WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court made it harder for music and movie makers to sue for online piracy, ruling Wednesday that internet providers are usually not liable for copyright infringement even if they know their users are downloading copyrighted works.
In a 9-0 decision, the justices threw out Sony’s lawsuit and a $1-billion verdict against Cox Cable for copyright infringement.
Lower courts upheld a jury’s verdict against Cox’s internet service for contributing to music piracy, which the company did little to stop.
Sony’s lawyers pointed to hundreds of thousands of instances of Cox customers sharing copyrighted works. Put on notice, Cox did little stop it, they said.
But the high court said that is not enough to establish liability for copyright infringement.
“Under our precedents, a company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court.
Two decades ago, the court sided with the music and motion picture producers and ruled against Grokster and Napster on the grounds their software was intended to share copyrighted music and movies.
But on Wednesday, the court said “contributory” copyright infringement did not extend to internet service providers based on the actions of some of their users
“Cox provided Internet service to its subscribers, but it did not intend for that service to be used to commit copyright infringement,” Thomas said. “Cox neither induced its users’ infringement nor provided a service tailored to infringement.”
In its defense, Cox argued that internet service providers could be bankrupted by huge lawsuits for copyright infringement, which they said they did not cause and could not prevent.
The feud between California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has escalated after Bonta asked a court to stop Bianco’s investigation into alleged election fraud.
In a 70-page petition filed with the Fourth Appellate District Monday, Bonta wrote that “the Sheriff’s misguided investigation threatens to sow distrust and jeopardize public confidence” in upcoming elections. The investigation, which he also called “sweeping and unprecedented,” is an abuse of the criminal process, he wrote.
Bianco, who is a leading Republican candidate for governor, last month seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in Riverside County in the November election for Proposition 50, which temporarily redrew the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats.
The sheriff has said that his investigators are looking into allegations by a local citizens group that “did their own audit” and found that the county’s tally was falsely inflated by more than 45,000 votes — a claim that local election officials have emphatically rejected.
Bianco has described his probe as a “fact-finding mission” to determine if votes were fraudulently counted. He has accused the attorney general, a Democrat, of improperly interfering with what he says is a lawful criminal investigation.
In Riverside County, the proposition passed by more than 82,000 votes. Statewide, it passed with about 64% of the vote and a margin of more than 3.3 million ballots.
“Well, well, well, the political corruption in California just gets bigger and bigger,” Bianco said in a social media video Monday night in response to Bonta’s petition.
“Why in the world would Rob Bonta want that count stopped unless he was afraid of what that count would uncover?” he added. “We have an extremely politically biased appeals court, so this is going to be interesting.”
Political observers have said that Bianco, an outspoken supporter of President Trump, appears to be vying for attention from Trump, who has called on the federal government to “nationalize” state-run elections, remains fixated on his 2020 election loss and has falsely claimed widespread fraud.
Kim Nalder, a political science professor and director of the Project for an Informed Electorate at Sacramento State, said that Bianco’s investigation appears to be “an electoral ploy.”
“At this stage in the election, most voters haven’t really tuned into the gubernatorial race, and there are a ton of candidates,” she said. “People who don’t know his background will know now. This is clear signaling.”
The sheriff has denied the probe has anything to do with his campaign.
A poll released last week by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times showed Bianco and conservative commentator Steve Hilton leading the crowded field of gubernatorial candidates by slim margins, with the Democratic vote split among multiple candidates in a left-leaning state.
Bonta’s office said in a statement Monday evening that it was asking the court to pause the investigation “while we work to understand its basis.”
Bonta’s petition revealed that — in addition to warrants issued on Feb. 9 and 23 — the sheriff obtained a third warrant from the Riverside County Superior Court on March 19 to restart a paused recount of the ballots. The warrants now are under seal.
Bonta’s office called the warrants and the affidavits supporting them legally deficient because “the Sheriff has not identified any particular crime that may have been committed by anyone — a necessary predicate to obtain a criminal search warrant.” Bonta had earlier questioned whether Bianco had concealed important information from the magistrate judge who approved the warrants.
In his petition, Bonta wrote that the sheriff’s department had planned to assign “12 employees working four days a week, five to seven hours each day” to count the votes.
David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research and a former senior trial attorney overseeing voting enforcement for the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, agreed with Bonta’s assessment that the sheriff’s probe is a legally deficient “fishing expedition.” He questioned how Bianco got a judge to sign off on three warrants.
“You can’t use a warrant as a PR tool, as something to help your political campaign,” Becker said. “You have to meet certain standards in order to obtain a warrant, because a warrant is extraordinary. A warrant is saying we believe there is probable cause to seize evidence, and we need it now.”
Bianco said in a news conference Friday that a Riverside County Superior Court judge had ordered the appointment of a special master to oversee the count. His investigators had already begun counting, but the tally would start over under the court’s guidance, Bianco said.
“This isn’t about counting yes and no votes,” Bianco said in his social media video Monday. “This is simply counting the total ballots and comparing that total with the number of votes. … Plain and simple. Common sense.”
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to rule that it may block migrants from applying for asylum at ports of entry along the southern border.
The administration’s lawyers argued that the right to asylum, which arose in response to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, does not extend to those who are stopped just short of a border post in California, Arizona or Texas.
They pointed to part of the immigration law that says a non-citizen who “arrives in the United States … may apply for asylum.”
“You can’t arrive in the United States while you’re still standing in Mexico. That should be the end of this case,” Vivek Suri, a Justice Department attorney, told the court.
Immigration rights advocates called this claim “perverse” and illogical. They said such a rule would encourage migrants to cross the border illegally rather than present themselves legally at a border post.
The justices sounded divided and a bit uncertain over how to proceed. But the conservative majority is nonetheless likely to uphold the administration’s broad power over immigration enforcement.
Several of the justices noted, however, the Trump administration is not currently enforcing a “remain in Mexico” policy.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned why the court would make a major decision on immigration and asylum with no immediate, practical impact.
The case posed a fundamental clash between the government’s need to manage surges at the border and the moral and historic right to offer asylum to those fleeing persecution.
In 1939, more than 900 Jewish refugees who were fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis were turned away by Cuba and the United States. They were forced to return to Europe and more than 250 of them died in the Holocaust.
The worldwide moral reckoning spurred many nations, including the United States, to adopt new laws which offer protection to those fleeing persecution.
In the Refugee Act of 1980, Congress said that non-citizens either “physically present in the United States” or “at a land border or port of entry” may apply for asylum.
To be eligible for asylum, a non-citizen had to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country due to their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
Only a small percentage of applicants win their asylum claims, and only after years of litigation.
But faced with overwhelming surge of migrants, the Obama administration in 2016 adopted a “metering” policy that required people to wait on the Mexican side of the border.
The Trump and Biden administrations maintained such policies for a time.
In a 2-1 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in 2024.
“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” Judge Michelle Friedland wrote for the appeals court. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”
The Trump administration appealed.
Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the “ordinary meaning of ‘arrives in’ refers to entering a specific place, not just coming close to it. An alien who is stopped in Mexico does not arrive in the United States.”
