court

As the trial about whether the Angels should be held at least partially liable for the death of Tyler Skaggs enters its third week, major league officials are closely monitoring the proceedings.

The trial is scheduled to last several more weeks, and it would be premature for the league to determine what action it might take against the Angels — if any — until all evidence is revealed in court and a verdict or a settlement is reached.

However, it is considered highly unlikely that the league would compel Angels owner Arte Moreno to sell the team.

Consideration of any action probably would be deferred until the league could conduct its own investigation and until a jury verdict, if there is one, is fully reviewed by an appeals court.

The Skaggs family is seeking $785 million in damages, as first reported by the Athletic, based on the allegation the Angels knew or should have known that former staffer Eric Kay was using illegal drugs, including the pills he provided to Skaggs on the night the pitcher died in 2019. The Angels deny the allegations.

The jury would not have to decide whether to award all of that money or none of it. The jury first would have to determine who was liable: the Angels, Kay, Skaggs and any other parties. Then the jury would decide what percentage of liability each of those parties should assume and what the financial compensation should be.

As an example, a jury could decide the damages should be $210 million — the amount the family listed as a minimum in a court filing — and the Angels should be held one-third responsible. Under that example, they would be assessed $70 million.

In 1943, Philadelphia Phillies owner William Cox was banned for life for betting on baseball.

If history is any indication, if the league believes an owner merits discipline, an owner would be more likely to be suspended than banned. In 1993, Cincinnati Reds owner Marge Schott was suspended one year for racist and insensitive comments.

New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner was suspended three times: two years for illegal contributions to President Nixon’s 1972 campaign; one week after publicly criticizing umpires; and two years and five months for paying a gambler to dig up disparaging information on All-Star outfielder Dave Winfield. That last suspension originally was announced as a lifetime ban; Steinbrenner was later reinstated.

Kay, who provided Skaggs with counterfeit oxycodone pills that were laced with fentanyl, is serving a 22-year sentence in federal prison. Skaggs died in his hotel room in Texas of asphyxiation, according to an autopsy, choking on his own vomit while under the influence of oxycodone, fentanyl and alcohol.

CHICAGO — The detention by immigration authorities of a Chicago man whose 16-year-old daughter is undergoing treatment for advanced cancer is illegal, and he must be given a bond hearing by Oct. 31, a federal judge has ruled.

Attorneys for Ruben Torres Maldonado, 40, who was detained Oct. 18, have petitioned for his release as his deportation case goes through the system. While U.S. District Judge Jeremy Daniel said in an order Friday that Torres’ detention is illegal and violates his due process rights, he also said he could not order his immediate release.

“While sympathetic to the plight the petitioner’s daughter faces due to her health concerns, the court must act within the constraints of the relevant statutes, rules, and precedents,” the judge wrote Friday.

Torres’ attorney took the ruling as a win — for now.

“We’re pleased that the judge ruled in our favor in determining that ICE is illegally detaining Ruben. We will now turn the fight to immigration court so we can secure Ruben’s release on bond while he applies for permanent residence status,” his attorney, Kalman Resnick, said in a statement Friday night.

Torres, a painter and home renovator, was detained at a suburban Home Depot store. His daughter, Ofelia Torres, was diagnosed in December with a rare and aggressive form of soft-tissue cancer called metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma and has been undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

Torres entered the U.S. in 2003, according to his lawyers. He and his partner, Sandibell Hidalgo, also have a 4-year-old son. The children are both U.S. citizens, according to court records.

“My dad, like many other fathers, is a hardworking person who wakes up early in the morning and goes to work without complaining, thinking about his family,” Ofelia said in a video posted on a GoFundMe page set up for her family. “I find it so unfair that hardworking immigrant families are being targeted just because they were not born here.”

The Department of Homeland Security alleges that Torres has been living illegally in the U.S. for years and has a history of driving offenses, including speeding and driving without a valid license and insurance.

“This is nothing more than a desperate Hail Mary attempt to keep a criminal illegal alien in our country,” Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “The Trump administration is fighting for the rule of law and the American people.”

At a hearing Thursday, which Ofelia attended in a wheelchair, the family’s attorneys told the judge that she was released from the hospital just a day before her father’s arrest so that she could see family and friends. But since his arrest, she had been unable to continue treatment “because of the stress and disruption,” they said.

Federal prosecutor Craig Oswald told the court that the government did not want to release Torres because he didn’t cooperate during his arrest,

Several elected officials held a news conference Wednesday to protest Torres’ arrest. The Chicago area has been at the center of a major immigration crackdown dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz,” which began in early September.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

A decision could come at any time.

And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

Conservatives cite civil rights examples

Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

Lower courts have blocked deployments

Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

NORFOLK, Va. — New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James is set to make her first court appearance in a mortgage fraud case on Friday, the third adversary of President Trump to face a judge on federal charges in recent weeks.

James was indicted earlier this month on charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution in connection with a 2020 home purchase in Norfolk, Va. The charges came shortly after the official who had been overseeing the investigation was pushed out by the Trump administration and the Republican president publicly called on the Justice Department to take action against James and other political foes.

James, a Democrat who has sued Trump and his administration dozens of times, has denied wrongdoing and decried the indictment as “nothing more than a continuation of the president’s desperate weaponization of our justice system.”

The indictment stems from James’ purchase of a modest house in Norfolk, where she has family. During the sale, she signed a standard document called a “second home rider” in which she agreed to keep the property primarily for her “personal use and enjoyment for at least one year,” unless the lender agreed otherwise.

Rather than using the home as a second residence, the indictment alleges, James rented it out to a family of three. According to the indictment, the misrepresentation allowed James to obtain favorable loan terms not available for investment properties.

James drew Trump’s ire when she won a staggering judgment against the president and his companies in a lawsuit alleging he defrauded banks by overstating the value of his real estate holdings on financial statements. An appeals court overturned the fine, which had ballooned to more than $500 million with interest, but upheld a lower court’s finding that Trump had committed fraud.

