court

A French court rejected all claims brought by UFC-Que Choisir against Perrier, after the consumer group claimed the firm’s natural mineral water was deceptively labelled.

In early June, UFC-Que Choisir filed an emergency motion with a court in Nanterre near Paris seeking a recall of all Perrier bottles in circulation, as well as a temporary ban on sales of the natural mineral water.

The case centred on a dispute over the use of a filtration treatment, which the group said was contrary to French and European law. UFC-Que Choisir also claimed that the water posed health risks.

UFC-Que Choisir insisted that its demands would not have caused Perrier’s Vergèze plant to close, but it hoped that the bottles produced there would be sold as drinking water and not natural mineral water.

The consumer group noted that natural mineral water typically sells for 100 to 300 times the price of tap water.

Nestlé says decision proves Perrier’s food safety is ‘guaranteed’

The court in Nanterre said a health risk to consumers was not proven to the level required for an emergency ruling, a ruling welcomed by Nestlé.

“Today’s decision confirms that the food safety of Perrier natural mineral waters has always been guaranteed”, it said.

The company said it operates under an integrated quality management system, shared with, and controlled by, the relevant authorities to ensure the food safety of all its products.

“The results of our analyses are constantly shared with the authorities who regularly test our mineral waters, both at source and the finished product, to confirm compliance with the applicable regulatory requirements, including food safety and quality standards.”

UFC-Que Choisir must pay €5,000 to Nestlé, according to a court statement.

The Nanterre ruling was the latest twist in a series of scandals hounding Nestlé in France.

In a 2024 report, the Occitanie Regional Health Agency (ARS) warned of the possibility of halting Perrier production because of persistent bacterial contaminationin water drawn from wells at the Vergèze plant.

An inquiry commissioned by France’s Senate then found that the French government had covered up the use of illegal water treatments for years, particularly with regard to Nestlé.

Nestlé said it has since stopped using these prohibited treatments, instead switching to its current filtration methods.

WASHINGTON — A federal court has blocked Texas from moving forward with a new congressional map hastily drawn in recent months to net Republicans up to five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections.

The ruling on Tuesday is a major political blow to the Trump administration, which set off a redistricting arms race throughout the country earlier this year by encouraging Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional district boundaries mid-decade — an extraordinary move bucking traditional practice.

The three-judge federal court panel in El Paso said in a 2-1 decision that “substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map,” ordering the state to revert to the maps it had drawn in 2021.

Texas’ Republican governor, Greg Abbott, who at Trump’s behest directed GOP state lawmakers to proceed with the plan, vowed on Tuesday that the state would appeal the ruling all the way to the Supreme Court.

Californians responded to Texas’ attempted move by voting on Nov. 4 to approve a new, temporary congressional map for the state, giving Democrats the opportunity to pick up five new seats.

Initially, the proposal pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, known as Prop. 50, had trigger language that would have conditioned new California maps going into effect based on whether Texas approved its new congressional districts.

But that language was stripped out last minute, raising the possibility that Democrats enter the 2026 midterm election with a distinct advantage. The language was removed because Texas had already passed its redistricting plan, making the trigger no longer needed, said Democratic redistricting expert Paul Mitchell, who drew the maps for Prop. 50.

“Our legislature eliminated the trigger because Texas had already triggered it,” Mitchell said Tuesday.

Newsom celebrated the ruling in a statement to The Times, which he also posted on the social media site X.

“Donald Trump and Greg Abbott played with fire, got burned — and democracy won,” Newsom said. “This ruling is a win for Texas, and for every American who fights for free and fair elections.”

Legal scholars had warned that Texas’ bid would invite accusations and legal challenges of racial gerrymandering that California’s maps would not.

The new Texas redistricting plan appears to have been instigated by a letter from Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who threatened Texas with legal action over three “coalition districts” that she argued were unconstitutional.

Coalition districts feature multiple minority communities, none of which comprises the majority. The newly configured districts passed by Texas redrew all three, potentially “cracking” racially diverse communities while preserving white-majority districts, legal scholars said.

While the Supreme Court’s rulings on redistricting have been sporadic, the justices have generally ruled that purely political redistricting is legal, but that racial gerrymandering is not — a more difficult line to draw in southern states where racial and political lines overlap.

In 2023, addressing a redistricting fight in Alabama over Black voter representation, the high court ruled in Allen vs. Milligan that discriminating against minority voters in gerrymandering is unconstitutional, ordering the Southern state to create a second minority-majority district.

The Justice Department is also suing California to attempt to block the use of its new maps in next year’s elections.

Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez contributed to this report.

The majority on a federal court in El Paso, Texas, found that the new map used race to redraw congressional districts.

A panel of federal judges has ruled that Texas’s newly redrawn congressional districts cannot be used in next year’s 2026 midterm elections, striking a blow to Republican efforts to tilt races in their favour.

On Tuesday, a two-to-one majority at the US District Court for western Texas blocked the map, on the basis that there was “substantial evidence” to show “that Texas racially gerrymandered” the districts.

Partisan gerrymandering has generally been considered legal under court precedent, but dividing congressional maps along racial lines is considered a violation of the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

“The public perception of this case is that it’s about politics. To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics,” the court’s majority wrote in the opening of its 160-page opinion.

The ruling marked a major setback to efforts to redraw congressional districts ahead of the critically important midterms, which decide the composition of the US Congress.

All 435 seats in the House of Representatives will be up for grabs in that election. With Republicans holding a narrow 219-seat majority, analysts speculate that control of the chamber could potentially switch parties.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, had kicked off a nationwide race to redesign congressional districts in favour of one party or the other.

In June, news reports emerged that the administration of President Donald Trump had reached out to state officials to redraw the red state’s map, in order to gain five additional House seats for Republicans.

Despite hesitations and a walkout by state Democrats, the Texas legislature passed a new, gerrymandered map in August.

That inspired other right-leaning states, notably North Carolina and Missouri, to similarly redraw their districts. North Carolina and Missouri each passed a map that would gain Republicans one additional House seat.

Texas’s actions also sparked a Democratic backlash. California Governor Gavin Newsom spearheaded a ballot campaign in his heavily blue state to pass a proposition in November that would suspend an independent districting commission and instead pass a partisan map, skewed in favour of Democrats.

Voters passed the ballot initiative overwhelmingly in November, teeing up Democrats to gain five extra seats in California next year.

The state redistricting battle has sparked myriad legal challenges, including the one decided in Texas on Tuesday.

In that case, civil rights groups accused the Texas government of attempting to dilute the power of Black and Hispanic voters.

Judges David Guaderrama, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Jeffrey V Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority decision in favour of the plaintiffs.

A third judge — Jerry Smith, appointed under Ronald Reagan — dissented from their decision.

Writing for the majority, Brown said that Trump official Harmeet Dhillon, the head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, made the “legally incorrect assertion” that four congressional districts in the state were “unconstitutional” because they had non-white majorities.

