court

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an attempt by a conservative activist to obtain guardianship records in an effort to find ineligible voters in the presidential battleground state.

The case has been wending its way through the courts for years and stems from attempts by conservatives to overturn President Biden’s victory in Wisconsin over President Trump in 2020.

Here’s what to know:

A conservative activist brought the case

The case tested the line between protecting personal privacy rights and ensuring that ineligible people can’t vote.

Former travel executive Ron Heuer and a group he leads, the Wisconsin Voter Alliance, brought the lawsuit in 2022 alleging that the number of ineligible voters doesn’t match the count on Wisconsin’s voter registration list. The lawsuit doesn’t specify how many people could be affected.

In Wisconsin, a guardianship order is granted by a court giving a person certain legal rights over another who is determined to be unable to make decisions about their life. A court has the power to remove the right to vote from a person under a guardianship order if the person is determined to be unable to understand “the objective of the election process.”

Heuer asked the state Supreme Court to rule that counties must release records filed when a judge determines that someone isn’t competent to vote so that those names can be compared to the voter registration list.

Heuer’s attorney, Erick Kaardal, argued that privacy concerns could be balanced with the public’s right to access government records by redacting identifying or sensitive information on the forms.

But the attorney for Walworth County said those seeking access to the records wanted to cross-check ineligible voters against the names of those registered. They can’t do that, attorney Sam Hall said during oral arguments, without releasing the person’s name and address.

Hall praised the ruling, saying it “protects the privacy of vulnerable individuals while preserving their dignity.”

Kaardal did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for public access to documents but did not take a position on this case, said the court’s decision was “narrowly tailored and should not have a huge impact.”

The council praised the court for clarifying the standard for deciding similar cases in the future, but that “it’s always disappointing when access to public information is curtailed.”

Signs supporting Judge Susan Crawford, and voting and election officials adorn the front yard of a home on South 16th Street on election day April 1, 2025, in Milwaukee.

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Liberal justices who control Wisconsin Supreme Court reject the case

In the 5-2 ruling on Tuesday, the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority along with conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn ruled that the records are not public as the conservative activist had claimed.

The court took the case after two lower state appeals courts issued divergent rulings. One appeals court, based in Madison, denied access to the records while another appeals court, based in Waukesha, said in 2023 that the records should be made public.

It ordered Walworth County to release them with birth dates and case numbers redacted.

The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling that the records should be made public.

State law is clear that the records being sought are not public and “the Alliance has no right to the records,” Justice Janet Protasiewicz wrote for the majority.

Conservative justices Annette Ziegler and Rebecca Bradley dissented, saying the court adopted “an overbroad and unworkable definition of what records pertain to a finding of incompetency” to include the forms that indicate a person has been found ineligible to vote.

Those forms are not pertinent to the finding of incompetency and are therefore subject to the open records law, Ziegler and Bradley wrote.

The case was one of several targeting the 2020 election

The case was an attempt by those who questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential race to cast doubt on the integrity of elections in the presidential swing state. Heuer and the WVA filed lawsuits in 13 Wisconsin counties in 2022 seeking guardianship records.

Heuer and the WVA have pushed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in a failed attempt to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin. Heuer was hired as an investigator in the discredited 2020 election probe led by former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman. The probe found no evidence of fraud or abuse that would have changed the election results.

The WVA also filed two unsuccessful lawsuits that sought to overturn Biden’s win in Wisconsin.

Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after losing in 2020

Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, a result that has withstood independent and partisan audits and reviews, as well as lawsuits and the recounts Trump requested. Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 by about 29,000 votes.

There are no pending lawsuits challenging the results of the 2024 election or calls to investigate the outcome.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

July 7 (UPI) — A federal panel of appeals court judges ruled Tuesday that the Stop WOKE Act championed by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis violates the free speech of professors and is a “breathtaking assertion of power.”

The Florida law restricted how professors can teach, especially when speaking about gender and race, in colleges and universities. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled 2-1 to support a 2022 decision that called the law “positively dystopian,” Politico reported.

The court Tuesday went further, saying the act is a “breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the state’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry — classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth.”

“If the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it,” the ruling said.

Judge Britt C. Grant wrote the opinion, joined by Judge Charles R. Wilson. Judge Barbara Lagoa, however, wrote a dissent saying the First Amendment “does not compel all viewpoints to be worthy of state-sponsored endorsement.”

The Florida Legislature approved the act, also called the Individual Freedom Act, in 2022. The state has been fighting it in court ever since.

The lawsuits that led to the ruling Tuesday were brought by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a student free-speech group, and the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida and Legal Defense Fund.

FIRE senior attorney Greg Greubel said the decision “means that college remains a place where professors and students are allowed to debate controversial topics — even if politicians disagree with them.”

DeSantis’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday, Politico said. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised Lagoa on social media, saying she “may be the best jurist in our country” and should be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

BREAKINGBREAKING,

Appeals court rules the far-right leader ineligible to hold public office for 45 months.

A French appeals court has opened the door for far right leader Marine Le Pen to potentially run in the 2027 presidential election but said she must wear an electronic tag.

A Paris appeals court on Tuesday ruled Le Pen guilty of misusing public funds but reduced the ban on her holding elected office to 45 months, with 30 suspended.

She must now decide whether campaigning in 2027 with a monitoring bracelet as part of her sentence to be served at home is possible.

A lower court last year sentenced Le Pen, 57, to a five-year ban from public office and two years in prison over a fake jobs scam at the European Parliament.

The three-time presidential candidate hopes to run in the race to replace outgoing centrist President Emmanuel Macron in 2027.

Le Pen has said that if the sentence prevented her from campaigning, she would hand the reins over to her 30-year-old lieutenant, Jordan Bardella, leader of their National Rally (RN) party.

More to come…

EXPLAINER

The far-right leader could be prevented from running for president in 2027 if embezzlement charges are upheld.

France’s appeal court is set to deliver a key verdict on whether Marine Le Pen and other members of her National Rally party misused European Parliament funds in the hiring of aides between 2004 and 2016.

If, on Tuesday, the court upholds her 2025 conviction, which saw her barred from office for five years and sentenced to house arrest, Le Pen – one of the most prominent figures of the European far right and a frontrunner in polls for France’s 2027 contest – is likely to be unable to stand in presidential elections next year.

On Wednesday last week, Le Pen said that even if the court only upholds the order for her to wear an electronic bracelet, she will not stand. “If I can be a candidate, I will be a candidate, provided that I am able to campaign,” the 57-year-old political firebrand told LCI channel.

“Because if I’m allowed to be a candidate but am effectively prevented from campaigning freely, then you understand that wouldn’t be possible.”

What was Le Pen convicted of?

In March 2025, a Paris criminal court ruled that Le Pen was at the heart of “a fraudulent system” that her party used to siphon off EU Parliament funds worth 2.9 million euros ($3.32m).

The court also fined the National Rally party 2 million euros ($2.29m), half of which was suspended.

She had been accused of using money intended to finance the costs of parliamentary ⁠assistants to pay employees working for her political party. EU politicians ⁠are allocated funds to cover expenses, including salaries for parliamentary assistants, but are not allowed to use them for party activities.

Le Pen was ordered to stand trial in 2023, after a seven-year investigation, alongside more than two dozen other defendants. She and her party have denied the accusations, arguing the ⁠money had been used legitimately and that prosecutors had applied an overly narrow definition of what a parliamentary assistant does.

What were the political implications of the verdict?

As part of the initial verdict last year, Le Pen was given a five-year ban from holding elected office and sentenced to two years’ house arrest with an electronic bracelet. Since France will hold the first round of its next presidential election on April 18, 2027, with a run-off set for May 2, Le Pen will not be able to run if she loses the appeal.

The far-right leader has pledged to put up a fight if she’s barred from running. “If I cannot be a candidate, I will make use of every available avenue of appeal,” Le Pen said.

She could go, therefore, to France’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, which does not judge the facts but checks whether the courts and court of appeal have applied the law correctly. The court could take about six months to hear the case and issue a verdict.

