court

May 29 (UPI) — A federal judge declared a New Hampshire law that would have required new voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship because it is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Court Judge Samantha Elliott wrote in the ruling, issued on Thursday, that New Hampshire House Bill 1569 would have made it harder for people to register to vote and cast ballots by removing methods for them to do so.

The law would have required all new voters to provide a document proving citizenship, rather than attesting to their citizenship under penalty of perjury on an affidavit.

New Hampshire state law already states that the form filled out and signed when registering qualifies as an affidavit, whether it is filed 30 days before an election or on election day, per state law, Elliott wrote.

“For many years, New Hampshire voters have been required to prove their citizenship,” Elliott wrote in the ruling.

“After this order goes into effect, New Hampshire voters will still be required to prove their citizenship,” she wrote. “Instead, this case questions, in part, whether it is constitutional to remove one of the methods previously available for proving citizenship — an affidavit swearing to the voter’s citizenship under penalties of voter fraud.”

HB 1569, which was passed and signed into law in 2004, was challenged by the ACLU of New Hampshire, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalition for Open Democracy, the League of Women Voters of New Hampshire, the Forward Foundation, New Hampshire Youth Movement and several individual voters.

“New Hampshire’s elections have always been safe, secure and accurate — and this law could have unconstitutionally and needlessly prevented thousands of eligible voters from casting a ballot,” Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a press release.

“Making it harder to vote is a clear attack on one of our most fundamental of rights and this law is consigned to the dustbin of history where it belongs,” Klementowicz said.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Friday that President Trump’s name was illegally added to the Kennedy Center and blocked the administration from closing the cultural and arts venue for major renovations.

U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Kennedy Center board’s March 16 vote to close the facility was “ill-informed and seemingly preordained” with no regard for its legal obligations.

“The trustees might have assessed the propriety of closure in a number of prudent ways. This was not one,” he wrote.

Cooper also concluded that the board “overstepped its statutory bounds” by unilaterally adding Trump’s name to the center. Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it, he said.

Roma Daravi, the Kennedy Center’s vice president of public relations, said Friday the institution is “confident that on appeal the court will uphold the Board’s will to recognize President Trump’s historic contributions to our nation’s cultural center.” She said the decision would be reviewed “carefully.”

“Though the reality remains — the Center requires an urgent and significant restoration – a truth that even the plaintiff acknowledges,” Daravi said. “With $257 million secured by President Trump and approved by Congress, the resources are in place and we remain committed to pursuing every lawful avenue to ensure the Trump Kennedy Center is restored as a national cultural landmark for all Americans to enjoy.”

Cooper held hearings in late April for parallel lawsuits challenging the project. One was filed by a group of cultural and historic preservation organizations. The other was brought Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat who serves as an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. He ruled in favor of Beatty’s request but rejected the other challenge.

Justice Department attorneys said renovation plans for the building are limited in scope and well within the board’s authority to make without needing outside approvals.

The plaintiffs worry the president and his board allies will flout preservation rules designed to maintain the building’s historic fabric. In earlier statements in court hearings, attorneys for Beatty and the preservation groups raised doubts about the limited scope of the project, pointing to Trump’s statements that he would “fully expose” the building’s steel skeleton. Beatty has said she was “very fearful that we’ll see what happened with the East Wing and what happened with the Rose Garden” if the center is closed and the renovations allowed unsupervised, referring to major changes the president has made at the White House.

Trump, a Republican, has taken a keen interest in the Kennedy Center’s operations since he returned to White House last year. He installed a handpicked board that named him chairman. His name was added to the facade of a building that is considered a living monument to President John F. Kennedy.

The Kennedy Center has kept up performances ahead of the closure, though at a much slower pace than in previous years. Trump attended the premiere of the musical “Chicago” in March and other shows, including “Moulin Rouge” are slated for June.

Bill Maher, the comedian who has had an up and down relationship with Trump, is expected to be awarded the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor on June 28, an event that was anticipated to be one of the final big moments at the Kennedy Center before the closure.

Cooper was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Obama.

Kunzelman and Sloan write for the Associated Press.

Erin Patterson was found guilty of killing three family members as she served them a lunch laced with poisonous fungi.

An Australian court has confirmed that an appeal hearing for Erin Patterson, commonly referred to as the “mushroom murderer,” will be held in August.

The Supreme Court of Victoria announced on Friday that the hearing will take place on August 19 and 20. Patterson’s lawyers formally applied to appeal her life sentence in November, arguing that there had been a “substantial miscarriage of justice” during her trial.

Patterson was sentenced to life in prison in September after being found guilty of murdering three of her estranged husband’s relatives by serving them a lunch laced with poisonous fungi.

During the two-day hearing, the court will also consider an appeal from prosecutors, who argue that her sentence, which allows her to be considered for parole after 33 years, is “manifestly inadequate”.

Prosecutors unsuccessfully argued during the trial that her sentence should have been life imprisonment without parole.

In July, a jury found Patterson guilty of killing her estranged husband’s parents after serving them a lunch of beef Wellington laced with toxic mushrooms.

The case attracted worldwide attention, with more than 250 journalists registering for updates from the court, and the judge deciding to broadcast the sentencing live.

Both Gail Patterson and Donald Patterson died in August 2023. Patterson was also found guilty of murdering Gail’s sister, Heather Wilkinson, who died that same month, and of attempting to kill Wilkinson’s husband, Ian. He spent seven weeks in hospital following the poisoning and received a liver transplant.

Patterson is appealing her conviction on seven grounds, including what her lawyers described as a “fundamental irregularity” relating to the sequestration of the jury, who stayed in the same hotel as key figures in the case, including a police witness and two prosecutors.

Patterson’s lawyers also argue that several pieces of evidence presented during the trial were either irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial, and that the prosecution’s cross-examination of her was “unfair and oppressive”.

Patterson maintains her innocence, arguing that the poisoning was accidental.

“Dress shabbily and they remember the dress; dress impeccably and they remember the woman.” ― Coco Chanel

Apropos of Paris. Apropos of the French Open.

That’s all the context necessary to appreciate Naomi Osaka removing a ceremonial black skirt and sleeveless beaded bodice ahead of her opening match at the Roland-Garros Complex this week, revealing a sequined gold playing dress.