James’ indictment followed the resignation of Erik Siebert as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia after he resisted Trump administration pressure to bring charges. Siebert was replaced with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide and former Trump lawyer who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor and presented James’ case to the grand jury herself.

On Thursday, lawyers for James asked for an order prohibiting prosecutors from disclosing to the news media information about the investigation, or materials from the case, outside of court.

The motion followed the revelation from earlier this week that Halligan contacted via an encrypted text messaging platform a reporter from Lawfare, a media organization that covers legal and national security issues, to discuss the James prosecution and complain about coverage of it. The reporter published the exchange that she and Halligan had.

“The exchange was a stunning disclosure of internal government information,” lawyers for James wrote.

They added: “It has been reported that Ms. Halligan has no prosecutorial experience whatsoever. But all federal prosecutors are required to know and follow the rules governing their conduct from their first day on the job, and so any lack of experience cannot excuse their violation.”

The motion also asks that the government be required to preserve all communications with representatives of the media as well as to prevent the deletion of any records or communications related to the investigation and the prosecution of the case.

Separately on Thursday, defense lawyers said they intended to challenge Halligan’s appointment, a step also taken this week by attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey in a different case filed by Halligan. Comey has been charged with lying to Congress in a criminal case filed days after Trump appeared to urge his attorney general to prosecute him, and he has pleaded not guilty.

A third Trump adversary, former national security adviser John Bolton, pleaded not guilty last week to charges against him of emailing classified information to family members and keeping top secret documents at his Maryland home.

The Justice Department has also been investigating mortgage fraud allegations against Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California, whom Trump has called to be prosecuted over allegations related to a property in Maryland. In a separate mortgage investigation, authorities have been probing allegations against Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, who is challenging a Trump administration effort to remove her from her job. Schiff and Cook have denied wrongdoing.

Finely and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporter Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Growing up in Rawalpindi, a city adjacent to Pakistan’s capital Islamabad, Mahnoor Omer remembers the shame and anxiety she felt in school when she had periods. Going to the toilet with a sanitary pad was an act of stealth, like trying to cover up a crime.

“I used to hide my pad up my sleeve like I was taking narcotics to the bathroom,” says Omer, who comes from a middle-class family – her father a businessman and her mother a homemaker. “If someone talked about it, teachers would put you down.” A classmate once told her that her mother considered pads “a waste of money”.

“That’s when it hit me,” says Omer. “If middle-class families think this way, imagine how out of reach these products are for others.”

Now 25, Omer has gone from cautious schoolgirl to national centrestage in a battle that could reshape menstrual hygiene in Pakistan, a country where critics say economics is compounding social stigma to punish women – simply for being women.

In September, Omer, a lawyer, petitioned the Lahore High Court, challenging what she and many others say is effectively a “period tax” imposed by Pakistan on its more than 100 million women.

Pakistani governments have, under the Sales Tax Act of 1990, long charged an 18 percent sales tax on locally manufactured sanitary pads and a customs tax of 25 percent on imported ones, as well as on raw materials needed to make them. Add on other local taxes, and UNICEF Pakistan says that these pads are often effectively taxed at about 40 percent.

Omer’s petition argues that these taxes – which specifically affect women – are discriminatory, and violate a series of constitutional provisions that guarantee equality and dignity, elimination of exploitation and the promotion of social justice.

In a country where menstruation is already a taboo subject in most families, Omer and other lawyers and activists supporting the petition say that the taxes make it even harder for most Pakistani women to access sanitary products. A standard pack of commercially branded sanitary pads in Pakistan currently costs about 450 rupees ($1.60) for 10 pieces. In a country with a per capita income of $120 a month, that’s the cost of a meal of rotis and dal for a low-income family of four. Cut the cost by 40 percent – the taxes – and the calculations become less loaded against sanitary pads.

At the moment, only 12 percent of Pakistani women use commercially produced sanitary pads, according to a 2024 study by UNICEF and the WaterAid nonprofit. The rest improvise using cloth or other materials, and often do not even have access to clean water to wash themselves.

“If this petition goes forward, it’s going to make pads affordable,” says Hira Amjad, the founder and executive director of Dastak Foundation, a Pakistani nonprofit whose work is focused on promoting gender equality and combating violence against women.

And that, say lawyers and activists, could serve as a spark for broader social change.

The court docket describes the case as Mahnoor Omer against senior officials of the government of Pakistan. But that’s not what it feels like to Omer.

“It feels like women versus Pakistan.”

‘It’s not shameful’

Bushra Mahnoor, founder of Mahwari Justice, a Pakistani student-led organisation whose name translates to “menstrual justice”, realised early just how much of a struggle it could be to access sanitary pads.

Mahnoor – no relation to Omer – grew up in Attock, a city in the northwestern part of Pakistan’s Punjab province, with four sisters. “Every month, I had to check if there were enough pads. If my period came when one of my sisters had hers too,” finding a pad was a challenge, she says.

The struggle continued in school, where, as was the case with Omer, periods were associated with shame. A teacher once made one of her classmates stand for two entire lectures because her white uniform was stained. “That was dehumanising,” she says.

Mahnoor was 10 when she had her first period. “I didn’t know how to use a pad. I stuck it upside down; the sticky side touched my skin. It was painful. No one tells you how to manage it.”

She says that shame was never hers alone, but it’s part of a silence which starts at home and accompanies girls into adulthood. A study on menstrual health in Pakistan shows that eight out of 10 girls feel embarrassed or uncomfortable when talking about periods, and two out of three girls report never having received information about menstruation before it began. The findings, published in the Frontiers in Public Health journal in 2023, link this silence to poor hygiene, social exclusion and missed school days.