On Tuesday, the Justice Department attorney said the court should reverse the 9th Circuit and uphold the government’s broad power to block migrants approaching the border.
“I can’t predict the next border surge,” Suri said.
“For more than 45 years, Congress has guaranteed people arriving at our borders the right to seek asylum, consistent with our international treaty obligations,” said Kelsi Corkran, Supreme Court director of the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, who argued the case. “Yet this administration believes that Congress gave it discretion to completely ignore those requirements, and turn back those who are seeking refuge from persecution at its whim.”
“The people turned away at our border are fleeing rape, torture, kidnapping, and death threats. You cannot tell families running for their lives to go back and wait in danger because their suffering is inconvenient,” said Nicole Elizabeth Ramos, border rights project directo at Al Otro Lado which was the plaintiff in the case. “We brought this case because the United States made a legal and moral commitment to protect people fleeing persecution.”
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday ordered the government to return to the U.S. a California DACA recipient who was deported last month to Mexico.
U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins in Sacramento gave the government seven days to return Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, 42, and restore her protections under the Obama-era program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, “as if her Feb. 19, 2026 removal never occurred.”
A lawyer for Estrada Juarez argued that she was unlawfully deported within a day of appearing at a scheduled immigration appointment in Sacramento.
Lawyers for the government, meanwhile, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Estrada Juarez’s case because her petition was filed after she was deported and because her removal was a discretionary decision the government is entitled to.
Coggins said she found the government’s argument “unavailing,” writing in her ruling that Estrada Juarez “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA, and in violation of the Constitutional protections afforded to her under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
In a statement, Estrada Juarez said she was “overwhelmed with relief and hope” after learning the court’s decision.
The Department of Homeland Security said it had reinstated an expedited removal order for Estrada Juarez from 1998, when she was 15. But her lawyer, Stacy Tolchin, said the record showed that the order lacked supervisory approval and was never finalized, so there was no valid removal order to reinstate.
Homeland Security previously told The Times that an immigration judge had ordered Estrada Juarez’s deportation in 1998 “and she was removed from the United States shortly after.” Tolchin said Estrada Juarez never saw an immigration judge.
Estrada Juarez, who worked as a regional manager for Motel 6, has had protection from deportation under DACA since 2013. She applied for legal permanent residency, or a green card, through her daughter, Damaris Bello, 22, who is a U.S. citizen.
Her deportation after the green card interview garnered public attention and outrage from members of Congress, including Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).
DACA was created to protect undocumented people who were brought to the U.S. as children.
As of June 2025, there were more than 515,000 DACA recipients, known as “Dreamers,” in the U.S. California has 144,000 DACA recipients, the most of any state, according to federal data.
March 24 (UPI) — The Department of Defense has announced new restrictions on reporters, including removing their office space from the Pentagon, after a judge last week struck down a Trump administration policy that threatened journalists’ credentials for obtaining unauthorized information.
Under the new policy announced Monday, reporters will be required to work from new office space outside the Pentagon but in an annex facility on its grounds. It also requires credentialed journalists to be escorted by Department of Defense personnel at all times within the Pentagon.
The announcement comes after the Defense Department announced a new policy in October that required all journalists with access to the Pentagon to sign a form acknowledging they could have their credentials revoked for collecting unauthorized information. Most Pentagon reporters declined and surrendered their credentials.
The New York Times then sued the administration of President Donald Trump. On Saturday, a federal court judge ruled in the paper’s favor, stating the policy was unconstitutional and ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the credentials of seven journalists with The Times.
The Pentagon intends to appeal the decisions, and in the interim announced the new policy shuttering the Correspondents’ Corridor and mandating journalist escorts, which Sean Parnell, assistant to the Defense secretary, said in a statement was in compliance with the court’s order.
“The Department always complies with court orders but disagrees with the decision and is pursuing an appeal,” he said.
A spokesperson with The Times quickly repsonded to the new policy, saying “We will be going back to court.”
“The new policy does not comply with the judge’s order,” Charlie Stadtlander, the Times spokesperson, said in a statement.
“It continues to impose unconstitutional restrictions on the press.”
The Trump administration has repeatedly taken actions that critics say are aimed at influencing its media coverage, including the October memorandum, restricting access to outlets over editorial decisions and seizing control of the White House press pool.
Journalists and free speech organizations were quick to crticize the policy, with the National Press Club calling the closure of the Correspondents’ Corridor an effort to undermine independent reporting of the Pentagon while it is fighting a war with Iran.
“At a time when the United States is engaged in active military conflict, the public depends on journalists being able to observe, report and ask questions freely,” NPC President Mark Schoeff said in a statement.
“Independent reporting on the U.S. military is not optional. It is essential to accountability, transparency and public trust. Any policy that curtails that access should concern everyone who values a free and informed society.”
The Pentagon Press Association said it was consulting with its legal counsel, according to a statement obtained by Axios.
“Press freedom is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and an informed public is vital to democracy,” the organization said.
“At such a critical time, we ask why the Pentagon is choosing to restrict vital press freedoms that help inform all Americans.”
In rejecting a key element of a legal challenge to the government’s warrantless wiretapping program, federal appellate judges on Friday demonstrated once again the willingness of U.S. courts to give the Bush administration considerable latitude in handling the war on terror.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, by a 3-0 vote, barred an Islamic charity from using a confidential government document to prove that it had been illegally spied upon, agreeing with the administration that disclosure would reveal “state secrets.”
The lawsuit, filed by Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and two of its attorneys, challenged the National Security Agency’s spying endeavor, the Terrorist Surveillance Program, launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The U.N. Security Council has declared that Al-Haramain, which operates in more than 50 countries, belongs to or is associated with Al Qaeda.
The suit was one of 50 legal challenges brought across the country after the program’s existence was revealed in the New York Times.
Other courts have shown similar deference to the Bush administration on the state secrets privilege, which permits the government to bar disclosure in court of information if “there is a reasonable danger” it would affect national security.
But the ruling in this case was particularly striking because it came from a panel of three liberal jurists, all appointed by Democratic presidents.
Moreover, the charity, unlike other plaintiffs, says it has evidence of surveillance — a call log from the National Security Agency that the government inadvertently turned over in another proceeding.
In the ruling, Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote that the judges accepted “the need to defer to the executive on matters of foreign and national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second-guessing the executive in this arena.”
Erwin Chemerinsky, a liberal constitutional law professor at Duke University law school, said the court showed “how much deference even a liberal panel of judges is willing to give the executive branch in situations like this, and I find that very troubling.”
Doug Kmiec, a conservative constitutional law professor at Pepperdine law school, said “the opinion is consistent with” a ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati earlier this year striking down a challenge to the surveillance filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
He said the dual rulings indicated that “federal courts recognize that the essential aspects of the Terrorist Surveillance Program both remain secret and are important to preserve as such.”
The court’s ruling was not an absolute victory for the government. McKeown rejected the Justice Department’s argument that “the very subject matter of the litigation is a state secret.”
That finding could prove important in numerous other cases in which the government contends that even considering legal challenges to warrantless wiretapping would endanger national security.