Osaka was playing all right. With sensibilities. With tradition. With her opponents, who she summarily dispatched with victories in the first and second rounds.

Naomi Osaka arrives on Court Suzanne-Lenglen to play her singles match against Laura Siegemund.

(THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)

And it was clear the four-time Grand Slam champion was playing with all of us when she said of her dress, “It’s very couture. You know the Eiffel Tower at night when it’s sparkly? I kind of think I look like that a little bit.”

Countless LinkedIn pages spout something about residing at the intersection of sport and fashion. Osaka locates that intersection at tennis tournaments worldwide, looks both ways and boldly steps into the street.

Last year at the U.S. Open she adorned her ponytail with red roses and attached a Labubu to her tennis bag that she named Billie Jean Bling.

At the Australian Open in January, she entered the court in a tie-dye turquoise and green palette with flowing tendrils. Her face was concealed by a veil, a wide-brim hat and a white parasol that she said was inspired by an image of a jellyfish that excited her 2-year-old daughter.

Naomi Osaka walking onto the court in a jellyfish-inspired ensemble ahead of her first-round match at the 2026 Australian Open in Melbourne.

(Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)

It’s all great fun. Yet continued fashion statements depend on her performance on the court. Osaka wins, she earns another grand entrance. She loses, nobody cares what she wears on the ride home.

At the U.S. Open, Osaka shined, reaching the women’s singles semifinals. Seeded as an also-ran at No. 23, she upset Coco Gauff and Karolina Muchova before falling in a tight three-set match to Amanda Anisimova.

Seeded No. 16 in Australia, she won two matches before withdrawing because of an abdominal injury suffered during her three-set victory against Sorana Cîrstea.

Fast forward to the French Open. Osaka advanced to the third round for the first time in seven years Thursday with a 7-6 (7/1), 6-4 win against Croatia’s Donna Vekic and will take on teenager Iva Jovic on Saturday.

What she will wear walking in is anybody’s guess. An effortless chic aesthetic courses through Paris. Advancing to the French Open round of 16 for the first time would require the opposite, Osaka toiling through another step in her return to form after giving birth to her daughter.

And creating another opportunity to have fun with fashion.

WASHINGTON — Alabama on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to use a congressional map favoring Republicans in this year’s elections, despite a lower court’s ruling that the redistricting plan intentionally discriminates against Black people.

The state’s Republican leadership filed an emergency appeal with the justices a day after a three-judge court refused to let the state use a map it adopted three years ago that has a majority Black population in just one of its seven congressional districts.

The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map that was put in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall told the court that the state did not intentionally discriminate against Black residents and should be allowed to hold elections this year under a map chosen by lawmakers, not judges.

The appeal is the latest development in the fallout from last month’s Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

The Alabama cases stretches back several years. The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, voters cast ballots in Alabama’s May 19 primaries, and Republican Gov. Kay Ivey set new special primaries for Aug. 11 in four congressional districts affected by the map switch.

Upon further review, the judicial panel said it was standing behind its initial finding that there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination, a holding that was independent of and unaffected by the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act.

It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The use of the court-ordered map led to the 2024 election of U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures, a Black Democrat. State Republicans are seeking to use a map that would give the GOP an opportunity to reclaim the south Alabama seat.

The state is asking for Supreme Court action by Monday as it makes preparations for the special vote in August.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Wander Franco is guilty of sexually abusing a 14-year-old girl in 2023, a judge in the Dominican Republic made clear Monday.

Yet in his next breath, the same judge ruled that the former Tampa Bay Rays star shortstop will not be sentenced to prison because he was a victim of blackmail and extortion by the girl’s mother.

Celebrity justice in the D.R. can be perplexing, and Judge José Antonio Núñez admitted as much. But he also contended that the judicial pardon he granted Franco was the result of “logical and legal reasoning.”

“It seems contradictory to declare criminal responsibility and, at the same time, exempt him from punishment,” Núñez said. “The court has granted Wander Franco a judicial pardon due to the particular circumstances that made him a material victim, but not a legal one.”

The court found that the girl’s mother extorted thousands of dollars from Franco. The woman was sentenced to 10 years in prison on charges of commercial sexual exploitation of a minor and money laundering.

The odds are long that Franco will return to Major League Baseball any time soon. The fact that the court found him guilty of repeatedly having sex with a minor puts him squarely in violation of MLB’s Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy.

The league is in the midst of an investigation into Franco’s conduct.

“We respect the legal process and the decision issued by the court,” the Rays said in a statement. “This is a serious matter, and our thoughts remain with those affected by the case.

“The Rays will continue to cooperate fully with Major League Baseball as it completes its review under the league’s Joint Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault and Child Abuse Policy. Out of respect for the legal process and all parties involved, we will have no further comment at this time.”

Franco’s situation serves as a cautionary tale for MLB teams that hand out long-term contracts years before players become free agents. The Rays signed a 20-year-old Franco to an 11-year, $182 million deal in November 2021 after he batted .288 with 30 extra-base hits in 70 games as a rookie.

Franco appeared on his way to stardom during a stellar 2023 season, but according to court filings he carried on a relationship with the 14-year-old victim for several months.

An investigation was launched in August 2023. Franco was arrested Jan. 1, 2024, after failing to appear before Dominican authorities who sought to interview him.

Tampa Bay placed him on the restricted list early in the 2024 season, voiding his contract.

Franco was found guilty in a June 2025 trial. Although prosecutors sought a five-year prison sentence, he was given only a two-year suspended sentence by Justice Jakayra Veras.

“Look at us, Wander,” Veras said in open court. “Do not approach minors for sexual purposes. If you don’t like people very close to your age, you have to wait your time.”

An appeals court in December ordered a new trial, which took place Monday and resulted in his pardon.

“Thank God for everything,” Franco said as he embraced his mother, Nancy Aybar, after Judge Nuñez announced the pardon.

As he departed the courthouse, Franco was asked by a reporter how he felt.

“I feel calm,” he said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected Florida’s long-shot attempt to sue California and Washington state over the issuance of commercial driver licenses to truckers who don’t speak English and are not authorized to be in the United States.

The case stems from a crash in Florida last year that killed three people. The driver, Harjinder Singh, is accused of making an illegal U-turn that caused the accident. Singh, who is from India, was carrying a valid commercial driver’s license from California and had earlier been granted one by Washington state.

