court

The U.S. Justice Department moved Friday to voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit challenging the counting of 20,000 ballots in California, arguing the relief it sought is now impossible given Tuesday’s midterm election has concluded.

The Justice Department had sought a court order requiring state and Los Angeles County election officials to set aside the ballots, which it alleged could be from noncitizen voters. U.S. District Judge David O. Carter and a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had both rejected that request, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a Trump administration appeal to those lower court rulings — with no noted dissents.

Carter had ruled that the government’s request was probably unconstitutional, given the Constitution gives states and Congress power over elections, not the executive, and probably ran afoul of federal law barring sweeping vetting of voter rolls in the immediate run-up to an election.

However, he had set a schedule moving forward for additional fact-finding in the case — including by appointing a special master to dig into the data the federal government was relying on to assert the 20,000 voters were potentially noncitizens.

In a filing before Carter on Friday, Assistant U.S. Atty. Julie Hamill in Los Angeles wrote that that court process was no longer necessary, as it would not provide the relief that the federal government was seeking by filing its lawsuit.

“In light of the Supreme Court’s denial, the United States is evaluating how to best ensure that American votes are protected, including by preventing vote dilution by noncitizens. In addition, by the time of this Court’s hearing on Nov. 13 in this matter, California will have already commingled the challenged ballots with lawful ones,” Hamill wrote. “There is then no way to get the challenged ballots segregated. As a result, the relief the United States sought and needed is no longer available — rendering voluntary dismissal necessary.”

Hamill wrote that the Trump administration had sought to “protect American voters and to prevent the irreparable harm of state and local election officials including illegally cast votes in the final vote tabulation,” but had “exhausted its appeals to obtain timely relief” by going to — and being denied by — the Supreme Court.

First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli’s office in Los Angeles — where Hamill works — referred questions about the filing to the Justice Department.

Kiersten Pels, a Justice Department spokesperson, said the litigation at issue was “moot” but that the Trump administration “is not backing down” in its targeting of alleged noncitizen voters, including in a separate case in which it is still demanding that California “conduct proper list maintenance, including removing noncitizens from the state’s voter rolls — which will be crucial to ensure fair elections in the future.”

Secretary of State Shirley Weber, a defendant in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan, another defendant, said he was “pleased that the administration has accepted the clarity of the court findings” against it and ended its lawsuit.

“At each stage of this election, and in response to the Department of Justice, we have been clear that state and federal law sets well-defined standards for verifying and challenging voter eligibility,” Logan said. “Our commitment and focus remain on the fair, secure, accurate, and legal processes we are engaged in to complete and certify the election.”

California Atty. Gen Rob Bonta, in a statement, said that after losing in every court it tried, including the Supreme Court, “the Trump Administration has given up its latest unlawful effort to interfere with California’s elections and disenfranchise eligible voters.”

Bonta added: “Rest assured: California has and always will defend your fundamental right to vote.”

Tricia Webber, president of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election Officials, said state election officials “are very pleased” with the voluntary dismissal of the case — which she said “affirms that our elections are administered with the utmost integrity and care.”

“At the same time, we are under no illusions. We recognize that this issue is unlikely to go away permanently, and we remain fully prepared to continue defending California’s election administration against future challenges,” she said. “We will always stand ready to protect every eligible voter’s right to participate in a fair and secure election process.”

The administration’s filing — three days after President Trump’s party took a drubbing in the midterms — marks a sudden and unremarkable conclusion to an unprecedented court battle in the days leading up to the election, when the federal government sought permission from the courts to force state and local elections officials to set aside votes during an ongoing election.

Carter had rejected the administration’s request for immediate intervention in a blistering Oct. 28 ruling, calling its allegations about the ineligible voters “not credible” and warning that the proposed action could disenfranchise eligible voters and sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

While Justice Department officials characterized the relief it had requested from the court as “targeted and modest,” Carter had reached a sharply different conclusion — writing that the administration’s demands would “wreak havoc” on an ongoing election and “create a chilling effect on election workers and voters alike, and discount the votes of United States citizens.”

The reliability of the government’s list became a central issue in the litigation. Logan’s office said its review of about 200 flagged voters found that a substantial portion appeared to have been born in the United States, a finding Homeland Security officials disputed.

Election officials elsewhere in California also reported problems with the lists, including names of people who did not appear to live in their counties or to be registered voters. Justice Department officials sent letters to election officials across the state, demanding that they sequester flagged ballots and warning of potential criminal penalties if they failed to comply.

The three-judge 9th Circuit panel that heard the federal government’s appeal to Carter’s ruling — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — came to some of the same conclusions Carter did in a 2-1 ruling. One of the Trump appointees dissented, writing that he would have ruled for the administration.

Carter ordered an expedited hearing on the state’s and county’s motions to dismiss the case and the government’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He ordered all parties by Nov. 6 to submit witness lists, including experts, regarding the reliability of the list of voters and the methodology behind it. He ordered both sides to appear at the Nov. 13 hearing, with submitted witnesses prepared to take the stand.

Ending the litigation now will forestall that process to detail the origins of the administration’s list — which is still being used by federal prosecutors in California to target individual voters for criminal prosecution.

NEW YORK — New York appeals judges grilled President Trump’s lawyers and prosecutors Thursday about his bid to erase his historic hush money conviction, but the court didn’t signal how or when it would rule.

The judges delved into legal theory, presidential immunity and some evidence in Trump’s 2024 trial. Convicted of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to obscure a $130,000 payment to adult film performer Stormy Daniels, Trump denies any wrongdoing. He has turned to state and federal courts in hopes of unwinding the verdict.

Trump, who denounced the case on social media as recently as September, didn’t attend Thursday’s court session.

Much of the back-and-forth focused on prosecutors’ theory that the hush money was meant to keep unflattering information about Trump away from the electorate before the 2016 vote, and that it amounted to an illegal campaign contribution under the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Trump lawyer Robert Giuffra Jr. told the judges that Manhattan Dist. Atty. Alvin Bragg’s office has no place tying a case to a federal election law.

“We think it’s the most obvious ground for reversal,” he said.

Prosecutors argued that they weren’t prosecuting an alleged federal campaign finance offense, but rather presenting it as a factor underlying what they claim was a Trump-orchestrated conspiracy.

“So are you relying upon FECA in order to prove your falsifying business records [charge]?” Justice Troy Webber asked.

“Only partially,” replied Bragg’s appeals chief, Steven Wu, adding that it was “important only to show that the purpose for the falsifying business records here was to conceal that conspiracy.”

Judges drill down on question about White House conversations

The appeal also concerns whether jurors should have been allowed to hear testimony about supposed White House workflow and conversations — some with then-Communications Director Hope Hicks — and even Trump social media posts during his first term. His lawyers cite presidential immunity for official acts, and they argue his official conduct included responding to the Daniels drama once it became public in 2018.

“Ms. Hicks was serving as a White House official,” talking with the president about how to respond to press inquiries that implicitly concerned his fitness for office, Giuffra told the appeals judges.

Wu countered later: “In this conversation, they were not speaking about a press response. … The president was talking to her about his private opinion.”

The appeals judges pressed both sides about the matter and the specifics of Hicks’ testimony. She told jurors that she asked Trump how he wanted to respond, but as for what he said, she testified only that he expressed relief that the Daniels story hadn’t emerged during the campaign.

Bragg’s office contends that all the White House-related evidence was fair game. The conversations were “unofficial conduct,” some of the other evidence was public record, and some was a general description of office practices, prosecutors say. They maintain that even if some of the evidence should have been excluded, its admission was a “harmless error” that doesn’t warrant overturning a conviction that rested on “a mountain” of other proof against Trump.