In addition, the 9th Circuit panel sent the case back to a lower court to consider another issue: whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires approval by a special court for domestic surveillance, preempts the state secrets privilege. McKeown said that issue “remains central to Al-Haramain’s ability to proceed with this lawsuit.”
Georgetown University constitutional law professor David Cole said he thought Friday’s ruling showed partial victories for both sides.
Indeed, lawyers for the government and for the charity said they were happy with the outcome.
“The 9th Circuit upheld the government’s position that release of this information would undermine the government’s intelligence capabilities and compromise national security,” the Justice Department said.
Oakland attorney Jon Eisenberg, who argued for Al-Haramain before the 9th Circuit, said: “The government wants this case dead and gone. It is not. We are alive and kicking.”
Eisenberg expressed optimism that his client would prevail under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a statute enacted in the aftermath of revelations of illegal spying on civil rights and antiwar activists in the 1960s and ‘70s.
“That provision would be meaningless if the government could evade any such lawsuit merely by evoking the state secrets privilege,” Eisenberg said.
In support of her opinion, McKeown detailed statements by government officials — including President Bush, then-Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales and Gen. General Michael V. Hayden, principal deputy director for national intelligence — acknowledging the existence of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and extolling its importance.
“In light of extensive government disclosures about the TSP, the government is hard-pressed to sustain its claim that the very subject matter of this litigation is a state secret,” wrote McKeown, an appointee of President Clinton. “Unlike a truly secret or ‘black box’ program that remains in the shadows of public knowledge, the government has moved affirmatively to engage in public discourse about the TSP.”
Nonetheless, after privately reviewing the secret document, McKeown said she and her colleagues Michael Daly Hawkins, another Clinton appointee, and Harry Pregerson, a Carter appointee, agreed it was protected by the state secrets privilege.
“Detailed statements underscore that disclosure of information concerning the Sealed Document and the means, sources and methods of intelligence gathering in this context of this case would undermine the government’s intelligence capabilities and compromise national security,” she said.
The state secrets privilege was first utilized successfully by the government in a case shortly after the Civil War.
The leading case in the area, U.S. vs. Reynolds, was issued by the Supreme Court in 1953 to block a lawsuit after the crash of a B-29 bomber.
Three widows of crewmen sued and sought the official accident reports. The Air Force said the reports could not be revealed because the bomber was on a secret test mission.
(When the reports were declassified in 2000, they revealed that the aircraft was in poor condition, evidence that might have helped the widows’ suit.)
The Bush administration has evoked the state secrets privilege numerous times in recent years. In most instances, courts have accepted the word of government lawyers, often with a fairly cursory review, according to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who, like Cole, has challenged the privilege in court.
McKeown took pains to say that the 9th Circuit had carefully scrutinized the government’s assertions.
She said the judges had taken “very seriously our obligation to review the documents with a very careful, indeed a skeptical eye, and not to accept at face value the government’s claim or justification of privilege.”
But she said the panel could go no further than what already has been publicly disclosed that “the Sealed Document has something to do with intelligence activities.”
When the court heard the Al-Haramain case in August, it also entertained arguments in a related case, Hepting vs. AT&T; Corp. In that case, lawyers representing millions of AT&T; customers are seeking damages from the telecommunications giant for allegedly sharing their private records with the National Security Agency as part of the surveillance program.
On Friday, the 9th Circuit panel issued a brief order saying that the AT&T; case had been severed from the Al-Haramain matter. A decision is expected in the next several months, although there is no deadline.
WASHINGTON — Californians may be forced to put their ballots in the mail well before election day to be certain they will be counted.
That’s the likely outcome of a Republican challenge to mail ballots that came before the Supreme Court on Monday.
The court’s six conservatives sounded ready to rule that federal law requires that ballots must be received by election day if they are to be counted as legal.
In the 19th century, Congress set a national day for federal elections on a Tuesday in early November, but it did not say how or when states would count their ballots. The Constitution leaves it to states to decide the “times, places and manners for holding elections.”
California and 13 other states count mail ballots that were cast before or on election day but arrive a few days late. And most states accept late ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.
By law, California counts mail ballots that arrive within seven days of election day. In 2024, more than 406,000 of these late-arriving ballots were counted in California, about 2.5% of the total.
Other Western states — Washington, Oregon, Nevada and Alaska — also count late-arriving mail ballots.
But President Trump has repeatedly claimed that voting by mail leads to fraud, and the Republican National Committee has gone to court to challenge the state laws that allow for counting the legally cast ballots of citizens which are postmarked on time but arrive late.
GOP lawyers argued that the phrase “election day” has always meant ballots must be in the hands of election officials on that day. In their questions and comments, all six conservatives agreed.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. saw a real prospect of fraud. There could be “a big stash of ballots” that arrive late and “flip the outcome,” he said.
Democrats and election law experts say that the proposed new rule conflicts with more than a century of practice, because most states allowed for some people to vote by mail if they were traveling on election day. They argued that election day is like the federal tax day of April 15. While tax returns must be postmarked then, the tax returns are legal even if they arrive at the Internal Revenue Service a few days later.
The GOP filed its challenge in Mississippi, which accepts ballots that arrive up to five days after election day. A district judge rejected the claim, but a 5th Circuit Court panel with three Trump appointees ruled that ballots are illegal if they are not received by election day.
JUNEAU, Alaska — The tiny Alaska Native village of Beaver is about 40 minutes — by plane — from the nearest city. Its roughly 50 residents rely on weekday flights for mail and many of their basic supplies, including groceries and Amazon deliveries of everyday household items.
Air service plays an outsize role in the nation’s most expansive state, where most communities rely on flights for year-round access. Planes also play a crucial role in elections, getting voting materials and ballots to and from rural precincts such as Beaver and delivering ballots for thousands of Alaskans who vote by mail — some in places where in-person voting is not available.
The vast distances and relative isolation of so many communities make Alaska unique and are why its residents have a significant interest in arguments taking place Monday before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Many here worry that a case from Mississippi challenging whether ballots received after election day can be counted in federal elections could end Alaska’s practice of accepting late-arriving ballots. Alaska counts ballots if they are postmarked by election day and received within 10 days, or 15 days for overseas voters in general elections.
“These processes have been in place for a long time just to ensure that our ballots are counted,” said Rhonda Pitka, a poll worker and first chief in Beaver, which sits along the Yukon River 110 miles north of Fairbanks.
If the court decides ballots in all states must be received by election day, she said, “they’ll be disenfranchising thousands of people — thousands of people in these rural communities. It’s just basically saying that their votes don’t count, and that’s a real shame.”
The Supreme Court will hear arguments as the U.S. Senate is debating legislation being pushed by President Trump that would require people to show proof of citizenship to register to vote — an onerous burden for many — and a photo ID to cast a ballot.
Most Republicans argue that the bill is necessary to shore up voting integrity, but Democrats and voting rights advocates — and Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski — contend that it amounts to voter suppression. Studies have consistently shown that voting fraud is exceedingly rare in the U.S., and courts have struck down similar measures after finding they prevented eligible voters from casting ballots.
