court

The high court grants an emergency petition ahead of expected arguments in the case, slated for December.

The United States Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to continue third-country deportations, halting a lower-court ruling that paused such removals over questions of due process.

On Tuesday, the high court granted the administration’s emergency request to resume the deportations, which involve sending immigrants to countries they may have no connection to.

The court’s order was unsigned, as is typical for an emergency petition. It also does not include an explanation or a list of how the justices voted.

But at the bottom of Tuesday’s order, the court’s three left-leaning justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan – indicated they would have denied the Trump administration’s petition.

The Supreme Court’s decision to pause the lower court ruling is temporary. The order calls for arguments to be heard in December.

That hearing comes as Trump administration continues its appeal against the lower court’s ruling, handed down by Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, Massachusetts.

Murphy had ruled that immigrants must be given a “meaningful” chance to raise safety concerns before their removal to third-party countries.

In pausing such deportations, Murphy indicated that some immigrants may have been denied the opportunity to challenge their deportations as part of their due process rights.

Tuesday, however, is not the first time the Supreme Court justices have weighed in on the practice of forcibly sending people to third countries, which Trump dramatically stepped up since his return to office in 2025.

Trump campaigned on a pledge to implement the “largest deportation operation in American history”, and his officials have argued that third-country deportations are a means of removing individuals whose home countries may not accept them.

In June 2025, the Supreme Court also issued an unsigned order allowing such removals to proceed.

That cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan, a country the US State Department advises against visiting because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”.

The Department of Homeland Security at the time called the removals “a win”, while rights groups said the move flouted basic legal protections.

Critics have expressed concern that many of the governments receiving third-country deportations have a record of human rights abuses.

Third-country deportations have been used to bypass court protection orders that prevent immigrants from being sent back to their home countries due to fears of persecution.

But advocates say that some of those third-party countries have ultimately sent deportees, including asylum seekers, back to the places where they feared they would be at risk of torture or other harms.

At least 35 countries have signed agreements with the Trump administration to take in the third-country nationals, according to a tally by the nonprofits Refugees International and Human Rights First.

The groups estimate that more than 25,000 people have been subject to third-country deportations so far.

On Monday, human rights experts at the United Nations wrote to the ‌US ‌government urging a halt to such removals, warning they were putting deportees at heightened risk of abuse.

“At gravest risk are children, women, persons with disabilities, victims of trafficking, LGBT persons, human rights defenders, stateless persons and other people in extremely vulnerable situations,” the experts said.

On Tuesday, Burundi became the latest country to enter an agreement with the US to take non-citizen deportations.

Officials said the country would only take in people who were not facing prosecution and had no links to “terrorism”.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Trump’s administration continue swiftly deporting people to countries other than their own for now, while the justices consider whether the policy is legal.

The apparent 6-3 order halts a lower-court decision. It requires the government to give migrants a chance to object before they are sent to countries to which they have no ties.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in December.

The Trump administration said the lower-court order forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people bound for three countries last week.

The justices have sided with the administration once before on the core Trump administration policy, allowing deportation flights to temporarily continue last year.

The court said it will consider several questions: whether the policy is lawful, whether lower courts had the authority to issue a sweeping block and other questions the government deems appropriate.

Under a series of often-secret agreements, the Trump administration has deported some 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries, including Liberia and Guyana. The vast majority have been sent to Mexico.

Trump’s Republican administration has said that it sends people with final deportation orders to third countries when they can’t be returned to their homelands or their native countries won’t accept them, including those who have criminal convictions. Those governments provide assurances that people won’t be persecuted or tortured, federal attorneys said.

But some migrants have nevertheless found themselves imprisoned in countries they’d never heard of before their arrivals. Others also face serious safety risks and are left with little choice except to return to the home countries they were fleeing. Many have no criminal convictions and have been found to be at risk of torture or persecution, attorneys for the immigrants said.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Trump administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Monday is expected to approve a bipartisan bill that would give the NCAA and its member conferences the authority to enforce uniform national rules on college athletics.

If the bill is passed by the Senate, it would move to the House and, if approved, on to President Trump for his signature to become law.

What the Protect College Sports Act would do

Under the Protect College Sports Act — co-authored by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) — the NCAA would be granted a limited antitrust exemption that would allow the organization to create standardized rules around athlete eligibility, limit conference realignment and prevent the creation of a super league — a private-equity model for college sports that would replace NCAA subdivisions.

The bill is also an attempt to codify the $2.8-billion antitrust settlement reached last year in House vs. NCAA, which allowed Division 1 schools to share revenue with their current players and compensate past players. The new bill would increase the revenue sharing cap to around $50 million per school from $21.5 million, albeit with a more strict and enforceable model.

Under Name, Image and Likeness deals, wealthier schools were able to circumvent the “soft” $21.5-million cap by lining up lucrative corporate sponsorships and endorsements for prospective athletes. The bill would allow the NCAA to crack down on attempts to bypass the limit by incorporating booster or affiliated-entity money into total revenue sharing calculations, while also giving schools an additional $27 million in the funding cap to retain current athletes.

Potential boost for smaller schools

A potential consequence of the bill could be that big-name programs lose their ability to draw the best college athletes with promises of massive compensation, allowing smaller programs to compete under NCAA regulations.

The NCAA and its affiliates have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying for congressional intervention on its rule-making power over the last seven years. Supporters of the bill, including Cruz, have said the bill would bring order and consistent regulation to college sports.

“If we’re going to be having a national competition … it is only Congress that can establish a clear and enforceable legal rule book,” Cruz said on the Senate floor last week.

Influential figures in college sports, including former Alabama head football coach Nick Saban and ESPN analyst Pat McAfee, have publicly called on Congress to pass the measure. It has also drawn support from 24 of the NCAA’s athletic conferences.

“Congress does need to fix the mess in the courts and create a national framework so the people inside college sports can enforce fair rules,” Saban said during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee hearing in June. “Without that legal certainty, every rule becomes another lawsuit, every standard becomes another risk, and the system keeps drifting toward a professional model.”

What the opponents say

The legislation is not without its opponents. Some players, labor organizations and members of Congress argue that the bill would prevent highly sought-after college athletes from participating in their own negotiation process.

“What this bill does, at its core, is protect a system of exploitation,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said in an AFL-CIO trade union press release. “This bill protects the billions of dollars that coaches and executives are making by suppressing compensation for some of the most highly valued athletes in the world.”

The Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have also brought forward concerns that the bill does not allow Black athletes — who make up a majority of players in the football and basketball programs — into the collective bargaining process.

The NCAA plans to enforce a five-year eligibility rule, cap agent fees at 5%, put penalties on second transfers and codify student-athlete protections, such as 10-year degree completion assistance and post-eligibility healthcare. If the bill passes, all challenges to these rules would have to be handled in federal court.

Some senior Republican officials in the House, including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) and Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), have expressed some hesitance in passing the legislation without clarity as to whether student-athletes will be considered employees and if further limits should be placed on international student-athletes. If changes are made in the House, the bill would be returned to the Senate for another vote.