Justice Bahaati E. Pitt-Burke wondered aloud about that.

“If you take all of those things cumulatively, right, and there’s a problem with this evidence, there’s a problem with this evidence, at what point … does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” she asked.

“It would have to be a lot more than there was in this case,” Wu responded.

Trump’s lawyers also have argued the case was political

While the appeal turns on complex legal disputes, political overtones aren’t hard to find. The very first paragraph of one of the Trump team’s court filings contended that the case was the flimsy product of “immense political pressure” on a Democratic prosecutor to go after Trump — rhetoric that echoes the Republican president’s own oft-repeated claims in the court of public opinion.

The May 2024 verdict made Trump the first former — and now current — U.S. president with a criminal conviction. Though historic, it didn’t impede his return to the White House or subject him to any punishment.

The trial involved $130,000 that Daniels got from Trump’s then-fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen, weeks before the 2016 election. The money bought, for a time, her silence about an alleged sexual encounter with the married Trump a decade earlier. He says that nothing sexual happened between them.

Trump’s company reimbursed Cohen in 2017, logging those payments as legal expenses.

Trump’s lawyers argue there’s only “weak” evidence that he even knew about Cohen’s dealings at the time. His trial attorneys also said that payments to Cohen were indeed legal expenses, and that any hush money expended on Trump’s behalf wasn’t hidden campaign spending, just an effort to avoid embarrassing his family.

The distinction matters because, under New York law, falsifying business records isn’t a felony unless it’s done with an intent to commit or conceal a separate crime.

While pursuing his state appeal, Trump also has been trying to shift the case to federal court and have it dismissed on immunity grounds. A federal judge said no — for the third time — in August. Trump’s attorneys are appealing that decision, with arguments set for Nov. 16.

Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — A federal panel was expected Thursday to approve President Trump’s proposed memorial arch in Washington at the end of a meeting that drew dozens of opponents to a key part of the president’s push to leave his imprint on the nation’s capital.

The approval would clear a hurdle on the road to breaking ground on the project, and the administration has said it could launch construction within a day of the vote. But the proposed 250-foot tall gilded arch still faced legal challenges.

The remote, call-in hearing — which crashed repeatedly and was accompanied by a nearly universally negative comment section — drew witnesses who gave impassioned, three-minute comments opposing an arch they said will destroy the solemnity of the nearby Arlington National Cemetery.

The Trump-appointed chairman of the commission, however, launched into a gushing appraisal of the towering monument and lauded Trump for wanting to build it.

“President Trump understands as president and a superb builder that it’s important to our national identity to display who we are through grand monuments,” said Mark Paoletta, the commission’s chairman.

As Trump has often remarked, “the great cities around the world have arches: Paris, Rome, London,” said Paoletta, who also serves as general counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget. In addition to Paoletta, the arch received support during the hearing from Republican lawmakers and a veteran who praised the administration’s efforts to build the monument.

The commission oversees construction on federal land in the city and began reviewing the arch plan in June.

Trump is working to remake Washington

The arch is one of several projects around Washington that the Republican president has undertaken as he alters the capital to his tastes — from renovating one of its storied public golf courses to threatening to demolish the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Those projects could soon face intense scrutiny after Democrats gained control of Congress in the midterm elections this week.

Many of the plans are being challenged in the courts, and three lawsuits have been filed opposing the arch. A judge has been asked to block the construction so long as lawsuits are still being litigated, and she could rule as early as Thursday.

Rep. Jared Huffman, a California Democrat who is set to chair the House Natural Resources Committee, called the project ill-advised and illegal.

“This arch would dishonor America,” Huffman told the commission. He called the proposed arch “a tribute to Donald Trump,” not veterans as Trump administration officials claim. The monument is similar to those built for emperors or kings, Huffman said, adding that Trump was using veterans as a pretext to build a memorial to himself.

Opponents argue the arch is too big for the skyline and would disrupt carefully designed sight lines between landmarks in and around the capital — most prominently the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery — that were meant to symbolize the reunification of the North and the South after the Civil War.

But the opposition has done little to influence the members of the commission, which is led by some of Trump’s closest allies. Trump appointed Paoletta to chair the 12-member panel. Two other commissioners are also White House aides.

Trump wants an arch, but it faces legal challenges

Still, a federal judge on Monday complicated Trump’s efforts to move quickly on the project.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plans, said she must be told of any decision by the planning commission within an hour. The order set the same time limits for any decision by the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior.

Before Thursday’s hearing began, attorneys with the Justice Department filed a notice with Chutkan informing her that a contractor had already done site prep work on Oct. 31, with what she said appeared to be no authorization from the National Park Service.

The plaintiffs in the three lawsuits are calling for a halt to work on a monument that is set to be built on a patch of grass off a bridge that spans the Potomac River and connects Washington with Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Va. When complete, the monument would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty without its pedestal.

Critics, including the plaintiffs, argue that the Trump administration must seek congressional approval. The administration maintains that Congress cleared the way for a monument at Memorial Circle decades ago.

Paoletta said it was a “national disgrace” that a memorial arch had not been placed there, despite a 1925 law that designated such a memorial, he said.

Last week, the government submitted a 106-page plan for the arch that envisions a massive structure more than 12 stories high that includes a huge bronze statue of Lady Liberty with wings and carrying a torch with an eternal flame. The structure would include an observation deck with views to the east and the west and two mezzanines.

Inside the arch are rooms for program space, offices, a staff lounge, circular staircases, multiple elevators and a fire command center. The project proposes significant traffic changes in the area, including rerouting traffic on nearby roads. Administration officials have said the arch also will have a national security function.

In a recent hearing, Chutkan asked why the Trump administration was so keen on moving ahead quickly with the arch despite the ongoing lawsuits, aside from Trump’s “desire to bedazzle the city.”

Administration lawyer Robert Stander said the arch was “absolutely a high-priority project” and that any ruling delaying construction would impede the work of the government.

Daly and Fields write for the Associated Press.

Paul Pelosi, husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has been barred from driving for six months after a hit-and-run crash into a parked car, prosecutors said.

Paul Pelosi, 86, pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of hit-and-run and a traffic infraction of making an unlawful turn in connection with the July crash in Yountsville, the Napa County District Attorney’s Office said.

Under the plea agreement, Napa County Superior Court Judge Scott R.L. Young placed Pelosi on one year of probation and barred him from driving for six months — the maximum time allowed.

The court also ordered Pelosi to complete a 10-day work program and pay fines. As part of the plea agreement, Pelosi paid about $11,200 in restitution to the owner of the damaged vehicle.

During the crash, his brown Maserati convertible collided with an unoccupied Tesla, according to the criminal complaint filed in July.

Authorities at the time said witnesses saw the convertible briefly stop before driving away. The parked car was unoccupied, and no injuries were reported.

Prosecutors said they do not typically issue news releases regarding misdemeanor hit-and-run cases involving only property damage, but that the release was being issued due to public interest around the case.

Paul Pelosi has been issued at least eight driving violations over a more than a decade before the Yountville crash, cited for speeding, blowing through several red lights, and driving the wrong way down a one-way street, a New York Times review of court records found.

In 2022, he pleaded guilty to charges of driving under the influence after crashing his Porsche into an oncoming Jeep. He was fined, sentenced to five days in jail, and put on probation for three years.

WASHINGTON  — In its latest chapter on religion in schools, the Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether Colorado may fund private preschools for 4-year-olds but exclude Catholic schools that refuse to serve same-sex parents and their children.

The court’s six conservatives, all of whom were raised Catholic, leaned in favor of ruling the state was discriminating based on religion.

The state offered funding to all preschools but said they must abide by an “equal opportunity” rule that forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett said state officials “chose to impose a condition” they knew those Catholic schools “will be unable to agree to.”