In 2022, when floods devastated Pakistan, Mahnoor began Mahwari Justice to ensure that relief camps did not overlook the menstrual needs of women. “We began distributing pads and later realised there’s so much more to be done,” she says. Her organisation has distributed more than 100,000 period kits – each containing pads, soap, underwear, detergent and painkillers – and created rap songs and comics to normalise conversations about menstruation. “When you say the word ‘mahwari’ out loud, you’re teaching people it’s not shameful,” she says. “It’s just life.”

The same floods also influenced Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, though her nonprofit has been around for a decade now. Its work now also includes distributing period kits during natural disasters.

But the social stigma associated with menstruation is also closely tied to economics in the ways in which its impact plays out for Pakistani women, suggests Amjad.

“In most households, it’s the men who make financial decisions,” she says. “Even if the woman is bringing the money, she’s giving it to the man, and he is deciding where that money needs to go.”

And if the cost of women’s health feels too high, that’s often compromised. “[With] the inflated prices due to the tax, there is no conversation in many houses about whether we should buy pads,” she says. “It’s an expense they cannot afford organically.”

According to the 2023 study in the Frontiers in Public Health, over half of Pakistani women are not able to afford sanitary pads.

If the taxes are removed, and menstrual hygiene becomes more affordable, the benefits will extend beyond health, says Amjad.

School attendance rates for girls could improve, she said. Currently, more than half of Pakistan’s girls in the five to 16 age group are not in school, according to the United Nations. “We will have stress-free women. We will have happier and healthier women.”

‘Feeling of justice’

Omer says her interest in women’s and minority rights began early. “What inspired me was just seeing the blatant mistreatment every day,” she says. “The economic, physical, and verbal exploitation that women face, whether it’s on the streets, in the media, or inside homes, never sat right with me.”

She credits her mother for making her grow up to be an empathetic and understanding person.

After completing school, she worked as a gender and criminal justice consultant at Crossroads Consultants, a Pakistan-based firm that collaborates with NGOs and development partners on gender and criminal justice reform. At the age of 19, she also volunteered at Aurat March, an annual women’s rights movement and protest held across Pakistan on International Women’s Day – it’s a commitment she has kept up since then.

Her first step into activism came at 16, when she and her friends started putting together “dignity kits”, small care packages for women in low-income neighbourhoods of Islamabad. “We would raise funds with bake sales or use our own money,” she recalls.

The money she was able to raise enabled her to distribute about 300 dignity kits that she and her friends made themselves. They each contained pads, underwear, pain medication and wipes. But she wanted to do more.

She got a chance when she started working at the Supreme Court in early 2025, first as a law clerk. She’s currently pursuing postgraduate studies in gender, peace and security at the London School of Economics and says that she will go back to Pakistan to resume her practice after she graduates.

She became friends with fellow lawyer Ahsan Jehangir Khan, who specialises in taxation and constitutional law. The plan to challenge the “period tax” emerged from their conversations.

“He pushed me to file this petition and try to get justice instead of just sitting around.”

Khan, who is a co-petitioner in the case, says that fighting the taxes is about more than accessibility and affordability of sanitary pads – it’s about justice. “It’s a tax on a biological function,” he says.

Tax policies in Pakistan, he says, are written by “a privileged elite, mostly men who have never had to think about what this tax means for ordinary women”. The constitution, he adds, “is very clear that you cannot have anything discriminatory against any gender whatsoever”.

To Amjad, the Dastak Foundation founder, the fight for menstrual hygiene is closely tied to her other passion – the struggle against climate change. The extreme weather-related crisis, such as floods, that Pakistan has faced in recent times, she says, hit women particularly hard.

She remembers the trauma many women she worked with after the 2022 floods described to her. “Imagine that you are living in a tent and you have mahwari [menstruation] for the first time,” she says. “You are not mentally prepared for it. You are running for your life. You don’t have access to safety or security. That trauma is a trauma for life.”

As temperatures rise on average, women will need to change sanitary pads more frequently during their periods – and a lack of adequate access will prove an even bigger problem, Amjad warns. She supports the withdrawal of taxes on sanitary pads – but only those made from cotton, not plastic ones that “take thousands of years to decompose”.

Amjad is also campaigning for paid menstruation leave. “I have come across women who were fired because they had pain during periods and couldn’t work,” she says. “When you are menstruating, one part of your brain is on menstruation. You can’t really focus properly.”

Meanwhile, opponents of the taxes are hoping that Omer’s petition will pressure the Pakistani government to follow other nations such as India, Nepal and the United Kingdom that have abolished their period taxes.

Taking on that mantle against the government’s policies didn’t come easily to Omer. Her parents, she says, were nervous at first about their daughter going to court against the government. “They said it’s never a good idea to take on the state,” she says.

Now, they’re proud of her, she says. “They understand why this matters.”

To her, the case is not just a legal fight. “When I think of this case, the picture that comes to mind … It’s not a courtroom, it’s a feeling of justice,” she says. “It makes me feel a sense of pride to be able to do this and take this step without fear.”

The US Supreme Court has set a date on whether it will hear a case challenging same sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples – filed a petition for writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will be meeting in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog went on to reveal that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following their meeting on 7 November, an announcement can be released as soon as 10 November.

The recent update comes a week after conservative Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett – who was appointed to the high court during Trump’s first term– addressed the possibility of Obergefell v. Hodges being overturned.

During a recent conversation with The New York Times‘s Ross Douthat, Barrett said marriage equality has “very concrete reliance interests,” making it unlikely to be taken away.

Ted Eytan on Flickr

She went on to define “reliance interests” as “things that would be upset or undone if a decision is undone.”

Elsewhere in the interview, Douthat inquired if there can be “social reliance interests in the sense of people making life choices on the basis of a right being protected.”

He added: “One of the arguments for why Obergefell v Hodges is unlikely to ever be overturned is the idea that people have made decisions about who to marry and therefore where to live and children… Everything else, on the basis of that ruling.”