The letter Dhillon sent containing that assertion helped prompt the Texas redistricting fight, Brown argued.

The judge also pointed to statements Texas Governor Greg Abbott made, seeming to reference the racial composition of the districts. If the new map’s aims were purely partisan and not racial, Brown indicated that it was curious no majority-white districts were targeted.

Tuesday’s ruling restores the 2021 map of Texas congressional districts. Currently, the state is represented by 25 Republicans and 12 Democrats in the US House.

Already, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pledged to appeal the ruling before the US Supreme Court.

“The radical left is once again trying to undermine the will of the people. The Big Beautiful Map was entirely legal and passed for partisan purposes to better represent the political affiliations of Texas,” Paxton wrote in a statement posted to social media.

He expressed optimism about his odds before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court. “I fully expect the Court to uphold Texas’s sovereign right to engage in partisan redistricting.”

California’s new congressional map likewise faces a legal challenge, with the Trump administration suing alongside state Republicans.

A suspect accused of having links to a deadly car bomb in the Indian capital New Delhi, was seen being led into court. The suspect is one of three men accused of involvement in the attack.

California is once again fighting in federal court for a Jewish family’s right to have a precious Impressionist painting returned to them by a Spanish museum nearly 90 years after it was looted by the Nazis.

The state is also defending its own authority to legally require art and other stolen treasures to be returned to other victims with ties to the state, even in disputes that stretch far beyond its borders.

The state has repeatedly weighed in on the case since the Cassirer family first filed it while living in San Diego in 2005. Last year, it passed a new law designed to bolster the legal rights of the Cassirers and other families in California to recover valuable property stolen from them in acts of genocide or political persecution.

On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office filed a motion to intervene in the Cassirer case directly in order to defend that law. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation — which is owned by Spain and holds the Camille Pissarro masterpiece — has claimed that the law is unconstitutional and should therefore be ignored.

Bonta, in a statement to The Times, said the law is “about fairness, moral — and legal — responsibility, and doing what’s right,” and the state will defend it in court.

“There is nothing that can undo the horrors and loss experienced by individuals during the Holocaust. But there is something we can do — that California has done — to return what was stolen back to survivors and their families and bring them some measure of justice and healing,” Bonta said. “As Attorney General, my job is to defend the laws of California, and I intend to do so here.”

Bonta said his office “has supported the Cassirers’ quest for justice for two decades,” and “will continue to fight with them for the rightful return of this invaluable family heirloom.”

Thaddeus J. Stauber, an attorney for the museum, did not did not answer questions from The Times. Bonta’s office said Stauber did not oppose its intervening in the case.

Sam Dubbin, the Cassirers’ longtime attorney, thanked Bonta’s office for “intervening in this case again to defend California’s interests in protecting the integrity of the art market and the rights of stolen property victims.”

“California law has always provided strong protections for the victims of stolen property and stolen art in particular, which the Legislature has consistently reinforced,” Dubbin said.

The state bucked the powerful U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by passing the law last year. The appellate court found in a ruling in January 2024 that the painting was lawfully owned by the Spanish museum.

Bonta’s latest move ratchets up the intrigue surrounding the 20-year-old case, which is being watched around the globe for its potential implications in the high-stakes world of looted art litigation.

The painting in question — Pissarro’s “Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain” — is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Both sides acknowledge it was stolen from Lilly Cassirer Neubauer by the Nazis in 1939, after she agreed in desperation to surrender it to a Nazi appraiser in exchange for a visa to flee Germany at the dawn of World War II.

The attention surrounding the case, and its potential to set new precedent in international law, likely makes the painting even more valuable.

After World War II, Lilly received compensation for the painting from the German government, but the family never relinquished its right to the masterpiece — which at the time was considered lost. What she was paid was a fraction of the current estimated worth.

In the decades that followed, Lilly’s grandson Claude Cassirer — who had also survived the Holocaust — moved with his family to San Diego.

In 2000, Claude made the shocking discovery that the painting was not lost to time after all, but part of a vast art collection that Spain had acquired from the late Baron Hans Heinrich von Thyssen-Bornemisza, the scion of a German industrialist family with ties to Hitler’s regime. Spain restored an early 19th-century palace near the Prado Museum in Madrid in order to house the collection as the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.

Claude asked the museum to return the painting to his family. It refused. He sued in U.S. federal court in 2005. The case has been moving through the courts ever since.

California passed its new law in response to the 9th Circuit ruling last year, which held that state law at the time required it to apply an archaic Spanish law. That measure dictates that the title to stolen goods passes legitimately to a new owner over time, if that owner wasn’t aware the goods were stolen when they acquired them — which the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection has argued makes its ownership of the painting legally sound.

In September 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the new law during a small gathering with the families of Holocaust survivors at the Holocaust Museum LA. Lilly’s great-grandson and Claude’s son David Cassirer, who now lives in Colorado, was there, praising the state’s lawmakers for “taking a definitive stand in favor of the true owners of stolen art.”

In March, the Supreme Court in a brief order ruled that the 9th Circuit must reconsider its ruling in light of California’s new law.

In September, the Thyssen-Bournemisza Collection filed a motion asking the appellate court to rule in its favor once more. It put forward multiple arguments, but among them was that California’s new law was “constitutionally indefensible” and deprived the museum of its due process rights.

“Under binding Supreme Court precedent, a State may not, by legislative fiat, reopen time-barred claims and transfer property whose ownership is already vested,” the museum argued.

It said the U.S., under federal law, “does not seek to impose its property laws or the property laws of its own states on other foreign sovereigns, but rather expressly acknowledges that different legal traditions and systems must be taken into account to facilitate just and fair solutions with regard to Nazi-looted art cases.”

It said California’s law takes an “aggressive approach” that “disrupts the federal government’s efforts to maintain uniformity and amicable relations with foreign nations,” and “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of federal policy.”

David Cassirer, the lead plaintiff in the case since Claude’s death in 2010, argued the opposite in his own filing to the court.

Cassirer argued that California’s new law requires an outcome in his favor — which he said would also happen to be in line with “moral commitments made by the United States and governments worldwide, including Spain, to Nazi victims and their families.”

“It is undisputed that California substantive law mandates the award of title here to the Cassirer family, as Lilly’s heirs, of which Plaintiff David Cassirer is the last surviving member,” Cassirer’s attorneys wrote.

They wrote that California law holds that “a thief cannot convey good title to stolen works of art,” and therefore requires the return of the painting to Cassirer.

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who sponsored the bill in the legislature, praised Bonta for stepping in to defend the law — which he called “part of a decades long quest for justice and is rooted in the belief that California must stand on the right side of history.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear a Trump administration appeal that argues migrants have no right to seek asylum at the southern border.

Rather, the government says border agents may block asylum seekers from stepping on to U.S. soil and turn away their claims without a hearing.