In contrast, the court’s three liberals said the Catholic schools were not seeking equal treatment but a new right to discriminate.

“You are asking for a special rule for religious schools,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the state opened the funding program to all schools, including church-related schools. “The Catholic schools are not being excluded. They’re choosing not to participate because they won’t get an exemption,” she said.

In the last decade, the court’s conservative majority has strengthened the 1st Amendment’s protection for the “free exercise of religion.”

States and local governments need not offer public funds to private groups and entities, the justices said. But if they do so, they may not single out religious schools or people and deny them public funding that is open to all.

They struck down laws in Minnesota and Maine that denied scholarships or school funds to students who enrolled in a religious school. And they ruled the city of Philadelphia could not bar Catholic social services from providing foster care because they did not work with same-sex couples.

Despite that history, Colorado adopted a strong “equal opportunity” law in 2022 to go with its new state funding for preschools.

The state voters had approved a ballot measure in 2020 to provide public funding for a year of preschool prior to kindergarten. Both public and private schools were encouraged to participate.

The state pays for 15 hours per week and provides parents about $6,000 in tuition.

Lawmakers said eligible schools must provide children “an equal opportunity to enroll regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, lack of housing, income level or disability.”

The Archdiocese of Denver oversees 34 Catholic preschools. Parents were told they must support and affirm the teachings of the church, including on matters of gender and marriage.

In light of the new funding law, the church asked for an accommodation that would allow “faith based providers to participate in the program without compromising their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The state refused. It said “no provider may discriminate against children or families in violation of the state statute.”

St. Mary Catholic Parish in Littleton, Colo., and two of its parents sued, alleging a violation of the 1st Amendment.

Their attorneys — the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty — argued that no LGBTQ+ family has been harmed or claimed discrimination under the preschool funding law, while “thousands of Catholic families have zero Catholic preschools available to them.”

They lost before a federal judge and the 10th Circuit Court. Those judges said the state did not target the Catholic schools or treat them differently from others because of their religious beliefs.

The Supreme Court agreed in April to hear the case of St. Mary Catholic Parish vs. Roy.

During Tuesday’s argument, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh voiced dismay over how this case arose.

“This seems like a would-be solution in search of a problem. Why are we here?” he asked a state attorney.

He and Barrett said same-sex couples did not seek to have their children enrolled in Catholic preschools. Meanwhile, other parents were denied state funds because of the marriage and family policies of the Catholic parishes.

The court is likely to hand down a decision in several months.

California says the move to block ballots from suspected noncitizens could disenfranchise eligible voters.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court to stop California from counting mail-in ballots from more than 20,000 voters it claims are not US citizens.

The emergency request, filed on Monday, just one day before the midterm elections, is the latest development in a legal battle between the administration and California, a Democratic stronghold and the most populous US state.

California says the move could disenfranchise thousands of eligible voters.

The Department of Justice wants California to set aside ballots from voters on a list compiled by the Department of Homeland Security until after their citizenship status is confirmed.

But California says the list is unreliable and could include thousands of US citizens.

Voting has been under way since early October, and state officials say it would be nearly impossible to separate the ballots in question.

Last week, a federal judge rejected the administration’s request, raising concerns about the reliability of the data on the list.

“If the executive can discount votes and threaten an ongoing election due to unproven allegations, then our democracy is in danger,” Judge David Carter wrote.

The administration has turned to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court also rejected the request on Friday.

The dispute comes as Republicans fight to retain control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Trump has repeatedly made false claims about widespread voter fraud, but studies and state audits have shown that ineligible voting, including by noncitizens, is rare.

WASHINGTON  — On the day before the midterm election, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene and set aside ballots from 20,000 California voters who the administration says may not be citizens.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal on Monday.

“The Court should issue a limited injunction directing California to stop commingling suspected illegal ballots with legal ones,” he wrote, “pending completion of the United States’ appeal to the 9th Circuit and further review in this Court.”

He said the court should require “California to segregate mail ballots from persons whom the United States has identified as likely non-citizens. The court should also enter an administrative injunction to that effect while it considers this application.”

It’s not clear whether the court will see this as an emergency.

The appeal goes first to Justice Elena Kagan. She could ask for a response from California, which would take days.

So far, the administration has lost before a federal judge in Los Angeles and twice at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

Those judges said that Trump’s lawyers were wrong on the Constitution and that their complaint came too late for this election.

In May, more than 23 million Californians were registered to vote, and the majority lean in favor of Democrats. But Trump claimed again last week “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.”

In mid-October, the Trump administration sued and said federal courts should require California and Los Angeles County to “set aside vote-by-mail ballots from persons identified by the federal government likely to be non-citizens.”

Federal law says that within 90 days of an election, officials may not “systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters.”

Separately, the Supreme Court also has repeatedly frowned on “late-breaking, court-ordered rule changes” involving elections.

The California court cases have also put a spotlight on the state vs. federal divide in election law.

Usually, federal laws are deemed to be the “supreme law” and override state laws that are in conflict. No one disputes U.S. prosecutors may bring criminal fraud charges against noncitizens who violate a federal law by registering with a state to vote and casting an illegal ballot.

But election rules and procedures are different. The Constitution says “the Times, Places and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each state,” unless Congress acts by law to “alter” its regulations.

The 9th Circuit judges in Friday’s opinion said that “this clause expressly dictates which sovereign has the authority to prescribe the manner in which congressional elections are conducted.”

“If the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts,” said Judges Mark J. Bennett, a Trump appointee, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, a Biden appointee.

Dissenting Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, a Trump appointee, called the administration’s proposal to separate the 20,000 ballots a “reasonable request” and a “modest remedy” for the problem of illegal voting.

The majority cited a 2013 opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“The Elections Clause functions as a default provision,” he wrote. “It invests the states with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections,” unless Congress adopts a different rule.

Scalia spoke for a 7-2 majority that rejected an Arizona law that required voters to show documentary proof of their citizenship when registering to vote. In the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Congress said voters may register to vote by filling out a form and attesting under oath they are citizens.

California does the same under state law.

Scalia said the federal voter registration law did not allow Arizona to adopt new and stricter rules.

In dissent, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito said they would go farther to protect the states from federal interference in elections.

“Given states’ exclusive authority to set voter qualifications and to determine whether those qualifications are met,” Thomas said the Arizona restriction should have been upheld.
“The Constitution reserves for the States the power to decide who is qualified to vote in federal elections,” Alito added.

Last month, Trump’s prosecutors brought fraud charges against 28 lawful immigrants in California who are alleged to have registered or voted in the past even though they are not citizens. They did so under a 1996 immigration law which made it “unlawful for any alien” to vote in a federal election.

The notion of segregating potentially suspect ballots is not a new issue for the Supreme Court.

In November 2020, Alito agreed with Pennsylvania state officials and said they should set aside late-arriving mail ballots to be counted separately.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, state election officials and the state Supreme Court agreed to waive part of the state’s law and allow for counting mail ballots that arrived up to three days late.

Republicans strongly objected. That led to Alito’s order. But in the end, the small number of late votes made no difference because the Democratic candidate, former Vice President Joe Biden, decisively won Pennsylvania’s votes and defeated Trump.

The California dispute is different because the state has not changed its voting rules or election procedures. Instead, it is the Trump administration that sought a late change in California’s voting rules and election procedures.

MLB pitchers charged with conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery go on trial in New York.

Former Cleveland Guardians pitchers Emmanuel Clase and Luis Ortiz go on trial on Monday on charges of accepting bribes after colluding with gamblers who made hundreds of thousands of dollars by betting correctly on individual pitches in Major League Baseball (MLB) in the United States.