Republican-led Florida has accused the Western states, led by Democrats, of openly defying immigration laws and asked the justices to rule that states lack the authority to issue CDLs to people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents.

The Supreme Court typically hears appeals of lower-court decisions, but it sometimes takes on what are known as original lawsuits in which states sue each other in the nation’s highest court.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented from Tuesday’s order, as they often do when the court rejects an original lawsuit, saying that the court has no choice but to hear such cases.

Separately, a federal appeals court has blocked a Trump administration proposal to impose new restrictions that would severely limit which immigrants can get commercial driver’s licenses to drive a semitrailer truck or bus.

Federal judges on Tuesday blocked Alabama’s plan to use a congressional map that could give Republicans an advantage in a key U.S. House race in the midterm elections.

A three-judge panel in the state’s long-running redistricting case issued a preliminary injunction that prevents the state from switching maps, ruling that the Republican-backed plan “intentionally discriminated based on race” by including only one Black-majority district. The judges instead required Alabama to continue using a court-ordered map in place for the 2024 elections that includes two districts where Black residents comprise a majority or close to it.

“Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination,” the judges wrote.

The ruling is a setback for Republicans, who want to use a map for the November midterms that would give the GOP a chance to reclaim the seat now held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures. However, the state could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Figures said he is pleased with the ruling but expects an appeal. “This is a significant step in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go before this fight is settled,” Figures said.

The court order is the latest development in the twisting legal and political saga following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana and weakened the federal Voting Rights Act. That ruling has led Republicans in several Southern states, including Alabama, to take steps to reshape voting districts with large minority populations that have elected Democrats.

The redistricting frenzy is part of a broader push by President Trump to try to hold on to Republicans’ slim House majority in the November elections.

Alabama court fight stretches back several years

The three-judge panel in 2023 ruled that a map drawn by Republican state lawmakers intentionally diluted the voting power of Black citizens. The court said the state, which is about 27% Black, should have two districts where Black voters are the majority or close to it. The court-selected map was used in 2024.

After the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in the Louisiana case, Alabama officials moved to implement the 2023 state-drawn map. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority agreed to lift the injunction that had blocked the map’s use and sent the case back to the three-judge panel for reconsideration in light of the Louisiana ruling.

In the meantime, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey set Aug. 11 special primaries using the new map.

Upon further review, the panel said there was “undisputed evidence” of intentional racial discrimination. It said the special congressional primaries should instead proceed under the previous court-approved districts.

The decision to temporarily block the map switch came after a seven-hour court hearing Friday in which judges sharply questioned state lawyers about the timeline and the impact of the Louisiana ruling.

Using the same districts that had been in place for the previous election would prevent “an expensive, aggressive, and perhaps logistically impossible voter reassignment effort,” the judges wrote.

“Candidate and voter confusion is troublesome and warrants significant consideration, but we do not see that a preliminary injunction will worsen it. To the contrary, we expect a preliminary injunction to lessen it,” the judges said.

Deuel Ross, director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said the court ruling “again vindicated the constitutional rights of voters in the Black Belt, and our clients look forward to voting under a fair map this fall.”

Redistricting changes affect primaries in several states

Other states also have considered adjustments to their primary elections to allow time for congressional redistricting after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision affecting the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana’s congressional primaries, scheduled for May 16, were postponed until later this summer by Republican Gov. Jeff Landry so that state lawmakers could consider a new U.S. House map that would eliminate a majority-Black district.

In South Carolina, the Republican-led legislature is considering a plan that could throw out the votes from its June 9 congressional primary and instead hold a new primary in August under revised districts that could improve Republicans’ chances of winning an additional seat.

Tennessee also moved quickly to enact new U.S. House districts after the Supreme Court’s ruling, carving up a Black-majority district based in Memphis that had elected the state’s only Democratic representative. The new map gives Republicans a chance to sweep all nine of the state’s seats. As part of the plan, Tennessee temporarily reopened the candidate qualifying period for its August congressional primaries, allowing new candidates to enter the race and existing ones to either switch districts or drop out.

Since Trump first urged Texas to redraw its U.S. House districts last summer, about a half-dozen Republican-led states have enacted new voting districts, though some still face legal challenges. Democrats countered with new districts in California and also expect to gain a seat from new court-imposed districts in Utah.

Chandler and Lieb write for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — There are no immigrants waiting for rulings anymore at San Francisco’s main immigration court, no lawyers making arguments.

The court, which had 21 judges when President Trump was sworn in last year, had only two left when it closed May 1. The rest had been fired, retired or resigned amid a White House purge of federal immigration judges.

The closing is one more reflection of the turmoil that has upended the immigration court system as the administration looks for ways to churn through its massive backlog of 3.8 million asylum cases and deport as many people as possible.

Asylum denial rates have soared as the administration has fired almost 100 judges deemed to be too liberal, and approved using hundreds of military lawyers to replace them. Immigrants have been arrested when they arrive at courthouses or government offices for scheduled appearances.

But amid the nationwide upheaval, San Francisco is the first major city to be left without a primary immigration court, leaving chaos and dysfunction in a region long known for its friendliness to asylum seekers. The two remaining judges will work from another federal building in the city but will be part of an immigration court across the bay.

That reputation, court insiders say, might have led to its downfall.

“It was a vibrant legal scene and so I think if you were looking to target a court you would have to look at what San Francisco stands for,” said Jeremiah Johnson, an immigration judge in the city until he was fired in November. He is now executive vice president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges.

Most of the court’s 117,000 immigration cases have been moved to a courthouse in Concord, a city about 30 miles away that opened two years ago to help with San Francisco’s backlog of cases. But turmoil has also reached that city. A courthouse that had 11 judges at the start of 2025 is down to five after a series of firings. It had a caseload of 60,000 cases even before the San Francisco cases were shifted over.

San Francisco’s immigration court, which had the third-highest number of asylum cases in the nation, was long considered one of the most favorable to people seeking asylum. From 2019 to 2024, almost 75% of petitioners received some form of relief, compared with 43% nationwide, according to data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonprofit data research center based at Syracuse University.

That’s partly because San Francisco, with its vast network of pro-immigrant organizations and pro bono or low-cost legal services, had one of the country’s highest rates of legal representation for immigrants.