In response, Barrett described Douthat’s example as “absolutely reliance interests,” stating that she wouldn’t classify them as “social reliance interests.”

“That kind of sounds like in things in the air. Those are very concrete reliance interests. So those would be classic reliance interests in the terms of the law, in terms of legal doctrine… Those are financial. Those are medical,” she explained.

Another conservative Supreme Court Justice who shared a similar opinion is Samuel Alito. While speaking at an academic conference on 3 October, he said that marriage equality is “entitled to respect,” despite his dislike of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

A British soldier charged with murder over the Bloody Sunday massacre has been acquitted by a Belfast court, in a verdict condemned by victims’ relatives and Northern Ireland’s political leader.

The former British paratrooper, known as Soldier F under a court anonymity order, was accused of murdering James Wray and William McKinney and attempting to murder five others when soldiers opened fire on unarmed Catholic civil rights marchers in Derry more than 50 years ago.

Belfast Crown Court was silent on Thursday as Judge Patrick Lynch read the verdict acquitting Soldier F of two charges of murder and five of attempted murder. Soldier F listened to the verdict from behind a thick blue curtain, hidden from view in the packed courtroom.

On January 30, 1972, British paratroopers opened fire on unarmed civil rights protesters as more than 10,000 people marched in Derry. British soldiers shot at least 26 unarmed civilians. Thirteen people were killed, while another man died from his injuries four months later.

The massacre became a pivotal moment in the Troubles, helping to fuel nearly three decades of violence between Irish nationalists seeking civil rights and a united Ireland, pro-British unionists wanting Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom, and the British Army. A 1998 peace deal largely ended the bloodshed.

Lynch said in his verdict that he was satisfied that soldiers had lost all sense of military discipline and opened fire with intent to kill and that “those responsible should hang their heads in shame”.

But he said the case fell short of the burden of proof.

“Delay has, in my view, seriously hampered the capacity of the defence to test the veracity and accuracy of the hearsay statements,” he said.

An initial investigation into the massacre — the Widgery Tribunal, an investigation held in 1972 — largely cleared the soldiers and British authorities of responsibility.

A second investigation, the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, also known as the Saville Inquiry, found in June 2010 that there had been no justification for any of the shootings and found that paratroopers had fired at fleeing unarmed civilians.

Following the Saville Inquiry, police in Northern Ireland launched a murder investigation, with prosecutors finding that one former soldier would face trial for two murders and five attempted murders.

Prosecutors have previously ruled there was insufficient evidence to charge 16 other former British soldiers.

Soldier F was not called to give evidence during the one-month trial that was heard without a jury. He had previously told investigators he no longer had a reliable recollection of the massacre.

Mickey McKinney, brother of William McKinney, one of the two victims named in the case, denounced the verdict outside the courtroom on Thursday.

“Soldier F has been discharged from the defendant’s criminal dock, but it is one million miles away from being an honourable discharge,” McKinney said. “Soldier F created two young widows on Bloody Sunday, he orphaned 12 children, and he deprived dozens of siblings of a loving brother,”

McKinney said he “firmly” blamed the British government for the trial’s outcome.

“The blame lies firmly with the British state, with the RUC [the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Irish police], who failed to investigate the murders on Bloody Sunday properly, or indeed at all,” McKinney said.

Following Thursday’s verdict, a spokesperson for the UK government said the UK is “committed to finding a way forward that acknowledges the past, whilst supporting those who served their country during an incredibly difficult period in Northern Ireland’s history”.

Northern Ireland’s First Minister Michelle O’Neill, who is vice president of the Sinn Fein pro-Irish unity party, called the verdict “deeply disappointing”.

“The continued denial of justice for the Bloody Sunday families is deeply disappointing,” she wrote on X. “Not one British soldier or their military and political superiors has ever been held to account. That is an affront to justice.”

SALT LAKE CITY — Walker Kessler had 22 points and nine rebounds, Lauri Markkanen scored 20 and the Utah Jazz beat the Clippers 129-108 on Wednesday night in the season opener for both teams.

Brice Sensabaugh added 20 points off the bench for Utah, which set a team record for points in a season opener.

Kessler, the longest-tenured member of the Jazz, went 7 for 7 from the field. He blocked four shots and finished with four assists.

The new-look Clippers appeared confused on the court at times in a disappointing debut for a team with lofty aspirations. Ivica Zubac led them with 19 points and seven rebounds. James Harden and Brook Lopez each scored 15. Kawhi Leonard had 10 points on 3-of-9 shooting.

It was their most lopsided season-opening loss in 17 years.

Utah made its first 19 shots in the paint, as crisp passing and precise ball movement led to layups and dunks.

Widely expected to finish near the bottom of the NBA this season, the Jazz had 38 assists on 48 baskets and shot 55% from the field. Keyonte George led Utah with nine assists to go with his 16 points.

Ace Bailey, the No. 5 pick in this year’s draft, has been ill and was limited to 20 minutes for the Jazz. He scored two points.

Bradley Beal also was on a minutes restriction in his Clippers debut and had five points.

Taylor Hendricks, who sustained a gruesome broken leg in the third game last season, returned to the court and looked bouncy coming off the bench for Utah. He finished with 13 points and five rebounds.

The Jazz led 78-47 at halftime after shooting 71.8% from the field. The Clippers gave up 78 points in a half only once last season, while the Jazz hadn’t scored that many in a first half since the 2023-24 season.

Utah was 12 for 12 on two-point field goals and added four threes in the first quarter.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday extended her order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago before the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

District Judge April Perry, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, decided to keep the ban until there’s a full trial on the issue or the high court rules.

On Oct. 9, Perry issued the original order that was to expire Thursday.

Five days earlier, Trump ordered the deployment to Chicago.