The new case seeks to clarify the immigration laws and resolve an issue that has divided past administrations and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under federal law, migrants who faces persecution in their home countries may apply for asylum and receive a screening hearing if they are “physically present in the United States” or if such a person “arrives in the United States.”

Since 2016, however, the Obama, Biden and Trump administrations responded to surges at the border by adopting temporary rules which required migrants to wait on the Mexican side before they could apply for asylum.

But in May, a divided 9th Circuit Court ruled those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland, citing a dictionary definition. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

She said this interpretation “does not radically expand the right to asylum.” By contrast, the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

“We therefore conclude that a non-citizen stopped by U.S. officials at the border is eligible to apply for asylum,” she wrote.

The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

In football, a “running back does not ‘arrive in’ the end zone when he is stopped at the one-yard line,” Sauer wrote.

He said federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.” From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” he said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

Immigrants rights lawyers advised the court to turn away the appeal because the government is no longer using the “metering” system that required migrants to wait for a hearing.

Since June 2024, they said the government has restricted inspections and processing of these non-citizens under a different provision of law that authorizes the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of alien” if he believes they would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The government also routinely sends back migrants who illegally cross the border.

But the solicitor general said the asylum provision should be clarified.

The justices voted to hear the case of Noem vs. Al Otro Lado early next year and decide “whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border ‘arrives in the United States’ within the meaning” of federal immigration law.

A special tribunal in Bangladesh’s Dhaka has found former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina guilty of crimes against humanity over her government’s violent suppression of last year’s student-led protests.

Hasina is being tried in absentia for crimes against humanity for a violent crackdown on student protests last year.

Hardcover fiction

1. The Black Wolf by Louise Penny (Minotaur Books: $30) The latest mystery in the Armand Gamache series.

2. The Correspondent by Virginia Evans (Crown: $28) A lifelong letter writer reckons with a painful past.

3. What We Can Know by Ian McEwan (Knopf: $30) A genre-bending love story about people and the words they leave behind.

4. The Proving Ground by Michael Connelly (Little, Brown & Co.: $32) The Lincoln Lawyer is back with a case against an AI company for its role in a girl’s killing.

5. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown (Doubleday: $38) Symbologist Robert Langdon takes on a mystery involving human consciousness and ancient mythology.

6. Alchemised by SenLinYu (Del Rey: $35) A woman with missing memories fights to survive a war-torn world of necromancy and alchemy.

7. The Loneliness of Sonia and Sunny by Kiran Desai (Hogarth: $32) The fates of two young people intersect and diverge across continents and years.

8. Heart the Lover by Lily King (Grove Press: $28) A woman reflects on a youthful love triangle and its consequences.

9. Queen Esther by John Irving (Simon & Schuster: $30) The novelist revisits the world of his bestselling “The Cider House Rules.”

10. The Widow by John Grisham (Doubleday: $32) A small-time lawyer accused of murder races to find the real killer to clear his name.

…

Hardcover nonfiction

1. Bread of Angels by Patti Smith (Random House: $30) A new memoir from the legendary writer and artist.

2. 1929 by Andrew Ross Sorkin (Viking: $35) An exploration of the most infamous stock market crash in history.

3. Nobody’s Girl by Virginia Roberts Giuffre (Knopf: $35) A posthumous memoir by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s most outspoken victim.

4. Lessons From Cats for Surviving Fascism by Stewart Reynolds (Grand Central Publishing: $13) A guide to channeling feline wisdom in the face of authoritarian nonsense.

5. Book of Lives by Margaret Atwood (Doubleday: $35) The author of “The Handmaid’s Tale” tells her story.

6. Always Remember by Charlie Mackesy (Penguin Life: $27) Revisiting the world of “The Boy, the Mole, the Fox and the Horse.”

7. The Uncool by Cameron Crowe (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $35) The filmmaker recounts his experiences as a teenage music journalist.

8. The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins, Sawyer Robbins (Hay House: $30) The podcast host explains how to stop wasting energy on things you can’t control.

9. Giving Up Is Unforgivable by Joyce Vance (Dutton: $28) A rallying cry for citizen engagement to preserve American democracy.

10. Notes on Being a Man by Scott Galloway (Simon & Schuster: $29) The NYU professor and podcaster explores what it means to be a man in modern America.

…

Paperback fiction

1. The God of the Woods by Liz Moore (Riverhead Books: $19)

2. How About Now by Kate Baer (Harper Perennial: $18)

3. The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon (Vintage: $18)

4. Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir (Ballantine: $22)

5. I Who Have Never Known Men by Jacqueline Harpman (Transit Books: $17)

6. The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami (Vintage: $19)

7. Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar (Vintage: $18)

8. Remarkably Bright Creatures by Shelby Van Pelt (Ecco: $20)

9. The Housemaid by Freida McFadden (Grand Central: $19)

10. The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath (Harper Perennial Modern Classics: $18)

…

Paperback nonfiction

1. On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder (Crown: $12)

2. The Wager by David Grann (Vintage: $21)

3. Fight Oligarchy by Sen. Bernie Sanders (Crown: $15)

4. How to Know a Person by David Brooks (Random House Trade Paperbacks: $20)

5. Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer (Milkweed Editions: $22)

6. Meditations for Mortals by Oliver Burkeman (Picador: $19)

7. The Art Thief by Michael Finkel (Vintage: $18)

8. All About Love by bell hooks (Morrow: $17)

9. Signs by Laura Lynne Jackson (Dial Press Trade Paperback: $22)

10. The Best American Essays 2025 by Jia Tolentino and Kim Dana Kupperman (editors) (Mariner Books: $19)

The longest U.S. government shutdown in history is over, but the fallout will continue to hit two groups particularly hard for months to come: federally funded defense lawyers and the people they represent.

Thousands of court-appointed lawyers, known as Criminal Justice Act panel attorneys, along with paralegals, investigators, expert witnesses and interpreters, haven’t been paid since June after federal funding for the Defender Services program fell $130 million short of what the judiciary requested and ran out July 3. They had been told they would receive deferred payment once Congress passed a new budget, but as the government shutdown dragged on, many couldn’t move forward with trials or take on new clients.

Nationally, CJA lawyers handle about 40% of cases in which the defendant cannot afford an attorney. As many cases have ground to a halt, defendants’ lives have been put on hold as they wait for their day in court. Meanwhile, the federal government has continued to arrest and charge people.

“The system’s about to break,” Michael Chernis, a CJA panel attorney in Southern California, said during the shutdown. He hasn’t taken new cases since August and had to take out a loan to make payroll for his law firm.

Unpaid defense team members in several states said they had to dip into their retirement savings or turn to gig work, such as driving for Uber, to support their families.

Panel attorneys should begin receiving payment as early as next week. Judge Robert Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said in a Thursday memo that the resolution Congress passed to fund the government through Jan. 30 provided an extra $114 million for the Defender Services program “to address the backlog of panel attorney payments.”