If allowed to run, Le Pen is widely seen as a top contender to succeed centrist President Emmanuel Macron in the 2027 election. If not, her 30-year-old protege Jordan Bardella would likely run instead.

What could the Court of Appeal decide?

The appeal court could overturn Le Pen’s conviction in its ruling on July 7, leaving her free to run for president next year. Legal experts say that outcome appears unlikely, however, given the court’s findings at first instance.

The court can instead uphold Le Pen’s conviction. If it confirms the five-year ban requested by prosecutors, it will rule her out of the presidential race, paving the ‌way for Bardella to take her place. Le Pen can then appeal to the Court of Cassation.

A third possibility is that the court upholds the conviction but softens the sentence. If the ban from public office were lifted or shortened to two years or less, the door to a presidential bid would be open.

WASHINGTON — Over the past year and a half, the Trump administration has turned repeatedly to the Supreme Court for clearance on its sweeping immigration enforcement plans. While the administration lost its bid this week to do away with birthright citizenship by executive order, its strategy has, in large part, been a success.

In a White House news release listing 60 actions the administration has taken as part of its America First agenda to restrict immigration, the first four actions were decisions by the Supreme Court.

After the court ruled in June that President Trump can, without judicial review, end temporary legal protections for hundreds of thousands of immigrants, his administration celebrated the ruling as a “major victory for American sovereignty.”

The list of accomplishments also noted that the high court had granted immigration officers greater leeway to remove green card holders who are accused but not convicted of crimes; allowed the administration to limit how many people can apply for asylum; and gave it the green light to continue deporting immigrants to third-party countries where they have no connection.

The decisions raise significant consequences for immigrants who have made their lives in the U.S., and stand to reshape public views over the country’s historic position as a place of refuge. The administration has not only tried to restrict illegal immigration, it has also targeted people residing in the country legally and stepped up efforts to drive them out.

The court’s term that ended last week is the most robust judicial affirmation of executive power over immigration in the court’s history, said Muzaffar Chishti, a senior fellow at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. Chishti said the rulings signify that future presidents could continue to change immigration policies at their discretion.

“The biggest impact is that we have now fully understood the power of the presidency, especially in immigration matters,” Chishti said. “Where there is any discretion left to the president or the executive, this Supreme Court has widened the limits of that authority.”

One of Trump’s earliest wins since returning to the White House came last September, when the Supreme Court affirmed that immigration agents can stop anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally on the basis of their perceived race and ethnicity, job or the language they speak.

Afterward, federal officials launched enforcement operations in Chicago, North Carolina and Minneapolis, using increasingly aggressive tactics until two U.S. citizens were shot and killed by immigration agents in January and the administration shifted course.

The Supreme Court’s rulings have landed with particular force in South Florida, which is home to the largest share of Venezuelan immigrants in the country.

The end of Temporary Protected Status — a program intended to protect people in the event of a natural disaster — heightened concerns about deportation to a country that is reeling after twin earthquakes from June 24. More than 100 Venezuelans deported from the U.S. hours before the disaster are among those missing.

Some Florida Republicans called on the administration to renew the legal protections for Venezuelans in the U.S.

“Congress specifically included earthquakes in the TPS statute for moments exactly like this,” said Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.). “I urge the Administration to redesignate TPS for Venezuelans already in the United States because sending them back after this catastrophe is simply not the right thing to do.”

The White House did not respond to a request seeking comment on whether Trump would authorize humanitarian relief for Venezuelan immigrants.

Immigrants from El Salvador are now holding their breath for an upcoming decision on their TPS designation, which is set to expire Sept. 9.

About 1.3 million people from 17 countries were enrolled in the program when Trump took office last year. The administration has already terminated TPS for many of them, and the Supreme Court’s decision last week, which concerned Haitians and Syrians, clears the way for federal officials to continue.

“The implication of this is that at least most of the claims that have been litigated to challenge this administration’s illegal war on TPS are now foreclosed,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA, who presented arguments for the Syria case.

The concern among advocates took on greater urgency after The New York Times and other outlets reported on Thursdaythat immigration officials, seeking to reach a goal of 2,000 arrests per day, had detained more than 10,000 people in less than a week.

Arnulfo De La Cruz, who leads a California union representing thousands of home care workers with temporary protected status, said he is alarmed by the Supreme Court’s many immigration rulings.

“We’re getting into really dangerous territory with, in some ways, the Supreme Court almost legislating the priorities of the administration,” said De La Cruz, who is president of SEIU California and SEIU Local 2015. “That’s the responsibility of Congress.”

In a blow to a centerpiece of the administration’s immigration agenda, the divided Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship — that, with few exceptions, a person born in U.S. soil is citizen.

Stephen Yale-Loehr, a retired Cornell University immigration law professor, called the ruling one setback among Trump’s largely successful restructuring of how the U.S. treats immigrants. He pointed to a tracker led by a Stanford University law professor that lists more than 700 immigration policy actions by the Trump administration so far.

“Despite this seemingly historic loss, the Trump administration is winning its war on immigrants,” Yale-Loehr said.

And now some Republicans, including Trump, are saying Congress should lead the attack on birthright citizenship.

“You can’t have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby here, and now that child is an American citizen,” said Stephen Miller, a Trump aide who is behind much of his immigration agenda.

But Chishti, of the Migration Policy Institute, said in reality, “Congress can’t do anything — it was left powerless by the Supreme Court.”

Other conservatives called on the administration to lean on the considerable authority it already has.

Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a hard-line restrictionist group, said the birthright decision “makes it all the more urgent to step up enforcement to the maximum possible extent.”

Democrats, meanwhile, cheered the win while acknowledging that their fight against the administration’s immigration policies continues.

“We cannot rest,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.). “Because this is certainly not the end of Trump’s attacks on our Constitution, our democracy, and the notion of what it means to be American.”

More immigration-related cases are among those in the Supreme Court’s docket starting in October and could offer further expansions of executive power.

One case concerns more than 50,000 petitions filed in federal courts in hopes of obtaining the release of detained immigrants. Those petitions ballooned after the administration began limiting the ability of many immigrants to seek release through bond hearings in immigration court.

The administration is expected to put up a fierce defense.

The California Supreme Court is poised to rule in a lawsuit that has pitted the state’s court reporters — the workers who create transcripts of court proceedings — against victims of domestic violence and other vulnerable litigants.

The case will determine whether to end a long-standing prohibition on the electronic recording of most civil court proceedings, enabling the use of modern technology to create a “verbatim record,” which is crucial to appeals and other legal challenges.

Advocates say a decision in favor of electronic recording could end a years-long judicial crisis virtually overnight, producing legal records and preserving the right to appeal in tens of thousands of cases in civil, family and probate hearings where court reporters are rarely provided. Participants in the civil proceedings can hire private stenographers to maintain a record of what’s said, but their services can run thousands of dollars a day.

“In many, many courtrooms throughout the state today, there is nobody there, and there’s not going to be anybody there,” attorney Sonya Winner told the high court during oral arguments in Los Angeles last month. “The court reporters the court has on staff are off doing felony trials,” making electronic recording the only alternative for most civil litigants.

Everyone agrees the lack of court reporters is a crisis. Lawyers on both sides have urged the high court to establish a clear right to a verbatim record in civil hearings.

The divergence is over whether the worker shortage is improving slowly or still getting worse, and what the Supreme Court should do about it.

California’s largest public sector union and the court reporters it represents warn the decision could allow the state’s court systems to stop hiring stenographers.

Court reporters say their duty to maintain an accurate record is a profound public trust that can only be performed by a human being, who can intervene to ensure everyone is heard and who bears responsibility if a transcript is missing or incomplete.

Despite California’s sluggish job market, hiring for court reporters remains brisk, bolstered by tens of millions in funding from Sacramento, a recent change in state law and aggressive recruitment by some of the country’s largest court systems, including Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego counties.