The Executive Office of Immigration Review, the Department of Justice branch that oversees immigration courts, announced in March that it would close the San Francisco courthouse in 2027 as a cost-saving measure and move its cases to Concord. But the end came early after nearly all the San Francisco judges left or were fired. The Executive Office provided no detailed explanation for the changes, saying in a statement only that it had decided not to renew its lease for the court, and doesn’t comment on personnel matters.

Tight security in Concord courts

Security is tight at the Concord courthouse, perhaps because of the new influx of cases. Armed security guards ask every person if they are carrying weapons or explosives, and they watch as each person turns off their cellphone. Even coffee is not allowed in. Only water is acceptable, and then only if it’s in a transparent bottle.

Judah Lakin, an immigration attorney based in Oakland who also teaches at UC Berkeley School of Law, said the closure of the San Francisco court has made cases more time-consuming since it’s harder for his clients, who often travel from hours away, to reach Concord on public transportation.

One recent 10-minute hearing in Concord took him more than two hours of travel, he said.

But beyond logistics, Lakin said the chaos in immigration courts under the Trump administration has created a fraught court atmosphere. Mass firings have led to last-minute hearing cancellations, cases have been reset with little notice, and clients are often left in prolonged legal limbo, leaving them vulnerable to deportation.

One of his clients, he said, was provisionally granted asylum by a judge, who was then fired before signing the decision. The case was transferred to a second judge, who was also fired. Now on their third judge, his client is still waiting.

“The ground is constantly shifting underneath your feet, whether it’s judges being fired and hearings getting canceled, whether it’s your clients getting arrested, whether it’s getting denials on things that used to be standard and routine,” Lakin said.

“I think that’s on purpose. That’s by design. It’s part of the strategy,” he added.

‘Heartbreaking’

San Francisco’s immigration court was one of the first in the nation to hire judges with non-prosecutorial backgrounds, with many having previous experience working with immigrants at nonprofits or defending them in court.

To see the court close is “heartbreaking,” said Dana Leigh Marks, a former San Francisco immigration judge who retired in 2021 after 35 years on the bench and who was among the first judges in the nation to be hired from private practice.

She sees the Trump administration’s decision to close the largest immigration court in Northern California as part of an effort to undermine due process and eventually dismantle the path to asylum.

“It’s all a part of big ways and little ways that the Trump administration is trying to get noncitizens out of the country,” she said.

Johnson, the fired San Francisco judge, was appointed during the first Trump administration. He believes he was targeted because he granted asylum in 89% of the cases he heard.

“You don’t fire judges if you disagree with the way they’re handling a case; that’s not how courts work. If you disagree, you appeal that decision,” he said.

Johnson, who is the executive vice president of the National Assn. of Immigration Judges, defended his judicial record, pointing out that over eight years, only about 10 of his cases were appealed by the Department of Homeland Security, and very few were sent back for further hearings by the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Unlike federal courts, where there are strict rules of procedure and judges have lifetime tenure, the Justice Department runs immigration courts, and the attorney general can fire the judges with fewer constraints.

There were 754 immigration judges across the country at the start of Trump’s second term. Now, there are about 600, including some temporary judges, according to data collected by the judges’ union. Widespread courthouse arrests of immigrants have caused hundreds of people not to even show up for hearings, leading to deportation orders in absentia.

Nidaa Pervaiz came to the Concord court on a recent day to represent a client from Nepal. She prefers the new courthouse in some ways, since it’s closer to her home.

But, she said, she and her clients are already feeling the impact of the changes. Fewer judges leads to fewer hearings. That means more delays for her clients, whose paperwork can expire even before they can appear before a judge.

“Their whole lives are at stake, and they are coming to make a plea for their future” she said.

Rodriguez writes for the Associated Press.

It was a familiar sight: Caitlin Clark stepped to her left, paused and lofted a right-handed layup.

But looming tall, Cameron Brink smacked it out of bounds, caught on camera yelling a couple of curse words before chest-bumping teammate Erica Wheeler so hard she tumbled backward.

That’s the Brink that the Sparks were hoping for this season, and the version of the third-year center they fully expect to shine.

“That was quite the highlight,” coach Lynne Roberts said last week. “That’s what we see in practice, she’s been like that. I was just smiling. … I’m so proud of her.”

After the first game of the season, a 105-78 loss to Las Vegas, Roberts was asked about Brink playing only eight minutes, when she was a minus-19.

“We need Cam to produce,” Roberts said. “We need Cam to bring that defensive energy. We have so much confidence and belief in her. She’s got to get out on the floor with some confidence and do what she’s capable of doing.”

After the next game, when Brink contributed 11 points with five rebounds in that 87-78 loss to Indiana, Roberts wanted to end “the narrative” that the 24-year-old was off to a slow start. Then she netted 10 points in 16 minutes during a defeat of the Toronto Tempo.

The Sparks are in win-now mode but are yet to prove this version of the team can do that. Brink would be a cornerstone player for almost any team in the league, yet she’s coming off the bench with high expectations for her to be one of the team’s most important players.

“My teammates aren’t gonna trust me if I don’t believe in myself,” said Brink, who is averaging 8.0 points and 4.6 rebounds per game. “Coaches, same thing. So, you know, I’ve had a slow start, but I’m putting in the work with the coaches. They work with me every day. We watch film, shoot a little extra.”

The Sparks need Brink this season. In her first two seasons, she had moments. With Dearica Hamby starting and the addition of Nneka Ogwumike, she is coming off the bench again after doing so last year for the first time since her freshman season at Stanford.

Roberts has said she wants at least two of them on the court at all times. Through the first four games, Brink has played 16.2 minutes per game and the Sparks are minus-29 points when she is on the court.

“Coming into the league, it’s interesting because a lot of times people feel like they have to do something different or more,” Ogwumike said. “But I think one thing that she’s done is she’s really leaned into who she is, and that that level of self assurance is something that I think really plays out when she’s on the court as well.”

In 38 career games, she is already 10th all-time in blocks in Sparks history. Brink dealt with a 13-month layoff after tearing her ACL and meniscus just 15 games into her rookie season, and was slowly re-integrated last season in 19 games.

Sparks forward Cameron Brink tries to power her way past a Tempo defender during agame May 15.