Her earlier decision came as 200 members of the Texas National Guard arrived at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the south Chicago suburb of Broadway. People opposed to the ICE presence have protested there.

The deployment also included 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and 16 troops from California.

Perry had found there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.” She said the Department of Homeland Security’s information of protests are “unreliable.”

On Thursday, the three-judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals backed Perry’s ruling, writing that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

The Trump administration accused the appeals judges of “judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.”

The federal government filed an emergency appeal to the high court.

Originally, Department of Justice lawyers proposed extending that order another 30 days in a Tuesday filing.

But because a temporary restraining order can only be extended once, the judge warned Wednesday that “whatever extension we make has to be the right one” to prevent a gap in judicial orders “that would allow troops be deployed on the streets.”

In a filing Friday to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said the judicial branch has no right to “second guess” a president’s judgment on national security or military actions. He said the guard is needed to protect federal immigration agents and property from protesters.

Even if the high court stays Perry’s temporary restraining order, the state would seek a “quick trial” or other expedited injunction hearing, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said.

In Portland, Ore., an expedited trial is planned for next week after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned another temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, blocking National Guard deployment there.

On Wednesday night, the Trump administration asked the full circuit not to examine the three-judge ruling.

The district judge in Oregon is planning a hearing on Friday to consider whether to dissolve or suspend the temporary restraining order.

The Trump administration is planning to send dozens of federal agents to San Francisco on Thursday, a source told CNN.

Three of the country’s most powerful judges met in Pasadena on Wednesday for a rare conclave that could rewrite the legal framework for President Trump’s expansive deployment of troops to cities across the United States.

The move to flood Los Angeles with thousands of federalized soldiers over the objection of state and local leaders shocked the country back in June. Five months later, such military interventions have become almost routine.

But whether the deployments can expand — and how long they can continue — relies on a novel reading of an obscure subsection of the U.S. code that determines the president’s ability to dispatch the National Guard and federal service members. That code has been under heated debate in courts across the country.

Virtually all of those cases have turned on the 9th Circuit’s decision in June. The judges found that the law in question requires “a great level of deference” to the president to decide when protest flashes into rebellion, and whether boots on the ground are warranted in response.

On Wednesday, the same three judge panel — Jennifer Sung of Portland, Eric D. Miller of Seattle and Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu — took the rare move of reviewing it, signaling a willingness to dramatically rewrite the terms of engagement that have underpinned Trump’s deployments.

“I guess the question is, why is a couple of hundred people engaging in disorderly conduct and throwing things at a building over the course of two days of comparable severity to a rebellion?” said Miller, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term. “Violence is used to thwart the enforcement of federal law all the time. This happens every day.”

The question he posed has riven the judicial system, splitting district judges from appellate panels and the Pacific Coast from the Midwest. Some of Trump’s judicial appointees have broken sharply with their colleagues on the matter, including on the 9th Circuit. Miller and Bennett appear at odds with Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, who expanded on the court’s June ruling in a decision Monday that allowed federalized troops to deploy in Oregon.

Most agreethat the statute itself is esoteric, vague and untested. Unlike the Insurrection Act, which generations of presidents have used to quell spasms of violent domestic unrest, the law Trump invoked has almost no historical footprint, and little precedent to define it.

“It’s only been used once in the history of our country since it was enacted 122 years ago,” California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt told the court Wednesday.

Attorneys from both sides have turned to legal dictionaries to define the word “rebellion” in their favor, because the statute itself offers no clues.

“Defendants have not put forward a credible understanding of the term ‘rebellion’ in this litigation,” Harbourt told the panel Wednesday. “We’re continuing to see defendants rely on this interpretation across the country and we’re concerned that the breadth of the definition the government has relied on … includes any form of resistance.”

The wiggle room has left courts to lock horns over the most basic facts before them — including whether what the president claims must be provably true.

In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, called the president’s assertions about a rebellion there “untethered to the facts.”

But a separate 9th Circuit panel overruled her, finding the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to use soldiers domestically.

“The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts,” the court wrote in its Monday decision.

Nelson went further, calling the president’s decision “absolute.”

Upon further review, Sung signaled a shift to the opposite interpretation.

“The court says when the statute gives a discretionary power, that is based on certain facts,” she said. “I don’t see the court saying that the underlying decision of whether the factual basis exists is inherently discretionary.”

That sounded much more like the Midwest’s 7th Circuit decision in the Chicago case, which found that nothing in the statute “makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”

“Political opposition is not rebellion,” the 7th Circuit judges wrote. “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.”

The Trump administration’s appeal of that decision is currently before the Supreme Court on the emergency docket.

But experts said even a high court ruling in that case may not dictate what can happen in California — or in New York, for that matter. Even if the justices ruled against the administration, Trump could choose to invoke the Insurrection Act or another law to justify his next moves, an option that he and other officials have repeatedly floated in recent weeks.

The administration has signaled its desire to expand on the power it already enjoys, telling the court Wednesday there was no limit to where troops could be deployed or how long they could remain in the president’s service once he had taken control of them.

“Would it be your view that no matter how much conditions on the ground changed, there would be no ability of the district court or review — in a month, six months, a year, five years — to review whether the conditions still support [deployment]?” Bennett asked.

“Yes,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

Bennett pressed the point, asking whether under the current law the militia George Washington federalized to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 could “stay called up forever” — a position the government again affirmed.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” McArthur said. “The president’s determination of whether the exigency has arisen, that decision is vested in his sole and exclusive discretion.”

Four years after the “Rust” movie shooting, New Mexico officials have moved Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution to federal court.

This week’s filing is the latest twist in the long legal saga after the October 2021 on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, the 67-year-old star and a producer of the western film, had been facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge for his role in Hutchins’ accidental shooting. But the judge overseeing Baldwin’s case abruptly dismissed the charge against him during his July 2024 trial after concluding that prosecutors withheld evidence that may have been helpful to his legal team.