Support from Trump

Trump, on the other hand, has expressed strong support for the bill.

“THE PROTECT COLLEGE SPORTS ACT is a great Bill, and the Senate will hopefully stay in D.C. until it passes,” he wrote on Truth Social last month. “Without this Bill, millions of young Athletes will be hurt, programs will be canceled … the fans will be robbed, and Universities will go broke”

Spain’s Swiftair was fined 225,000 euros ($256,000) in France for corporate manslaughter over the 2014 Air Algerie disaster in Mali.

A Paris court has found Swiftair guilty of corporate manslaughter over the 2014 Air Algerie crash that killed 116 people in northern Mali.

On Monday, a French judge ordered the Spanish airline to pay the maximum fine in France of 225,000 euros ($256,000) for corporate manslaughter after a three-week trial earlier this year.

Air Algerie Flight AH5017 was flying from Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkina Faso, to Algiers, Algeria when it crashed less than an hour after takeoff in July 2014, killing everyone on board.

The Swiftair-owned McDonnell Douglas MD-83 was operated by the Spanish airline on behalf of the Algerian carrier.

Investigators said the aircraft went into a stall when it was hit ‌by ⁠ice as an anti-icing system remained switched off.

On Monday, the court ⁠said “negligence” in Swiftair’s training with icy conditions had played a role.

The captain had failed to complete an adequate proficiency check, while the crew lacked the required refresher flights following a period of inactivity.

“This ruling comes as a relief to families who have been fighting for more than 12 years for justice to be done,” said Sebastien Busy, a lawyer representing a group of relatives.

The airline has 10 days to appeal the ruling.

Swiftair attempted to have the trial dropped on the grounds that a Spanish court previously dismissed the case without any charges.

In a statement to AFP, Swiftair reiterated that the trial should not have gone ahead and that safety regulations had been followed.

The ruling marks the second time an airline has been found guilty of corporate manslaughter in France after Air France and Airbus were both ⁠found guilty earlier this year over the 2009 crash of a jetliner flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. The crash killed all 228 people on board, marking the worst aviation disaster in French history.

DENVER — The office of Colorado’s attorney general is a perch 10 stories above downtown Denver. From his aerie, Phil Weiser has a sweeping view of the city skyline, the gold-domed Capitol and, occasionally, a red hawk on the wing.

But looking toward November, Weiser sees something darker.

Federal agents swarming polling places. Voters intimidated or blocked from casting their ballots. A tyrannical president using his powers, real and imagined, to undermine or try to overturn the Nov. 3 election.

“With this administration what we have seen is it’s important that we not limit our imagination to what … type of harm could happen,” Weiser said during a sunny noon hour in the Mile High City.

For that reason, Colorado’s attorney general and his Democratic peers around the country have spent more than a year strategizing — by phone, via Zoom, sometimes in person — on ways to Trump-proof the midterm election.

They’ve researched history and the law, war-gamed what-ifs, divvied up responsibilities and drafted emergency lawsuits and temporary restraining orders so they can be hurried into court at a moment’s notice.

“We have prepared for a range of contingencies … so that we’re ready to act,” Weiser said.

“We’re not going to be reacting in real time” or pulling all-nighters, he added. “We are going to be following through on plans we’ve made, having looked at what’s possible.”

The efforts of Weiser, California’s Rob Bonta and more than 20 other Democratic attorneys general are part of a mass mobilization aimed at thwarting Trump’s unprecedented efforts to pervert and subvert November’s midterm balloting.

It’s remarkable that kind of man-the-barricades action is needed to preserve and protect the voting franchise in this, the land of the free and home of the brave. But having weighed the threats, Weiser said his greatest fear of election interference comes not from a bad overseas actor or some terrorist group, but rather our own federal government “and what this administration might do.”

So here we are.

To fend off that threat from within, state Democratic parties across the nation are aiming to recruit 10,000 volunteers to guard polling places in the event armed federal agents show up.

Various sponsors have launched education campaigns to explain election rules and offer hotlines for voters who have trouble casting their ballot.

Civil rights groups and democracy-defending organizations have staged their own tabletop exercises brainstorming and rehearsing various scenarios. A group of Democratic U.S. senators has done the same.

“What we’re doing is preparing for the fact that Donald Trump, in 2020, lied about the election in advance, lied about it in the aftermath, went to court … and then he instigated a violent insurrection in this very building,” Marc Elias, a Democratic elections attorney, told MS NOW in a July interview at the Capitol. “So I think we need to take these threats in the 2026 midterm run-up … both seriously and literally.”

In a more courageous, less heedlessly partisan world, Republicans would be working with Democrats to keep the power-drunk Trump in check. (The House and Senate supposedly comprise a separate and equal branch of government, with its own power, prerogatives and such.)

But, as Weiser noted, this Republican-led Congress “has been lacking in backbone, lacking in the role of checks and balances. That has left it to state attorneys general to fill that vacuum, going to court and essentially playing the role of a check on a lawless and often bullying president.”

The nation’s 24 Democratic attorneys general have filed more than 125 lawsuits in Trump’s second term alone, fighting his moves on trade and tariffs, energy and immigration policies and efforts to gut or eliminate programs and whole government agencies. They’ve prevailed in the overwhelming majority of cases that have been adjudicated or settled.

Even before Trump was elected again, some attorneys general began conferring on ways to fight the excesses they anticipated in a second administration. Anyone who didn’t see them coming wasn’t paying attention, said Weiser, who, most likely, will be elected Colorado’s next governor on Nov. 3.

(His victory in Colorado’s Democratic primary stemmed in good part from Weiser’s record battling Trump in court.)

“The worst-case scenario was that a Trump presidency would work to implement Project 2025 and would do things like try to end birthright citizenship, try to interfere with the delivery of ballots in the mail, would seek to use ICE in ways that were a basic affront to the rule of law,” Weiser said. “All those things have happened.”

So why not expect more of the same come November?

Trump is constitutionally (small “c”) incapable of acknowledging the result of any election he didn’t win. He’s openly urged supporters to “cheat like hell.” Thus, one can only assume malign intent when the president tries to wantonly purge voter rolls, hijack the U.S. Postal service to gum up mail balloting and override the Constitution (capital “c”) by federalizing November’s election.

Some might call such fears melodramatic, or overblown.

But as Weiser said, “We need to stay nervous and stay vigiliant because [of] what this president has shown, Jan. 6 being one of the telling examples.”

Trump’s refusal to accept the outcome of elections “is historic,” the attorney general said. “It is unique. It’s a threat. And it’s why we have to stand our guard.”

Vote, to bring this rogue president to heel. Stay vigilant, to make sure that vote counts.

Two good watchwords for this midterm election.

Crowd gathers on Garvaghy Road early on Sunday morning to protest against the ruling allowing the march.

Northern Ireland’s High Court has permitted the Orange Order, a Protestant organisation, to march through a mainly Catholic area in the town of Portadown for the first time in 28 years, reviving one of the region’s most contentious marching disputes.

The court rejected a final attempt by residents to stop the parade passing through the Garvaghy Road early on Sunday, after Northern Ireland’s Court of Appeal overturned a temporary injunction granted on Saturday.

