting plan quickly announced an appeal.

“Everyone knows that Cole County is not the final decision here,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians, who sued to try to place the new map on the ballot. “After months of delay, we are pleased to be moving forward to the Missouri Supreme Court to enforce our constitutional rights.”

Missouri’s redistricting targeted Democratic congressman

Missouri’s current U.S. House delegation is made up of six Republicans and two Democrats who were elected from districts with boundaries drawn after the 2020 census.

But Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe called the Legislature into a special session on redistricting last year after Trump urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional boundaries to their advantage ahead of the midterms.

Missouri’s revised map is designed to help Republicans defeat Democratic U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver of Kansas City. It reassigns portions of Kansas City to two neighboring districts represented by Republicans and stretches the remainder of Cleaver’s 5th Congressional District far eastward into Republican-heavy rural areas. About 59% of its voters are new to the 5th District, according to an Associated Press estimate.

State Sen. Rick Brattin won a Republican primary in the reshaped district in early August. Cleaver was unopposed for the Democratic nomination.

Republicans had argued that the new districts should be used in the November elections even if a voter referendum on the map was allowed to occur at the same time.

Lawsuit highlights dispute about referendum rights

The Missouri Constitution does not specifically say that a referendum can be used to decide congressional redistricting, nor does it forbid it, which is why the issue ended up in court.

Republican Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office, which represented the secretary of state in court, argued that congressional redistricting is a legislative duty not subject to referendum without specific constitutional permission.

The attorney general and the Republican Party also argued it was too late to switch district boundaries before the November election. Changing districts after the primary would cause “widespread voter confusion” and an “erosion in confidence in the integrity of the state’s elections,” said John Gore, an attorney for national, congressional and state Republican committees.

The judge agreed, ruling that a district swap after the primary would violate federal law.

It’s been more than 100 years since a Missouri redistricting plan faced a referendum. In 1922, voters rejected a new congressional map passed by the Republican-led Legislature. The legitimacy of that referendum petition was not challenged in court.

Redistricting battle spread to numerous states

Missouri’s mid-decade redistricting effort has been among the most litigated nationally, triggering about a dozen lawsuits over the past year.

The Republican-led state was the second, after Texas, to respond to Trump’s call to redraw congressional districts. Several other states followed. All told, Republicans hope to win as many as 16 additional seats from new House maps enacted in eight states: Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Tennessee, Louisiana and Alabama. Democrats, whose counterattack faced several setbacks, think they could win up to six additional seats from new districts in California and Utah.

It remains to be seen whether the redistricting works as intended for Republicans. The president’s party historically has lost congressional seats in the midterms, and Trump’s poor approval ratings could provide an extra hurdle for Republican candidates.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP journalist Hannah Recht contributed to this report from Washington.

A Los Angeles police officer who faced multiple felonies for recording his colleagues making racist, sexist and homophobic comments will now likely avoid jail time under a new agreement with prosecutors, Los Angeles County’s district attorney said Wednesday.

Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman announced he would reduce 16 felony eavesdropping counts against Officer Daniel Flores to misdemeanors, and that the case would likely resolve in court through a diversion agreement.

The announcement came after Hochman faced backlash for the decision to prosecute Flores, with L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and even some of his own prosecutors criticizing the filing as “insane” and a deterrent for police looking to expose corruption and misconduct within their ranks.

The district attorney acknowledged the public reaction to the case as he spoke downtown Wednesday morning, and said he wanted to make “crystal clear” his intentions were to blunt illegal investigative practices by police, rather than discourage cops who want to report bad behavior.

“The message was not being clearly interpreted about us being protective of whistleblowers,” he said.

Flores’ attorney, ex-L.A. County prosecutor Alan Jackson, said he expected to request a diversion agreement for Flores in a downtown courtroom on Thursday.

“Following this disposition, 16 felonies will be dismissed with no plea, no punishment, and no record, because Daniel Flores told the troubling truth about what he heard inside his own department. As the investigators themselves concluded, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in this open-plan LAPD office,” he said. “That isn’t eavesdropping, it’s being a witness. Mr. Flores has committed no crime.”