(Jeff Lewis / Asociated Press)

What could really separate the Sparks from the rest of the league, though, would be if Brink plays to her full potential as a sixth player. There are few players in that role who can take over a game the way she can.

“I definitely feel like I have an understanding for just the speed of the game, the nuances and what we’re doing,” Brink said. “The playbook this year is much easier because it was the same as last year.”

The Sparks rebuild started last season with the addition of Kelsey Plum, where they gave up the No. 2 pick to Seattle that would become Dominique Malonga. Then, this offseason they added Ogwumike, Ariel Atkins and Wheeler while trading away their other young star, Rickea Jackson.

The Sparks still gave up 90-plus points in three of their first four games. Brink has the second worst plus-minus rating on the team, but has also made some of their important defensive plays and has 1.8 blocks per game.

“She erases a lot of mistakes out there,” Ogwumike said. “Being able to be out there and know that she has my back, and we’re looking for each other to be in good spots to do well, yeah, I’m just, I’m just happy that we’re rebuilding our chemistry early and fast.”

Brink was a star at Stanford but became known for her fouling habits. As a pro, getting one extra foul to work with, has helped considerably. She’s averaged seven fouls per 36 minutes in her first two seasons.

But the new officiating mandate to allow more freedom of movement is another hurdle. The path to being an elite pro has not been easy for one of the most dynamic college players of the past half-decade, but this season seems essential for Brink and the Sparks to find themselves, together.

Moments like that block of Clark‘s shot are signs the player they need is in there.

“It’s one of those things where you’re in awe,” Ogwumike said. “But also, you know she can do that. I always tell her, go out there and release everything and be yourself. That was very much a Cam Brink play.”

NEW YORK — Former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court on Friday declined to reconsider a decision that put the government a step closer to deporting him, the pro-Palestinian activist’s lawyers said.

Judges on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against having the court’s full complement of judges review the ruling. In January, a three-judge 3rd Circuit panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release last year from immigration detention didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said his lawyers will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order preventing the decision from taking effect — and barring Khalil from being detained or deported — while it asks the Supreme Court to take up the case.

An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.

“Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman said in a statement.

In its January ruling, the 3rd Circuit found that Khalil’s lawsuit challenging his detention and U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz’s subsequent rulings in the case were premature because federal law requires that such challenges first move through the separate immigration court system. That system is part of the Justice Department, not the judicial branch.

The decision didn’t decide the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the Trump administration’s effort to throw Khalil out of the U.S. over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who had voted for the 3rd Circuit to review the decision, wrote in a dissent that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims. The Judicial Branch, she wrote, cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, “if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.”

Khalil, 31, has also appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana, where he was detained, after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order.

Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he had misrepresented information on his application for legal permanent resident status. That charge, Khalil’s lawyers said, was brought in retaliation for his protest activity.

The immigration judge suggested Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.

An outspoken leader of the pro-Palestinian movement at Columbia, Khalil was arrested in March 2025. He then spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his child.

Federal officials have accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas,” though they have not presented evidence to support the claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. They also accused Khalil of failing to disclose information on his green card application.

Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as a “direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.”

The government justified the arrest under a seldom-used statute that allows for the expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, Farbiarz ruled that justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.

President Trump’s administration appealed that ruling, arguing the deportation decision should fall to an immigration judge, rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor.

Judge Emil Bove, who was involved in investigating student protesters while a top Justice Department official, did not participate in the 3rd Circuit vote on whether to review the decision. He later issued an order denying a request by Khalil’s lawyers that he step aside from the matter, calling it moot.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Turkiye’s main opposition leader Ozgur Ozel has vowed not to leave party headquarters after a court ruling removed him from power. Speaking to supporters in Ankara, Ozel accused judges and prosecutors of carrying out a coup attempt against his party.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Thursday broadly upheld lawsuits by U.S. companies whose property was seized in Cuba prior to 1960, including claims against cruise ship lines that docked there in the past decade.

These suits do not seek compensation from Cubans but from those who “traffic in property which was confiscated by the Cuban government.”

In a 8-1 decision, the justices revived a $400-million judgment against four cruise lines whose ships stopped in Havana between 2016 and 2019.

All of them used docks that were built early in the 20th century by the Havana Docks Corporation, an American company.

Justice Clarence Thomas pointed to a rarely enforced 1996 law that authorized suits against those who “use property tainted by a past confiscation.”

Past presidents had suspended enforcement of the law, but President Trump allowed such claims to go forward.

That change in policy exposed “traffickers in confiscated property of United States nationals” to brings claims in federal courts, Thomas said.

The four cruise line companies — Caribbean Cruises, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Carnival Corporation, and MSC Cruises — transported nearly a million paid passengers to Cuba, he wrote.

They paid the Cuban government tens of millions of dollars to do business in Cuba. They collectively earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from voyages that included a stop in Havana, he said.

A federal judge in Florida ordered each of the cruise lines to pay $100 million in damages, but the U.S. appeals court in Atlanta blocked the decision by a 2-1 vote. It said Havana Docks Corporation had a contract to run the docks had expired in 2004.

Justice Elena Kagan made the same argument in dissent.

She said “the docks belonged to the Cuban Government — not Havana Docks — all along. What Havana Docks owned was only a property interest allowing it to use those docks for a specified time. And that time-limited interest expired in 2004 — more than a decade before the cruise lines ever used the docks.”

Still pending before the court is a similar claim from Exxon Mobil Corp., which was argued on the day in late February.

It’s entirely possible — as hard as it may be to conceive in these deeply tribal, us-vs.-them times — for two competing notions to be true.

Tina Peters personally enriched herself and betrayed the public trust by perpetrating a harebrained scheme to “prove” the 2020 election in Mesa County, Colo., was rigged against President Trump. The former county clerk and MAGA warrior deserved to go to jail.

But the nine-year sentence she received was unduly harsh and, according to an appeals court decision, improperly meted out as punishment for the false and reckless public statements Peters made, a clear violation of her 1st Amendment rights. The court kicked the case back for resentencing.

That’s when Colorado’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis, stepped in.

And stepped in it.

Over the strenuous objection of fellow Democrats and many Republicans — including Peters’ prosecutor and a majority of Colorado’s election clerks — Polis commuted her sentence, clearing the way for Peters’ parole on June 1 after less than two years in prison.

Which just goes to show three wrongs don’t make a right.