Large crowds gathered on the road before the procession, with the Belfast Telegraph reporting that protesters planned to block the route peacefully by linking arms.

First Minister Michelle O’Neill, vice president of Sinn Fein, an Irish nationalist party that supports a united Ireland, joined residents opposing the march.

In a statement posted on X on Sunday, she backed their right to protest and urged restraint, saying, “I am calling for calm on all sides.”

Sinn Fein leader Mary Lou McDonald also condemned the court decision in a post on X early on Sunday, calling it “disgraceful” and saying her party stood with the Garvaghy Road community.

Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly, from the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which supports Northern Ireland remaining part of the United Kingdom, urged people to stay away from the area.

She said on Sunday that threats of violence were unacceptable and added: “No one in Northern Ireland wants violence or disorder.”

The Orange Order is a Protestant organisation closely associated with unionism, the political tradition that favours Northern Ireland remaining in the UK.

The Parades Commission, the independent body that rules on disputed marches in Northern Ireland, approved Sunday’s procession with a 35-person limit, barred bands and accompanying supporters, and required the march to finish by 9:30am (08:30 GMT).

The dispute over the Drumcree parade and Garvaghy Road became one of the most bitter marching confrontations of the “Troubles”, the decades-long conflict over Northern Ireland’s political status that largely ended with the 1998 Good Friday Agreement.

Repeated attempts by the Orange Order to return from Drumcree church along Garvaghy Road triggered protests, violence and major security operations during the 1990s.

WASHINGTON — For the third time this month, the Supreme Court has rejected Missouri’s bid for one more Republican-leaning congressional district.

With no dissents, the justices upheld a state court order requiring the use of a 2022 election map, which favors Republicans in six of the eight districts.

“At this late date, ordering reversion to the 2025 map in the midst of an ongoing election would usher in electoral chaos,” the justices wrote.

The GOP, with the backing of conservative federal judges, wanted to use a new 2025 election map that redrew the district in Kansas City that had elected a Black Democrat.

That would have given Republicans a 7-1 advantage, but the Supreme Court stood in the way.

“As a matter of state law, the 2022 map — not the 2025 map — must be used in the 2026 congressional election,” the justices said in an unsigned opinion. “This Court has repeatedly cautioned that lower federal courts should not ‘alter the election rules of a state on the eve of an election.”

Each side in this messy dispute accused the other of seeking to change the voting districts on the eve of the election.

On Tuesday, the opponents of the newly drawn GOP-friendly map appealed to the Supreme Court for the third time. They said it is too late to switch the districts because ballots had gone out based on the existing map.

They said the Republicans “demand a new map after votes have already been cast. Ballots using the 2022 map have been printed and mailed, and absentee voting, both by mail and in-person, began today.”

But the state’s Republican attorneys said the primary elections took place under the new 2025 map, and that argues for keeping those districts in place for the general election in November.

Last September, the Missouri General Assembly, following President Trump’s lead, voted to redraw its eight congressional districts. In recent years, the state had sent six Republicans and two Democrats to Congress.

The Legislature’s goal was to flip one more seat in favor of Republicans. The new map would do that by breaking up the Kansas City district that had elected Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, a Black Democrat, with a new district that favored a Republican.

But a group called People Not Politicians and its executive director, Richard von Glahn, gathered more than 300,000 signatures for a referendum to challenge the new law before it took effect.

After waiting nine months to respond, Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, a Republican, denied the referendum in early August on the same day the primary elections got underway.

Von Glahn and his group of voters sued and won a unanimous decision from the Missouri Supreme Court on Sept. 3. Its judges said the state Constitution authorizes such a referendum and a new election map cannot take effect until the voters have spoken.

Hoskins filed an emergency appeal at the Supreme Court and cited the “chaotic fallout” from the state court “irresponsible decision.”

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who oversees appeals from the 8th Circuit Court based in St. Louis, denied the appeal without comment on Sept. 8.

But shortly after his decision was issued, U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that prohibited the state from using the any voting map other than the new one.

People not Politicians appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

On Sept. 10, Kavanaugh and the full court granted the appeal and blocked the judge’s order from taking effect.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, but the meaning of the order was clear. The state Supreme Court ruling meant the new map could not be used for this year’s election.

But that did not stop the 8th Circuit Court from ruling the state must use the new map.

Siding with several Republican candidates, a 2-1 majority said the use of 2022 map was unconstitutional because the primary elections were held under the new map. Its decision ordered the elections to be held using the new map.

This was a surprising ruling, since the Supreme Court’s order on Sept. 10 barred judges in Missouri from intervening further in the dispute over the voting maps.

But after a third trip to the court, the justices said the state must use the 2022 map.

Voting rights groups have warned system may falsely identify voters as non-citizens, leading to disenfranchisement.

The United States Supreme Court has allowed the administration of US President Donald Trump to use a controversial voter verification system just weeks away from the midterm election in November.

The court’s emergency order on Friday allows the Department of Homeland Security to use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, programme in its efforts to verify the eligibility of voters on state voter rolls.

Voting rights groups have argued the use of the system, which was revamped under the Trump administration in 2025, risks falsely identifying individuals as non-voters, potentially leading to individuals being wrongfully purged from voter rolls.

Those challenging the administration’s use of the database have charged that information on citizenship can be out of date. They pointed to a Travis County, Texas election official who found that up to 25 percent of the “non-citizens” identified by the system in the jurisdiction were in fact US citizens.

US states oversee election administration under the country’s constitution and are not required to use the SAVE system, but several Republican-led state governments have voluntarily opted to use the database.

Still, it was not immediately clear if Friday’s decision would have any meaningful impact on the midterm elections on November 3, in which voters will determine which parties control the US House of Representatives and the Senate.

Existing law blocks most states from systematically purging voters from their rolls within 90 days of an election. The emergency order is not also the final say on the matter, only granting the administration the ability to use the system until the court makes a final ruling.

The three liberal justices on the panel, which has a 6-3 conservative supermajority, issued a dissenting opinion, saying the majority disregarded “the harms that the modified SAVE system has caused, and will likely continue to cause, to lawful voters”.

The Citizens for Ethics watchdog group charged that the decision “puts millions of Americans at risk of being unlawfully targeted by the admin’s unreliable voter purge system weeks before the midterms”.

Trump has focused heavily on election administration in the run-up to the midterm vote, which could serve as a major check on his authority in the final two years of his term.

He has for years claimed, without evidence, that US elections are marred by widespread fraud and has repeatedly falsely claimed the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, was “stolen”.

Evidence has suggested that fraud of any kind, including instances of non-citizens voting in the US, has been glancingly rare in the country.

In September, the Supreme Court rejected a bid from Trump to restrict mail ballot procedures before the midterm election.

SACRAMENTO — Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco got slapped down Thursday by the California Supreme Court in not one but two cases. Ouch.

First, the court told Bianco to return more than 600,000 ballots he had seized as part of an ill-conceived, conspiracy-laden “investigation” into voter fraud — making it clear it was the sheriff who was the criminal.