Their careers and possibly their freedom are at stake in the jury trial expected to unfold over the next month in New York’s Brooklyn federal court. Several professional baseball players, including catchers and baseball executives, are among witnesses expected to testify.

Clase, the Guardians’ former closer, and Ortiz, a starter, have pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges and are on non-disciplinary leave from the club without pay while their fate is determined.

According to an indictment, the pitchers accepted thousands of dollars in payoffs to help two gamblers from their native Dominican Republic win at least $460,000 on in-game prop bets on the speed and outcome of certain pitches.

Prosecutors allege that Clase began providing the betters with information about his pitches in 2023 and recruited Ortiz into the scheme in 2025. Ortiz’s lawyers unsuccessfully sought to have him tried separately from Clase.

Judge Kiyo A Matsumoto said at a conference last Friday that she hopes to complete jury selection quickly enough that lawyers can deliver relatively short opening statements in the afternoon.

Clase, 28, is a three-time All-Star and two-time American League Reliever of the Year who had completed his fourth season of a $20m, five-year contract when charges against the pitchers were revealed in November 2025.

Ortiz, 27, had earned $782,600 as a starting pitcher for the Guardians during the 2025 season.

The pitchers have been charged with wire fraud conspiracy, honest services wire fraud conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to influence sporting contests by bribery.

Defence lawyers are expected to argue that the pitchers did not collude with gamblers and instead were varying the placement of pitches strategically to fool batters.

On Friday, the judge ruled that prosecutors cannot show the jury proof that Clase owed $500,000 in US taxes because they had only provided the evidence to defence lawyers several days earlier and long after a deadline had passed to turn over evidence to their adversaries.

A prosecutor had argued that the government wanted to put the evidence in the trial to offset any claim by Clase’s lawyers that he had no incentive to collude with gamblers because he had several million dollars in financial accounts in the Dominican Republic.

MLB and the Guardians have said they have fully cooperated with authorities. MLB said it contacted federal law enforcement when it began investigating unusual betting activity.

A dispute over the politicisation of Poland’s constitutional court is deepening, with no side appearing to back down.

The Polish president has held crisis talks with political leaders as a dispute over the independence of the country’s top constitutional court deepens.

Representatives of nationalist, far-right, and some governing coalition parties attended President Karol Nawrocki’s talks at the presidential palace on Saturday, while Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s governing centrist party, Civic Coalition, stayed away.

Nawrocki said in a statement that he convened the “urgent” consultations “due to the threat to Poland’s internal security” presented by the sudden suspension on Friday of the Constitutional Tribunal’s chief judge, Bogdan Swieczkowski.

No breakthrough had emerged by Saturday afternoon.

Meanwhile, in a Saturday evening speech addressing the ongoing crisis, Tusk accused conservative nationalist opposition leaders of wanting to “destroy democracy and rule of law”.

“Let’s call things by their name,” he said. “For years in Poland there exist organisations and politicians who wish to destroy democracy and rule of law.”

Followers of the opposition right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) gathered outside the court on Saturday, extending protests that have been running for weeks in support of PiS-friendly judges.

Constitutional crisis

The Constitutional Tribunal is Poland’s top court for deciding constitutional matters. It has been at the centre of a years-long political saga related to the politicisation of Polish courts, which Tusk says began under the right-wing PiS government.

Swieczkowski, whom the PiS appointed during its 2015-2023 government, was accused of using his powers as head of the court to block parliament from electing new judges.

Tusk argued that the court’s judges were not politically neutral and that Swieczkowski’s removal was a “painful” but necessary decision to restore the rule of law in Poland after years of erosion under PiS rule.

The court’s official X account on Friday described the government’s move as a “coup d’etat”.

Nawrocki, himself a right-wing figure, has also blocked nominations to the court under his administration.

A key complaint brought by Tusk and his pro-European party was that the court’s PiS-aligned judges frequently ruled in favour of Polish legislation over EU law.

The European Commission on Saturday urged Nawrocki to accept the nomination of new judges at the centre of the country’s constitutional crisis, the AFP news agency reported.

US Ambassador to Poland Tom Rose called for calm on all sides.

“The last thing Poland needs is a confrontation that spirals into something far worse,” Rose wrote in a post on X.

In a cascade of rulings in the days before Tuesday’s elections, federal judges have rejected the Trump administration’s efforts to wrest control over state voting processes, pressure state and local elections officials into complying with their demands and turn the midterm vote into another opportunity for immigration enforcement.

In Northern California late Friday, U.S. District Judge Trina L. Thompson granted labor unions representing California poll workers a sweeping order barring the Trump administration from an array of election-related actions, including demanding that those workers set aside ballots from voters whose eligibility the administration has questioned, and threatening them with criminal sanctions if they refuse to do so.

“Election Day is around the corner. Ballots have already been issued. Americans have already begun voting. Workers have already begun processing ballots,” Thompson wrote. “Given the consequences of inaction, the Court sees no reason to delay its ruling.”

A Justice Department spokesperson criticized Thompson for ruling “without even waiting to hear from the United States,” and said her decision was part of a “two-track system of justice” in which other federal judges have delayed the Trump administration’s “own urgent election claims” until after election day.

“The Department is reviewing the order and evaluating all options,” the spokesperson said.

The ruling followed three others — one in district court in Los Angeles and two in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — in which federal judges blocked the administration’s effort to force California elections officials to immediately set aside the ballots of 20,000 voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens, instead setting a schedule for more fact-finding in the case after polls close.

It followed a ruling in a separate case in Washington, D.C., in which a federal judge demanded that the Trump administration turn over its list of alleged noncitizen voters to advocacy groups, including the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. Data analysts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project wrote in court Saturday that their review of the provided list found it “contains extensive errors” and includes citizens and thousands of others who are not on California’s voter list.

And it came about the same time as a decision late Friday by the full 9th Circuit not to reconsider a ruling by a smaller three-judge panel upholding an earlier ruling by U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin in Oakland. She had barred federal immigration agents looking for noncitizen voters from conducting door knocks, street stops and other field interviews in California and eight other states.

The administration’s losses — in cases with broad scope and real implications in an election that will determine control of Congress — are the result of legal challenges from a coalition of liberal states such as California, localities such as Los Angeles County, and immigration, voting rights and labor groups.

But they are also the product of a bipartisan stable of federal judges — including appointees of President Trump — who have described the administration’s efforts as unconstitutional and a threat to one of the most core functions of American democracy.

Those judges weighed that threat against the alleged threats to election integrity from noncitizen voters that the Trump administration claimed, and found the former to be greater than the latter.

“To be sure, there are countervailing public interests at stake. There is a public interest in maintaining the integrity of elections. But as discussed, the district court found that the risks that noncitizens are voting are, at best, uncertain, and also tempered by California’s established voter-eligibility procedures,” wrote the 9th Circuit majority — one Trump appointee, one President Biden appointee — that refused to block the 20,000 votes. “In contrast, there is a material risk that granting the United States its requested relief would result in disenfranchisement and could jeopardize the County’s entire election.”

Those in the coalition resisting the administration’s efforts celebrated the rulings and praised the courts.

“The judicial smack down on Trump’s unlawful efforts to undermine our elections continues,” wrote California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has litigated several of the cases, in response to Thompson’s Friday night ruling in favor of the labor unions. “Trump is racking up loss after loss as he enters the final death throes of this election and desperately and wildly lashes out against the will of the voters.”

“4 DAYS UNTIL ELECTION DAY. Remember: Your vote matters. Don’t be intimidated. Keep voting as normal,” wrote Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), in response to the same ruling. “The courts are upholding the rule of law, and states — not Donald Trump — run our elections.”