Some ballots already arrive late
Alaska is one of 14 states that allow all mailed ballots postmarked by election day to arrive days or weeks later and be counted, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Voting Rights Lab. An additional 15 provide grace periods for military and overseas ballots.
But Alaska’s geography, weather and great distances between communities — Alaska is more than twice the size of Texas, the nation’s second-largest state — raise the stakes for voters. The unusual way the state counts its votes also makes a grace period important, advocates say.
Under Alaska’s ranked-choice system for general elections, workers in small rural precincts call in voters’ first choices to a regional election office. All ballots, however, ultimately are flown to the state Division of Elections in the capital, Juneau. There, the races not won outright are tabulated to determine a winner.
Even with Alaska’s current 10-day grace period, ballots from some villages in 2022 were not fully counted because of mail delays. They arrived too late for tabulations in Juneau, 15 days after election day.
If the Supreme Court rules that ballots cannot be counted if they arrive at election offices after election day, many Alaska voters could be affected. About 50,000 Alaskans voted by mail in the 2024 presidential election.
“I think there’s probably no other state where this ruling could have a more detrimental impact than ours,” Murkowski, her state’s senior senator, said in an interview.
Murkowski sees the case — a challenge by the Republican National Committee and others to Mississippi’s allowance of late-arriving ballots — as an effort to end voting by mail nationwide.
‘Seeing a level of voter intimidation’
The RNC argues that such grace periods improperly extend elections for federal office, but Mississippi responded that no voting occurs after election day — only the delivery and counting of already completed ballots.
Taken together, Murkowski said, the Trump-backed voting bill and the Supreme Court case could discourage people from voting.
“I think we’re seeing a level of voter intimidation, I’ll just say it,” she said. “I feel very, very strongly that the effort that we should be making at the federal level is to do all that we can to make our elections accessible, fair and transparent for every lawful voter out there.”
Alaska’s other congressional members, Rep. Nick Begich and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both Republican allies of Trump who are seeking reelection this year, support the SAVE America Act now before the Senate. But they also said they want to ensure that ballots properly cast on or before election day get counted.
“We’ll see what the courts choose to do on that issue, but I do think that we need to allow for time for ballots to come in from the rural parts of our state,” Begich said during a recent visit to Juneau.
Alaska officials highlight challenges to the court
A court filing in the Mississippi case by Alaska Atty. Gen. Stephen Cox and Solicitor Gen. Jenna Lorence did not take sides but outlined geographic and logistical challenges to holding elections in Alaska.
In Atqasuk, on Alaska’s North Slope, poll workers counted votes on election night in 2024, tallies they would normally relay by phone to election division officials. But the filing said they could not get through and “chose what they saw as the next best solution — they placed the ballots and tally sheets into a secure package and mailed them to the Division, who did not receive them until nine days later.”
The filing seeks clarity from the Supreme Court, particularly around what it means for ballots to be received by election day.
While it is clear when a ballot is cast, “when certain ballots are actually ‘received’ is open to different interpretations, especially given the connectivity challenges for Alaska’s far-flung boroughs,” Cox and Lorence wrote.
Effect on Alaska Native voters
Lawyers with the Native American Rights Fund and Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center said in filings with the court that limited postal service in rural areas means that some ballots might not be postmarked until they reach Anchorage or Juneau, which can take days.
In the 2022 general election, between 55% and 78% of absentee ballots from the state House districts spanning from the Aleutian Islands up the western coast to the vast North Slope arrived at an election office after election day, they wrote. Statewide, about 20% of all absentee ballots in that election were received after election day.
Requiring ballots to be received by election day, they warned, would “disproportionately disenfranchise” Alaska Native voters. The lawyers represent the National Congress of American Indians, Native Vote Washington and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
Michelle Sparck, director of Get Out the Native Vote, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy group affiliated with the Alaska Federation of Natives, worries about creating confusion and fear among voters.
She sees the case before the Supreme Court and the Republican SAVE Act as “a multipronged attempt to take control or wrest control of elections away from states.” Alaska, she said, already has enough inherent barriers for many voters.
“There is a minute record of election fraud — not at the rate that requires this heavy-handed response through the legislature and the Supreme Court,” she said.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett listen as President Donald Trump delivers his State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, DC on February 24. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo
March 22 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Watson vs. Republican Nation Committee, a legal case that could have ramifications on mail-in balloting deadlines in the upcoming mid-term elections, on Monday.
About 30 percent of voters cast their ballots by mail in 2024.
CBS noted that 14 states and the District of Columbia have extended deadlines for counting mail-in ballots that are postmarked by Election Day.
Illinois, for instance, counts ballots received up to two weeks after Election Day, while California has a grace period of seven days.
This week’s case will look at whether extended deadlines violate federal statutes recognizing Election Day as a specific date.
“The longer the period over which the election is conducted, the greater the opportunity for and risk of fraud,” USA Today quoted conservative groups, backing the RNC’s attempt to count only ballots received by Election Day, as saying in the court filing.
Marc Elias, a Democratic elections attorney representing Vet Voices and the Alliance for Retired Americans, told the newspaper eliminating grace periods could disproportionately impact Democrats because they are more likely to vote by mail than Republicans.
“People are being stripped of their voting rights through no fault of their own,” Elias said, noting delays in the U.S. Postal Service might be one reason ballots don’t arrive at their local polling places until after Election Day.
The case will be heard as U.S. President Trump continues to pressure the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act, which would require those registering to vote to show proof of citizenship with passports or birth certificates.
“THE SAVE AMERICA ACT MUST BE PASSED BY THE SENATE. THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE U.S.A. Voter I.D., Proof of Citizenship, etc. Get it done and watch all of the good things that will happen!!!” Trump wrote on X Friday.
A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed that 71 percent of voters support the SAVE Act.
Virginians cast their ballots at Walter Reed Recreation Center in Arlington, Va., on Election Day on November 4, 2025. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
Under the guise of preserving secularism, this law allows the exclusion of people based on their religious identity.
On Monday, the Supreme Court of Canada will begin a four-day hearing for one of the most consequential constitutional cases in the country’s recent history. At issue is Quebec’s so-called “secularism law”, known as Bill 21 – a law enacted in 2019 that prohibits certain public sector workers from wearing visible religious symbols at work.
It bars many public sector employees, including teachers, prosecutors, police officers, and judges, from wearing religious symbols such as hijabs, turbans, kippahs, and other visible expressions of faith while at work.
There is much at stake in this case that raises fundamental questions about religious freedom, equality, and the limits of state power in a constitutional democracy. In addition, another significant issue is that to get the bill passed, Quebec’s government had used the “notwithstanding clause”, a unique provision in Canadian law that allows it to override fundamental rights and freedoms. No other constitutional democracy in the world has a similar blanket override of fundamental rights and freedoms.
The Quebec government claims that the law is necessary to preserve the religious neutrality of the state. Yet Bill 21 does the opposite: by forcing some individuals to choose between their profession and their religious identity, the Quebec government is not remaining neutral – it is effectively excluding people of faith from public sector employment.