Six months later, Baldwin sued New Mexico’s district attorney and special prosecutors, asserting malicious prosecution. The actor claimed he had been made a celebrity scapegoat because of the intense media pressure on local authorities to solve the high-profile case.

His lawsuit targeted New Mexico special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey, 1st Judicial Dist. Atty. Mary Carmack-Altwies and Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputies, who led the investigation into Hutchins’ death.

The defendants have denied Baldwin’s allegations.

Baldwin’s wrongful prosecution suit was first filed in New Mexico court in Santa Fe.

On Tuesday, the defendants, including Morrissey, exercised their legal right to shift the case to federal court. The decision was made, in part, because “Mr. Baldwin brought federal civil rights claims in his lawsuit,” said Albuquerque attorney Luis Robles, who represents the defendants.

In addition, Baldwin does not live in New Mexico, where the case was filed.

Baldwin could object to the move and petition for it to be brought back to state court. On Wednesday, his team was not immediately available for comment.

A New Mexico judge had dismissed Baldwin’s malicious prosecution claims in July, citing 90 days of inactivity in the case. Baldwin’s legal team petitioned to get the case reinstated and the judge agreed to the request.

That prompted the defendants’ move to shift the case to the higher court.

During his Santa Fe trial last year, Baldwin’s lawyers had sought to turn the focus away from whether Baldwin pulled his gun’s trigger in the accidental shooting to where the lethal bullet came from.

Baldwin’s attorneys repeatedly accused law enforcement officers and prosecutors of bungling the case, including by allegedly hiding potential evidence — a batch of bullets that they said may have been related to the one that killed Hutchins.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — The International Court of Justice said Wednesday that Israel must allow humanitarian aid to Gaza by the United Nations.

The opinion by the United Nations’ highest court is non-binding but has moral and diplomatic weight.

It also said that Israel has not proven its allegations that the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees had a significant number of employees that were members of Hamas. The United Nations denied those claims. There are 13,000 employees of the UNRWA in Gaza.

“The occupying power may never invoke reasons of security to justify the general suspension of all humanitarian activities in occupied territory,” Judge Iwasawa Yuji said while delivering the opinion. “After examining the evidence, the court finds that the local population in Gaza Strip has been inadequately supplied.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said Wednesday that the opinion was “entirely predictable from the outset regarding UNRWA.”

“This is yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of ‘international law,'” it added. Israel said it will not cooperate with UNRWA.

Israel has alleged that UNRWA has more than 1,000 Hamas-affiliated employees and that they teach hatred of Israel in its schools.

In December, the U.N. General Assembly asked the ICJ to decide what legal obligations Israel had regarding U.N. relief agencies. This happened after Israel’s parliament passed a law banning any UNRWA activity in Israeli territory.

Sam Rose, UNRWA’s acting Gaza director, told the BBC that the opinion “underscores the obligations of Israel under international law.”

“The ruling of today says that Israel’s laws against UNRWA have gone against those obligations, as have its actions on the ground,” he said.

While the world recognized that there was famine and starvation in Gaza last summer, Israel continued to deny it, often blocking any aid to reach hungry Gazans.

“The IDF emphasizes that there is no starvation in Gaza,” an IDF post said in July. “This is a false campaign promoted by Hamas.”

The populist government has blamed the 2024 attack on ‘hatred’ spread by opposition and critical media.

A Slovak court has convicted the pensioner who shot Prime Minister Robert Fico last year of a “terror attack” and sentenced him to 21 years in prison.

The Specialised Criminal Court in Banska Bystrica convicted and sentenced 72-year-old Juraj Cintula on Tuesday, saying he had acted “with a motivation to stop a proper functioning of the government” in a “particularly serious” crime.

Cintula, a poet from Levice in western Slovakia, shot Fico four times at close range on May 15, 2024 as the premier left a government meeting in central Slovakia.

He later claimed he was driven by “moral despair”. Fico was left seriously wounded but returned to work two months later.

The shooting and subsequent trial have shaken the small NATO-member country.

Now serving his fourth term as prime minister, Fico has repeatedly accused the liberal opposition and media of fuelling the assassination attempt, without presenting evidence.

Prosecutors originally charged Cintula with premeditated murder, but they later reclassified the shooting as a “terror attack”, citing his political motivation.

Critics have said that since the shooting, the populist Fico has become increasingly divisive, accelerating his alignment of Slovakia’s foreign policy with Russia, increasing criticism of the European Union, and implementing authoritarian and hardline conservative policy.

‘Most likely appeal’

“It was worth it,” local media quoted Cintula as shouting as he left court earlier this month after giving his closing trial statement.

After the shooting, Cintula had told police he wanted to protest against steps taken by Fico’s government, including the halting of military aid to war-ravaged Ukraine, according to a leaked video.

He claimed he had sought to hurt, but not kill, the prime minister.

In his final trial statement, a visibly emotional Cintula told the court he had been overcome with “moral despair”, accusing the prime minister of being “drunk with power” and making “irrational decisions that damage this country”.

He called his defence “a manifesto … for all those who feel that the arrogance of power, corruption and lies has no place in the country where our children will grow up”.

“The premier … embodied years of accumulated frustration and despair,” Cintula said.

Cintula’s lawyer, Namir Alyasry, told reporters after the hearing that he would “most likely appeal” the verdict.

The prime minister was not present at the trial and did not immediately comment on the verdict.

He previously said he forgave the attacker, whom he described as merely a “messenger of evil and political hatred” developed by the “politically unsuccessful and frustrated opposition”.

Since his return to office in 2023, Fico’s government has launched a crackdown on nonprofit organisations, cultural institutions and some media outlets it deems “hostile”, prompting mass protests.

Fico has also angered the opposition by calling for an end to Slovakia’s support for Ukraine, criticising EU sanctions targeting Russia and saying he would not allow Ukraine to join NATO.