“We said we would not let the Trump administration bully election workers, and today we won a critical court order blocking those threats,” SEIU International President April Verrett said. “This ruling is a victory for the workers who make our elections possible and the communities they serve.”

The flurry of rulings has been prompted in part by the administration itself, as Justice Department officials have worked to push the cases through the courts at breakneck speed in search of relief ahead of election day.

The 9th Circuit has already ruled twice in the case over the 20,000 California ballots, for instance, because Justice Department lawyers appealed the matter before the district court ever ruled, on the notion that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was taking too long to make a decision.

When the 9th Circuit rejected that effort and kicked the case back down to Carter, he issued one of the most striking rulings of the week.

“Constitutional rights and our democracy are at stake. The public interest favors their protection. Individuals who have met the requirements of California’s voter registration laws must not be deprived of a core right merely because of unfounded allegations stemming from a procedure rife with uncertainty and errors,” Carter wrote. “The public interest also favors the protection of election staff, who are working diligently to ensure that all citizens can cast their votes.”

When the Trump administration appealed that ruling once more to the 9th Circuit, the same panel majority — Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — slapped it back again. They wrote that the administration’s arguments were legally flawed in multiple ways, not least in that they sought clearly unconstitutional executive authority to intervene in an election.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” they wrote.

The Trump administration’s immediate response was striking — in that there was none.

After weeks of denouncing California officials for continuing to tabulate ballots and stressing to the courts that such counting constituted an emergency from which it required immediate relief, rapidly appealing adverse rulings and arguing over the merits of each twist with California officials on social media, the administration was silent.

The administration missed a deadline for requesting that the three-judge panel’s ruling be revisited by the full appellate court. It made no immediate appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead federal prosecutor in L.A. who argued the case before Carter and has vociferously defended the case on social media, was silent. Neither the Justice Department nor Essayli’s office responded to requests for comment on the ruling.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge said Friday she would open a “formal inquiry” to investigate if attorneys for the Trump administration violated ethical boundaries during a legal dispute about a golf course project — one in a pair of plans that are revealing the breadth of the president’s attempts to mold parts of the District of Columbia to his own vision.

The two cases, unfolding at the same time in the same federal courthouse, also showcase the underlying executive authority claims that lie beneath them — a glimpse into the uses of presidential power under Donald Trump.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes’ declaration that the court would appoint a “special master” into whether agency officials, and Justice Department attorneys, had made misrepresentations in the court is a far cry from her relationship with the government until this month. She had rejected numerous motions from the plaintiffs to step in, saying she trusted the government attorneys.

The cases involved are an impending shutdown and reconfiguration of a historic public golf course and the construction of a monumental arch that, at 250 feet, would be 100 feet taller than the Statue of Liberty is from its base to the top of the torch. The two projects are barely three miles apart.

The hearing on the golf course change began as other recent ones have: Reyes questioned Associate Atty. Gen. Stanley Woodward Jr. over how Trump’s desires to turn the golf course, near the National Mall, into a world-class facility have become urgent plans that match his public pronouncements.

Reyes stopped the hearing several times and adjourned to her chambers to check previous transcripts of the trial as she questioned Woodward. Among things she wants examined: Was a National Park Service official told to exclude details in a court declaration? Did witnesses offer misleading testimony about the extent of plans in place for the course’s closure and renovation?

At one point, Reyes read the code of conduct to government attorneys on presenting erroneous or false information during a hearing.

Reyes ordered Friday’s hearing after multiple Truth Social posts by Trump indicated that there were plans for the golf course and construction was expected to begin Nov. 15. Trump said the park would be closed for 15 months while work goes on.

The presidential posts, which began Oct. 18, created a tense dynamic in multiple court hearings afterward when officials from the Interior Department, Justice and Park Service could not confirm the existence of the plans under questioning from Reyes. She eventually asked whom she should trust. The Justice Department filed notice Wednesday night that the plans were real.

“On Friday, October 30, 2026, the National Park Service will submit to the National Capital Planning Commission for review a rendering designed by Tom Fazio for a World Class, championship-level golf course that is capable of hosting major events,” the notice said.

Reyes locked in on the filing and Trump’s multiple Truth Social announcements as she questioned Woodward.

At one point, as they talked about plans that Woodward said came about only this week, he slipped and included tree cutting as part of the preparation for the closure.

Reyes responded immediately: “News flash.” She allowed him to correct himself that the tree cutting, which occurred earlier this month, was not part of the plan to close the East Potomac Park Golf Course.

The golf course lawsuit was one of two cases in court Friday dealing with the Trump administration’s push to expand its executive authority as the president remakes the federal areas of the capital near the National Mall and along the Potomac River.

Three courtrooms away, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan was to hold a hearing on a motion asking that she call a temporary halt to plans to begin construction as early as Nov. 5 on the memorial arch. The arch is opposed by a small group of veterans and an architectural historian who sued in federal court in Washington, saying Congress must endorse the project.

“The public interest leans heavily against allowing defendants to blaze ahead,” the plaintiffs said in seeking the injunction. “This court should enter a preliminary injunction blocking defendants from beginning construction on Memorial Circle in the hope that they can render the arch a fait accompli before this Court has made a final determination.”

Legal experts who have been watching the numerous cases underway say that what might appear at first glance to be vanity projects are in truth cases that test the limits of presidential power.

Past administrations pursued legal theories that were sometimes legally sound, sometimes not, said David Super, law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

“But there was always the assumption that you would try to do things that were legal,” he said. “What we’re seeing here now is that if you think the federal courts can’t stop you,” you can break the law.

That’s ”going to do long-term damage to the country,” Super said.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

For the second time in less than a week, a United States appeals court has rejected a petition from the administration of President Donald Trump to set aside 20,000 ballots in California over concerns about non-citizen voting.

The decision came down on Friday, with less than four days until the November 3 midterm elections.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump’s request would violate the US Constitution and risk disenfranchising eligible voters.

“The consequence of the United States’s request is not merely ballot segregation, but ultimately both the cancellation of the ballot and the removal of voters from the voting rolls,” the majority wrote in its ruling.

Judges Mark Bennett and Gabriel Sanchez – appointed by Trump and his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden, respectively – formed the majority.

A third judge, Trump appointee Patrick Bumatay, issued a dissent, saying the administration’s petition was a “reasonable request”.

The Trump administration has claimed that nearly 20,000 “likely non-citizens” received mail-in ballots to vote in California’s midterm elections on November 3. It sued the state on October 15 to prevent those ballots from being counted.

But the accuracy of the Trump administration’s list has been called into doubt, as have its claims of widespread non-citizen voting.

Election fraud in the US is extremely rare. So is non-citizen voting, despite Trump’s assertion earlier this year that as many as 278,000 foreign nationals across the country were registered to vote.

Like California, states such as Nevada and Washington have also received lists of alleged non-citizen voters, but officials there have found the documents largely inaccurate.

In Nevada, for instance, state authorities issued a statement in September saying the Trump administration had erroneously identified citizens as non-citizens on its list. Not a single name was correct, according to the statement.

California, a Democratic stronghold, will elect 52 members of the House of Representatives, one of Congress’s two chambers, on November 3.

The state has long been Trump’s target for criticism, with the president accusing its Democratic leadership of “cheating” in elections.

But California officials, including Governor Gavin Newsom, have countered that the Trump administration is seeking to meddle in the state’s elections to sow voter distrust and undermine the results.

“This is a sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters,” Newsom said in a news release after the October 15 lawsuit.

Non-citizen voting in federal elections is against the law in all 50 US states, including California.

The Constitution’s Elections Clause also grants states exclusive authority to administer elections, though it does allow for Congress to pass regulations concerning voting procedures.