Lila Scott, a TV writer, is among those seeking to join the profession. Like a lot of Hollywood talent, she had been struggling to find steady work in recent years.

The “Unicorn Academy” writer was trolling government job sites when she stumbled across a listing for court reporters in Los Angeles — and then another, and another.

“I thought, ‘What the heck is this?’” Scott recalled as she set up for a class at Downey Adult School.

Scott is now in training to become a “voice writer,” a form of note-taking that relies on a device called a stenomask — something like a cross between a podcast mic and a nebulizer — to produce a transcript. Voice writers repeat every word spoken in court along with a sequence of formatting commands to voice recognition software.

“You use your mom voice when you’re dictating,” said another Downey student, 40-year-old Wanda Port. “That stern mom voice, that’s the one you use.”

Traditionally, court reporters have used 22-key steno machines to rapidly take down every word said by lawyers, judges and anyone else who speaks on the record during an official proceeding. The licensing process for these stenographers is significantly longer and more difficult than what voice writers undergo.

A change in state law in 2024 allowed voice writers to become licensed as “certified shorthand reporters,” opening a new pipeline for court staff.

About half of the court reporters hired in California since 2024 have been voice writers, data show.

“Of the 300-plus students we have, it’s about 50/50,” said Jennifer Shenbaum, who directs the Downey program.

The current hiring blitz follows more than a decade of decline, after California’s court systems shed about a third of their reporters amid a protracted budget crisis in 2012. Labor leaders say new licenses have jumped ninefold in recent years, and court reporting classrooms across the state are full.

Diana Van Dyke, a Los Angeles County Superior Court reporter and a shop steward in Service Employees International Union Local 721, credits much of that growth to the expansion of paid internships, signing bonuses and other aggressive recruitment tactics funded by the Legislature and promoted by the union.

Students training to become court reporters practice on stenotypes and stenomasks during a speed-building class at Downey Adult School.

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

At Orange County’s Cypress College, which offers court reporter training, job fliers boasting six-figure salaries paper the walls. A pamphlet from the Central District of California that touted “front-page Federal cases” hung in the window of a court reporting classroom, where students practiced typing 200 words per minute.

“By the end of the third test I can’t feel my fingers — but it’s worth it!” said Asia Mendez, a trainee-stenographer.

While advocates for court reporters say humans can still do the job better than machines, the fact that many hearings occur without any official transcript at all has drawn concern from top state officials.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called the situation “untenable.”

“This is the rare case in which the current application of a statute violates procedural due process,” Bonta’s office said in a brief urging the state’s high court to allow recordings.

Such a ruling would be especially important for survivors of domestic violence, who often find the family court system weaponized against them, said Jennafer Dorfman Wagner, director of programs at the Family Violence Appellate Project, which brought the suit that is now before the California Supreme Court.

“People who want to exert power and control over an ex-partner will find whatever foothold they can and use it,” Wagner said.

Without a record of their proceedings, litigants can’t prove what happened in the courtroom, or appeal if a judge denies a restraining order or approves a custody arrangement that leaves them vulnerable to further violence.

California’s court systems have also thrown their weight behind the plaintiffs in the case.

“California has long led in areas of access to justice and technology, but in this area, it lags far behind the rest of the country, and behind the federal courts that are in this state,” said Mark Yohalem, an attorney representing the state’s superior courts.

The justices, too, seemed eager to embrace electronic recording in cases where no court reporter is available and litigants cannot afford to pay for one on their own, repeatedly pressing lawyers on exactly how such a ruling might be written.

Although the decision would not affect criminal proceedings, the high court judges have expressed concern that court systems may use their ruling to roll back the broader recruitment push as a cost-cutting measure — a worry labor leaders share.

“Electronic recording is cheaper,” said Justice Joshua P. Groban. “It allows any court to just say, for example, that no more court reporters are needed.”

When advocates for the Family Violence Appellate Project told Groban and the other justices hearing the case that such a move by the courts would amount to “bad faith” and should not weigh on their decision, the judge appeared skeptical.

“Either bad faith or fiscal responsibility, depending on the budget that year,” Groban said.

LONDON — During a weekend that celebrates life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Wimbledon offers an American variation in the pursuit of Grand Slam glory.

Sunday’s fourth-round clash on the No. 1 Court between Jessica Pegula, the top-ranked American and veteran standard-bearer, and Iva Jovic, the brightest young American star since Coco Gauff, is a compelling intergenerational showdown between the present and future of U.S. women’s tennis.

It’s the kind of matchup worthy of a holiday complete with fireworks.

“I know she’s going to come after me hard,” the 32-year-old Pegula said following her clinical 6-1, 6-3 third-round defeat of Jessica Bouzas Maneiro of Spain on Friday.

“Everyone kind of wants to be the top American, I guess,” agreed Jovic, an 18-year-old from Torrance who toughed out a 6-3, 3-6, 6-4 win over Ekaterina Alexandrova of Russia on Friday to reach the fourth round at Wimbledon for the first time. “There is a little bit extra competition there.”

Pegula and Jovic are hardly unfamiliar opponents, and not just because people frequently told a young Jovic to model her game after Pegula. The two have met three times before, including twice this year, on hard courts in Dubai and on clay in Charleston, S.C. Pegula won all three matches.

American Jessica Pegula serves the ball during a win over Spain’s Sara Sorribes Tormo at Wimbledon on Wednesday.

(Kirsty Wigglesworth / Ap Photo/kirsty Wigglesworth)

“There is a lot of things we do well, and we do similar, but a couple of differences too,” Jovic noted of their baseline-centric, tactical styles.

Pegula is expecting nothing less than a mirror-like baseline duel from the player she affectionately dubbed “mini-me” after beating her in February.

Their career arcs have taken different paths to their first Grand Slam meeting. Pegula spent years grinding away on the Women’s Tennis Assn.’s lower tier before becoming a late-blooming major contender and top-10 mainstay. The experience gap remains enormous: Pegula owns 11 career singles titles to Jovic’s one and has amassed more than 500 tour-level wins compared with just over 100 for the teenager.

Jovic, a top-ranked junior in just her second Wimbledon, quickly has made her presence felt on tour, becoming the youngest player to win a WTA title last season at 17 before backing it up with her breakout quarterfinal run at the Australian Open in January. She is the youngest player in the top 20 and the youngest remaining in the Wimbledon singles draw.

After watching Jovic’s rise this season, Pegula praised her competitive instincts and rapid adjustment to grass.

Jovic “competes like an animal,” Pegula said.

Their relationship to grass, however, couldn’t be more different.

Pegula historically has not been a force at Wimbledon, reaching the quarterfinals only once in 2023. She acknowledges battling her own instincts on the surface.

“I feel like sometimes years in the past I’ve really fought against how to move on it, fought against all the intangibles, all the slices,” she said.

This year she’s relaxed her approach, improved her balance and added more pop to her serve, a major asset on grass.

Jovic, by contrast, has been a quick study when it comes to adapting to the tricky footing, sliding and occasional tumbles on grass. She’s taken to the lawns of London like a natural despite growing up in Los Angeles County, where grass courts are virtually nonexistent.

Jovic credits playing left wing in local soccer leagues from about ages 6 to 13 for her exceptional, low-to-the-ground footwork. That cross-training has paid dividends. She won her first professional title on grass in England last year and recently reached the semifinals at the prestigious Queen’s Club warmup event.

“It’s very closely related to the movement that we do in tennis,” Jovic said of soccer.

Jovic, who’s of Serbian and Croatian descent, also has been keeping tabs on the World Cup, though rooting for the U.S. during late starts has proved challenging in Europe.

Hall of Fame analyst Pam Shriver says the age gap adds a fascinating dimension to the grass-court chess match.

“It’s interesting when rivalries can develop generations apart from the same country, and I think they have a really good respect for each other,” Shriver said.

Torrance native Iva Jovic, left, congratulates fellow American Jessica Pegula after Pegula won their match during the Charleston Open on April 4 in Charleston, S.C.