But the crisis isn’t over. Conrad said a spending bill pending for the 2026 fiscal year is still $196 million short and funding is likely to run out to pay CJA panel attorneys next June.

The problem is particularly severe in the Central District of California, the largest and one of the most complex federal trial courts in the United States. Out of the approximately 100 such lawyers for the district, about 80 have stopped taking on new cases.

Chernis has a client who lives in Sacramento, but neither Chernis nor a court-appointed investigator have been able to cover the cost of travel to meet with him to discuss the case. The expert they need for the trial will also not agree to travel to Los Angeles to work on the case without payment, Chernis said.

In New Mexico, one judge halted a death penalty case, which is costly and labor-intensive to prepare, and at least 40 lawyers have resolved not to take on new cases even after the shutdown ended if the overall funding shortfall is not resolved.

California’s Central District Chief Judge Dolly Gee wrote in an Oct. 30 letter to Sen. Adam Schiff that the situation had become “dire.”

“These attorneys have sought delays in cases when they cannot find investigators and experts who are willing to work without pay, which has added to the court’s backlog of cases, and left defendants languishing in already overcrowded local prison,” Gee said. “Without additional funding, we will soon be unable to appoint counsel for all defendants who are constitutionally entitled to representation.”

She said judges may have to face the prospect of having to dismiss cases for defendants who can’t retain a lawyer.

Just hours before the government shutdown ended, Judge John A. Mendez in the Eastern District of California did, tossing out a criminal case against a man indicted on a charge of distribution of methamphetamine.

“The right to effective assistance of counsel is a bedrock principle of this country and is indisputably necessary for the operation of a fair criminal justice system,” Mendez wrote.

Everyone in the United States has the right to due process — including the right to legal counsel and a fair and speedy trial, guaranteed by the 5th and 6th Amendments.

Critics of the Trump administration have argued that it is chipping away at that right. Immigrant advocacy groups have made the allegation in multiple lawsuits. Most notably, they cite the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran-born man who was living with his family in Maryland when he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and imprisoned at a notorious prison. He has since returned to the U.S., but he continues to face the threat of deportation as his case moves through the courts.

President Trump has been circumspect about his duties to uphold due process rights laid out in the Constitution, saying in an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” in May that he does not know whether U.S. citizens and noncitizens alike deserve that guarantee.

The funding upheaval has delayed Christian Cerna-Camacho’s trial by at least three months. His lawyer said in court filings that one investigator, who has spent hours poring over body-camera recordings, news reports and social media content, was unable to do more work until he is paid.

Cerna-Camacho was arrested in June and is accused of punching a federal officer during a June 7 protest in Paramount against Trump’s immigration raids. He is out on bond but cannot find a construction job while he wears an ankle monitor because it poses a safety risk at the site, his attorney Scott Tenley wrote in a recent court filing.

David Kaloynides, a CJA panel attorney in Los Angeles, couldn’t even communicate with some of his clients during the shutdown because they speak only Spanish, and interpreters were not being paid. His caseload is full to the point where he’s scheduling trials in 2027, while many clients wait in jail, he said.

“We don’t do this appointed work because of the money; we do it because we’re dedicated,” Kaloynides said. “But we also can’t do it for free.”

Ding writes for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court may reveal Thursday whether it intends to uphold Proposition 8, and if so, whether an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain valid, during a high-stakes televised session that has sparked plans for demonstrations throughout the state.

By now, the court already has drafted a decision on the case, with an author and at least three other justices willing to sign it. Oral arguments sometimes result in changes to the draft, but rarely do they change the majority position. The ruling is due in 90 days.

Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who wrote the historic May 15, 2008, decision that gave same-sex couples the right to marry, will be the one to watch during the hearing because he is often in the majority and usually writes the rulings in the most controversial cases.

Most legal analysts expect that the court will garner enough votes to uphold existing marriages but not enough to overturn Proposition 8. The dissenters in May’s 4-3 marriage ruling said the decision should be left to the voters.

One conservative constitutional scholar has said that the court could both affirm its historic May 15 ruling giving gays equality and uphold Proposition 8 by requiring the state to use a term other than “marriage” and apply it to all couples, gay and straight.

“The alternatives are for the court to accept Proposition 8 and authorize the people to rewrite the Constitution in a way that undermines a basic principle of equality,” said Pepperdine law professor Douglas Kmiec. If the court overturns Proposition 8, “that is the short course toward impeachment.”

The court is under intense pressure. Opponents of gay marriage have threatened to mount a campaign to boot justices who vote to overturn the initiative. The last time voters ousted state high court justices was in 1986, when then-Chief Justice Rose Bird and two colleagues lost a retention election.

On the other side, the Legislature has passed two resolutions opposing Proposition 8, and protests are being planned statewide to urge the court to throw out the measure.

Thousands are expected to descend Thursday on the San Francisco Civic Center to watch the hearing live on a giant outdoor screen, just steps from the courtroom where the justices will be prodding lawyers in a jammed courtroom.

“It is one of the most important cases in the history of the California Supreme Court,” said Mark Rosenbaum, legal director of the ACLU of Southern California. “The core tenet of our constitutional democracy is that fundamental rights of historically disadvantaged minorities are not dependent on the whim of the majority.”

The challenges to the initiative are based on novel legal theories. Gay rights lawyers argue that the measure was an illegal constitutional revision, rather than a more limited amendment. The court has struck down constitutional amendments passed by voters as impermissible revisions only twice in its history, and there are relatively few precedents on the subject.

“While no case forecloses the revision argument, there is no case that really supports it, and most of the cases mildly cut against it,” said UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar.

Upholding existing same-sex marriages would be a lower hurdle for the court, Amar and other scholars said.

“There is enough ambiguity in Prop. 8 that the court could easily interpret the measure as not applying to existing marriages,” Amar said. “That is a legally plausible interpretation, and it is so clearly the just interpretation that I think getting four votes for that seems easier.”

State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s office will ask the court to uphold the marriages and strike down the initiative as an illegal repeal of an inalienable right without compelling justification. Brown’s argument is even more novel than the revision challenge, which his office said had no merit.

The Proposition 8 case has attracted more friend-of-the-court briefs than the marriage dispute that led to last year’s historic ruling — the previous record-holder. Most of the outside groups that have weighed in have asked the court to overturn the initiative.

Pepperdine’s Kmiec said replacing the word “marriage” with another term would both leave intact the court’s May 15 ruling and deter a recall campaign that could damage the court as an institution. He said couples could still marry in their religious communities.

That would “restore a religious meaning to a word that is a religious word,” he said. Kmiec, a Catholic, said he reluctantly voted for Proposition 8 “because of the instructions of my faith community” but felt “entirely unsatisfied” with the outcome.

“I am not sure Ron George wants to be remembered as the chief justice who denied the principle of fundamental equality,” the law professor said. “It is not a legacy we should ask anyone to live with, and it is wholly unnecessary.”