“The seizure of the ballots was unlawful,” the court wrote, before ordering Bianco to give them back to the registrar of voters and “refrain from further handling of the ballots except as necessary to comply with our order.”

Then the court, in a separate case, told Bianco he’s not a law unto himself, and in fact does have a boss in the form of the state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta. Bonta had previously ordered Bianco to pause his investigation, and Bianco largely ignored him.

The court found that the constitutional authority held by the attorney general “includes the power to give binding directions to sheriffs.”

While the high-profile lawsuit about Bianco’s seizure of hundreds of thousands of ballots from last year’s special election on redistricting has grabbed headlines, the second case about the authority of the state attorney general to oversee all California sheriffs and district attorneys is equally powerful.

It’s the first time the court has weighed in on a long-running debate in California over whether elected sheriffs have to answer to anyone. Not only did Bianco lose for election deniers everywhere in the first case, he also managed to clarify for all California sheriffs in the second case that they are not as powerful as some would like to believe.

Combined, the two opinions by the state’s highest court give another layer of assurance to Golden State residents that the integrity of the November midterm elections is as secure as the state can make it — some welcome news in a national landscape where free and fair elections are increasingly at risk.

The quiet advocate

Before we get into what the ruling means for midterms in California, there are two overlooked bits that make these cases even more interesting.

First, gubernatorial candidate and former Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra has been closely involved in the ballot-seizing case, but also pretty quiet about it.

Whenever a politician does something good and doesn’t advertise it, it always catches my attention. Politicians, especially ones running for office, aren’t big on modesty.

But Becerra has not spent a lot of time talking about this, even though he is actually a working attorney on this case, as an advisor to the UCLA Voting Rights Project. He came up with ideas, he participated — this wasn’t just a put-my-name-on-it role, I’ve been told by folks who know.

And it’s not the first time Becerra has helped the Voting Rights Project in a major endeavor. It was their work that helped define the legal arguments that made Proposition 50 happen. That’s last year’s ballot initiative that redrew California voting maps to favor Democrats, in response to a Texas effort to gerrymander in favor of Republicans. It was Proposition 50 ballots that Bianco seized.

“Today the California Supreme Court handed voters a great victory,” Becerra said in a statement from the voting project. “The Court knocked election deniers off their feet and strengthened our hand in election protection just ahead of the November vote. We must use every lever at our disposal to beat back voter interference and intimidation.”

That line about knocking election deniers is not hyperbole. In some far-right, conspiracy-rich circles, Bianco’s cowboy-saving-the-day routine was viewed as heroic. Maybe even something to emulate.

Across the country, there are rumblings — including from President Trump — about seizing ballots from past or future elections. While this ruling is firmly rooted in California law, most states have similar chains of custody when it comes to ballots. So it’s likely to at least make other would-be-Biancos pause.

In a later interview, Becerra told me that the Voting Rights Project was “the one thing I decided I would do after I came home from being secretary in Washington, D.C.,” whether he ran for office or not, “just because I so believe in the work that they do.”

He said as he campaigns this year, he’s seeing anxiety in minority communities from that interference and intimidation, maybe even fear that could pressure some legal voters to sit this one out.

“It makes it tough when you’ve got all these things standing in your way before you even get to thinking about going to vote,” Becerra said. “The Latino community, other communities, mostly under-served communities, I always tell them, we’re not rich. The way we win these things is by voting.”

The Liu concurrence

The second fact that caught my attention was a concurring opinion on the ballot case by Justice Goodwin Liu.

While the court was unanimous in its findings, Liu wrote his own opinion highlighting how the Riverside registrar of voters was “caught between a rock and a hard place” when the sheriff of his own county showed up with a warrant, guns and “enough trucks to remove several pallets of materials.”

That trifecta, Liu wrote, left the registrar little room for dissent — but that’s a problem.

Liu’s point seemed to be that with the current state of our president making election denial chic, our voting officials need to step up. He said the registrar should have come directly to the court for relief, and not left it to the Voting Rights Project and other plaintiffs.

“It is a lot to ask of our election officials that they not only do their jobs competently but also stand ready to sue anyone who unlawfully interferes with their duties,” Liu wrote. “Yet here we are.”

Since Bianco seized the ballots, state law has been changed. This session, legislators passed (and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed) at least 13 laws pertaining to election security, including making it a felony to break the chain of ballot custody, and ensuring that local election officials immediately contact the state in instances when that is threatened. Those laws will offer protection to election officials if a situation like this comes up again.

But Liu’s point is still valid. Being an election official is no longer a sleepy little job, but a front-line battle for democracy, and for “our democracy to flourish, our elections must be conducted in accordance with the law.”

Which brings us back to the midterms. California shouldn’t be complacent, but the state isn’t slouching on preparation, or resolve.

As Bonta put it, “if you can imagine it, we are ready for it.”

I’m not quite that confident — and definitely concerned for contests outside of the Golden State — but Thursday’s rulings are a reminder that the law still holds, even when lawmen try to break it.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: Ballot seizure by Riverside County sheriff was ‘unlawful,’ California Supreme Court rules
The California angle: This deadly fungus isn’t just a rural threat anymore. New studies point to cities and oil wells
The L.A. Times Special: Hollywood would get 20% federal film tax credit under proposed new bill
Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

The California Supreme Court excoriated Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco over his seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots earlier this year, ordering the former gubernatorial candidate to immediately hand over all remaining material in a pair of scathing decisions on Thursday.

“We hold that the seizure of the ballots was unlawful,” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero. “While allegations of election improprieties are a very serious matter, our Elections Code contains numerous established mechanisms for investigating and proving misconduct that do not compromise the integrity of voted ballots — contrary to the means employed here.”

The ruling comes less than two weeks before Californians will start casting ballots in the race for governor and a handful of hotly contested congressional midterms — nationally watched elections that would be vulnerable to similar interference unless the court gave clear orders, advocates warned at oral arguments last month.

“It’s bound to be repeated again,” said Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, which led the first of two election interference suits against Bianco, a popular MAGA personality and former Republican candidate for governor.

Bianco has long flirted with President Trump’s election fraud conspiracy movement. Though the ballot seizures in February were widely seen as a campaign stunt, the legal theory behind them — that local lawmen can commandeer voter materials from elections officials, and that sheriffs are unanswerable to officials who outrank them, including attorneys general — belongs to a larger “constitutional sheriffs” ideology.

California‘s seven Supreme Court justices appeared by turns perplexed by and incredulous of those theories during oral arguments last month.

“You are walking into a very dense thicket of very specific laws that govern elections in particular and I think it’s a very established cannon of interpretation that the specific trumps the general,” Justice Goodwin H. Liu said.

The ballot battle emerged from a Riverside County pilot program meant to boost voter confidence, a handwritten tally that ultimately fell about 46,000 votes short of the official count, sparking claims of fraud.

Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco met with the county board of supervisors and the citizens’ group behind the claim and carefully explained how the discrepancy emerged. Yet, Bianco pursued warrants to seize more than 650,000 ballots, alleging they were evidence in an investigation of wide-ranging election fraud.