Peters, 70, was convicted on multiple criminal counts, four of them felonies, for conspiring to let an unauthorized person access supposedly compromised voting equipment. She then lied to cover up her actions.

Trump carried Mesa County, a conservative stronghold, by nearly 30 percentage points, making Peters’ actions — apart from illegal — unaccountably stupid. But her conniving made her a belle of Mar-a-Lago and a celebrity on the election-denial circuit, jetting around the country and spewing cockamamie conspiracy theories.

Trump loudly agitated for her release.

His corrupted Justice Department sought to get Peters sprung from Colorado prison, presumably to set her loose from a federal facility. The president issued a symbolic “pardon,” though Peters’ conviction on state charges put her beyond his crooked reach. Trump insulted and belittled Polis, suggesting, among other things, he “rot in hell.” More significantly, the vengeful president waged economic war against Colorado.

Among the retributive acts, Trump slashed federal funds earmarked for the state, closed a climate research center in Boulder and moved the U.S. Space Command headquarters from Colorado Springs to Alabama.

Polis, who has a broad libertarian streak, insisted his freeing of Peters was not a capitulation to Trump, but rather a matter of principle, which seems plausible to the extent the governor could have anticipated the unshirted hell he’s gotten from fellow Democrats.

Among the great many infuriated by Polis’ decision are Colorado’s two U.S. senators, as well as other vocal critics up and down the ballot. (One of those indignant senators is Michael Bennet, who is running to replace Polis.) There have been calls, within his own party, to investigate and impeach the governor, who had been spoken of as a potential presidential candidate in 2028.

“He was aiming for a national profile,” said Floyd Ciruli, a pollster who’s been taking soundings of Colorado voters for decades. “This makes it much more difficult.”

Given Democrats’ molten outrage, that seems like an understatement.

The judge who sentenced Peters in October 2024 was unsparing.

“You’re as defiant … a defendant as this court has ever seen,” District Judge Matthew Barrett scolded her. “You are as privileged as they come and you used that privilege to obtain power, a following and fame. You are no hero…. You’re a charlatan who used and is still using your prior position in office to peddle a snake oil that’s been proven to be junk time and time again.”

Amen.

The problem, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals, was that Barrett wrongly punished Peters not just for her illegal actions but for speaking out about alleged election fraud.

“Her offense was not her belief, however misguided the trial court deemed it to be, in the existence of such election fraud,” the three-judge panel wrote in a unanimous April decision. “It was her deceitful actions in her attempt to gather evidence of such fraud.”

The judges — all Democratic appointees — upheld Peters’ conviction and denied her request to transfer the case from Barrett. They ordered him to come up with a new sentence.

And that’s where Polis, who placed Barrett on the bench, should have let things alone.

Instead, the governor interceded and essentially cut Peters’ sentence in half.

“The crimes you were convicted of are very serious and you deserve to spend time in prison,” Polis wrote in his commutation letter. “However, this is an extremely unusual and lengthy sentence for a first time offender who committed nonviolent crimes.”

In response, Peters thanked Polis, apologized and expressed contrition.

“I made mistakes, and for those I am sorry,” Peters wrote in a statement addressed to the governor. “I have learned and grown during my time in prison and going forward I will make sure that my actions always follow the law, and I will avoid the mistakes of the past.”

We’ll see about that. If Peters clambers back aboard Mike Lindell’s crazy plane — he of MyPillow and election denial fame — we’ll know Polis was duped.

It’s easy to see his actions as surrendering to Trump. If so, Polis’ cave-in was pointless. The president is a bully to his core, always demanding more.

But if you take the governor at his word, and his actions weren’t meant as appeasement, what he did was bad nonetheless. He emulated one of Trump’s worst habits, short-circuiting a well-established, independent process by substituting his own headstrong judgment.

Pride, the saying goes, comes before a fall. In Polis’ case, so does arrogance.

Shakira’s long tax-fraud nightmare has ended with the government of Spain on the hook to refund nearly $70 million to the Colombian-born singer after prosecutors failed to prove she spent enough time in that country to owe it a chunk of her earnings.

Since 2018, the singer has been accused of defrauding the Spanish government in three cases, for the tax years 2011, 2012-2014 and 2018. Over the years, deals were offered, rejected and accepted; charges were dropped, other charges were filed; and an eight-year prison sentence was threatened.

Shakira maintained her innocence, saying in 2022 that “Spanish tax authorities saw that I was dating a Spanish citizen and started to salivate,” referring to her relationship with Barcelona-born footballer Gerard Piqué, the father of their sons Milan and Sasha. Piqué and the singer, who met in 2010 when she did “Waka Waka,” the official song of that year’s FIFA World Cup, separated in 2022.

A representative for the singer, whose full name is Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll, did not respond immediately to The Times’ request for comment on the court decision.

However, despite there being no fraud, Shakira told People on Monday in a statement that “for nearly a decade, I was treated as guilty. Every step of the process was leaked, distorted, and amplified, using my name and public image to send a threatening message to the rest of the taxpayers.”

She added, “Today, that narrative crumbles, and it does so with the full force of a court ruling.”

Everything revolved around how many days Shakira spent in Spain in the years in question. With her legal residence in the Bahamas before she declared Spain her fiscal home in 2014, she had to spend more than half the year outside of her beau’s home country to avoid paying taxes there.

“They knew I wasn’t in Spain the required time, that Spain wasn’t my place of work or my source of income, but they still came after me, with their eyes on the prize,” Shakira told Elle in 2022, adding that she was confident that justice would prevail in her favor at trial. “I have enough proof.”

The amount the Spanish government owes her includes fines and interest in addition to the money she handed over, despite having no legal obligation to pay it.

In other Shakira news, she and Burna Boy just released the 2026 FIFA World Cup song, titled “Dai Dai.”

May 18 (UPI) — Alex Saab, a billionaire Colombian businessman and longtime ally of ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, appeared in a Miami federal courtroom on Monday, days after he was extradited to the United States.

Saab, 54, made his initial court appearance in the Southern District of Florida, where a federal indictment was unsealed, charging him with conspiracy to launder money through U.S. banks.

U.S. authorities have long accused Saab of corruption, specifically of using his connections to the Maduro regime to skim money from government programs intended to benefit Venezuela’s poor and of helping Maduro evade sanctions.