Last month, the Slovak parliament approved a constitutional amendment to limit the rights of same-sex couples as part of a sweeping change that also states that national law takes precedence over EU law.

Dissenting justice says decision ‘erodes core constitutional principles’ and risks violating freedom of expression.

A United States court of appeals has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can move forward with plans to deploy soldiers to Portland, Oregon, despite the absence of any serious emergency and the objections of state and local officials.

The Monday ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court will allow the Trump administration to send 200 National Guard members to the Democrat-run city.

“After considering the record at this preliminary stage, we conclude that it is likely that the President lawfully exercised his statutory authority” when he federalised the state’s National Guard, the three-judge panel stated.

The Trump administration has deployed armed forces to Democrat-run cities across the country, along with aggressive immigration raids in which heavily-armed federal agents wearing masks have pulled people off the streets, demanding that they prove their legal status.

Many US citizens have also been swept up in those raids, during which civil liberty groups have accused immigration agents of operating based on racial profiling, and detaining people without cause.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed disappointment in the court’s decision.

“As the founders emphasised, domestic deployment of troops should be reserved for rare, extreme emergencies as a last resort, but that is far from what the Trump administration is doing in Portland, Chicago, Los Angeles, and DC,” Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a statement.

“The presence of troops in otherwise beautiful vibrant American cities erodes a sense of safety and undermines the core freedoms to assemble and voice dissent.”

The Trump administration has claimed that Portland is “war-ravaged” by protesters, who it says are blocking immigration enforcement measures, despite the absence of any serious crisis conditions in the city. Trump and his allies have often employed vague allegations of emergency conditions as a pretext for wielding extraordinary powers both at home and abroad.

Demonstrators have worn costumes while protesting outside of immigration facilities, sometimes donning dinosaur and frog outfits and blasting music. Federal agents have faced criticism of using excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.

“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement], observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” Circuit Judge Susan Graber wrote after casting the dissenting vote on the panel’s ruling.

“But today’s decision is not merely absurd. It erodes core constitutional principles, including sovereign States’ control over their States’ militias and the people’s First Amendment rights to assemble and to object to the government’s policies and actions.”

Oct. 20 (UPI) — A federal appeals court Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to federalize and deploy the Oregon National Guard into what he is calling “war-ravaged” Portland.

Monday’s 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reverses a temporary restraining order that blocked the troops, as the administration challenges a lawsuit filed by Oregon and Portland officials. The case is still scheduled for trial on Oct. 29.

Last month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth authorized the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard troops after the president called Portland a “war-ravaged” city and said the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices there were “under siege.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut extended two temporary restraining orders, saying the president could not federalize Oregon’s National Guard as, “This is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.” The Trump administration promptly appealed Immergut’s first restraining order to the Ninth Circuit.

“Even if the president may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis to support the statutory requirements,” Monday’s order read.

“Rather than reviewing the president’s determination with great deference, the district court substituted its own determination of the relevant facts and circumstances.”

At a hearing on Oct. 9, the 9th Circuit judges heard 20-minute arguments from Oregon attorneys and from the U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department attorneys argued that the troops are needed to protect Portland’s ICE facility following protester clashes with federal agents. Oregon officials claimed the administration was exaggerating.

Portland is one of several cities where the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard. The administration has also deployed troops to Memphis, Tenn., and is working to deploy the National Guard to Chicago to curb crime and protect federal buildings, as ICE agents crack down on illegal immigration.

Trump said earlier this month he would be open to invoking the Insurrection Act, “if necessary” to deploy the National Guard.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide if “habitual drug users” lose their gun rights under the 2nd Amendment.

The Trump administration is defending a federal gun control law dating to 1968 and challenging the rulings of two conservative appeals court that struck down the ban on gun possession by any “unlawful user” of illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Trump’s lawyers say this limit on gun rights comports with early American history when “common drunkards” were prohibited from having guns.

And they argue this “modest, modern” limit make sense because well-armed drug addicts “present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired.”

The government says the ban applies only to addicts and “habitual users of illegal drugs,” not to all those who have used drugs on occasion or in the past.

Under this interpretation, the law “imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction — one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use,” the administration’s attorneys told the court.

The appeal noted that California and 31 other states have laws restricting gun possession by drug users and drug addicts, all of which could be nullified by a broad reading of the 2nd Amendment

The court said it will hear the case of a Texas man and a Pakistani native who came under investigation by the FBI for allegedly working with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

When agents with warrant searched the home of Ali Denali Hemani, they found a Glock pistol, 60 grams of marijuana, and 4.7 grams of cocaine. He told the agents he used marijuana about every other day.

He was charged with violating the federal gun control law, but the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans ruled this ban on gun possession violates the 2nd Amendment unless the defendant was under the influence of drugs when he was arrested.

The 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis adopted a similar view that gun ban for drug users is unconstitutional.

The Trump administration asked the justices to hear the case of U.S. vs. Hemani and to reverse the two lower courts. Arguments are likely to be heard in January.

Last year, the justices rejected a gun rights claim in another case from Texas and ruled that a man charged with domestic violence can lose his rights to have firearms.

Historically, people who “threaten physical harm to others” have lost their legal rights to guns, Chief Justice John G. Roberts said in an 8-1 decision.

Oct. 20 (UPI) — Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol officials are expected to appear in court on Monday to after a judge last week demanded the agency answer questions about its operations in Chicago.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis for the Northern District of Illinois on Friday ordered ICE and Border Patrol officers to wear body cameras. They were expected in court to explain their tactics, including the use of tear gas, as officers and residents have clashed across the city.

The case was brought as Operation Midway Blitz has led to the arrest of more than 1,000 people in Illinois over the past month after the Trump administration sent federal forces there.

Ellis, who was nominated for the bench by former President Barack Obama, on Thursday ordered federal agents to stop dispersing crowds from places they are legally permitted to be, stop using tear gas on people who are not a threat and start wearing the cameras.