George, a moderate Republican, is considered a swing vote on the court and, until the marriage decision, was widely regarded as cautious. Scholars have said the marriage ruling would be pivotal to his legacy on the court.

“It is difficult to imagine, although obviously plausible, that the majority of justices who ruled in the marriage cases would so quickly endorse an undermining of at least a significant portion of their ruling,” said Kate Kendell, executive director of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights.

Pepperdine law school Dean Kenneth Starr, hired by the Proposition 8 campaign, will urge the court to uphold the measure and declare that existing same-sex marriages are no longer valid. Benefits, such as inheritance, acquired by couples during their marriages would not be taken away, but couples would have to register as domestic partners to protect their future rights.

“The people ultimately decided,” Starr wrote in his final brief in the case. “Under our system of constitutional government, that is the end of the matter.”

—

[email protected]

Times staff writer Jessica Garrison also contributed to this report.

The hearing is scheduled to be shown live from 9 a.m. to noon Thursday on the California Channel, available to cable customers. (A list of local channel numbers for this service is available at www.calchannel.com/channel “> www.calchannel.com/channel /carriage/ .) The hearing also will be streamed live on www.calchannel.com .

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups urged the Supreme Court on Friday to block new California laws that will require thousands of companies to disclose their emissions and their impacts on climate change.

One of the laws is due to take effect on Jan. 1, and the emergency appeal asks the court to put it on hold temporarily.

Their lawyers argue the measures violate the 1st Amendment because the state would be forcing companies to speak on its preferred topic.

“In less than eight weeks, California will compel thousands of companies across the nation to speak on the deeply controversial topic of climate change,” they said in an appeal that also spoke for the California Chamber of Commerce and the Los Angeles County Business Federation.

They say the two new laws would require companies to disclose the “climate-related risks” they foresee and how their operations and emissions contribute to climate change.

“Both laws are part of California’s open campaign to force companies into the public debate on climate issues and pressure them to alter their behavior,” they said. Their aim, according to their sponsors, is to “make sure that the public actually knows who’s green and who isn’t.”

One law, SB 261, will require several thousand companies that do business in California to assess their “climate-related financial risk” and how they may reduce that risk. A second measure, Senate Bill 253, which applies to larger companies, requires them to assess and disclose their emissions and how their operations could impact the climate.

The appeal argues these laws amount to unconstitutional compelled speech.

“No state may violate 1st Amendment rights to set climate policy for the Nation. Compelled-speech laws are presumptively unconstitutional — especially where, as here, they dictate a value-laden script on a controversial subject such as climate change,” they argue.

The emergency appeal was filed by Washington attorney Eugene Scalia, a son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The companies have tried and failed to persuade judges in California to block the measures. Exxon Mobil filed a suit in Sacramento, while the Chamber of Commerce sued in Los Angeles.

In August, U.S. District Judge Otis Wright II in Los Angeles refused to block the laws on the grounds they “regulate commercial speech,” which gets less protection under the 1st Amendment. He said businesses are routinely required to disclose financial data and factual information on their operations.

The business lawyers said they had appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for an injunction, but no action has been taken.

Shortly after the chamber’s appeal was filed, state attorneys for Iowa and 24 other Republican-leaning states joined in support. They said they “strongly oppose this radical green speech mandate that California seeks to impose on companies.”

The justices are likely to ask for a response next week from California’s state attorneys before acting on the appeal.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge on Wednesday denied a request from the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena seeking a temporary restraining order in their attempt to keep UCLA football games at the Rose Bowl, saying those entities had not demonstrated an emergency that would necessitate such an action.

Judge James C. Chalfant said previous cases in which the New York Yankees, New York Jets and Minnesota Twins were barred from moving games did not apply to this situation because those teams were scheduled to play in a matter of days or weeks and UCLA’s next scheduled game at the Rose Bowl after its home season finale against Washington on Nov. 22 isn’t until the fall of 2026.

The judge also said there was no indication that the Rose Bowl or Pasadena would suffer imminent financial harm because a contract to construct a field-level club in one end zone had not been signed.

The legal saga is far from over. Chalfant suggested the plaintiffs’ attorneys seek discovery information regarding the school’s discussions with SoFi Stadium and file a motion for a preliminary injunction.

Nima Mohebbi, an attorney representing the Rose Bowl Operating Co. and the City of Pasadena, said he had filed a public records request in an attempt to gather information about those discussions and was pleased with the judge’s statements.

“Even though he found that there was no immediate emergency,” Mohebbi said, “he made very clear in a lot of his statements that there’s irreparable harm, that UCLA has an obligation to play at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and we’re very confident in our facts of this case. So I think all in, we feel very, very good.”

After the hearing ended, Mary Osako, vice chancellor of strategic communications, said in a statement that “the court’s ruling speaks for itself. As we have said, while we continue to evaluate the long-term arrangement or UCLA football home games, no decision has been made.”

UCLA has played its home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982. In 2014, Janet Napolitano, president of the University of California system, signed a long-term lease amendment that did not include an opt-out clause in exchange for the stadium committing to make nearly $200 million in improvements through the issue of public bonds. When the judge asked attorneys representing UCLA if they intended to terminate the agreement, they shook their heads in denial.

But Mohebbi accused UCLA of participating in a shell game in which it had furtively explored options for moving to SoFi Stadium.

“What they really want is to have a back-room discussion where they can offer some certain amount of money and pay the city off without having to account for this publicly,” Mohebbi said. “… UCLA has not only attempted to terminate [the contract], they have indicated in no uncertain terms that they are terminating.”

After Jordan McCrary, an attorney representing UCLA, contended that his counterparts in the dispute refused to engage with the school in resolution discussions, Mohebbi said, “there’s nothing to talk about. They have an obligation — we’re not negotiating a way out of this agreement.”

McCrary disputed Mohebbi’s contention that UCLA attorneys had signaled an intention to leave the Rose Bowl through direct conversations between counsel, saying “we believe they were settlement negotiations and we don’t believe they’re admissible” in future court proceedings.

When a UCLA attorney contended during the roughly 80-minute court session that the school’s relationship with the Rose Bowl was breaking down, Chalfant said, “I don’t know why UCLA can’t just show up and play football at the Rose Bowl. You don’t need to talk to them at all.”

Chalfant said he did not agree with the UCLA attorneys’ contention that the Rose Bowl lease amounted to a personal services contract for which specific performance — essentially an order compelling the Bruins to remain tenants — was not available. The judge said specific performance could be available in a situation involving an actual breach or an anticipatory breach of the contract.

Rose Bowl officials have filed litigation intended to compel the Bruins to honor a lease that runs through the 2043 season, saying that monetary damages would not be enough to offset the loss of their anchor tenant.

They are also seeking to prevent the case from being settled through arbitration.