(Matthew Stockman / Getty Images)

Shriver added that Jovic can learn from Pegula’s cerebral approach, while veterans like Pegula can tap into a fresh mindset from the younger generation’s unflinching energy.

“It goes by so fast,” Pegula acknowledged of the creeping sense of urgency in pursuit of her first major title.

Jovic is aware Sunday’s match is a massive opportunity to prove her rapid ascent is no fluke and flip the script on her head-to-head deficit.

“Hopefully, this will be the one I get her,” she said.

Through the first week in London, Pegula has been in sharper form. She hasn’t dropped a set in three matches, gliding into the fourth round and looking more and more like the favorite in her quarter. She also feasts on fellow Americans. Since 2023, Pegula is an impressive 34-3 against her compatriots.

“I’m always motivated to beat the other Americans in a way that’s different,” Pegula said. “Excited again to challenge myself against someone who is much younger, who is playing with nothing to lose and no fear.”

Still, reaching next weekend’s final will require either player to navigate a brutal top half of the draw. It includes four-time major winners Aryna Sabalenka and Naomi Osaka, two-time major champion Gauff and the last Wimbledon champion left in the field, 2024 winner Barbora Krejcikova.

On a weekend devoted to celebrating the U.S., at least one American will be celebrating at Wimbledon when the fireworks fade.

July 3 (UPI) — South Korea’s Home Plus faces the risk of liquidation as the court halted the rehabilitation proceedings for the country’s troubled discount chain after overseeing the case for 16 months.

The court said Friday that it reached the decision because the restructuring plan of Home Plus lacks feasibility as the company’s business continued to deteriorate while it failed to find a new owner.

“In this climate, Home Plus requires at least $130 million in working capital to sustain its business and implement the proposed rehabilitation plan. But the necessary funding has yet to be secured,” the court said in a statement.

MBK Partners, one of the largest private equity firms in Asia, acquired Home Plus in a multi-billion-dollar deal in 2015. After years of mounting losses, however, the retailer entered a court-led restructuring program in early 2025.

Giving up its rights to more than $1.5 billion in common equity of Home Plus, MBK spent more than a year searching for a buyer but failed to strike a deal.

Amid the prolonged financial strain, Home Plus has steadily downsized its sales network. It ran more than 140 hypermarkets nationwide in the mid-2010s but now has just 67 stores.

Home Plus can appeal the ruling within two weeks. To avoid the worst-case scenario, the company has asked its largest creditor, Meritz Financial Group, to offer the funding needed to pursue the appeal.

“The court said that if Home Plus secures $130 million in working capital within two weeks and files an immediate appeal, it would be possible to reconsider the case and resume the rehabilitation proceedings, “Home Plus said in a statement.

“We earnestly ask Meritz Financial Group to provide a $130 million loan,” it added.

Home Plus is not publicly listed.

July 3 (UPI) — The Louisiana Supreme Court granted a stay on state Attorney General Liz Murrill’s indictment, less than 24 hours after a grand jury approved charges.

The New Orleans grand jury charged Murrill, a Republican, with 16 felony counts of malfeasance in office and public intimidation related to alleged threats contained in a letter she sent to Orleans Parish leaders in May.

The letter allegedly threatened recipients, including Democratic Mayor Helena Moreno and District Attorney Jason Williams, that they could lose their positions if they opposed a new law to combine New Orleans’ criminal and district clerks of court. The eliminates the position of newly-elected Clerk of Court Calvin Duncan, a Democrat.

The Louisiana Supreme Court halted the criminal proceedings Friday morning, citing potential conflicts of interest tied to special prosecutor Laurie White’s past actions representing Duncan.

The court’s ruling also questioned reports of incidents during the grand jury proceedings, including allegations that journalists were forcibly removed from the proceedings in handcuffs.

“While the record before this Court is undeveloped, there is considerable support for the view that the Attorney General is likely to succeed on the merits of a motion to quash this indictment on either a legal basis or due to apparent procedural irregularities,” The Hill quoted the ruling as stating.

“The Attorney General makes a compelling argument concerning the disturbing defects in the grand jury proceedings and in the trial court’s handlings of those proceedings. This indictment appears to turn the law on its head and flows from what appear to be extraordinary procedural defects and improprieties.”

Murrill praised the development in a statement posted to social media.

“I’m grateful to the Louisiana Supreme Court for swiftly issuing a stay in this matter. The constitution and laws of Louisiana impose a wide swath of duties on the Attorney General. I will continue to carry out those duties to the best of my ability,” she wrote. “This matter is not over. I will still need to file the necessary motions to seek a dismissal, which will be forthcoming.”

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, R, had earlier pledged to pardon Murrill.

“I would like to inform the great citizens of Louisiana who care about the rule of law, that our fabulous Office of the Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill will not have to worry about having her reputation tarnished by this kangaroo grand jury or the Orleans Kangaroo court as I will pardon her as fast as the law allows. The criminal justice system is a circus at its finest in Orleans and we will not have any of that,” he wrote on social media.

CARRY On actor Leslie Phillips’ family is set for a High Court ding-dong over his will, The Sun can reveal.

The late star‘s estate is suing his wife, Zara, at the High Court, after she refused to move out of their £4.4million marital home.

The long-running spat is said to have strained the relationship between Zara, 68, and Harry Potter actor Leslie’s children, who say they are entitled to the proceeds of the Edwardian mansion’s sale.

Leslie, who died in November 2022 at age 98 after an eight-decade showbiz career, left his family a huge £5.3million fortune and dictated exactly how his belongings should be shared.

He gave his OBE and CBE medals to his grandchildren and a Buddha statue to his third wife, Zara Phillips.

But the actor, known for his “Ding Dong,” “Well, Hello” and “I Say” trademark lines, also stipulated his posh West London house should be sold exactly two years and nine months after his death.

star studded

Taylor Swift’s A-list wedding guests revealed as stars arrive in New York

‘CAN’T BEAR IT’

Vogue Williams savages Katie Price’s hubby Lee & rants ‘he’s taking p**s’

But Zara has repeatedly insisted Leslie, whom she wed in 2013, had promised she could stay there for the rest of her life.

She even claims his will was changed without her knowledge to force the sale of the property and hand more cash to his kids.

At the four-storey Edwardian house, filled with pictures of Leslie, Zara previously told The Sun: “This is my marital home.

“I want to live here for the rest of my life, not to move out.

“Leslie always promised me I could stay here.

The will, seen by The Sun, says the £4.4million house is to be sold two years and nine months after his death, with the proceeds going into a trust.

It means the deadline for the sale passed in August 2025, but Turkish social worker Zara has not moved and is determined to stay put.

The sale trust would have been split between Phillips’ four children from his first marriage, Caroline, Claudia, Andrew, and Roger, as well as Zara.

Phillips’ two sons and two daughters were each left £50,000 in the will, while his 15 grandchildren were each awarded £5,000.

Zara was left £155,000, along with ten of Phillips’ belongings, each worth as much as £1,500, and more than 25 per cent of the shares in the trust fund.

The house spat will now be decided at London’s High Court, though Zara insists she has not been told about the case.

A case filed this week names the Estate of Leslie Samuel Phillips CBE as the claimant, and Zara Phillips as the defendant.

It is listed as a Part Eight claim, meaning the parties do not agree on the facts, and is said to be a case about “provision for family/dependants”.

Speaking outside her home yesterday, Zara told The Sun: “I am very surprised. I had no idea about any of this.

“Leslie’s children have not been in touch with me at all.

“If they want me to come to court, I will do.

“I will come to court and fight it if I must.

“I am planning to stay put. I have no plans to move out – this is my home.

“I will have to speak to my lawyers.”

Zara met Leslie in 1995, but the couple were friends for 18 years before they married.

Leslie was walking near his home when he saw Zara, then a 39-year-old widow, who insisted she did not know the star was world-famous.

At the time, Leslie was married to his second wife, Bond actress Angela Scoular, who took her own life after her cancer returned in 2011.