When he learned of the warrants, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta ordered Bianco to stand down. Instead, the sheriff accelerated his plans, dispatching armed deputies from Riverside County’s Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Response Team and SWAT unit to sweep up the votes.

Later, Bianco directed his underlings to begin counting those ballots by hand — a potential felony under state law, which forbids anyone other than an election official from so much as touching a ballot container.

When Bonta again ordered him to stop, Bianco argued the attorney general had no authority to command him, later claiming in court that the law conferred only an “advise and consent” role.

In fact, California courts have spent more than a century delineating power between the state’s attorney general and local sheriffs and prosecutors. Voters took the matter a step further in 1934, endorsing a ballot initiative that clearly named the attorney general as California’s top law enforcement official, and put the state’s other lawmen beneath him.

In a footnote, justices also took a swipe at Bianco’s initial effort to have the case tossed for lack of standing — a move apparently undertaken on the legal advice of an elaborate artificial intelligence hallucination.

“In his preliminary briefing, Bianco challenged petitioners’ standing based on misquoted passages from, and an incorrect recitation of our holding in, Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors,” Guerrero wrote. “We disapprove of the improper use of artificial intelligence tools, which apparently contributed to the significant error that occurred here and remind counsel of attorneys’ professional duties of competence and candor to the court.”

New Orleans Pelicans star Zion Williamson had a “friendly and casual ‘friends with benefits’ sexual relationship” with the woman who is accusing him of raping and abusing her multiple times between 2018 and 2023, according to a court filing by the former Duke standout’s legal team.

A document submitted to Los Angeles County Superior Court on Monday states that Williamson denies “each and every allegation” made against him by a Jane Doe in a second amended complaint filed in June.

Williamson’s filing describes the interaction between the former No. 1 overall draft pick and his accuser as “infrequent and sporadic.”

“All interaction among and between the Plaintiff and Defendant was pleasant and entirely consensual, with the Plaintiff initiating and communicating her desire to be intimate with the Defendant,” the document states, “and the Plaintiff herself decided to end the relationship because she became upset when she realized that the Defendant was focusing his time and energy on professional basketball and on being a father, and did not have sufficient time or interest to maintain a relationship with the Plaintiff.”

The second amended complaint lists the causes of action as assault, battery, sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, domestic violence and stalking. The response from Williamson’s team states that the statute of limitations has expired on each cause of action.

The initial complaint, filed in May 2025, also included false imprisonment and conversion as causes of action, which are not included in the latest complaint.

The lawsuit provides details of two instances in 2020 during which Williamson allegedly raped his accuser in a Beverly Hills apartment he was renting at the time.

“These two incidents were not isolated,” the lawsuit states. “Defendant continued to abuse, rape, assault, and batter Plaintiff in California and other states, including Louisiana and Texas, until the relationship ended in 2023.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Williamson committed many other acts of violence against his accuser, including strangling her multiple times to the point that she lost consciousness, suffocating or smothering her, striking and kicking her “with great force,” threatening to kill her and her family members, and pointing a loaded firearm to her head.

Williamson “was either drunk or on cocaine” while allegedly committing many of those acts, the lawsuit states.

A jury trial has been scheduled for April 2028.

Sept. 22, 2026 2:31 PM PT

Podcaster and mental health activist Jennifer Eckhart, who sued ex-Fox News anchor Ed Henry for sexual assault in 2020, died by suicide on Saturday, according to authorities.

Eckhart was found in her Florida home on Saturday morning, according to an incident report issued by Martin County Sheriff’s Office, People reported. Her mother discovered her body inside a bathtub with a knife nearby, according to TMZ.

“This death has been ruled a suicide,” Christine Christofek, a spokesperson for the sheriff’s office, said in a statement to People.

Eckhart worked as an associate producer on Fox News Media’s Fox Business Network from 2013 to 2020. She sued Henry for sexual assault in 2020, and Fox News was named in the suit, accused of failing to take action against Henry for harassing women. The news division was later removed from the suit in March 2025.

“Fox News can … be held liable for Henry’s actions only if its management or supervisors knew or should have known about that purported misconduct yet failed to prevent Henry from harming Eckhart,” Judge Ronnie Abrams said in her March 2025 ruling. “On this record, the Court agrees that no reasonable jury could make that finding.”

Eckhart revealed that her lawyers were appealing Abrams’ decision in an October 2025 Instagram post.

“This case was never just about me,” she wrote. “It has always been about accountability and forcing corporations to answer for the cultures of abuse they protect, enable, and excuse behind power, money, and silence. For more than five years, my former employer Fox News has spent millions resisting accountability in my [rape] lawsuit. But what’s at stake is far bigger than me, one woman, one man or one company.”

The appellate court upheld Abrams’ decision, Eckhart’s lawyer Michael J. Willemin, a partner at Wigdor law firm, said.

“We were deeply saddened to learn of Ms. Eckhart’s passing, and our thoughts are with her family at this time,” Willemin told The Times.

Eckhart filed the harassment complaint against Henry after Fox News fired her in 2020. Following a subsequent sexual misconduct investigation, Fox News fired Henry that same year. The anchor, who now works at Newsmax, had previously taken time off in 2016 after a woman who claimed they had been having an affair while he was married released embarrassing correspondence between them, per People.

Born in Miami, Eckhart graduated from the University of Florida with a bachelor of science degree in telecommunications-news, according to her biography. She previously served as an ESPN Radio correspondent and an anchor for Gainesville, Fla., PBS affiliate WUFT-TV. In addition to her news and podcast experience, Eckhart also founded the Reinvented Project, which provided “support for trauma survivors through animal-assisted healing.”

Despite adversity, Eckhart was determined in her October 2025 post.

“I know the risks of speaking when silence would have been the safer, easier option. But I also know this: regardless of the outcome, history will not remember me as a woman who kept her mouth shut,” she wrote. “And I am completely at peace with that.”

Sept. 22, 2026 3:42 PM PT

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to intervene in a custody dispute over a 5-week-old child who was born in Texas after a surrogate refused a California couple’s wishes to have an abortion.

Justice Elena Kagan denied the request from McKenna West, who was seeking conservatorship over a baby boy she gave birth to in Dallas.

The brief order did not detail the legal reasoning, as is typical in emergency appeals. The decision came from Kagan because she handles appeals of cases out of California.

West had previously been rejected by other courts in her efforts to have a say in the treatment of the child, who was born with a life-threatening heart condition. She gave birth to the boy in Dallas, where most abortions are banned, after she refused the couple’s wishes to end the pregnancy.

West had asked the Supreme Court to halt a California court order that recognizes Omar Ahmed and Nausheen Gilkar as the parents of the child whom she calls Gabriel and they call Rumi.

Lawyers for the couple had urged the court to reject the request, questioning what an intervention would do for medical decision-making at an already chaotic time. They also accused West of overstating the prognosis for children born with the heart condition.

“Such chaos would be devastating for Respondents and, most importantly, their child,” the couple told the court.