“I know UCLA really wants to have this out of the public sphere,” Mohebbi said, “but the reality is this is a public interest case and there are issues here that absolutely require this case to be in a public forum.

“We’re talking about two public entities. This is not the Rams, or this is not the Lakers. This is a public institution playing with public money going up against another public institution that relies on this other public institution to protect its own taxpayers from dipping into the general fund that goes to things like police services, fire services. I mean, God forbid there’s a fire like the Eaton fire this last year that we’re not going to be able to even cover the bond payments through the general reserves.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court’s justices, citing the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment, sounded ready Wednesday to strike down laws in New York and California that deny most gun owners permits to carry concealed guns in public.

Most of the justices said people who live in “high-crime areas” and fear for their safety should be allowed to carry a gun for self-defense. And they said this applies equally to people who live in cities as well as in rural areas.

“Think about people who work late at night in Manhattan,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “It might be somebody who cleans offices. It might be a doorman at an apartment. It might be a nurse or an orderly [or] somebody who washes dishes” who is “scared to death” to head home. “How is it consistent with the core right to self-defense” to deny that person the right to have a gun with them? he asked.

In defense of New York’s law, state Solicitor General Barbara Underwood argued for limiting the number of guns in densely populated areas. Too many guns in too many hands would increase the danger of gun violence, she said.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh disputed that view and said people there may have a greater need to protect themselves with a gun.

“How many muggings take place in the forest?” Roberts asked her.

Kavanaugh said the 2nd Amendment protects a right to have a gun for self-defense, which suggests the decision to be armed should rest with the gun owner, not a state or local licensing official.

“Why isn’t it good enough to say I live in a violent area and I want to be able to defend myself?” he asked.

During their comments and questions, the court’s six conservative justices made clear they are highly skeptical of laws that authorize state or local officials to deny gun permits to law-abiding residents.

Only the court’s three liberal justices spoke in defense of these laws and said there has been a long history of regulating guns in public.

Still, a gun rights ruling in the New York case could be limited. The justices, both conservative and liberal, said cities and local governments would not be prevented from enforcing bans on guns in “sensitive places,” and that could include subways, football stadiums and university campuses.

“Can’t we just say Times Square on New Year’s Eve is a sensitive place?” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Washington attorney Paul Clement, who was representing the gun owners, avoided a clear answer on where guns could be excluded, but he agreed the city would retain that authority to restrict guns in certain places.

At issue on Wednesday in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. vs. Bruen were the laws in New York as well as similar measures in California and six other states that limit who may obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public.

Typically gun owners are required to show they have a “special need” or “good cause” to be armed, not simply a general fear for their safety. In New York City and Los Angeles, these permits are rarely granted.

UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who has written widely on the 2nd Amendment, said the outcome could force local officials to shift their focus to declaring certain places off-limits to guns.

“New York may be forced to allow more people to carry but can still broadly define sensitive places to make it hard practically to carry in New York City,” he said.

The ruling will also have a direct effect in California as well. “If New York’s law is struck down, the precedent will lead to overturning California’s carry laws too,” he said.

Gun control advocates heard little to cheer from the argument.

“We are on high alert about the dangerous consequences of a potential ruling in favor of gun extremists,” said Hannah Shearer, litigation director for the Giffords Law Center. “But the court still has an opportunity to reject the unprecedented and historically inaccurate view that the 2nd Amendment precludes meaningful gun safety regulations in public.”

But Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, pointed to the justices’ comments about restricting guns in sensitive places.

“Even the court’s most conservative justices have hesitations about granting the gun lobby its ultimate goal in this case — the unrestricted right to carry guns in all public places,” he said.

The case heard Wednesday and the likely outcome highlight the change in the makeup of the court.

In the last decade, the justices had turned down several challenges to the gun-permitting laws, including in California. But with the arrival of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, the court appears to have a new majority to bolster individual rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The case began when Robert Nash and Brandon Koch, who live near Albany, N.Y., applied for general concealed-carry permits but were turned down by a county judge because they did not “face any special or unique danger.” They were, however, licensed to carry guns for hunting or target shooting.

They sued along with the New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., alleging the restrictions violated their rights under the 2nd Amendment to bear arms for self-defense.

Reporting from Washington — President Trump is expected to move quickly to nominate a replacement for retiring Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat, and two leading candidates are veteran Washington, D.C., appellate Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor and recent Trump appointee to the 7th Circuit in Chicago.

They emerged from a list of more than two dozen potential nominees put together by the conservative Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation.

The list was Trump’s idea and it has proven effective, said Leonard Leo, a Federalist Society official who is advising the White House. It told Republican voters that he was serious about appointing only reliable conservatives to the high court, he said.

Unlike in decades past, when presidents and their top lawyers scrambled to find a qualified nominee when a vacancy suddenly arose, the Federalist Society list is the result of careful screening. A team of lawyers read and analyzed everything written or said by the candidates.

Their unofficial motto is “No more Souters,” a reference to now-retired Justice David H. Souter, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990. Souter was a little-known judge from New Hampshire, but the White House team assured Republicans he was a conservative.

They were wrong. Souter was careful and cautious as a judge and devoted to precedent. But his leanings were moderate to liberal. In 1992, Souter along with Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor joined to uphold the right to abortion announced two decades earlier in Roe vs. Wade.

Conservatives are determined never to make the same mistake again.

Kavanaugh, 53, grew up in Washington and is the favorite of many conservative lawyers here. He went to Yale Law School and clerked at the Supreme Court for Kennedy alongside Neil M. Gorsuch, who joined the court last year as Trump’s first appointment. Kavanaugh was a top deputy to independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the long investigation of President Clinton, and he drafted the Starr Report that led to Clinton’s impeachment. He also joined the legal team that represented George W. Bush in the fight over the recount in the 2000 presidential election.

Kavanaugh worked in the White House counsel’s office for Bush and later served as his staff secretary.

In 2003, Bush nominated him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, but Democrats initially blocked his confirmation. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called him a “very bright legal foot soldier” who has been in the middle of every partisan legal battle. But Kavanaugh finally won confirmation in 2006.

Since then, Kavanaugh has written hundreds of opinions, and he is known for always staking out a conservative position.

“He is much more conservative in his approach to law than Justice Kennedy,” said Justin Walker, a University of Louisville law professor who clerked for Kavanaugh at the appeals court and Kennedy at the Supreme Court. “There is no guesswork with Judge Kavanaugh. He is extremely predictable.”

Walker cited, as an example, Kavanaugh’s support for the right to own a semiautomatic rifle under the 2nd Amendment. In 2008, the Supreme Court struck down a District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited residents from having a handgun at home. The same plaintiff later claimed the right to possess a semiautomatic weapon, but lost by a 2-1 vote in the D.C. Circuit, Walker noted. Kavanaugh wrote a lengthy dissent arguing that the 2nd Amendment included the right to have such a weapon.