On Friday, she reiterated these orders to both agencies and noted that “that wasn’t a suggestion … it’s not up for debate.”

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that the tactics used by both agencies, which have included using pepper balls and pepper spray against people with no warning, are violating their constitutional rights — and the agencies continue to use them, despite Ellis ordering them to stop in early October.

Both agencies have not followed the judicial orders, and Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin went so far as to suggest they do not exist.

“There is currently no order requiring body cameras, and any suggestion to the contrary is false reporting,” she said, adding that “were a court to enter such an order in the future, it would be an act of extreme judicial activism.”

The judge ruled NSO caused ‘irreparable harm’ to Meta, but said an earlier award of $168m in damages was ‘excessive’.

A United States judge has granted an injunction barring Israeli spyware maker the NSO Group from targeting WhatsApp users, saying the firm’s software causes “direct harm” but slashed an earlier damages award of $168m to just $4m.

In a ruling on Friday granting WhatsApp owner Meta an injunction to stop NSO’s spyware from being used in the messaging service, district judge Phyllis Hamilton said the Israeli firm’s “conduct causes irreparable harm”, adding that there was “no dispute that the conduct is ongoing”.

Hamilton said NSO’s conduct “serves to defeat” one of the key purposes of the service offered by WhatsApp: privacy.

“Part of what companies such as WhatsApp are ‘selling’ is informational privacy, and any unauthorised access is an interference with that sale,” she said.

In her ruling, Hamilton said that evidence at trial showed that NSO reverse-engineered WhatsApp code to stealthily install its spyware Pegasus on users’ phones, and repeatedly redesigned it to escape detection and bypass security fixes.

NSO was founded in 2010 and is based in the Israeli seaside tech hub of Herzliya, near Tel Aviv.

Pegasus – a highly invasive software marketed as a tool for law enforcement to fight crime and terrorism – allows operators to remotely embed spyware in devices.

NSO says it only sells the spyware to vetted and legitimate government law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But Meta, which owns WhatsApp, filed a lawsuit in California federal court in late 2019, accusing NSO of exploiting its encrypted messaging service to target journalists, lawyers and human rights activists with its spyware.

Independent experts have also said NSO’s software has been used by nation states, some with poor human rights records, to target critics.

Judge Hamilton said her broad injunction was appropriate given NSO’s “multiple design-arounds” to infect WhatsApp users – including missed phone calls and “zero-click” attacks – as well as the “covert nature” of the firm’s work more generally.

Will Cathcart, the head of WhatsApp, said in a statement that the “ruling bans spyware maker NSO from ever targeting WhatsApp and our global users again”.

“We applaud this decision that comes after six years of litigation to hold NSO accountable for targeting members of civil society. It sets an important precedent that there are serious consequences to attacking an American company,” he said.

Meta had asked Hamilton to extend the injunction to its other products – including Facebook, Instagram and Threads – but the judge ruled there was no way for her to determine if similar harms were being done on the other platforms without more evidence.

Hamilton also ruled that an initial award of $168m against NSO for damages to Meta in May this year was excessive, determining that the court did not have “sufficient basis” to support the jury’s initial calculation.

“There have simply not yet been enough cases involving unlawful electronic surveillance in the smartphone era for the court to be able to conclude that defendants’ conduct was ‘particularly egregious’,” Hamilton wrote.

The judge ruled that the punitive damages ratio should therefore be “capped at 9/1”, reducing the initial sum by about $164m to just $4m.

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

WASHINGTON — President Trump asked the Supreme Court on Friday to uphold his deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago.

His lawyers filed an emergency appeal urging the court to set aside rulings of judges in Chicago and hold that National Guard troops are needed to protect U.S. immigration agents from hostile protesters.

The case escalates the clash between Trump and Democratic state officials over immigration enforcement and raises again the question of using military-style force in American cities. Trump’s lawyers have repeatedly gone to the Supreme Court and won quick rulings when lower-court judges have blocked his actions.

Federal law authorizes the president to call into service the National Guard if he cannot “execute the laws of the United States” or faces “a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority” of the U.S. government.

“Both conditions are satisfied here,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Judges in Chicago came to the opposite conclusion. U.S. District Judge April Perry saw no “danger of rebellion” and said the laws were being enforced. She accused Trump’s lawyers of exaggerating claims of violence and equating “protests with riots.”

She handed down a restraining order on Oct. 9, and the 7th Circuit Court agreed to keep it in force.

But Trump’s lawyers insisted that protesters and demonstrators were targeting U.S. immigration agents and preventing them from doing their work.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law, the President lawfully determines that he is unable to enforce the laws of the United States with the regular forces and calls up the National Guard to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in a 40-page appeal.

He argued that historically the president has had the full authority to decide on whether to call up the militia. Judges may not second-guess the president’s decision, he said.

“Any such review [by judges] must be highly deferential, as the 9th Circuit has concluded in the Newsom litigation,” referring to the ruling that upheld Trump’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles.

Trump’s lawyer said the troop deployment to Los Angeles had succeeded in reducing violence.

“Notwithstanding the Governor of California’s claim that deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles would ‘escalat[e]’ the ongoing violence that California itself had failed to prevent … the President’s action had the opposite, intended effect. In the face of federal military force, violence in Los Angeles decreased and the situation substantially improved,” he told the court.

But in recent weeks, “Chicago has been the site of organized and often violent protests directed at ICE officers and other federal personnel engaged in the execution of federal immigration laws,” he wrote. “On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protesters. … Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them.”

“More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement” at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations, he wrote.

Officials in Illinois blamed aggressive enforcement actions of ICE agents for triggering the protests.

Sauer also urged the court to hand down an immediate order that would freeze Perry’s rulings.

The court asked for a response from Illinois officials by Monday.