The legal battle over surrogacy and abortion has attracted the attention and support of Republican officeholders and anti-abortion groups. West has said she believes the couple will not provide life-saving care, citing their request for an abortion at 23 weeks. Gilkar and Ahmed have denied those claims.

The boy was born Aug. 12 with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, a life-threatening condition that prevents normal blood flow to the organ. He underwent surgery soon after he was born. The couple’s attorney said in August that the newborn had been in critical condition and appeared to be “suffering from potential complications.”

Without treatment, children affected by the heart defect can die within days or weeks. Surgical repairs are not necessarily cures, and additional surgeries or heart transplants may be needed, according to the CDC.

Wilder and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

In April 2022, Moore tested positive for nandrolone and boldenone at a WTA 250 event in Bogota, with an independent tribunal ruling in December 2023 that contaminated meat was the source.

Moore, who was Britain’s leading women’s doubles player at the time of the failed test, was found to bear “no fault or negligence”, but the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) appealed against the decision.

Last year, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) ruled in favour of the ITIA and Moore was banned until 2028.

Moore then initiated proceedings with the American Arbitration Association, in which she claimed the WTA’s “failure to warn against eating meat in Colombia was a direct cause of her positive test result and the harm that followed”.

The arbitrator supported the ruling made by Cas and dismissed the case against the WTA.

In response, Moore filed a motion against the decision at the United States District Court in New York.

Moore, who was ranked a career-high 77th in the world in 2022, claimed she was denied a fair hearing by the arbitrator.

The motion detailed how Moore was seeking “no less than $20m in compensatory damages” after claiming the WTA “stayed silent in the face of a known and specific danger and then shifted the blame for its own negligence” to the player.

On Friday, United States district judge Andrew Carter found Moore’s challenge was “not justified” on a legal basis.

The WTA and ITIA have been approached for comment.

Sri Lanka’s High Court has convicted 15 men who had been charged with plotting the 2019 Easter Sunday bomb attacks that killed 270 people and injured more than 500.

Those found guilty include Naufer Moulavi, who prosecutors said masterminded the suicide bombings. Nine other men were acquitted.

The co-ordinated blasts at three churches and three luxury hotels were the deadliest in Sri Lanka since the end of its civil war in 2009. Forty-five foreigners were among the dead.

All the bombers who carried out the attacks died in the blasts. Investigators have previously blamed the bombings on Islamist extremists, and the 25 men indicted were from Sri Lanka’s Muslim minority. One died in custody.

The accused had been charged with more than 23,000 offences, including murder, conspiracy to commit terrorism and possessing firearms.

More than 2,300 people gave evidence for the prosecution.

There were also 2,076 pieces of evidence, including explosives, swords and firearms.

In the wake of the attacks, Sri Lankan authorities pointed to a “major intelligence lapse”. Its parliament heard that a tip-off from India about the attacks was not properly shared with the authorities.

In 2023, the Supreme Court ordered former president Maithripala Sirisena to pay millions in compensation to the victims of the bombings, after finding him responsible for national security failures that led to the attacks.

Last month, two former senior officials were sentenced to death for criminal negligence that led to the bombings. Death sentences are usually commuted to life in prison in Sri Lanka due to a decades-old moratorium on executions.

For years, Sri Lankans have held regular demonstrations demanding justice for the victims of the Easter attacks.

The verdict comes as a separate investigation on former intelligence chief Suresh Sallay is under way. Sallay is accused of orchestrating the bombings with Islamist extremists.

The allegations echo those aired in a 2023 documentary by British broadcaster Channel 4, which heard whistleblower testimony claiming the attacks were allowed to happen to boost the popularity of the Rajapaksa family, which long dominated Sri Lankan politics.

Sallay, who was arrested in February, denies the allegations. Former president Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who was elected months after the 2019 attacks, with a campaign of tackling Islamist extremism has also denied the allegations.

Rajapaksa, who has been banned from leaving the country, has asked the court to prevent his potential arrest in connection with the ongoing investigations.

With the deadline for mailing out millions of California ballots nearing, Los Angeles County’s top election official welcomed the U.S. Postal Service’s recent assurance that it will process those ballots as normal — not under the untested new vetting system backed by President Trump and rejected as unworkable by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“That certainly serves as a stabilizing force, as we’re literally weeks away from mailing the ballots,” said Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office.

Still, there are other Trump administration challenges to deal with, he said — including unsubstantiated public claims of widespread voter fraud, refusals by top-ranking officials to rule out deployments of armed federal agents to polling places, and behind-the-scenes criminal probes into local voter lists.

Since March, Logan’s office has received a series of federal grand jury subpoenas demanding voter registration and other information on dozens of individuals who the Trump administration says may not be U.S. citizens, Logan confirmed to The Times.

Logan said his office is now in the “interesting place” of having to comply with the subpoenas despite suspecting that the Department of Homeland Security relied on inaccurate or outdated voter information to compile the names to investigate.

“We’re responding appropriately as directed through a subpoena, but that doesn’t afford the dialogue for us to get the background on what they’re looking for and how they came up with the names that they did,” Logan said. “There’s really no information being provided to us on that.”

The subpoenas appear to mirror others received by elections officials elsewhere in the country as part of a new Homeland Security effort to identify noncitizen voting, which Trump has long alleged without evidence is widespread.

In July, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin publicly claimed, again without evidence, that there may be more than 190,000 such voters on California rolls. On Friday, the Justice Department announced it had charged 16 noncitizens in six states with illegal voting and other election-related crimes following investigations alongside its Homeland Security partners.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber dismissed Mullin’s claims. Independent elections experts and Democratic officials say voter fraud should be taken seriously, but is exceedingly rare. California has more than 23 million registered voters.

Mullin’s remarks and the subpoenas appear part of a much larger and unprecedented federal effort to bolster allegations from Trump that the upcoming Nov. 3 elections are unsafe and corrupted by noncitizen voters.

Trump issued two executive orders, one requiring voters to provide additional identification and proof of citizenship, and one ordering the Postal Service to refuse mail ballots it deems illegitimate. The Justice Department has sued California and other states for their voter rolls, and Homeland Security has threatened state elections officials with criminal sanctions if they don’t purge noncitizens from their rolls.

Trump gave a speech in July alleging that the American election system is “so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.” Earlier this month, he encouraged his supporters to “cheat like hell” to keep Republicans in power, and told them they would receive $5,000 each if they succeed — which many experts derided as a “bribe.”

Last week, FBI Director Kash Patel refused to rule out sending federal agents to polls.

Despite all that, California officials and independent elections experts have maintained the election will be safe — in part because Trump’s executive orders and the Justice Department’s many lawsuits seeking state voter rolls have all been blocked by the courts.

“The bottom line for voters in California right now is nothing has changed. We’ve had safe and secure elections, and we will continue to do so,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

Logan said it “is clear that the administration is aggressively pursuing their narrative” about voter fraud being widespread as part of Trump’s old “playbook” of questioning votes he expects to lose — but that the election in California will nonetheless “be fair and secure and transparent.”

The fight over fraud

At least three subpoenas have been issued to Logan’s office — one in March, one in July and one this month — including from the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of California, The Times confirmed.