The Trump administration initially sent California its list of 20,000 “likely non-citizens” on October 12, barely three weeks before the midterm election.

California officials refused the administration’s demand to set aside the 20,000 ballots, requesting proof that the names on the list were indeed foreign nationals. According to the California government, no such evidence has been provided.

The Trump administration last week charged 28 foreign nationals in California with election-related infractions, but some of the accused told the Los Angeles Times they had never registered to vote.

The newspaper’s reporting suggested some of the non-citizen defendants shared the same name as eligible voters.

As the October 15 lawsuit navigated the court system earlier this month, the Trump administration sought an emergency ruling from the 9th Circuit Court to suspend the 20,000 ballots.

But the appeals court rejected the petition on Monday, saying the Trump administration had not given lower courts adequate time to weigh the matter.

A lower court ultimately ruled against the Trump administration on Wednesday, and the administration again appealed to the 9th Circuit Court.

In its majority decision, the appeals court framed the Trump administration’s lawsuit as an attempt to violate the Constitution’s Elections Clause.

“We decline the United States’s invitation to contravene the Elections Clause by undermining the Constitution’s plain text,” the majority wrote.

The majority also wrote that it had “major concerns” that granting the Trump administration’s request would “harm the public interest by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy”.

Alieu Kosiah killed civilians and unarmed soldiers, and ordered lootings and other crimes against humanity.

Switzerland’s supreme court upheld a 20-year jail sentence for former Liberian rebel commander Alieu Kosiah on Friday, but overturned a conviction for crimes against humanity.

In 2021, Switzerland’s Federal Criminal Court found Kosiah, now 51, guilty of multiple atrocities committed during the first of Liberia’s back-to-back civil wars, in which about 250,000 people died between 1989 and 2003.

In 2023, the court’s appeals chamber upheld his 20-year sentence for war crimes and, for the first time in Swiss history, also made a new ruling that Kosiah was guilty of crimes against humanity.

The Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland was asked to review the case, and its verdict, dated September 28, was published on Friday.

The court “rejected the appeal filed by a high-ranking Liberian military official challenging his conviction for violations of the laws of war committed between 1993 and 1995 during the first Liberian civil war”, it said in a statement.

“However, the court has acquitted the individual of the charge of crimes against humanity, based on a strict application of the principle of non-retroactivity.”

Switzerland recognises the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows it to prosecute individuals suspected of international crimes, regardless of where those crimes were committed.

The court said the offence of crimes against humanity – introduced into Swiss law in 2011 – could not be applied to acts committed before then.

Kosiah’s conviction for violating the law of war was upheld, as was the maximum 20-year custodial sentence imposed.

“The decision makes final the first war crimes conviction ever handed down by a Swiss civilian court, and the first conviction anywhere of a Liberian for war crimes committed during the country’s civil wars,” said the Swiss organisation Civitas Maxima, which works to bring perpetrators of international crimes to justice.

Kosiah settled in Switzerland in the late 1990s and was arrested in 2014.

“Today the survivors of Alieu Kosiah’s crimes have final justice,” said Civitas Maxima director Alain Werner, who represents victims in the case.

“We are, however, deeply disappointed by the acquittal on crimes against humanity. What happened in Lofa between 1993 and 1995 is the very definition of a crime against humanity.”

Like war crimes, crimes against humanity refer to atrocities, including murder, torture and rape. However, instead of isolated or sporadic events, the charge is used for incidents carried out in a widespread or systematic way.

In the 2021 verdict, Kosiah was found guilty of a slew of war crimes committed as commander of the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy rebel group.

He ordered or participated in the killing of 17 civilians and two unarmed soldiers, as well as rape and the deployment of a child soldier, the court ruled.

He had also ordered looting and repeatedly ordered, or had himself inflicted, cruel and humiliating treatment of civilians and mishandled corpses, according to the verdict.

A federal appeals court for the second time Friday denied a Trump administration request to block 20,000 ballots from California voters the administration alleges may be noncitizens — ruling that the administration had failed to show that “such extraordinary relief, during an ongoing election, is clearly required by law.”

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — ruled 2-1 that the U.S. Constitution gives the state and Congress the power to decide how elections are run, and that allowing the Trump administration to “misuse” federal statutes to “prescribe” how California must process ballots would “override the plain and manifest dictates of the Constitution itself.”

“Because Congress has not exercised the specific power granted to it under the Elections Clause to override California’s established laws for challenging ballots or removing ineligible voters, the State Legislature’s statutory scheme remains the only method to do so,” the judges found.

The panel’s majority — comprised of Trump appointee Mark J. Bennett and Biden appointee Gabriel P. Sanchez — wrote that “if the United States believes different procedures are necessary for vote-by-mail ballots, we believe it should take that suggestion to Congress, not the courts.”

They also wrote that separate federal law prescribes sweeping changes to voter lists 90 days prior to an election, especially given questions about the reliability of the Trump administration’s list of purported noncitizens.

“The suspect reliability of these lists found by the district court reflects the concern Congress sought to mitigate with the 90-day quiet period,” they wrote.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee on the panel, dissented — arguing that his colleagues erred in denying a basic request by the Trump administration to ensure only citizens are voting.

“The federal government proposes a modest remedy — stopping California from mixing the ballots of citizens and suspected noncitizens,” Bumatay wrote. “This solution would not cancel any vote but would allow time to verify the eligibility of suspected noncitizens. The district court, and now our court, denies this reasonable request.”

This article will be updated.

Voters decide four runoff contests for Superior Court seats on Nov. 3, choosing who will preside over criminal and civil cases across the region.

Seat 131

The candidates

• Donna Tryfman, a deputy public defender, serves in the major cases unit, where she handles homicide and other high-profile defendants. She also has extensive experience in juvenile cases.
• David Ross is an alternate in the Torrance branch of the public defender’s office and also works in Bellflower and Long Beach. He claims to have represented more than 10,000 clients at hearings and in trials.

Dive deeper

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rates both attorneys as “qualified” for office. Ross said his mix of legal and life experience and his time as a journalist, when he “listened to real people, gathered the facts and told objective stories,” provide a unique perspective. Tryfman has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She has proctored teen courts at Dorsey and Hamilton high schools.

Seat 64

The candidates

• Maria Ghobadi is an L.A. County deputy district attorney. As a child, Ghobadi fled Iran with her family during the Islamic Revolution and settled in Southern California. She joined the L.A. County district attorney’s office in 2015 and has handled misdemeanors, felonies and domestic violence cases. She’s spent seven years in the gang homicide division.
• Rhonda Haymon is an L.A. County deputy public defender. She grew up in Southern California and became an attorney in 2001. She started in the Orange County public defender’s office before moving to L.A. County, where she’s spent 23 years as a deputy public defender. She has been assigned to a restorative justice drug court and consulted on police misconduct cases.

Dive deeper

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. ranked Ghobadi as “well qualified” and Haymon as “qualified.”

Seat 87

The candidates

• David DeJute, who defended President Obama against the so-called birther claims, spent a decade as vice president of litigation at Sony Pictures Entertainment. He now works in litigation at a private firm. An adjunct professor at Pepperdine’s Caruso School of Law, he’s taught ethics, antitrust, copyright and patent law. After last year’s wildfires, he returned as director of the disaster relief clinic, where he instructed students who provided pro bono legal services to victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires.
• Anthony “A.J.” Bayne’s background includes nearly two decades serving in the Compton Courthouse, where he for a time served as deputy in charge. He’s now handling serious felony cases at the Torrance branch. Bayne is an inventor, with patent-pending applications for artificial intelligence tools that automate legal workflows. One helps with closing arguments; another uses court reporter transcripts to generate cross-examination questions.