The use of this extraordinary, and until recently rarely used, constitutional mechanism has turned the spotlight on Bill 21 beyond the borders of Quebec and the debate over secularism and religious freedoms. It has become a test of how far a democratic government can go in limiting fundamental rights and freedoms.
Evidence before the courts shows that Bill 21 affects religious people of many faiths, including Jewish men who wear kippahs and Sikh men and women who wear turbans; but its impact falls particularly heavily on Muslim women who wear the hijab. For many Muslim women who wear headscarves, teaching and other public service careers have effectively been closed off.
The message of exclusion that this law sends to young people is especially troubling. Generations of young people in Quebec are being told that their full participation in public life requires abandoning visible aspects of their identity.
This is why the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association launched the constitutional challenge against Bill 21. The Supreme Court of Canada must consider the implications, and possible limitations, of allowing governments to sidestep rights protections through pre-emptive use of constitutional override powers. The court’s decision will help determine whether constitutional rights in Canada remain meaningful constraints on government power, or whether they can be suspended whenever politically convenient.
These questions extend far beyond Canada. Across Europe and elsewhere, debates about secularism have increasingly centred on restrictions targeting religious expression, often impacting Muslim women in particular.
Canada often prides itself on being a model of multicultural democracy, one that accommodates diversity. Bill 21 challenges that reputation by testing whether neutrality can coexist with policies that effectively exclude people of visible faith from public service.
True secularism does not demand the erasure of religious identity. A neutral state does not require citizens to shed visible expressions of belief in order to participate fully in public life.
The Supreme Court of Canada now has the opportunity to reaffirm these principles and clarify that constitutional rights cannot be easily set aside. At a time when countries around the world are grappling with questions of belonging, pluralism, and the rights of minorities, the Canadian court’s ruling will send an important signal about whether liberal democracies are willing to uphold their commitments to freedom and equality.
We say this is not an abstract idea, but an imperative to demonstrate that commitments to freedom and equality are more than mere words.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.
March 21 (UPI) — A federal judge struck down the Department of Defense’s policy that led to the ouster of most journalists from the Pentagon last fall and replaced them with those who agreed to the department’s new rules.
Though he didn’t order the restoration of other reporters’ credentials, he voided the policy that they refused to sign, allowing them to get credentialed again.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnellwrote on X: “We disagree with the decision and are pursuing an immediate appeal.”
In October, the Defense Department required that all credentialed journalists sign the policy. Signing it gave the Pentagon the ability to label the journalists “security risks” and revoke their credentials if the department decided they had endangered national security. They had to pledge to only publish approved information.
Most news outlets refused to sign, losing their press passes and desks inside the Pentagon. They were replaced with news outlets and people friendly to the administration. The Times then sued the department over its First Amendment rights.
“A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription,” Friedman wrote in his opinion.
“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech,” Friedman added. “That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now.”
First Amendment attorney Theodore Boutrous, who is representing The Times in the suit, told CNN: “The district court’s decision is a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war.”
“The district court’s opinion is not just a win for The Times, [Times reporter] Mr. [Julian E.] Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon,” Boutrous said.
Friedman also agreed with the Times that the policy violated its due process rights because it was vague and could be accidentally violated by reporters. Part of the policy prevented reporters from asking certain questions.
“A primary way in which journalists obtain information is by asking questions,” he wrote. “Under the policy’s terms, then, essential journalistic practices that the plaintiffs and others engage in every day — such as asking questions of department employees — could trigger a determination by the department that a journalist poses a security or safety risk.”
First Amendment advocates said they support the decision.
“The court affirmed that our security and liberty rely on the press’s freedom to publish and the public’s ability to access news about government affairs free from state control,” said Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the ruling is especially important right now.
“It’s unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon’s ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting ‘authorized’ narratives,” Stern said in a statement.
March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of allowing a so-called street preacher in Mississippi to challenge a law prohibiting where he can protest.
The high court said Gabriel Olivier can file a civil suit in response to a law in Brandon, Miss., that prevents public protests outside of designated areas. He said the law violates the 1st Amendment’s free speech protection.
Police in Brandon, Miss., arrested Olivier in 2021 as he and a group of protesters shouted slurs and insults at concertgoers as they entered an amphitheater. Some members of the group also held up graphic signs showing aborted fetuses.
He was convicted of violating the city’s laws banning protesters from coming within about 265 feet away of the amphitheater and from using loudspeakers that can be heard from more than 100 feet away, CNN reported.
Olivier pleaded no contest to the charges and was ordered to pay a fine and serve a year of unsupervised probation. Following his sentence, he sued the city, saying its law violated his free speech rights.
A 1994 Supreme Court ruling — Heck v. Humphrey — though says that a defendant convicted of a crime can’t then sue over the legality of their conviction. Otherwise, he and other defendants could be cleared of their convictions outside of the normal criminal appeals process, The Washington Post reported.
Olivier’s lawyers said his case should be allowed to proceed because success wouldn’t affect the result of his conviction, for which he wasn’t imprisoned. The Supreme Court agreed with a unanimous vote.
The ruling did not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the city of Brandon’s laws, only that Olivier is allowed to challenge them.
President Donald Trump presents the Commander in Chief’s Trophy to the Navy Midshipmen football team during a ceremony in the East Room of the White House on Friday. The award is presented annually to the winner of the football competition between the Navy, Air Force and Army. Navy has won the trophy back to back years and 13 times over the last 23 years. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo
March 20 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has sentenced former Bolivian anti-drug chief Maximiliano Dávila to 25 years in prison for conspiring to import large quantities of cocaine into the United States.
Dávila, 54, was convicted of coordinating cocaine shipments and using heavy weapons to protect drug trafficking operations while serving in senior law enforcement roles in Bolivia under former President Evo Morales.
The sentence, imposed Thursday by U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote in a Manhattan court, concludes a legal process that began with his arrest near Bolivia’s border with Argentina in 2022 and his extradition in December 2024, Bolivian newspaper La Razón reported.
Dávila served as head of Bolivia’s Special Force to Fight Drug Trafficking, the country’s main anti-narcotics agency, until November 2019. His tenure placed him among the most influential figures in Bolivia’s efforts to combat drug trafficking.
However, his career was marked by allegations of ties to criminal networks, which later led to international investigations, according to local outlet Red Uno.
Prosecutors in New York said Dávila used his position to facilitate drug trafficking operations rather than combat them, turning his office into a logistical hub for organized crime.
They said he ensured safe passage for aircraft carrying cocaine from Bolivian airstrips to intermediate destinations in Central America and the Caribbean, with the drugs ultimately bound for the United States.
According to the investigation, Dávila provided armed protection for cocaine shipments, Bolivian newspaper El Deber reported.
In 2022, the U.S. State Department offered a $5 million reward for information leading to his conviction, underscoring his alleged role in regional drug trafficking networks.
In addition to the 25-year prison sentence, Dávila will face five years of supervised release. His defense has indicated it may appeal, though legal experts say the strength of the evidence makes a reduced sentence unlikely.
HOUSTON — The combination of Luka Doncic and LeBron James was overpowering and enthralling for all to see during the Lakers’ dynamic 124-116 win over the Houston Rockets at Toyota Center on Wednesday.