The case is centered on the Venezuelan government program Local Committees for Supply and Production, known as CLAP, an acronym of its Spanish name. Created in 2016 in response to the collapse of Venezuela’s economy, CLAP was intended to provide subsidized food to the country’s poor.

Federal prosecutors allege that Saab and his unnamed co-conspirators paid bribes to Venezuelan government officials to be awarded the CLAP contracts to import food, but instead enriched themselves by siphoning hundreds of millions of dollars from the program.

The charging document further accuses Saab and others of expanding the scheme to include the illegal sale of Venezuelan oil, starting in at least 2019 and continuing until the return of the indictment, which is dated Jan. 14.

The U.S. charges stem from the accusation that at least some of the allegedly ill-gotten money was transferred through U.S.-based bank accounts. If convicted, Saab faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

“When illicit proceeds are moved through the United States financial system, our courts have jurisdiction and our prosecutors will act,” U.S. Attorney Jason Reding Quinones of the Southern District of Florida said in a statement.

The indictment announced Monday is the second a Trump administration has brought against Saab, and his extradition on Saturday is the second time he has been sent to the United States to face criminal charges.

Maduro’s government has been a target of President Donald Trump since his first administration, which sought to oust the authoritarian leader through a so-called maximum pressure campaign of sanctions, including designating Saab in 2019 over the alleged CLAP scheme.

Saab was then arrested in June 2020 in Cape Verde at the request of the United States and was extradited.

But he was returned to Venezuela by the Biden administration in 2023 in exchange for 10 detained Americans. As part of the prisoner exchange, Saab was issued a full pardon for charges included in the first indictment.

After his re-election in 2025, Trump ousted Maduro and brought him to the United States to face narco-terrorism charges in a clandestine early January military operation.

Then in February, under the government of Maduro’s former vice president, Delcy Rodriguez, who was elevated to president following her predecessor’s U.S. arrest, Venezuelan authorities detained Saab at the request of the United States.

Saab’s return to U.S. custody now raises speculation that he could be used in the federal prosecution’s case against Maduro, given his former proximity to Maduro and members of Maduro’s family.

“Saab would be a powerful witness in the prosecution of Maduro — and could offer insights into Delcy’s role in building South America’s prototypical kleptocracy,” Benjamin Gedan, a foreign policy scholar and director of the Stimson Center’s Latin America Program, said in a social media statement.

May 15 (UPI) — The Texas Supreme Court refused to remove state Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, from office, despite the efforts of Gov. Greg Abbott after the 2025 redistricting showdown.

Chief Justice Jimmy Blacklock, who once worked as an Abbott aide, wrote that the courts “have uniformly recognized that it is not their role to resolve disputes between the other two branches that those branches can resolve for themselves.”

“The courts’ institutional ‘reluctance … to involve themselves in contests of factional political power,’ a reluctance we reiterate and reinforce today, is a check on the judicial power ‘of ancient standing,’ not an optional preference we are at liberty to discard,” Blacklock wrote.

The fight stems from August 2025 when Texas began an effort to redistrict the state’s congressional seats to create more Republican-leaning districts. Democrats in the state’s legislature fled Texas to prevent a quorum in the House. They eventually returned, and the measure passed.

Texas House Democratic Caucus Chairman Gene Wu led the charge during the exodus of his party members, drawing the ire of Abbott. The governor had threatened to expel any Texas House members who fled the state, of whom there were more than 50.

Wu posted on X Friday: “Texas House Democrats refused to be complicit as Texas Republicans delivered Donald Trump the extra congressional seats he begged for, and now, Gov. Abbott’s final attempt at revenge has been put to rest.”

Texas House Democrats posted: “Today, we won. We’re not going anywhere.”

Republicans hold 24 of Texas’ 38 seats in the U.S. House, with one vacancy. The new map is expected to add five Republican representatives from the state.

Blacklock indicated the matter could be considered in the future.

“Whatever wrong may have been committed by the absent House members, the Texas Constitution’s internal political remedies, none of which involve the judicial branch, were sufficient to the task of restoring the House’s ability to do business,” Blacklock wrote. “Should those remedies unexpectedly prove inadequate in a future case, we might have occasion to consider whether any judicial remedy could ever be available in circumstances such as these.”

AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court on Friday refused to declare that Democratic lawmakers who briefly fled the state in 2025 to block a vote on new congressional voting maps pushed by President Trump had vacated their office.

The all-Republican court dealt a blow to Gov. Greg Abbott and state Republicans in their efforts to severely punish the more than 50 Democrats who bolted for New York, Illinois and Massachusetts in a bid to stop a vote on the maps during a special session. State Republicans had sought their arrest and threatened fines to bring them back to the state Capitol.

Abbott had argued in a lawsuit filed directly to the state’s highest civil court that state Rep. Gene Wu, the leader of the House Democratic caucus, and others had effectively abandoned their office.

Wu had argued that he was not abandoning his office in the quorum break, but was exercising a right to dissent.

In denying Abbott’s request, the court opinion written by Justice James Blacklock noted that the Republican-majority Legislature had adequately resolved the problem itself through measures such as fines against the missing lawmakers, and that they eventually returned on their own within a few weeks.

“In the end, a quorum was restored in two weeks’ time, without judicial intervention, by the interplay of political and practical forces,” Blacklock wrote.

“Courts have uniformly recognized that it is not their role to resolve disputes between the other two branches that those branches can resolve for themselves,” the opinion said.

If the issue rises again and the Legislature cannot effectively compel lawmakers to return, the court may someday consider whether the courts should step in, the opinion said.

“When Greg Abbott threatened to arrest and expel us for denying him a quorum, we told him he should ‘come and take it.’ He tried!” Wu said in a statement Friday. “Abbott was wrong, weak, and after all his bluster, he couldn’t come and take a damn thing.”

Wu and the other lawmakers eventually returned to Texas, and the new map was passed and signed into law by Abbott.

Wu had argued that because he had returned to the Capitol and the map was eventually signed into law, there was no longer any reason for the court to weigh in.

“Their return is robust proof that they never intended to abandon their offices,” Wu argued in legal briefs. “Despite the overheated rhetoric, this quorum break was always understood to be temporary.”