The executor of Leslie Phillips’ estate, solicitor Martin Terrell, said he could not comment on an ongoing case.

NEW YORK — A skyscraper-scaling daredevil told police that he and his girlfriend climbed the Empire State Building’s antenna and unfurled a banner about love and peace because he wanted to “do something special” for their engagement, prosecutors said Thursday at the couple’s arraignment on felony reckless endangerment, burglary and other charges.

The couple, who go by Angela Nikolau and Ivan Beerkus, said little as they left court, though Beerkus responded to a journalist’s question about the stunt by saying, “We believe in love.”

Authorities said the two — who were the subject of the 2024 Netflix documentary “Skywalkers: A Love Story ” about their “rooftopping” exploits and budding romance — created not only a spectacle but also a danger by ascending the famed skyscraper’s broadcast antenna Wednesday.

After reaching the top, 1,454 feet above Midtown Manhattan, the climbers displayed a black banner reading, “When the power of love beats the love of power the world knows peace,” news helicopter video showed.

Then they collected the banner and descended to a slightly lower ledge, where an apparently successful marriage proposal unfolded. Nikolau posted images of the escapade on her social media accounts, including a photo that modeled an engagement-style ring above a bird’s-eye view of Manhattan.

Police waited about half an hour for the antenna to be powered down before Emergency Services Unit officers started ascending and eventually intercepted the climbers on their way down, according to the court complaint, which noted the danger to officers who climbed about 1,250 feet above the ground. The court document identified the two by their formal names, Angelina Nikolau and Ivan Kuznetsov.

“Skywalkers: A Love Story” follows Beerkus, now 32, and Nikolau, 33, as they make often unauthorized ascents of tall structures, sometimes posing as construction workers to sneak in.

The court complaint said police found a broken lock on a security door on the Empire State Building’s restricted-access 104th floor, which provides access to the antenna. The highest public floor is the 102nd, where there’s an observation deck. Going higher requires a key card, according to the court complaint.

The Empire State Building’s management has called the climb “unauthorized” but hasn’t answered questions about what interactions, if any, the daredevils had with security workers. Visitors to the skyscraper are screened and told not to bring large packages, sports equipment, costumes or masks, among other items.

Beerkus and Nikolau were released without bail, in accordance with New York laws that restrict when monetary bail can be set. Their attorney, Jason Krinsky, said outside court that once prosecutors provide evidence, he and his clients would assess it and determine next steps.

“What a way to propose — something you can only dream of,” Krinsky said. “So you’ve got to, you know, give him some credit for that.”

Other daredevils have climbed the antenna and other parts of the Empire State Building. Those ascents have largely been unauthorized, but actor and musician Jared Leto was allowed to climb up to the base of the antenna from the 86th floor in 2023 to promote a tour.

Peltz writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led a fractured Supreme Court this year that both expanded a president’s power to run the government and dealt major defeats to President Trump.

In Trump’s second year back in the White House, Roberts and the court punctured his claim to have power with no limits.

The justices struck down his worldwide tariffs, ruling these import taxes are a matter for Congress, not the president.

They also threw out his executive order that would end the principle of birthright citizenship. The Constitution wrote this promise into law, Roberts said, and the president may not change it.

The court also ruled in December that the president did not have the power to put National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago.

The three decisions came over fierce dissents from conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. and with Neil M. Gorsuch in two of them.

The three liberal justices dissented angrily when the court ruled the administration may end Temporary Protected Status for Haitians and Syrians.

They did the same when the court ruled the president may replace the top appointees of semi-independent agencies.

But they joined Roberts in a 5-4 ruling that affirmed the independence of the Federal Reserve and blocked Trump’s move to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook.

Trump has won on most immigration fronts because Roberts and the conservatives believe Congress put the enforcement power in the hands of the administration. They point to the law authorizing temporary protection which says there shall be “no judicial review” of the decision to end the protection.

Roberts is a solid conservative who also tries to keep the court on a middle course. It’s an approach that rarely wins plaudits from the right and almost never from the left.

This year the chief justice prevailed with different coalitions.

This week, the court ruled by a 5-4 vote against the Republican National Committee and upheld state laws that allow for counting late-arriving mail ballots. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined with Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Barrett also joined the chief justice in the rulings on tariffs and birthright citizenship.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. speaks to the Georgetown Law School graduating class in 2025.

(Manuel Balce Ceneta / Associated Press)

This week, the court also limited the power of police to use cellphone data to look for crime suspects. This too came on a 5-4 vote when Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined Roberts and the three liberals.

Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who has been a friend of Roberts’ since their time in law school, said the chief justice “is clearly working very hard” to put together majorities.

“It is not easy to formally preside over a court in which five of its members (Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch on the right and Justices Sotomayor and Jackson on the left) deride the kind of efforts at moderation that is the chief’s preferred signature and harshly condemn him when he strays from their own views.”

Washington attorney Roman Martinez, a former clerk for Roberts, said the court is “clearly right of center” but the decision on tariffs was the most important of the year.

“It is a huge deal for the court to say ‘no’ to the president on his major policy initiative,” he said.

Stanford law professor Michael McConnell agreed. “It’s hard to claim the court is in Trump’s pocket when he lost the major cases,” he said.

Trump responded to the tariff defeat by calling the justices in the majority a “disgrace to our nation” and “disloyal to the Constitution.”

They “sicken me,” he said of Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, his two appointees who joined Roberts in the 6-3 majority.

Trump went to the court in April to hear his top attorney defend his executive order on birthright citizenship. He left after an hour of mostly skeptical questions.

On the term’s last day, Roberts issued a clear and eloquent 26-page opinion setting out America’s history of according citizenship to children who were born in this country, without regard to their parents.

This view came from England “and crossed the Atlantic with the colonists — and was adopted with little fanfare after the Revolution,” he wrote. “Nothing is better settled,” Justice Joseph Story wrote in 1830.

But it was unsettled by the fight over slavery.

“In the odious decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford, this Court imposed the Southern States’ beliefs onto the Nation” and decreed Blacks could not become citizens, Roberts wrote.

Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass were among the many who condemned the court’s decision, he said.

“It took more than a decade — and the addition of names such as Antietam, Gettysburg, and Chancellorsville to our national canon — but Douglass’s vision of ‘our common humanity’ would be fulfilled,” he wrote.

The Reconstruction Congress wrote this rule into the 14th Amendment and said “All persons born” here are citizens by birth.

The principle of birthright citizenship had been upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898, the chief justice wrote, and it had gone unchallenged until Trump returned to the White House last year.

But Thomas filed a 91-page dissent arguing that immigrants must be “domiciled” here before their children may become citizens.

Alito filed a separate 39-page opinion branding the Roberts opinion a “serious mistake.”

On that note, the court adjourned for its summer recess.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has spent months waging an unusually aggressive campaign to reshape how states run elections, leveraging federal agencies in ways no previous president has attempted.

He has pushed the Department of Homeland Security to compile a list of citizens in each state to help determine voter eligibility. He is seeking to give the Postal Service a role in deciding who can receive mail ballots. He has threatened to withhold federal funding from states unless they phase out electronic voting machines. And he is pressuring Republican lawmakers to overhaul voting laws, claiming without evidence that elections are being rigged.

The efforts have run into resistance in court and within his own party. They have also left postal workers and local election officials bracing for an election cycle marked by deepening doubts about election integrity, and uncertainty about how the federal government may challenge the post-election results.

“It’s an unprecedented power grab to reshape how our elections work so that he and his allies can maintain and expand power,” said Eric Kashdan, director of federal advocacy at the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan government ethics organization.

The White House defends the effort as fulfilling a campaign promise, and argues the administration is “lawfully enacting the agenda President Trump was elected to enact.”

One of Trump’s defining efforts to assert some federal control over state elections has been his insistence on passing the SAVE America Act, which would require voters to provide proof of citizenship when they register, require Americans to show identification when casting a ballot and require states to send voter data to the Department of Homeland Security.