Doncic was masterful with his near triple-double of 40 points, 10 assists and nine rebounds.
“I thought he definitely put on a clinic down the stretch,” Lakers coach JJ Redick said. “Whether it was in isolation, versus fires in isolations, versus the shock with (Alperen) Segun, he just got us good offense whether for himself or for his teammates every single time down the floor….We moved the basketball, so that kind of got us going and then when Luka came back in he was just fantastic.”
James was a force with 30 points, five rebounds and two assists.
He was super efficient, missing just one of his 14 shots and making both of his three-pointers.
“Look, he was awesome tonight and I think two, part of the evolution of him on this team has been, particularly in this stretch, it’s just been his patience,” Redick said. “His patience, knowing he’s going to get the ball and he’s going to have transition opportunities and he’s going to have plays called for him and he’s going to play off-ball and get a corner three…He was great.”
The tremendous play of Doncic and James is why the Lakers extended their winning streak to seven straight games and helped them take the three-game series over the Rockets, 2-1, winning both games here, one on Monday night.
And because Doncic and James were clutch down the stretch when the Lakers leaned on them to be clutch, they are the third-place team in the rugged Western Conference, holding a 1-½ lead over the Minnesota Timberwolves.
“You know, when you win, everything is easier,” Doncic said. “Winning is fun. So, just the way we play, I think it’s a lot of fun. And that’s what we just do, we win, have a good time.”
Doncic had 10 points and three assists in the fourth quarter.
But the beauty of the night was when Doncic threw a no-look lob pass to James for a dunk and then when Doncic drilled a three-pointer with 58.4 seconds left for a 120-111 Lakers lead.
Doncic yelled at the crowd and ran down court shaking his head. When the Rockets called a time out, the Lakers bench all ran over to Doncic, hugging him, slapping him and James nudging him for a job very well done.
Doncic was asked what the fan said to set him off.
“I don’t know, some guy. Some guy was talking crazy,” Doncic said. “Showed me his… I don’t know. Nevermind.”
Doncic speaks several languages, including English and his native Slovenian.
He was asked what language he spoke when talking to the fan.
“Off the camera, it was in English,” he said. “I made sure he understand.”
Luka Doncic celebrates after making a three-pointer against the Houston Rockets in the first half.
(David J. Phillip / Associated Press)
James had a steal in the first quarter and then threw down a dunk with Alperen Segen chasing him, leading to James to stare at Segun as he ran back down court, drawing cheers from the fans in awe at witnessing the 23-year veteran still making highlight plays at 41.
Early in the second quarter, James gave the fans even more to cheer about, catching a high lob pass from Marcus Smart and throwing down a one-handed dunk to oohs and aahs.
James wasn’t done, taking a pass from Jake LaRavia and throwing down another dunk later in the second quarter that brought the crowd out of its seats. That play gave the Lakers a 13-point lead.
James was at it again with a tip dunk off a Deandre Ayton missed shot late in the second quarter.
By the end of the first half, James had made all eight of his shots and scored 18 points in carrying the Lakers to a 12-point lead after the first 24 minutes of the game.
“Right now, I feel like….” James said after the game. ‘’Right now. But in the game I felt pretty good. Before the game I didn’t feel that great. I mean, I was yawning and tired and telling myself I was literally, just like talking to myself like, ‘Come on, here we go. Let’s figure it out. Let’s get through it.’ But I felt pretty good in the game and like I said I’m happy to make a few plays to help our team win.”
In many ways, it was easy to understand why he felt that way. He had just played in his 1,610th career NBA game, leaving him one shy of the all-time record held by Robert Parish (1,611).
So, James was asked, where did he find the energy to play 34 minutes and six seconds in such a high-level and intense game.
“I mean, if I’m in uniform I got to try to see what I can give,” James said. “And that’s where it stems from.”
The US defence secretary designated the AI company a ‘supply chain risk’ after it refused to remove guardrails on its technology.
Published On 18 Mar 202618 Mar 2026
The administration of United States President Donald Trump has said in a court filing that the Pentagon’s blacklisting of Anthropic was justified and lawful, opposing the artificial intelligence company’s high-stakes lawsuit challenging the decision.
The administration made its comments in a court filing on Tuesday.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth designated Anthropic, the maker of popular AI assistant Claude, a national security supply chain risk on March 3 after the company refused to remove guardrails against its technology being used for autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance.
The Trump administration’s filing says Anthropic is unlikely to succeed in its claims that the US government’s action violated speech protections under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, asserting that the dispute stems from contract negotiations and national security concerns, not retaliation.
“It was only when Anthropic refused to release the restrictions on the use of its products — which refusal is conduct, not protected speech — that the President directed all federal agencies to terminate their business relationships with Anthropic,” the administration’s legal filing said. The filing, from the US Justice Department, said that “no one has purported to restrict Anthropic’s expressive activity”.
Anthropic’s lawsuit in California federal court asks a judge to block the Pentagon’s decision while the case plays out. Some legal experts say the company appears to have a strong case that the government overreached.
In a statement, Anthropic said it was reviewing the government’s filing. The company said that “seeking judicial review does not change our longstanding commitment to harnessing AI to protect our national security, but this is a necessary step to protect our business, our customers, and our partners.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Supply chain risk
Trump has backed Hegseth’s move, which excludes Anthropic from a limited set of military contracts. But it could damage the company’s reputation and cause billions of dollars in losses this year, according to its executives.
The designation came after months of negotiations between the Pentagon and Anthropic reached an impasse, prompting Trump and Hegseth to denounce the company and accuse it of endangering American lives with its use restrictions.
Anthropic has disputed those claims and said AI is not yet safe enough to be used in autonomous weapons. The company said it opposes domestic surveillance as a matter of principle.
In its March 9 lawsuit, Anthropic said that the “unprecedented and unlawful” designation violated its free speech and due process rights, while running afoul of a law requiring federal agencies to follow specific procedures when making decisions.
The Pentagon separately designated Anthropic a supply chain risk under a different law that could expand the order to the entire government.
Anthropic is challenging that move in a second lawsuit in a Washington, DC, appeals court.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on whether the Trump administration may end the temporary protection that had been extended in the past to migrants who live and work in the United States.
At issue are legal protections for about 6,000 Syrians and up to 350,000 Haitians.
The court’s announcement signals the justices want to resolve this issue in a written opinion rather through emergency appeals.
Twice last year, the court’s conservatives set aside decisions from judges in San Francisco who said President Trump’s Homeland Security secretary had overstepped her authority.
But those decisions did not set clear precedents, and in recent weeks, judges in New York and Washington, D.C., blocked the administration’s plan to end the special protections for Haitians and Syrians.
Frustrated by what he labeled “indefensible” decisions, Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer advised the court to hear arguments and issue a written ruling on the issue.
The justices on Monday agreed to just that. Arguments will be heard in April, and a decision will be handed down by July.
Immigrant-rights advocates argued the repeal of the special protection would be cruel and unjust to migrants who have established lives and careers in this country.
In 1990, Congress authorized giving temporary shelter to non-citizens from countries experiencing armed conflict, natural disaster or “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent them from returning there.