Dive deeper

DeJute is rated “qualified” to serve by the Los Angeles County Bar Assn. Bayne is rated a notch higher, “well qualified.”

Seat 65

The candidates

• Justin Allen Clayton is in charge of the Inglewood branch of the public defender’s office and has defended three cases with life sentences. Clayton said a priority is improving court efficiency through pretrial preparation and “firm but fair enforcement of deadlines.” Clayton said running a public defender branch office gives him a “comprehensive understanding” of the courtroom.
• Anna Slotky Reitano represented juvenile and adult clients, many of them accused of felonies, before joining the county counsel’s office. Reitano focused on mental health diversion and treatment, aiming to support rehabilitation when possible. A former child actor, she volunteers with local schools and, according to her website, mentors “future lawyers” through moot court competitions.

Dive deeper

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. considers both qualified to serve.

Court rules Patterson will spend the rest of her life behind bars after denying parole.

An Australian court has dismissed an appeal by “mushroom murderer” Erin Patterson against her conviction and ruled that she should spend the rest of her life behind bars.

A three-judge panel at the Supreme Court of Victoria delivered its ruling on Friday. The justices said that Patterson, who was convicted last year of murdering three of her estranged husband’s ⁠relatives with a meal ⁠laced with deadly mushrooms, should not have the chance of parole.

“This offending was extraordinarily cold and calculated, and stands to be ⁠denounced in the strongest terms,” Justice Stephen McLeish, speaking on behalf ⁠of the panel, told the Melbourne court.

“In all the circumstances, after anxious consideration, we have concluded that the case involved such shocking criminality that it is inappropriate ⁠to fix a non-parole period.”

Patterson, then 51, was ⁠convicted for the murder of her mother-in-law and father-in-law, Gail and Donald Patterson, and Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, by serving them a lunch of beef wellington laced with death cap mushrooms.

She was also convicted of the attempted ‌murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather’s husband, who survived the meal.

Her crimes involved an “elaborate series of deceptions” including falsely claiming a cancer diagnosis to explain the absence of her two children from the lunch, the judge noted.

The survivor testified that Patterson had told her guests she wanted their advice about what to tell the children about her diagnosis.

Patterson was sentenced to ⁠life in prison with a 33-year non-parole period, among the longest terms ever handed to a woman in Australia. She has always denied wrongdoing, saying the deaths were accidental.

Her lawyers had argued that certain evidence should have been kept from the trial, that her cross-examination ‌was unfair, and that placing the jury in the same hotel as other parties to the case compromised the result. Judges found these grounds for an appeal to be insufficient.

She can apply to Australia’s High Court to overturn the verdicts on her sentence and her convictions. The High Court is her last appeal option.

Patterson is only the second woman in Australia to be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole. The first is meatworker Katherine Knight, who was sentenced in New South Wales state in 2001 for the murder a year earlier of her partner John Price, whom she’d stabbed at least 37 times.

Soon after a federal judge in Los Angeles sharply rejected a Trump administration effort to block 20,000 California ballots from voters it alleged may be noncitizens, the U.S. Justice Department announced it will appeal — leaving attorneys on both sides preparing Thursday for yet another court battle.

That was despite the lower court judge calling the request an unlawful threat to eligible voters in Tuesday’s midterm election and to free and fair American elections moving forward, and the same appellate court having already rejected the same plan days prior.

“Every day, more ballots are processed by election officials. This ongoing emergency disenfranchises American citizens through dilution,” wrote First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, the lead prosecutor in L.A.

Early Thursday, Gov. Gavin Newsom swiped back at the Trump administration, writing, “A warning to Donald Trump: I’m deploying election lawyers to key battleground districts in California to protect every vote. And I just made it a FELONY to illegally seize ballots.”

With just days to go until polls close, the heated election war between California and the Trump administration is showing no signs of slowing down, despite multiple court orders rejecting the administration’s central effort to interfere in the midterms by accusing state and county officials of willfully turning a blind eye to voter fraud.

That’s in part because lawyers within the U.S. Justice Department have been unrelenting in their pursuit of such control, both through court orders and threats to state and county officials. It’s also because those same officials have refused to yield, denouncing the threats in recent letters back to the Justice Department as unconvincing and illegal.

“Be aware that we consider DOJ’s efforts to threaten California election officials with criminal sanctions for following federal and state law to be an effort to unlawfully intimidate both election officials and California voters, which can undermine voters’ faith in the election process,” Susan K. Blitch, counsel for Monterey County, wrote in one.

Several elections experts warned the administration is trying to sow confusion and suspicion around an election in which the Republican Party is poised to lose ground, in part so they can reject the outcome. But they also said the courts have consistently rebuffed the Trump administration, and will continue to do so through Nov. 3 and after — with the recent rulings in the case over the 20,000 flagged ballots a perfect example.

“The federal government lost in every way it could possibly lose. It lost on the law, and it lost on the facts, and it lost on the equities — [or] weighing the harms to the various parties,” said Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

Appeal, rebuke, appeal

Last week, Trump administration attorneys decided that U.S. District Judge David O. Carter was not ruling quickly enough on their emergency request for a temporary restraining order to block California, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from counting the 20,000 ballots it asserted were from “likely noncitizens” — so they appealed straight to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On Monday, a three-judge panel there — including two appointees of President Trump and one of President Biden — denied the appeal for a lack of jurisdiction, because Carter hadn’t been given a chance to weigh in. However, two of the judges — Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — also wrote separately to make clear that they would have denied the administration’s request on the merits, too, for being likely unconstitutional and in violation of federal law.

On Wednesday, Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, issued his own ruling, in which he wrote that the administration’s allegations about noncitizen voters were “not credible” and that the intervention it sought would violate a host of federal laws, sow chaos in the ongoing midterm election, likely lead to the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters and foster future political meddling in elections.

“This request violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections,” Carter wrote. “If [the Trump administration’s] last-minute request for relief were granted, either party could create chaos for their own political purposes to disrupt the election process.”

Carter wrote that never in American history “has the federal government, on the eve of an election, sought to coerce a state and local government to abandon their own Constitutional elections procedures and bend to the will of the Executive Branch,” and that, in bringing its suit, the Trump administration was asking the court to “believe that it reigns as a sole sovereign.”

“But California and its people are sovereign, too,” Carter wrote.

The ruling — forceful, unequivocal and based on several of the same arguments made by Bennett and Sanchez — was cheered by state officials and voting rights groups. Elections experts said it squared directly with their understanding of the law, and was appropriate in the face of the Trump administration’s unprecedented, legally baseless effort to intervene in an ongoing state-run election.

Trump administration officials did not see it that way, and weren’t taking no for an answer. Justice Department lawyers promptly filed notice of appeal back to the 9th Circuit — where the case is likely, though not guaranteed, to land before the same three-judge panel that previously rejected the administration’s demands.

War of words

On Wednesday night, Newsom appeared on “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and predicted Trump will take sweeping steps to “literally suppress the vote, to set the conditions where he will then express doubt in the electoral outcome, and suggest that it was rigged.” But he also said California is fighting back and prepared.

“Right now, I am focused on getting over 1,000 poll workers, folks out there to monitor the DOJ monitors that Trump’s gonna send to try to steal this election,” Newsom said. “We have been running tabletop exercises. We have 1,000 volunteers. We have 134 election law attorneys that we’re sending out.”

On Thursday, Essayli replied to the latter deployment, writing, “You’re going to protect every legal or illegal vote? What about California citizens whose votes are being diluted by ineligible voters. Do their constitutional rights matter.”