If a judge accepts a diversion agreement, Flores would have to satisfy certain terms and conditions for about a year. If he does so, the case would be dismissed.

An LAPD spokesman referred all questions to the district attorney’s office. While misdemeanor prosecutions in Los Angeles are normally handled by the city attorney’s office, the D.A. can keep possession of the case because it was initially filed as a felony, according to a district attorney’s office spokesman.

Flores made more than 100 recordings of his colleagues in the Los Angeles Police Department’s recruitment division last year,capturing other officers making an array of racist, homophobic and sexist remarks. Comments included a joke about a legendary L.A. Dodgers pitcher who was Latino dying because he “ate too many tacos,” and referring to stereotypes about Black people enjoying eating watermelon and playing basketball. One officer was recorded calling a young LAPD recruit “rapeable,” according to court records.

If convicted of the original charges, Flores could have faced up to 13 years in prison.

California is a “two-party consent” state, meaning it is a crime for someone to record a conversation without the permission of other participants, unless there is a court order granting authority to do so. Flores’ attorneys have argued that his actions were allowed under the California Invasion of Privacy Act because he was acting in the course of his duties as a police officer.

Flores lodged a complaint with the LAPD’s inspector general’s office and has said he hoped the officers he taped making inappropriate remarks would face discipline.

The decision to charge Flores drew relentless criticism from a number of groups. Bass said she worried about the potential chilling effect on other police whistleblowers.

Last week, City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez introduced a resolution condemning Hochman for bringing “felony charges against a City employee who reported workplace discrimination through official channels” and urging him to drop the charges.

Hochman told reporters that his office assessed the case with the same rigor as it would any other. In bringing the charges, he said he wanted to thread the needle between punishing the illegal recording and not dissuading whistleblowers from coming forward.

He suggested that he could have technically charged Flores with 122 felony counts, one for each recording that he made. Hochman also reiterated Wednesday that he felt it was important to file the case at a time when new products like Meta Glasses make it even easier to surreptitiously record people.

“If you go ahead and illegally eavesdrop in our community, you will face criminal prosecution for doing it, so don’t take out your cellphones and or your smart glasses or anything else,” he said, while encouraging whistleblowers to work with the D.A.’s office to gather evidence in the future.

Flores had pleaded not guilty at his arraignment in a downtown courtroom last week, with a team of high-powered lawyers in tow. His next court date was set for Sept. 9.

The second-guessing of Hochman’s decision ramped up earlier this month after the D.A., in an unusual move, filed a 27-page motion asking for a lengthy preliminary hearing in the case. The filing alleged Flores deceptively edited the recordings to hide his own insensitive remarks and suggested he was motivated by a desire to win a large legal settlement in court.

Hochman’s motion referred to the officers’ remarks as “locker room talk” — a characterization that was seized on by Flores’ legal team.

Jackson, a former L.A. County prosecutor, accused Hochman of contradicting himself, questioning the D.A.’s efforts to justify the officers’ coarse language.

Several county prosecutors, who spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, called Hochman’s decision to file his own motion in the case bizarre and unprecedented. While they privately lauded him for backing down on Wednesday, some said Hochman’s turn from zealously defending the filing to public capitulation in the span of two weeks was embarrassing for the office.

“From charging to doubling down to reducing to misdemeanors, this just makes it worse,” one prosecutor said. “The filing was inappropriate but then to bend to public pressure isn’t appropriate either.”

The motion, Jackson noted, relied heavily on the observations of the officers against whom Flores had leveled claims — and who were under internal investigation by the LAPD.

Flores filed a lawsuit in June accusing the LAPD of retaliating against him after he reported misconduct.

When reached for comment on Flores’ lawsuit, a spokesperson for the LAPD’s inspector general’s office said it was barred by state law from disclosing information about individual cases, but added that its practice is to refer all “complaints of employee misconduct” to Internal Affairs.