U.S. Atty. Adam Gordon, who leads the federal prosecutor’s office in San Diego, did not respond to a request for comment. First Assistant U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who leads the federal prosecutor’s office in Los Angeles and has announced two voter fraud cases in recent weeks, also did not respond to questions about his office’s election work.

Essayli did say Saturday, in response to Gov. Gavin Newsom touting new state laws aimed at safeguarding California elections from Trump administration interference, that no state law can prevent the Justice Department from investigating voter fraud and that his office “will continue to investigate, arrest, and prosecute all violations of federal election laws.”

Additional information, including how the subpoenas may relate to Mullin’s claims, wasn’t immediately available.

Mullin in July alleged in a letter to Weber that a federal review of unspecified data found “as many as 190,832 non-citizens registered to vote in California.”

Weber responded in writing that she had “serious doubts about the reliability” of that analysis, as California election officials “work every day to maintain accurate voter rolls” and have never shared their rolls with the Trump administration — despite the administration’s failed lawsuit demanding them.

Weber criticized Mullin for having made such claims with “no detail whatsoever that my office can use to evaluate the veracity of your allegations,” and asked that he provide a “detailed description” of the data and methodology used to reach such conclusions.

Weber’s office said Mullin’s letter was “part of a broader effort to intimidate Californians and make it burdensome to participate in our democracy.”

In a statement to The Times, a Homeland Security spokesperson said the department offered to meet with Weber and her staff “to engage in a collaborative good faith discussion” about identifying noncitizens on state rolls, which she declined.

The spokesperson said Mullin’s count of potential noncitizens on California rolls was based on “publicly available data from states’ voter rolls” that was cross-referenced with its own lists of “known” noncitizens. “It’s not rocket science; it’s an easy step to secure our elections.”

Independent experts also have questioned Mullin’s claims, pointing to investigations elsewhere — including in Texas — that found Homeland Security data on alleged noncitizen voters were substantially inaccurate. A federal judge recently blocked the use of a Trump administration database known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program based on the likelihood that it could lead to legitimate voters being purged from rolls.

Last week, Padilla and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) released a Homeland Security whistleblower report alleging that department leaders, under a new “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” were requiring poorly trained employees to identify at least five potentially illegal voters per hour — one every 12 minutes — using questionable data the department said it compiled using “magic.”

In a letter to Mullin, the senators demanded the initiative be halted, arguing that work at such a “breakneck pace” is bound to produce errors and that agency officials appeared to be circumventing court orders blocking their access to state vote rolls by gathering such information “by any means, regardless of state laws.”

Padilla on Friday asked California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office to investigate the whistleblower’s claims. A spokesperson for Bonta’s office said the allegations “describe yet another fishing expedition by the Trump Administration to uncover evidence of widespread voter fraud despite repeated findings that there is none,” but otherwise declined to comment.

The Homeland Security spokesperson rejected the whistleblower claims, saying its work has been “conducted diligently and professionally” as part of a “commonplace law enforcement” effort. The spokesperson said that the agency cannot comment on active investigations, but that its investigative branch — Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI — is “actively rooting out and investigating election fraud wherever it can be found.”

“There is no quota on criminality. DHS will pursue each and every illegal voter to the fullest extent of the law,” the spokesperson said.

Fears and reassurances

Recent polling has shown that fewer than half of Americans expect the midterms to be “free and fair,” and that Californians are more concerned about Trump administration interference than voter fraud.

Election experts said some of the worst threats have already been blocked, but acknowledged remaining worries.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, said he is concerned the Trump administration will try to deny the outcome or seize ballots in close congressional races — but only if control of the House or Senate rests on them.

Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College and co-director of Bright Line Watch, said he worries that isolated incidents of federal agents intimidating voters or seizing ballots in key races will throw the legitimacy of the entire election into question — and that the Trump administration will capitalize on that to serve its own agenda.

Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), part of a Democratic task force preparing for such issues, said that Trump and other administration officials are trying to interfere in the election because they know they have “failed to deliver for the American people” and the Republican Party stands to lose power as a result.

Schiff said that Democratic leaders are fighting back “and largely succeeding,” but that “the best way to uphold the integrity of our elections” remains voters making their voices heard.

Padilla said the attempt by Homeland Security to push its way into elections has been “shoddy” in part because “they don’t have the expertise [and] it’s not their charge,” but also because Trump has put Mullin and other election “conspiracy theorists” in charge.

“If you install a conspiracy theorist into these roles, then they’re gonna come out with these claims that are not based on facts, not based on evidence, not based on any data,” he said.

Padilla said Trump and his supporters are “absolutely laying the groundwork” to question November election results they don’t like, but voters should know that “there’s even more of us standing up and fighting back and protecting their right to vote.”

CNN, MS NOW and Politico are headed to court to challenge the constitutionality of President Trump’s order to ban the three news organizations from the White House.

The three outlets announced Monday they are jointly filing a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court in Washington, D.C. asking for a temporary restraining order that restores their access immediately while the case is heard.

“This morning we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports and publishes,” CNN, MS NOW and Politico said in a statement. “Without notice or due process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to indpendent journalism free from government interference.”

The lawsuit against the Trump Administration will allege that the ban violates the 1st Amendment by retaliating against protected newsgathering as punishment for unfavorable coverage, as well as blocking reporters from a “nonpublic forum” for unlawful reasons.

The suit notes precedent is a case from 1977 that ruled the White House cannot arbitrarily restrict press credentials for reporters on grounds that there’s retaliation for viewpoint discrimination.

Trump announced the ban Friday in a Truth Social post, describing CNN, MS NOW and Politico as “fake news.” He did not cite any specific story that prompted the action, claiming the outlets have long been unfair to him and never provide any positive coverage.

Trump was asked Friday how his ban will hold up in court.

“I don’t think a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day,” he said. “I think that somebody has a right to keep them away if they’re going to write false stories all the time.”

Trump’s asserts that the ban is the result of unhappiness with the coverage he receives from the three outlets. Trump’s statements are likely to be used against him in court.

The ban has already raised questions on how the public will be able to monitor the president’s activities. CNN was scheduled to provide the video feed of Trump’s Monday trip to New York for the United Nations General Assembly. The pool feed, as it’s called, provides video to all other press outlets.

CNN’s assignment does not appear on the press schedule issued Sunday by the White House.

On Saturday, journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred from entering White House grounds as they learned their press credentials were no longer valid. Some were asked to hand them over to Secret Service.

Trump has tried twice to deny news organizations White House access. In 2018 during his first term, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be resinstated.

Last year, the Trump White House issued a ban on the Associated Press when the news organization refused to recognize the president’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by executive order. A federal judge ordered that the AP’s access to the White House be restored on the grounds that the government cannot punish a journalistic outlet over the content of its speech.

A divided appeals court panel later paused that ruling for the Oval Office, Air Force One and other restricted spaces, allowing the White House to keep the AP out of them while the case proceeds.