Trump, meanwhile, asserted with no evidence that “there are hundreds of thousands of bad ballots, bad votes, in California. Millions, in my opinion.” He said California has “very corrupt elections,” and that if it had honest ones, he “would have won it by a lot.”

The remarks were just the latest in a swirling and highly public war of words between state and federal officials.

In Carter’s courtroom Tuesday, Essayli claimed the federal government has maintained a collaborative “tone” since it first demanded the state set aside ballots, and said he was surprised at how “adversarial” state elections officials had been. But Essayli and other Justice Department officials have been engaged for weeks in an aggressive back and forth with California officials online — which is highly unusual for prosecutors actively litigating related cases.

When Newsom’s office recently wrote that “Trump’s DOJ is so desperate to invent ‘widespread voter fraud,’ it sent California counties lists of people who NEVER voted — and voters from the WRONG COUNTY. Absolute clown show!,” Essayli shot back, “Hey Fraud King,” with a crown emoji. “We’re not waiting for them to vote.”

Also unusual have been the threats Justice Department attorneys have been sending to county elections officials in California, including in a series of Oct. 23 letters in which they asserted varying numbers of “likely aliens” per county, set a 48-hour deadline for the counties to cooperate with federal authorities to prove those voters are citizens.

In one letter to Kristin Connelly, head of the Contra Costa County registrar’s office, U.S. Atty. Craig Missakian flagged 407 potential noncitizens in the county, and said he was writing “to make unmistakably clear the legal implications” of processing any ballots from those voters.

On Wednesday, Thomas L. Geiger, Contra Costa County counsel, responded with his own letter, questioning the accuracy of the noncitizen claims and saying it would be “legally unsound” for Connelly to “disregard both California and federal law” in order to comply with Missakian’s demands.

Other county attorneys hit a sharper tone in their own responses. Tony Lopresti, an attorney for Santa Clara County, wrote that his county “reserves its rights to pursue all legal remedies against DOJ for its unlawful intimidation of election officials and California voters.”

Democrats, election officials and voting rights groups have long wondered whether President Trump, upon his return to the Oval Office, would again attempt to overturn an election when his party is trailing.

It’s no longer hypothetical.

Late last week, the president directed his Department of Justice to preemptively contest a potential Republican loss in the U.S. Senate race in Alaska. The department is demanding a court hold up certification of a possible Democratic win until it’s determined whether voters were confused by having two candidates with the same name on the ballot.

Trump followed that by calling for the prosecution of Democratic candidate Mary Peltola, a former congresswoman, based on a New York Times report that her campaign helped recruit someone named Dan Sullivan to siphon away votes from the Republican incumbent, also named Dan Sullivan. The governor has ordered an investigation.

Academics believe the lawsuit is the first time since the Civil Rights era that the federal government has sued to halt certification of an election, a duty the Constitution places in the hands of states.

Trump, for years, has claimed elections are rigged when he or his party loses, and this time is no exception. He has used his midterm rallies to say Democrats cheat, criticize election officials by name and call the ranked choice voting system in Alaska, which might hold the key to Senate control, a scam.

But the certification lawsuit elevates Trump’s crusade beyond mere rhetoric, indicating that he is preparing to use the power of the presidency to try to reverse a possible loss as his party struggles to hold its control of Congress in Tuesday’s elections.

Earlier this week, the president also announced a $1 million bounty for anyone who provides proof of prior or current voter fraud in the country. It wasn’t clear whether or how he planned to follow through.

“For at least the last year and a half, they’ve been laying that groundwork,” said Theresa Lee, a senior attorney with the ACLU. “We’ve been preparing for just as long, if not longer.”

Trump says he’ll accept results if the election is ‘honest’

Trump told reporters this week that he would accept the election results, but with his typical caveat: “If they’re honest elections,” he said.

That follows a pattern. Trump has preemptively claimed that upcoming elections will be rigged and labeled elections he’s lost as stolen. It started with the 2016 Republican Iowa caucuses, when he came in second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.

“Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa,” Trump said at the time. “He stole it.”

Democrats and other groups that oppose Trump have been concerned that his words would turn into directives to have his administration interfere in the midterms. They have been running exercises for months and have lawsuits pre-written. They also plan to have tens of thousands of people monitoring the polls on Election Day.

So far, early voting has been quiet, with about 35 million people already casting ballots without any notable disruption.

In that respect, this year’s election so far resembles 2025’s off-year elections in New Jersey, Virginia and a handful of other states. Democrats braced for possible Trump action then, but the election proceeded with no major issues. But the Justice Department’s more aggressive actions this month already make 2026 different from any election in recent memory.

It has sued California to block it from counting ballots after it alleged the state had 20,000 noncitizens on its rolls and made a similar demand of Washington related to about 400 voters in that state. Both states said the demands came too close to the election to fulfill, and a federal judge Wednesday rejected the federal government’s California demands.

Earlier, the Justice Department seized ballots and election records related to the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Fulton County, and the administration launched a sweeping investigation of that vote, though it has yet to turn up evidence supporting Trump’s false claims of fraud.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Justice Department does not want to intervene in elections, but had no choice in Alaska.

“We are not doing anything improper,” Blanche said Sunday on CNN. “But I do think it’s important for the American people to understand that we are not — (and) President Trump is not — trying to take over a state election in any way, shape or form.”

After the lawsuit was filed, Trump told reporters he was the one who pushed for it: “I’m the one that said do it,” the president said.

Lawsuits seem more ‘impulsive’ than strategic

Though the Trump administration claimed to be acting on behalf of Alaska’s voters in its lawsuit to hold up certification, the president’s Republican allies in the state didn’t appear happy.

Sen. Sullivan would not say whether he supported the lawsuit. Alaska’s Republican-controlled state government filed court papers to try to have it dismissed. The state’s other Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski, said the administration “should never have filed” it.

While controversial, the situation in Alaska is not that unusual. Political parties often support extra candidates on the ballot to try to pull votes from their rivals. If state courts allow it, legal experts say, the federal government has no role challenging the results.

Derek Muller, a Notre Dame law professor, wrote that the Alaska lawsuit’s legal argument was “one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.” He said that should reassure the public that Trump won’t be able to change election outcomes.

“The notion that there’s going to be something systemic that’s going to thwart the will of the voters seems much more speculative,” he said. “A lot of the conduct seems impulsive rather than strategic and planned.”

The courts have repeatedly rebuffed the administration, in many cases because the Constitution gives the president no direct power over how elections are run. Courts put on hold two Trump executive orders seeking to change voting procedures. The administration also has lost more than two dozen cases trying to get detailed voter information from the states.

That resembles 2020, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden and in the process lost dozens of lawsuits.

Can the institutions hold?

Pat McCrory, a former Republican governor of North Carolina, is part of Right Count, a group of conservatives pushing back against election conspiracy theories and intervention in local elections. He said he’s confident the system will hold.

“The only thing that protects us from anarchy is this thin piece of paper called the Constitution,” McCrory said. “That thin piece of paper is, to me, a cement wall.”

It’s one that many analysts expect will continue to stymie Trump in the courts.

“The courts are likely to throw most, if not all, of these charges out,” said Matt Dallek, a political historian at George Washington University. “But this is a way of intensifying the signal to Trump’s supporters that the elections are rigged.”

The Justice Department in 2020 refused to join Trump’s allies in litigation. In his second term, Trump has pushed out career staff and stocked his administration with people who helped him challenge the 2020 election. That’s led to mounting concern he could deploy immigration agents, the FBI or even the military to the polls or seize ballots or voting machines, although multiple administration officialshave denied they have such plans.

All of that could happen before courts even have a chance to weigh in, said Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth political scientist.

“The threat is that he’ll take actions that can’t be undone,” Nyhan said.

Riccardi and Swenson write for the Associated Press.