The Supreme Court, however, has rejected appeals raising that issue, which has the effect of upholding laws and ordinances that banned such assault weapons.

Last fall, Kavanaugh was involved in a quick-moving dispute over whether a migrant teenager in Texas could be released from immigration custody to obtain an abortion. A federal judge cleared the way, but Kavanaugh wrote a 2-1 decision siding with Trump administration lawyers and blocking the abortion for up to 10 more days. The full appeals court intervened and overturned his ruling. In dissent, he faulted his more liberal colleagues as wrongly creating a “new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. government detention to obtain abortion on demand.”

Like many judges, he has avoided any direct comments in his legal opinions about Roe vs. Wade, the landmark abortion ruling that will loom large over upcoming confirmation hearings.

In contrast to Kavanaugh, Barrett, 46, is a newcomer with a sparse record as a judge. She is a product of the University of Notre Dame and South Bend, Ind. She went law school at Notre Dame and spent a few years in Washington as a law clerk for D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman and Justice Antonin Scalia. She returned in 2002 to teach law at Notre Dame.

Barrett was narrowly confirmed by the Senate in November, and now commutes a few days a week from South Bend to downtown Chicago.

She has, however, written and spoken frequently about the importance of her Catholic faith and in her belief that life begins at conception. In a 2003 scholarly article, she suggested Roe vs. Wade was an “erroneous decision.”

During her Senate hearing, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she had read Barrett’s writings, adding that the “dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.”

That comment triggered a sharp backlash from Barrett’s defenders and others, who said the nominee was being criticized for her faith.

But if Barrett is the nominee, Democrats and liberal activists are certain to focus on her views about abortion and the role they might play if the court is asked to overturn Roe.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

Decision follows Senate vote to reopen the government, but legal saga has brought uncertainty to millions who need food assistance.

The highest court in the United States has extended a previous order allowing President Donald Trump to withhold food assistance to tens of millions of people in the US amid the government shutdown.

In a ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court extended a previous pause that it had granted the Trump administration after a lower court ordered the government to pay out about $4bn in food benefits for November.

Advocates have said that withholding the funds could have calamitous effects on people who depend on food benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), although the issue could be made moot as the shutdown appears to be drawing to a close.

The Supreme Court decision comes one day after the Senate on Monday approved compromise legislation that would end the longest government shutdown in US history, breaking a weeks-long impasse that has disrupted food benefits for millions, left hundreds of thousands of federal workers unpaid and snarled air traffic as a lack of air traffic controllers forced cancellations.

The battle over SNAP benefits has underlined the Trump administration’s aggressive efforts to slash government employment and roll back access to programmes that it had previously criticised under the auspices of the shutdown.

While it is common for some benefits and programmes to face delays or other issues during government shutdowns, food benefits ceased entirely at the start of November for the first time in the programme’s 60-year history.

The decision set off a series of legal challenges and several weeks of back-and-forth rulings that have kept those who rely on food assistance in a state of limbo.

A judge had ruled last week that the government must fully fund benefits for November, a decision the administration challenged. The Supreme Court had paused that order, but the stay was set to expire on Thursday.

A suicide bombing has killed at least 12 people near the entrance of a district court in Pakistan’s capital. Armed group Jamaat-ul-Ahrar says it was responsible for the bloodshed.

LONDON — President Trump’s threat to bring a billion-dollar lawsuit against the BBC has cast a shadow over the British broadcaster’s future, but it could also be a bluff with little legal merit.

The president’s lawyer sent the threat to the BBC over the way a documentary edited his Jan. 6, 2021, speech before a mob of his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol.

Trump’s history of suing news media companies — sometimes winning multimillion-dollar settlements — is part of a long-running grievance against the industry he describes as “fake news” that has often focused a critical eye on his actions.

But Trump faces fundamental challenges to getting a case to court, never mind taking it to trial. He would also have to deal with the harsh glare of publicity around his provocative pep talk the day Congress was voting to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election that Trump falsely alleged was stolen from him.

“If he sues, he opens a Pandora’s box and inside is every damning quote he’s ever uttered about the ‘steal,’” said attorney Mark Stephens, an international media lawyer who practices in the U.S. and U.K.

The BBC documentary

The BBC’s “Panorama” series aired the hourlong documentary titled “Trump: A Second Chance?” days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The third-party production company that made the film spliced together three quotes from two sections of the 2021 speech, delivered almost an hour apart, into what appeared to be one quote in which Trump urged supporters to march with him and “fight like hell.” Among the parts cut out was a section where Trump said he wanted supporters to demonstrate peacefully.

BBC Chairman Samir Shah apologized Monday for the misleading edit that he said gave “the impression of a direct call for violent action.”

Director-General Tim Davie and news chief Deborah Turness quit Sunday over accusations of bias and misleading editing.

From letter to lawsuit

A lawsuit in England is unlikely because the one-year deadline to bring one expired two weeks ago, experts said. If successful in overcoming that barrier, libel awards in the High Court rarely exceed 100,000 pounds ($132,000), experts said.

Trump could still bring a defamation claim in several U.S. states, and his lawyer cited Florida law in a letter to the BBC.

Filing a lawsuit and demanding money is one thing, but prevailing in court is much different. To succeed, Trump would have to clear many hurdles to get a case before a jury.

Before any of that could happen, Trump faces a more fundamental challenge: The BBC program was not aired in the U.S., and the BBC’s streaming service is also not available there. Americans could not have thought less of him because of a program they could not watch, Stephens said.

“The other ticklish problem for Trump’s lawyer was that Trump’s reputation was already pretty battered after Jan. 6,” he said. “Alleging ‘Panorama’ caused additional harm when your reputation is already in tatters … is a tough sell.”

Trump was impeached on a charge of inciting insurrection over the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol by some of his supporters, though he was acquitted by the Senate.

The demands

Trump’s lawyer Alejandro Brito threatened the BBC with a defamation lawsuit for “no less than” $1 billion. The letter spelled out the figure and used all nine zeros in numeric form.

The letter demanded an apology to the president and a “full and fair” retraction of the documentary along with other “false, defamatory, disparaging, misleading or inflammatory statements” about Trump.

It also said the president should be “appropriately” compensated for “overwhelming financial and reputational harm.”

The letter cites Florida’s defamation statute that requires a letter be sent to news organizations five days before any lawsuit can be filed.

If the BBC does not comply with the demands by 5 p.m. EST Friday, then Trump will enforce his legal rights, the letter said.

“The BBC is on notice,” it said.

While many legal experts have dismissed the president’s claims against the media as having little chance of success, he has won some lucrative settlements against U.S. media companies.

In July, Paramount, which owns CBS, agreed to pay $16 million to settle a lawsuit filed by Trump over a “ 60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump alleged that the interview was edited to enhance how Harris, the Democratic nominee for president in 2024, sounded.

That settlement came as the Trump-appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation that threatened to complicate Paramount’s need for administration approval to merge with Skydance Media.