His relentless push for the measure has prompted him to derail a bipartisan housing bill and threaten to forgo signing any piece of legislation unless the voting measure is approved. He says he considers the matter a “national emergency.” Despite the pressure campaign, Senate Republican leaders maintain there is not enough support to pass the measure.

The political stakes ahead of the midterms have been laid out more bluntly by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), whose chamber has approved the SAVE America Act. Last month, Johnson warned conservatives gathered at the Faith & Freedom Coalition that if Democrats win back control of the House, they will “go after the president’s family, the Cabinet, his donors, friends,” and supporters.

“I run the protection program,” Johnson said. “I will take care of you.”

Setbacks in court

The administration’s ambitions have hit numerous snags in court in the last month, with judges reaffirming in many cases that the Constitution gives states — not the federal government — primary authority over elections.

In one case, U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan, who was appointed by President Biden, went further.

She said a federal immigration database the Department of Homeland Security was compiling to determine voter eligibility violated privacy laws. She added that the database has resulted in states actively removing U.S. citizens from voter rolls based on inaccurate information.

“All in all, the federal government has knowingly trampled on the privacy rights of American citizens in a manner that threatens the sacred right to vote,” Sooknanan wrote. “This Court cannot stand idly by while that happens.”

James Percival, the general counsel for Homeland Security, said the ruling was the latest example of “how hard the Left will fight to stop us from solving problems they insist do not exist.”

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week also dealt a blow to the GOP and upheld state laws that allow for counting mail ballots that are postmarked by election day but arrive late.

The decision left Trump fuming. He said it was a “a little bit surprising” to see the court’s decision, claiming without evidence that the result will inevitably give “people more time to vote illegally.”

Democrats, in turn, saw the ruling as a necessary check on the Trump administration’s efforts.

“While we continue to see unprecedented efforts to interfere with elections from the Trump administration, it is a relief to see federal courts make clear that these attacks on mail and absentee voting are clearly illegal and unconstitutional,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Los Angeles) said in a statement after the ruling.

Trump is still eyeing changes to voting by mail. In March, he issued an executive order that seeks to limit who can receive mail ballots. Under the proposed rule, the Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots to states that don’t turn over sensitive voter data to the federal government, Postmaster General David Steiner told a Senate panel last month.

The admission drew immediate condemnation from Democratic lawmakers. They argued the regulation is an illegal attempt to coerce states into handing over their voter rolls.

“Please push back on being a pawn in this authoritarian playbook,” Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) told Steiner. “The Postal Service is one of the most important institutions in our country. Don’t taint it with the obsession of this one man.”

A day after that back-and-forth, U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by President Obama, blocked those plans — at least for now.

“The Constitution does not grant the President any specific powers over elections,” the judge wrote, while adding that the Postal Service does not have the legal authority to determine who can vote by mail and how.

The White House said Wednesday that the administration remains confident the executive order will be in place by the November election.

Taken together, the administration’s efforts are unprecedented, UCLA law professor Rick Hasen said. That’s because the Constitution puts control over elections in the hands of the states and grants Congress the ability to pass laws, he said.

“The president really only has authority through federal statutes that have already been passed,” Hasen said. “It’s not surprising that many courts have struck down or stopped him from doing things to try to interfere with how elections are being run.”

Postal workers waiting for clarity

The legal setback for the Postal Service proposed rule was welcome news to the union representing postal workers.

“We believe that what we’re being asked to do is in violation of the oath that we took,” said Jonathan Smith, the president of the American Postal Workers Union, which represents more than 200,000 postal workers.

Following the ruling, the union called on the agency to abandon the rule, arguing it “will crush mailers’ trust in the Postal Service” and undermine “one of the most important functions the Postal Service and postal workers perform in service of the United States and its remarkable democracy.”

In several states, the union has run ads promoting mail voting as safe and a needed option for Americans. The ads were planned before Trump signed his executive order in March seeking to limit who can receive mail ballots, Smith said.

Now, the ads are taking a different meaning. Smith argued that “sometimes God works in mysterious ways.”

“The ad was then and is now intended as a piece to educate America about how good vote by mail is, how much it has been working out,” Smith said. “It’s an educational piece, not a response to the White House.”

Ahead of the election, Smith said postal workers are waiting for clarity on how their duties may change. But right now, he says, there isn’t much.

Orange County Registrar Bob Page said his office is monitoring any changes to existing federal and state election laws to ensure any changes, if needed, are implemented without disruptions. But he acknowledged the timing crunch could create some hurdles the closer the election gets.

“In many ways, any change to how California voters cast their ballots made between now and election day would create a challenge and may even be disruptive,” Page said.

He said many counties have ordered outgoing and return ballot envelopes for the election to ensure envelopes for more than 23 million California voters are ready to use by the Oct. 5 mailing deadline. Any change to how ballots should be prepared or mailed could present an issue.

“Our office has received calls from voters asking about potential changes to vote-by-mail procedures usually tied to media coverage about proposed changes,” he said. “We inform these voters that our procedures have not changed because the law has not changed and that we will mail their 2026 General Election ballots by Oct. 5.”

L.A. County prepares for possible voting changes

In Los Angeles County, election officials are also in a battle to bring clarity to the process as the administration ushers in a series of proposed changes to the election.

Dean Logan, the head of the Los Angeles County registrar-recorder/county clerk’s office, said his office is fighting to contain a wave of election misinformation, including some that is amplified by the White House.

“It’s not something that we’ve seen happen before, and certainly not at the level we’ve seen,” Logan said.

Rather than respond to every claim, Logan says his office picks its battles, intervening only when a falsehood appears likely to reach a wide audience. Even then, the office tries to avoid engagement with whoever is spreading it.

If the administration imposes a new rule closer to the election, Logan said his office is ready to follow the law.

“It’s really been about finding this balance of staying alert and prepared for the possibility [of change] but also not getting sucked into the political distraction,” he said.

Last month, Trump claimed without evidence that Democrats have cheated to win California’s primary elections, and boasted about federal prosecutors in Los Angeles investigating the matter.

Trump has also continued to claim Democrats are trying to rig or cheat in the upcoming election, remarks that have faced rebukes from members of his own party.

“I think it is ironic that we control the House, Senate, Supreme Court and the White House and we are yelling election fraud. I mean, we won all the damn elections,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told reporters last month.

At the national level, Senate Democrats have said they plan to send election observers to polling places on behalf of Congress in reaction to Trump’s efforts.

“We are not waiting for chaos to arrive,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said last month. “We are preparing now.”

Times staff writer Justine McDaniel contributed to this report from Washington.

LONDON — Claire Liu packed her bags and checked out of her London hotel room on Wednesday morning before heading to the All England Club.

It was more pragmatism than pessimism — a reality of a qualifier navigating her Wimbledon journey one day at a time.

But as her boyfriend reminded her while organizing her luggage: “Just because you’re packing doesn’t mean you’re leaving,” Liu recalled with a laugh.

He was right.

The Thousand Oaks native went on to win her second-round match against 51st-ranked Zeynep Sonmez of Turkey 7-5, 6-3, advancing to the third round of a Grand Slam for the first time in her professional career. She had tried 29 previous times at majors, including qualifying rounds, since 2015.

“I was just super relieved to get through that,” said Liu, noting she had blown a set and a break lead in the French Open’s second round last month.

For Liu, who turned 26 in May, returning to the manicured lawns of SW19 brings her tennis journey full circle. Nine years ago, she captured the 2017 Wimbledon girls’ singles title — the first American to do so since Chanda Rubin in 1992 — and was the No. 1 junior in the world. She still holds fond memories of that heady achievement, including chatting with her idol, Roger Federer, at the Wimbledon Champions Ball.

Yet, the transition from teenage phenom to professional mainstay has been anything but a linear ascent. When asked if she expected to be in the third round of a major this late in her career given her junior success, Liu was candid.

“Younger me would have believed it more than now,” she said.

That shift in perspective comes after weathering some brutal setbacks.