Trump has railed against outlets that he considers unfriendly to his administration, calling for the Federal Communications Commission to pull the TV station licenses of the broadcast networks. He has also asked the FCC to take action against individual journalists who irk him, the last being “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has tried to act on Trump’s behalf by calling for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

“This is about more than the rights of journalists. It is about the right of the American people to receive a full and independent account of the activities, policies and decisions of whoever occupies the nation’s highest office,” Heinrich said in a statement.

Trump has also lashed out at individual reporters in person or over social media, sometimes in strikingly personal terms — insulting them in briefings, or in his recent speech at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner.

Trump’s press attacks have spread to other parts of his administration. The Department of Defense tried to restrict journalist access to the Pentagon.

The department also recently fired three journalists at the military’s newspaper Stars and Stripes for insubordination after they appeared in a CBS News report on how the Trump administration has tried to restrict their reporting.

WASHINGTON — Thousands of people joined outside the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on Friday evening to protest President Trump’s plans for the facility, lending their voices to a chorus of organizations and individuals who have been horrified that he might make good on his threat to close and tear down the storied institution.

The crowd streamed in from the nearest subway stop, crowding streets in the Foggy Bottom area of Washington and locking down traffic as they walked, many carrying signs, as they joined in an event dubbed “Hands Around the Kennedy Center.” At one point some held hands, forming a human chain around the center.

Chris Raleigh, co-founder of Hands Off the Arts, which set up the gathering, said in an interview that he hoped it would show that people are willing to fight to keep Trump’s plans for the building at bay.

One of the most iconic buildings on the Potomac River waterfront, the Kennedy Center has been a focus of Trump’s remake of Washington since 2025, when he began installing his loyalists on its governing board. Late last year, he had his named placed on the center in front of that of President Kennedy. A judge ruled that Trump’s name was illegally added and ordered it removed.

The Kennedy Center board, which remains aligned with the president, voted Tuesday to close the center indefinitely for repairs hours after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper blocked their plans to return Trump’s name to the building. On Thursday, the judge ordered the Kennedy Center to provide 30 days’ notice before making any major physical changes to the building, including demolishing it.

Raleigh said he, like others, is concerned that Trump could take the step without notifying the court. “Look at the East Wing,” he said, referring to the demolished portion of the White House. “We got up one morning and there was a giant hole there.”

Raleigh said the Kennedy Center is more in the public eye than the East Wing was. He added that he doesn’t believe the president fully understands why people are so upset, “but that’s our job, right? This may be the line that no one expected, but this is where the line is going to be.”

Protesters talked about the importance of the center as the pinnacle of the nation’s performing arts world.

Bud Wilkinson, a local member of the arts community, set up a chalkboard with Trump’s name written on it hundreds of times. Protesters flocked to him to erase the names and replace them with hearts.

“The Kennedy Center is vital to the arts in Washington. We need it. We need this,” Wilkinson said. “This is not just about putting the president’s name on the Kennedy Center. It’s about censoring the performances and the programming. That’s what started all this. So that’s what the nitty-gritty really is about this. So I want to replace all of this with love. That’s why there’s a heart.”

Alina Baciu talked about the opportunities and relationships that students at the Duke Ellington School of the Arts have with the center and how those relationships might be affected by what’s going on.

Her daughter had opportunities to take advantage of all the center had to offer as a student at the Ellington school, she said. “I mean, they borrowed the beautiful costumes and the beautiful dresses from the Washington National Opera for their performances at Duke Ellington,” she said. They also performed on the center’s Millennium Stage.

“All of those things have gone away because of this craziness. And it just hurts my heart,” Baciu said.

Laura Steinberg, a volunteer for the last 10 years, said the loss of performances has already been heart-wrenching. “This reminds me of that picture from Tiananmen Square, where that young man stood in front of the tank,” she said of the throngs present. “This was my visceral response to this. I’ll stand in front of the wrecking ball if it’s going to come to that. My guess is many of these people would come down because we saw what he did to the East Wing. Nobody thought he would actually do it. So I think the shock has mobilized people.”

Friday’s event followed a tumultuous week in federal courts in Washington, where filings and counter-filings flooded the courts as the administration continues pushing for the president’s vanity projects. The administration has made substantive steps to begin work on a number of projects, despite the fact they are still being litigated. Such projects include Trump’s triumphal arch and the administration’s takeover of East Potomac Golf Links and the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Speaking from the Oval Office, Trump said he was willing to save the center, which he said was losing money. He did not address a question about demolishing it.

“We have a lot of people working very hard on it to save it,” he said. “I can save it easily, but why should we be doing that and then raise money for the rest of our lives to keep it afloat? Because that’s what you have to do, if we get no recognition. I think the Trump administration should be recognized as having saved the Kennedy Center.”

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

US judges affirm migrants must have opportunities to voice safety concerns before deportation to unfamiliar nations.

A US federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own – a ruling that could next go before the Supreme Court.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely upheld a February decision that found the Department of Homeland Security’s so-called third-country removal policy unlawful.

The case stems from a class-action lawsuit testing what due process migrants are owed before being sent to nations with which they have no ties.

Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said migrants must be given a “meaningful” chance to raise safety concerns before removal, rejecting the Trump administration’s narrower reading of the law.

The court did overturn part of the ruling on procedural grounds, concerning whether officials must first try deporting migrants to countries they have ties to.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the decision confirmed that “due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings”.

The DHS did not immediately comment. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling.

Under Trump, the US has struck agreements allowing it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, most often Mexico, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First.

The policy, adopted in March 2025, allowed removals with only minimal notice if officials had diplomatic assurances against persecution.

The controversial programme has reached the Supreme Court twice.

In 2025, the justices cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan, a country the US State Department advises against visiting because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”.

The DHS called the removals “a win”, while rights groups said they flouted basic protections.

The Trump administration’s immigration agenda has faced a string of setbacks this month.

A federal judge blocked planned caps on student and journalist visas, calling the government’s justification “exceptionally weak”, while a coalition of 22 states and Washington, DC, sued to stop a separate rule that would let officials deny green cards to immigrants who lawfully use public benefits.

President Trump announced Friday he intends to ban CNN, MS NOW, Politico and other news outlets from covering the White House, his strongest threat yet against a free press.

In a statement on Truth Social, Trump attacked the the reporting of the three outlets which he described as “FAKE NEWS!”

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States of America,” Trump said.

How a ban would be enacted remains to be seen. In 2018, the White House tried to ban journalist Jim Acosta, then working for CNN, but a court ordered that his press credential be restored.

Trump has stepped up his attacks on the press during his second term. Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr has threatened the broadcast licenses of outlets Trump dislikes. Carr has called for a review of ABC’s TV licenses, which the Walt Disney Co.-owned network is challenging in court.

After the post circulated, Trump held a press briefing from the Oval Office to discuss drug pricing. According to the pool reporter, no journalist was removed from the press room.

Trump was asked about the Truth Social post. He responded by further attacking the three outlets. He did not cite any specific report that led to his call for a ban.

“I dislike dishonest press,” he said.

Trump’s remarks generated an an immediate outcry from press freedom groups.

“It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government,” Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

“It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move. The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him.”