The Texas walkout intensified into a high-stakes national drama as Trump urged Texas and other GOP-controlled states to redraw their congressional districts to help Republicans maintain control of the U.S. House. The Texas map effort set off a wave of similar efforts across several states as governors from both parties pledged to redraw maps with the goal of giving their political candidates a leg up in the 2026 midterm elections.

The state constitution requires that at least 100 of the 150 House members be present to conduct business, and the quorum break effectively shut down a special legislative session Abbott had called to address redistricting and other issues, including aid to communities hit by the devastating July Fourth floods that killed more than 100 people.

In 2021, the court ruled that the Texas Constitution enables the possibility of a quorum break but also allows for consequences to bring members back.

Last year’s Democratic walkout was the third since 2003, when lawmakers bolted to stop a vote on a redistricting bill. They did it again in 2021 over an elections bill. In both cases, they were temporary victories as Democrats eventually returned and the Republican majority in the Legislature ultimately passed both measures into law.

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday turned down an appeal from Virginia Democrats whose new voter-approved state election map was canceled by the state’s Supreme Court.

The justices made no comment, and the legal outcome came as no surprise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has no authority to review or reverse rulings by state judges interpreting their state’s constitution — unless the decision turned on federal law or the U.S. Constitution.

But the Virginia ruling came as a political shock, particularly after 3 million voters had cast ballots and narrowly approved a new election map that would favor Democrats in 10 of its 11 congressional districts.

That would have represented an increase of four seats for Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Even worse for Democrats, the court setback in Virginia came a week after the Supreme Court’s ruling in a Louisiana case had bolstered Republicans.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices reinterpreted the Voting Rights Act and freed Republican-controlled states in the South to dismantle districts that were drawn to favor Black Democrats.

In the two weeks since then, the GOP has flipped seven districts in Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana and Florida.

The Virginia Supreme Court decision pointed to a procedural flaw which turned on the definition of an “election.”

To amend the state Constitution, Virginia lawmakers must adopt the proposal twice — once before a “general election” and a second time after the election. It is then submitted to the voters.

Last fall, Democrats proposed to amend the state Constitution to permit a mid-decade redistricting.

However, by a 4-3 vote, the state justices said the General Assembly flubbed the first approval because it took place on Oct. 31 of last year, just five days before the election.

By then, they said, about 40% of the voters had cast early ballots.

In defense of the Legislature, the state’s attorneys said the proposed amendment was approved before election day, which complies with the state Constitution.

But the majority explained “the noun ‘election’ must be distinguished from the noun phrase ‘election day’.”

It reasoned that because early voters had already cast ballots before the constitutional amendment was first adopted, the proposal was not approved before the election.

The dissenters said the election took place on “election day” and the proposal had been adopted prior to that time.

The state’s lawyers adopted that view in their appeal and argued that under federal law, the election takes place on election day.
But the Supreme Court turned away the appeal with no comment.

The result is that a state amendment that won approval twice before both houses of the Legislature and in a statewide vote was judged to have failed.

The state says it will use the current map, which had elected Democrats to the House in six districts and Republicans in five.

NEW YORK — A federal immigration court in Lower Manhattan has come to represent the Trump administration’s deportation campaign in New York City, with agents carrying out chaotic and sometimes violent arrests in the hallway as migrants leave hearings.

Now the court is serving as a front in a different kind of battle: one of the city’s most closely watched congressional races.

In the Democratic primary between incumbent U.S. Rep. Dan Goldman and former city Comptroller Brad Lander — for a district so solidly blue that the June primary is considered its deciding election — both candidates have made the Trump administration’s treatment of migrants at 26 Federal Plaza a feature of their campaigns, but with decidedly different approaches.

Goldman — an heir to the Levi Strauss denim fortune and former prosecutor who was lead counsel for President Trump’s first impeachment — has approached the topic with a lawyerly bent that leverages the power of his office.

He sued the administration to open immigration detention centers to members of Congress, conducts oversight visits and turned his office across the street into what he’s called a triage center that connects immigrants with advocacy groups and legal services that has, his campaign said, helped more than 30 people get released from federal custody.

After a recent visit, Goldman credited his oversight work as a reason conditions at a holding facility inside the building have improved.

“What you see from our multipronged approach is the way that I push back, which is not performative, but it is substantive,” he told the Associated Press outside 26 Federal Plaza after he toured the detention center that is closed to the public.

Meanwhile, Lander — a progressive city government stalwart who is running with the support of Mayor Zohran Mamdani — has acted as protester and court observer, watching hearings and attempting to accompany immigrants out of the building past masked federal agents.

His efforts have gotten him arrested twice, with the most recent case headed to a trial scheduled to take place just before the primary.

“I would characterize his oversight function as strongly worded letters,” Lander told AP when asked about Goldman’s approach. “And my oversight function is: Show up with hundreds of your neighbors and bear witness and accompany people and demand access and stay until they give it to you or they arrest you.”

Lander’s first arrest happened last year when he linked arms with a person authorities were attempting to detain in the hallway outside the court. Lander was running for mayor at the time, and the arrest gave his campaign a jolt of excitement at a time when Mamdani and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo were considered the front-runners in the race.

A few months later, after losing the mayoral primary but not long before launching his congressional campaign, Lander was arrested again during a large protest at the building and hit with a misdemeanor obstruction charge.

But instead of accepting a deal that would have made the case go away in six months, Lander instead opted to go to trial. He said the case would extract information about the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts at the building during a tense period that predates Goldman’s oversight visits.

Goldman dismissed Lander’s efforts as performative.

“I don’t understand why someone would reject a dismissal of a case so that he can have a public trial, ostensibly to ask for information that I could provide him whenever he wanted because I have the answers from doing my oversight,” he said.

This week, Lander returned to 26 Federal Plaza to sit in on hearings. But just before entering the building, his team got word that federal agents were lingering outside an immigration hearing at a different federal courtroom in a building across the street. He raced over and eventually found the agents, who were wearing masks and milling around in the court’s waiting room.

“The challenge is trying to figure out who they’re going to arrest,” Lander said, popping out of the hearing, where he sat in a back row and took notes. After a while, the agents walked away from the hearing room, down a hallway and exited the floor. It was not clear why they left.

“Maybe we have different styles,” Lander said of his opponent after the agents departed. He later went back across the street and filmed a campaign video in front of 26 Federal Plaza.

Izaguirre writes for the Associated Press.