Liu climbed as high as No. 52 in early 2023 but then endured a wrist injury and took a months-long mental health hiatus in 2024 that eventually saw her ranking plummet outside the top 400 last year.

Currently sitting at No. 146, she’s been rebuilding her standing by playing a mix of WTA 125 events and ITF tournaments before returning to the main WTA Tour, with 2026 stops in far-flung places from Bahrain to Boca Raton and plenty of places in between.

“My goals haven’t changed, but I think the stress of how I got there really took a toll on me,” said Liu.

To navigate the darkness, Liu leaned heavily into both sports psychology and traditional therapy, including EMDR, a technique that helps people process traumatic experiences. She also started a Substack newsletter called “Finding Claire-ity,” where she openly chronicles her life and struggles on the tour.

The Southern California native, who has trained at the USTA facility in Carson since she was 9 years old and resides in Redondo Beach, also split with her longtime coach last season, a difficult decision, and hired Clemens Wagner.

The switch following the U.S. Open last year is clicking.

“I saw in her someone who fought a lot of battles inside herself,” says Austrian-born Wagner, who has a background in tennis analytics.

Together, they have focused on keeping an “aggressive undertone” on the grass, emphasizing coming to the net and squeezing the most out of her game.

Wagner notes that the 5-foot-7 player’s game isn’t the flashiest, but describes her as a “silent killer” who excels at “redirecting pace, standing close to the baseline, constantly putting pressure on her opponents.”

The reboot is starting to pay significant dividends.

Liu put together her best stretch in years this spring, winning a lower-tier title in Trnava, Slovakia, her first professional title since 2024, and then qualifying for the French Open.

Having again successfully navigated three rounds of qualifying to reach the main draw here, Liu has now won five consecutive matches at Wimbledon. Not surprisingly, she currently has no sponsors, just equipment support from Head Sport and Asics Corp., making her Wimbledon run particularly lucrative. By reaching the third round, Liu achieved her highest career payday: around $250,000. A victory Friday would boost that to nearly $400,000.

First, she faces her biggest test yet: a third-round contest against two-time major champion Coco Gauff on No. 1 Court, which perhaps fittingly is the same show court where Liu won the girls’ title almost a decade ago.

Gauff, 22, noted that she and Liu haven’t crossed paths much since Liu is older, but expects a serious battle. Gauff won both of their previous meetings on hard courts.

“I feel like anytime you’re playing a qualifier, it’s always tough because they have three matches already,” the seventh-seeded American said.

Liu, who didn’t even know she was playing Gauff until a reporter told her after her match, is purposefully keeping her focus narrow.

“I will just take today to be happy for winning, and then tomorrow I’ll think about it,” Liu said. “Obviously she’s one of the best players in the world right now, so that’ll be a good experience.”

Veteran Jessica Pegula, 32, the top-ranked American who also toiled away on the sport’s lower tier before becoming a top-10 mainstay, appreciates Liu’s resolve.

“It’s always nice to see girls that are figuring it out slowly but surely,” the No. 4 seed said. “I think I can relate to that.”

Liu’s accommodations? Fortunately, her mother was able to rebook the same hotel after the match, which eased some of the logistical issues for her unexpectedly extended stay in London.

“It definitely makes me stay in the moment, like, day by day,” Liu smiled of her lodging limbo.

On Wednesday morning, Liu packed her bags expecting she might leave Wimbledon. Instead, she emptied them one more time, with the biggest match of her career still waiting.

TO the untrained eye, he was just a bloke in a shiny police helmet singing about staying at the YMCA.

But behind the tight trousers and macho character in disco group ­Village People, Victor Willis was a musical hitmaker who co-wrote songs that will provide the soundtrack to every wedding, birthday and office party for years to come.

Yesterday, in a Facebook post, his wife Karen Huff-Willis announced Victor’s death, aged 74.

“It is with profound sadness that I must announce the death of my husband,” she said.

“Victor passed away on Tuesday, June 30, 2026, as a result of a short but aggressive illness.”

Long before he was commanding crowds to put their hands in the air to anthems that defined an era, including YMCA, Go West and In The Navy, Victor was singing gospel music in his Baptist minister father’s church.

Read more on Victor Willis

DISCO LEGEND

Village People lead singer & founding member dies at 74 after ‘short illness’

GET DON & BOOGIE

Brilliant moment Donald Trump dances to YMCA at starstudded World Cup draw

He grew up in San Francisco and his high school band, The Ballads, supported The Temptations.

He sat in on sessions with American jazz trumpeter Dizzy Gillespie, before becoming an actor and singer.

A role in the Las Vegas production of musical Hair earned him a place in Broadway productions of Two Gentlemen Of Verona and The Wiz.

In the late Seventies, he caught the attention of flamboyant French producer Jacques Morali, who was creating a musical group based on the macho stereotypes and gay pin-ups of New York’s Greenwich Village.

Their four-track demo, called The Village People, earned the group a record deal, and Jacques asked ­Victor to become the frontman.

While the rest of the line-up were recruited from dance studios and clubs for the roles of the cowboy, the Native American, the biker, the construction worker and the soldier, Victor was thought to be the only straight member.

After albums Macho Man in 1978, and Cruisin’ in ’79 which gave us YMCA, they put out Go West and its title track became a gay anthem, later covered by The Pet Shop Boys.

It also featured In The Navy, which the US Navy co-opted for a recruitment campaign, before realising they were using the ultimate camp parody.

It was around then that Victor met and married his first wife, future Cosby Show star Phylicia Rashad.

They split in 1982.

After battling growing frustrations within the group, Victor walked out in 1979.

But his departure triggered a downward spiral.

He struggled to escape the group’s flamboyant reputation and establish credibility on his own.

His 1979 solo project, Solo Man, remained unreleased for more than 30 years until 2015.

The Eighties and Nineties became a blur of substance abuse, addiction, and brushes with the law.

In 2015, he said: “I got very depressed over the years.

“I got kind of drugged out, because I was disappointed with the way things were and got frustrated, and gave up for a bit.”

He began to turn things around in 2006 after he received court-ordered substance abuse treatment and completed three years of probation.

After getting clean, he turned his energy towards a battleground between him and ruthless record executives who had pocketed the lion’s share of the royalties from the Village People’s catalogue.

This led Victor to meet his second wife Karen, an attorney who helped him fight his copyright case against the companies who controlled Village People’s hits.

They ­married in 2007.

Victor, armed with a gritty determination, launched a historic, multi-year lawsuit under a loophole in the 1976 US Copyright Act, which allows artists to reclaim their work after 35 years.

In a legal victory that sent shockwaves through the music industry, the US courts ruled in his favour in 2013.

Victor clawed back up to 50 per cent of the lucrative copyright percentages for YMCA and his other hits, becoming a hero to older musicians everywhere.

The resolution paved the way for his return to the group in 2017.

Older, wiser, but with that same thunderous voice, he toured the world to packed arenas, watching three generations of families throw their arms in the air to spell out those four famous letters.

By then, YMCA was being regularly played at Donald Trump’s political rallies, a use Victor was unhappy with.

“I don’t endorse Trump, I’ve never endorsed Trump, nor have the Village People,” he told the BBC in 2020.

However, he surprised fans last year by agreeing to take part in the politician’s second inauguration saying: “Our song YMCA is a global anthem that hopefully helps bring the country together after a tumultuous and divided campaign where our preferred candidate lost.”

In his tribute yesterday, Trump claimed: “He was a great and happy guy who loved that I used YMCA at my rallies.”

Regardless, YMCA remains Victors’ biggest hit, reaching No1 in 17 countries.

The star may have hung up his police helmet for the final time, but his legacy is firmly etched into global nightlife.

As long as there is a wedding with a dancefloor, people will be ready to fling their arms up in the air in the shape of a “Y”.

This week’s narrow Supreme Court decision protecting birthright citizenship is rightly being hailed as a triumph for the American experiment.

By some, anyway.