In 2012, the Homeland Security secretary extended this protection to Syrians in response to a “brutal crackdown” engineered by its then-President Bashar al-Assad.
Last year, citing Assad’s fall from power, Trump’s Secretary Kristi Noem proposed to cancel the temporary protection for Syrians. Lawyers for the Syrians questioned how this could be seen as an emergency requiring an immediate ruling.
They said about 6,100 Syrians who have lived here lawfully for years.
They are “highly sought-after doctors and medical professionals, reporters, students, teachers, business owners, caretakers, and others who have been repeatedly vetted and by definition have virtually no criminal history. The government apparently needs urgent authority to send them to a country in the middle of an active war,” the lawyers said.
In 2010, the Obama administration extended the protection to Haiti after an earthquake caused death and damage in Port-au-Prince, the capital.
Judges in New York and Washington blocked those repeals and said the high court had given “no explanation” for its decision upholding the repeal for Venezuelans.
Those judges said the Supreme Court’s earlier orders orders “involved a TPS designation of a different country, with different factual circumstances, and different grounds for resolution by the district court.”
Sauer pointed to a provision in the 1990 law that says judges have no authority to second-guess the government’s decision to end it.
“There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state under this subsection,” the law says.
In the three weeks since Trump’s attorney filed his emergency appeal, there have been two significant changes since then.
LONDON — The BBC filed a motion Monday asking a U.S. court to dismiss President Trump’s $10 billion lawsuit against it.
The British national broadcaster said that the Florida court where the case is expected to be heard does not have jurisdiction over it. It also argued that Trump could not show that it intended to misrepresent him.
Trump filed a lawsuit in December over the way a BBC documentary edited a speech he gave on Jan. 6, 2021. The claim seeks $5 billion in damages for defamation and a further $5 billion for unfair trade practices.
Last month a judge at the federal court for the Southern District of Florida provisionally set a trial date for February 2027.
The BBC argued that the case should be thrown out because the documentary was never aired in Florida or the U.S.
“We have therefore challenged jurisdiction of the Florida court and filed a motion to dismiss the president’s claim,” the corporation said in a statement.
In a 34-page document, the BBC also argued that Trump failed to “plausibly allege facts showing that defendants knowingly intended to create a false impression.”
Trump’s case “falls well short of the high bar of actual malice,” it added.
The documentary — titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” — was aired days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.
The program spliced together three quotes from two sections of a speech Trump made on Jan. 6, 2021, into what appeared to be one quote, in which Trump appeared to explicitly encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol building.
Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.
The broadcaster’s chairman has apologized to Trump over the edit of the speech, admitting that it gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.” But the BBC rejects claims it defamed him. The furor triggered the resignations of the BBC’s top executive and its head of news last year.
Stating that she fears for her life, Sparks forward Rickea Jackson has filed a petition for protection against her ex-boyfriend, Atlanta Falcons edge rusher James Pearce Jr.
Miami-Dade (Fla.) County Judge Heloiza Correa granted Jackson’s initial request for protection Feb. 9, and a permanent injunction hearing is set for April 21. Pearce is under order not to have contact with Jackson or come within 500 feet of her home or place of employment.
“James has threatened to kill me, James has threatened to harm me, James has threatened to injure me, James has threatened to place a bag over my head, and James has verbally and physically abused me on more than one occasion,” Jackson wrote in her statement to the court.
Jackson, 24, also filed notice with the court that she is willing to testify against Pearce. Her original petition for injunction for protection against dating violence — essentially a restraining order — was filed two days after Pearce’s arrest Feb. 7 for allegedly ramming his Lamborghini SUV into her car more than once, and doing the same to a police car in Doral, Fla.
Pearce, 22, faces felony charges of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, aggravated stalking, aggravated battery and fleeing from a police officer. He also faces a misdemeanor charge of resisting an officer and nine traffic violations.
“Mr. Pearce maintains his innocence and urges the public to understand that while allegations have the power to shape a narrative, that it is hardly the full, complete story,” Pearce’s attorney, Jacob Nunez, told AP shortly after the arrest. “We look forward to vigorously defending our client.”
In a court filing, Jackson said that she broke up with Pearce weeks before the incident that led to his arrest. She said Pearce offered her $200,000 to remain in a relationship with him and that his behavior toward her became increasingly alarming. According to ESPN, at least seven other 911 calls to police in the months before the Feb. 7 incident reported Pearce to be stalking or harassing an unnamed girlfriend.
A police report says the relationship between Jackson and Pearce began three years ago when both were star athletes at Tennessee.
Pearce was taken by the Falcons in the first round of the 2025 draft with a pick acquired from the Rams. The 6-foot-5, 243-pound edge rusher finished third for AP Defensive Rookie of the Year after recording 10.5 sacks.
Jackson was a first-round pick of the Sparks in 2024. The 6-2 forward emerged as a star in her second season, picking up MVP votes after averaging 14.7 points, 3.2 rebounds and 1.7 assists.
“She’s a smooth person, smooth athlete, smooth basketball player,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said in 2025. “She makes hard things look really easy … she makes things look effortless, and I know they’re not.”
The relationship between Jackson and Pearce became volatile in January when the Falcons star admitted in a police report obtained by ESPN that he thought Jackson was cheating on him.
The Feb. 7 incident was described in Jackson’s court filing and a police report. Jackson was attempting to get away from Pearce, who followed her in his car, tried to open her car door at a stop and slammed into her car more than once while she tried to enter the Doral Police Department parking lot “because I knew James was going to hurt me,” Jackson said.
An officer pulled a gun on Pearce and ordered him to get on the ground. However, Pearce jumped back into his car. The officer attempted to open the door, but Pearce shut it and drove away, his car clipping an officer’s left knee.
Police gave chase and Pearce crashed at an intersection before fleeing on foot. Officers said that they caught up with him and he resisted arrest. He was released after posting a $20,500 bond.
Irish rapper Liam O’Hanna welcomes ruling in case he says was ‘never about any threat to the public, never about terrorism’.
Published On 11 Mar 202611 Mar 2026
Share
British prosecutors have lost an appeal seeking to reinstate a “terrorism” charge against a member of Irish rap group Kneecap accused of waving a Hezbollah flag during a gig in London.
London’s High Court on Wednesday rejected prosecutors’ attempts to challenge a lower court’s decision to throw out the case against Liam O’Hanna in September due to a technical error.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The decision means the case will not proceed. In a statement, the Crown Prosecution Service said the High Court had “clarified how the law applies” to such cases and that it accepted “the judgement and will update our processes accordingly”.
O’Hanna – also known as Liam Og O hAnnaid (his name in Gaeilge, the Irish language) and by the stage name Mo Chara (“My Friend”) – was charged in May of last year with displaying a Hezbollah flag during a November 2024 concert in London, in violation of the United Kingdom’s 2000 Terrorism Act.
Kneecap’s members – who rap in Gaeilge and English and have been outspoken in their condemnation of Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip – have called the attempted prosecution a “British state witch-hunt”.