Last year, ABC News said it would pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit over anchor George Stephanopoulos ’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. A jury found that he was liable for sexually abusing her. Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to throw out that jury’s finding.

Litigation threat could leverage payout

London lawyer David Allen Green dismissed the litigation letter for failing to spell out any actual harm Trump suffered. But he said Trump’s willingness to use lawsuits as a form of deal making could leverage a payout because the edit was indefensible.

“Putting aside the theatrics of a bombastic letter with its senseless $1 billion claim, there is a power play here which Trump has done many times before,” Green said on the Law and Policy Blog. “The real mistake of the BBC (and the production company) was opening itself up to such a play of power.”

Stephens said if Trump were somehow to win billions from the BBC, it could crush the news organization that is mostly funded through a fee charged to all television owners in the U.K.

But he said that outcome was unlikely and the broadcaster should stand its ground. He recommended Trump take the public relations win and avoid the damage from revisiting the Jan. 6 events that would be dredged up at trial.

He said Trump was due an apology, which Shah offered, for the BBC not upholding high journalistic standards.

“The question is, ‘Did it cause harm in people’s minds?’” he said. “Because he was elected afterwards, it doesn’t appear it did.”

Melley writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 11 (UPI) — Asylum seekers will be permitted to stay at hotel in Essex following a British high court ruling against a local council to remove them.

The Bell Hotel in Epping Forest, less than 20 miles northeast of London, has housed roughly 140 migrants in the process of seeking British asylum. But the local Epping Forest District Council sought to block their temporarily living conditions after a 14-year-old girl was sexually assaulted and a man living in the hotel accused of the attack.

On Tuesday, Justice Tim Mould dismissed the council’s claims and ruled that an injunction was “not an appropriate means of enforcing planning control.”

Epping Forest’s councillors argued the Bell Hotel owner flouted local planning and zoning rules.

“What we saw in court was an unholy alliance of lawyers for government and big business intent on protecting huge profits and an indefensible asylum policy,”Ken Williamson, a member on Epping Forest District Council, told the BBC.

In August, a temporary injunction was awarded that banned asylum but later overturned by an appeal court following intervention by Britain’s Home Office.

Protests near the hotel turned violent in July when hijacked by far-right supporters after Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, an Ethiopian national and resident of the hotel, was charged with the teen girl’s sexual assault.

But Mould on Tuesday rejected the prospect that hotel owner Somani Hotels demonstrated a “flagrant or persistent abuse” of planning control with a growing number of immigrants and other foreign asylum seekers.

“Taking a broad view, the degree of planning and environmental harm resulting from the current use of the Bell is limited,” he wrote in a 87-page ruling.

The judge acknowledged the “criminal behavior of a small number of individual asylum seekers” housed at the hotel had “raised the fear of crime” in the local community.

It was noted there was a “continuing need” to house asylum seekers with a looming asylum hearing. And so that Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood “can fulfill her statutory duties.”

Tuesday’s ruling continued that statutory procedures under British law provided for the “local planning authority, or on appeal the Secretary of State, to determine conclusively whether an existing use of land is lawful because it does not involve development.”

A U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington on Tuesday overturned a decision requiring organizations that run election-related television ads to reveal their funders, saying a lower court erred in finding that Congress intended to require such disclosure — a victory for some of the biggest groups participating in the 2012 campaign.

In an unsigned decision, the three-judge panel wrote that it was “doubtful” that Congress anticipated how campaign finance rules would change and sent the case back to the lower court for further review.

But for the remainder of this election the ruling lets up the pressure on GOP-allied organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS, which changed their ad strategies after a federal judge ruled this spring that Congress intended such groups to disclose their donors.

INTERACTIVE: Spending during the 2012 election

“We’re just delighted,” said Thomas Kirby, an attorney for the Center for Individual Freedom, one of two groups that pursued an appeal of the case. “CFIF believes that the right to engage in political speech should not be needlessly conditioned upon the loss of anonymity.”

Rep. Christopher Van Hollen (D-Md.), who brought the original case against the Federal Election Commission that upheld the donor disclosure requirement, issued a statement saying the appellate decision “struck a blow against transparency in the funding of political campaigns.”

“The Court of Appeals’ decision today will keep the American people, for the time being, in the dark about who is attempting to influence their vote with secret money,” he added.

The case hinges on the FEC’s interpretation of the 2002 McCain-Feingold Act, a landmark campaign finance reform measure that, among other things, required groups that engage in “electioneering communications” to reveal all their contributors.

Five years later, the FEC issued a rule stating that such organizations only had to reveal the donors who gave for the purpose of financing TV ads.

Van Hollen — backed by lawyers from the campaign finance reform organizations Democracy 21, Public Citizen, Campaign Legal Center and the law firm WilmerHale — sued the FEC, arguing that the rule created a major loophole that undermined the intent of the McCain-Feingold Act. A federal judge agreed, ruling on March 30 that the FEC had overstepped its authority.

“Congress intended to shine light on whoever was behind the communications bombarding voters immediately prior to elections,” Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote in her decision.

Her ruling threw out the 2007 rule and reinstated a 2003 FEC regulation that required organizations doing electioneering to report all donations of $1,000 or more dating back to the first day of the preceding year.

That triggered a scramble among politically active groups on the right that have been fighting efforts to force them to reveal their funders. Despite the fact that they are organized as nonprofit social welfare organizations – or, in the case of the Chamber, as a trade group — the groups began running explicitly political ads, taking advantage of the conflicting patchwork of campaign finance rules that did not require disclosure of those doing “express advocacy.”

That move came with its own risk: paying for overtly political spots could jeopardize their tax status.

INTERACTIVE: Battleground states map

Such a tactic is no longer necessary after Tuesday’s ruling by the appellate court, which declared that the McCain-Feingold Act is “anything but clear” in light of major court cases that have followed it, including the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United.

The panel chided the FEC for not clearly dealing with the changes in the law or defending its stance in court. The appellate court sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to refer the matter back to the FEC to defend its current rules or issue new ones.

But with the FEC locked in partisan gridlock, it remains unclear whether the six commissioners will be able to come to agreement on how to proceed.

Campaign finance reform advocates said they were not giving up, saying they still believed they had a strong argument to make at the district court level if the FEC chooses to defend the current rules.

“The Court of Appeals got it wrong,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21. “There is no way Congress enacted a statute to result in no disclosure of contributors when the statute calls for all disclosure of contributors.”

Wertheimer said his group would also continue to press the Internal Revenue Service to scrutinize the activities of groups such as Crossroads GPS that claim to be nonprofit social welfare organizations.

But he admitted that in the prospect of forcing such organizations to reveal their donors this year has been effectively shut down.

“They’ll go back to doing electioneering and claim that their campaign ads are not campaign ads,” Wertheimer said.

Follow Politics Now on Twitter and Facebook[email protected]

Twitter: @mateagold