Liam O’Hanna (Liam Og O hAnnaid) welcomed the ruling during a news conference in Belfast, Northern Ireland [Charles McQuillan/Getty Images]
O’Hanna welcomed the ruling on Wednesday, saying during a news conference in Belfast that the case was “never about me, never about any threat to the public and never about terrorism”.
“It was always about Palestine, about what happens if you dare to speak up, about what happens if you can reach large groups of people and expose their hypocrisy, about the lengths Britain will go to cover up Israeli and US war crimes,” he said.
Cheered by supporters at the event, O’Hanna was joined by Kneecap bandmates JJ O Dochartaigh and Naoise O Caireallain – better known by their respective stage names, DJ Provai and Moglai Bap.
“Your own High Court ruled against you,” O’Hanna added, addressing the UK government.
“The pathetic thing about this whole process is that you falsely tried to label me a terrorist when it is the British government ministers that are arming and assisting a genocide in Gaza, the destruction of Lebanon, and the senseless slaughter of schoolkids in Iran.”
She simply kept showing up for it anyway, through the long and often anonymous slog of the professional tour.
Now 32 and the oldest player in the top 10, Pegula is having her best season start yet.
The fifth-ranked American reached the Australian Open semifinals for the first time in January, falling to eventual champion Elena Rybakina. She followed that by capturing the Dubai 1000-level tournament, just a rung below the majors.
She is 15-2 so far in 2026, tied with Victoria Mboko in match wins and second only to Ukraine’s Elina Svitolina (17-3), who she defeated 6-2, 6-4 in the Dubai final.
Pegula is guaranteed to emerge from this week’s BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells as the top-ranked American, overtaking No. 4 Coco Gauff, if she reaches the final.
Jessica Pegula kisses the Dubai trophy after defeating Elina Svitolina in the finals on Feb. 21.
(Altaf Qadri / Associated Press)
First, she will have to get past No. 12-seed Belinda Bencic of Switzerland, her fourth-round opponent on Wednesday. Bencic has not dropped a set in four previous meetings with Pegula.
“That will be a challenge for me,” said the characteristically even-keeled Pegula after defeating former French Open champion Jelena Ostapenko in the third round on Monday.
A late bloomer, Pegula has taken the long road.
She failed to qualify for Grand Slam main draws in 12 of 14 attempts from 2011 to 2018, and didn’t reach the third round at a major until the 2020 U.S. Open at age 26. All three of her Grand Slam semifinal runs — along with her 2024 U.S. Open final — have come after she turned 30.
Pegula said this week that her patience and persistence stem from “always being a little more mature for my age even when I was younger.”
“I think as I’ve gotten older, your perspective changes as well,” she added.
Pegula, whose parents are principal owners of the NFL’s Buffalo Bills and the NHL’s Buffalo Sabres, acknowledges that her wealthy family background can cut two ways.
Financial security offers freedom to push through the sport’s early years on tour, when results are uncertain and the grind is relentless. That same cushion might make it easier to walk away if the climb becomes too frustrating.
Jessica Pegula plays a backhand against Donna Vekic during their match at the BNP Paribas Open at Indian Wells.
(Clive Brunskill / Getty Images)
Pegula says her motivation to pursue tennis came well before her family’s fortune grew.
“I’ve been wanting to be a professional tennis player and No. 1 in the world since I was like 7,” she said in a small interview room after beating Ostapenko this week.
“It’s a privilege, but at the same time I don’t want to do myself a disservice of not taking the opportunity as well,” she explained. “I’ve always looked at it that way.”
In the last few seasons, that maturity on the court has dovetailed with a growing leadership role off it.
Pegula has served for years on the WTA Player Council and was recently tapped to chair the tour’s new Tour Architecture Council, a working group tasked with examining the increasingly demanding schedule and structural pressures players say have intensified in recent seasons. The panel is expected to explore changes that could reshape the calendar and player workload in coming years.
Pegula said she hadn’t put up her hand to be involved but agreed after several players approached her to take the lead role — though she declined to say who they were.
“I think maybe as you mature … you realize how important it is to give back to the sport,” she said last week.
Life has also provided grounding and a wider lens.
The Buffalo native and Florida resident also married businessman Taylor Gahagen in 2021. Gahagen helps “holds down the fort” at home with the couple’s dogs and travels with her when possible. He is with her in Indian Wells.
“I have an amazing support system,” Pegula says.
Despite winning 10 WTA singles titles, achieving a career singles high of No. 3 in 2022 and the No. 1 doubles ranking, Pegula’s low-key demeanor means she flies a bit under the radar.
She’s not one for fashion statements, outlandish antics or attention-seeking initiatives, her joint podcast with close friend Madison Keys notwithstanding.
Instead, Pegula tends to go about her business quietly, relying on a calm temperament and a methodical style that wears opponents down over time.
She gets the job done — the Tim Duncan of the women’s tour.
“She’s just all about lacing them up and competing between the lines, and then trying to be as big an asset as she can to her peers off the court,” says Mark Knowles, the former doubles standout who has shared coaching duties with Mark Merklein since early 2024.
“I think one of her great attributes is she’s very level-headed,” Knowles adds. “She doesn’t get too high, doesn’t get too low.”
Her tennis identity echoes her steadiness.
Instead of bludgeoning opponents with power, the 5-foot-7 Pegula beats them with savvy, steadiness and tactical variety. A careful student of the game, she studies matchups and patrols the court with a composed efficiency that incrementally drains big hitters and outmaneuvers most rivals long before the final score confirms it.
Keys calls that consistency her “superpower.”
“She doesn’t lose matches that she shouldn’t lose,” the 2025 Australian Open champion said this week.
Because of injuries in the early part of her career, Knowles says Pegula might have less wear-and-tear than other players her age. And he and her team have prioritized rest and recovery, which included the decision to skip the tournament in Doha last month following her tiring Australian Open run.
On brand, there was no panic in Pegula after dropping the first set in her two matches so far at Indian Wells. As she’s done all season, she steadied herself to earn three-set wins.
Bucket-list goals remain, however. Chiefly, capturing a Grand Slam title.
Jessica Pegula returns a shot to Jelena Ostapenko during the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells on Monday.
(Matthew Stockman / Getty Images)
Pegula jokes that she briefly interrupted a run of American female success when she fell in the 2024 U.S. Open final to No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka. But seeing close friend and teenage phenom Keys capture her major in Melbourne last year — after many wondered if her window had passed — hit closer to home.
“I think Madison winning Australia just motivated me even more,” Pegula says.
Although Pegula believes she is among the best hardcourt players in women’s tennis, that confidence hasn’t translated into success in the California desert. She has reached the quarterfinals just once in 10 previous appearances in Indian Wells.
“Why not try and add that one to the resume?” says Knowles, noting that she had never won the title in Dubai until last month. “She’s playing still at a very high level.”
Pegula says the key to keeping things fresh is maintaining her love of the game by continuing to improve and experiment with new ideas, a process that keeps her engaged mentally and eager to compete.
“I’m not afraid to kind of take that risk of changing and working on different things,” she says, “which just keeps my mind working and problem solving.”
For a player who never needed tennis, she remains determined to see how much more it can give her.