Check out MAGA world and you’ll quickly find Trump surrogates and even elected leaders spouting a kind of extremist anti-immigrant sentiment that once, not so long ago, was considered intolerable in the public sphere.

This has included suggestions that go as far as banning pregnant women from traveling to the United States for fear they might give birth here, and — no joke — one notable commentator writing that demanding female immigrants be sterilized might be a solution.

Trump’s Homeland Security advisor Stephen Miller said after the ruling that children of immigrants might not be “qualified to carry on or capable of executing the inheritance of this country.”

“We have people from all over the world, from Third World nations, nations that on their own would have never invented the wheel, let alone modern technology, let alone medicine, let alone air travel, and they can just come into the country, have a baby at a hospital, paid for it by you and me, and then that baby is automatically a citizen,” Miller said.

Before you tell me that the Supreme Court has spoken and this is a done deal, no matter if there’s more gross Miller mush, let me tell you about Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s written opinion and why it matters. It is, if read in the right light, a warning for what comes next — a fight to rewrite history to serve political aims.

“The odds were long and the stakes were high,” Jackson wrote about the creation of the 14th Amendment in 1866, which has long been understood as granting citizenship to any child born on U.S. soil and which was the focus of this case.

Still, she wrote, despite the unlikeliness of post-Civil War America rising to the challenge of inclusiveness, the amendment was always meant to do just that — because free Black people, recently emancipated but denied citizenship, “fought for the shared humanity of all people.”

An alternative interpretation by MAGA world of this amendment and this history was the center of this case.

To greatly simplify, the 14th Amendment was originally a response to a Supreme Court decision, the Dred Scott case, that said freed Black slaves could not be U.S. citizens. MAGA world was arguing that the authors of the 14th Amendment never intended much more than that — citizenship for ex-slaves and their descendants.

While concurring with the majority of the court, Jackson also wrote her own summary that makes a vital point: Without history that includes the Black experience — as most of the arguments in this case did — we are left bereft of the suffering that has shaped our values and which gives us the empathy required to be a pluralistic society.

Black history — any non-white history, really — is the history of resistance and the road map to recovery from this dark era of hate.

It’s hard to call someone your fellow citizen if you take away their humanity — which is exactly what this case was attempting to do by splitting into factions those who would fight for equality and rewriting history with only the voices that match the current administration’s goals.

It was disappointing that the court, whose individual justices bounced around arguments from a myriad of sources outside of their erstwhile adherence to the ideas of originalism, did not call out that erasure more forcefully, and that it was left to Jackson to do so.

Jackson took that narrow idea that Black people — and the white legislators sympathetic to their cause — had only themselves in mind when crafting the 14th Amendment and attacked it head-on, arguing that if we just look at what Black people were saying at the time, the larger intent of the amendment becomes clear.

“This alternative account pitches Black Americans against immigrants when the advocates who promoted the Fourteenth Amendment did no such thing,” Jackson pointed out of the MAGA version of events. “Freed Blacks fought for the shared humanity of all people.”

That “universalist vision of belonging and citizenship,” she wrote, “eventually won the day.”

The 14th Amendment was largely written by Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, who took much of the basis of it from the legal arguments of Black intellectuals, including Frederick Douglass, the most influential Black statesman of the era.

Trumbull then argued in Congress that the amendment was meant to be inclusive — even of so-called “gypsies” and Chinese immigrants, who faced extreme racism, especially in California.

One congressman opposed to the measure warned that if it passed, Chinese immigrants would “overrun” California and “will double or treble the population.” At the same time, the Romani would likely continue to “wander in gangs” and “have no homes, pretend to own no land, live nowhere, settle as trespassers where ever they go, and whose sole merit is a universal swindle,” he warned.

Asked if the amendment would grant citizenship to those two controversial groups of immigrants, Jackson points out that Trumbull gave an unapologetic “undoubtedly,” again drawing on the universalist ideas of Douglass and others.

The “child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European,” Trumbull said (and Jackson quoted, drawing from an amicus brief by Evan Bernick of Northern Illinois University and Jed Sugerman of Boston University).

“There is a serious breakdown in on the court that reflects the breakdown and echo chambers in America,” Sugerman, the professor, told me Wednesday. “When it comes to history and originalism, you have to read more broadly than just the founding fathers that you liked.”

So the history of the 14th Amendment is right there — equality not just for Black Americans but for immigrant Americans — but it required Jackson to write her own opinion to put it on the court record.

Legal scholars aligned with Trump did Olympic-level gymnastics in this case to parse what the authors of the 14th Amendment meant with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” — words that MAGA claimed were meant to secretly exclude undocumented immigrants.

Brown instead reminded us that outside of those white-only discussions when the amendment was written, it was the activism of Black people — their demand for colorblind equality — that actually shaped the final words that granted citizenship to all babies born within our borders.

Solidarity — the unbreakable strength of American democracy.

After the ruling, Trump wrote on social media that Congress could write legislation undoing birthright citizenship. Some pundits say that wouldn’t work, but I’m here to say Trump has managed a bunch of stuff that the pundits said wouldn’t work.

More chilling, and direct, were more comments from Miller.

“It’s an abomination,” he said of the ruling.

But “because of President Trump’s courage and leadership, we are now on the precipice. Yes, we were dealt a setback, but because of his courage alone, we’re on the precipice as a nation of being in a position to end this travesty once and for all, and that’s what we have to fight for.”

Miller and his ilk are seeking to rewrite history to justify their vision of the future of America.

Jackson alone in the court offered us both a warning and a path — a reminder that our history holds indisputable facts despite politics, and we erase them at our own peril.

From Ryan Kartje: She’d been out for more than a year, her long, arduous recovery from a season-ending knee injury kept almost completely under wraps. But as JuJu Watkins took her place in front of a microphone for the first time since returning to practice this summer, the USC superstar barely could contain her gratitude.

Asked Monday what the best part about being back has been so far, a big smile crept across Watkins’ face.

“Honestly everything,” Watkins said. “Like I don’t even know, the smallest stuff just gets me excited.”

Watkins’ return is a momentous mile marker for a Trojans team that has serious national title aspirations this season. Her status remains uncertain, and reporters in attendance Monday were told not to inquire further about Watkins’ recovery timeline. But she did say she’s already been able to scrimmage during USC’s summer practice and that she’s “feeling back like myself.”

“It’s just been a long time coming,” Watkins said. “I’ve just been working out and grinding every day so that I could be in position, so to see all of that hard work pay off right now, it’s really fulfilling.”

Continue reading here

Monday’s World Cup results

Round of 32
Brazil 2, Japan 1
Paraguay 1, Germany 1 (Paraguay wins on PK’s, 4-3)
Morocco 1, Netherlands 1 (Morocco wins on PK’s, 3-2)

Today’s World Cup TV schedule

All times Pacific
10 a.m., Ivory Coast vs. Norway, Fox, Telemundo
2 p.m., France vs. Sweden, Fox, Telemundo
6 p.m., Mexico vs. Ecuador, Fox, Telemundo

World Cup round of 32 schedule, results

Canada 1, South Africa 0
Brazil 2, Japan 1
Paraguay 1, Germany 1 (Paraguay wins on PK’s, 4-3)
Morocco 1, Netherlands 1 (Morocco wins on PK’s, 3-2)

All times Pacific
Tuesday
Ivory Coast vs. Norway, 10 a.m., Fox, Telemundo
France vs. Sweden, 2 p.m., Fox, Telemundo
Mexico vs. Ecuador, 6 p.m., Fox, Telemundo

Wednesday
England vs. Congo DR, 9 a.m., Fox, Telemundo
Belgium vs. Senegal, 1 p.m., FS1, Telemundo
U.S. vs. Bosnia-Herzegovina, 5 p.m., Fox, Telemundo

Thursday
Spain vs. Austria, noon, Fox, Telemundo
Portugal vs. Croatia, 4 p.m., Fox, Telemundo
Switzerland vs. Algeria, 8 p.m., FS1, Telemundo

Friday
Australia vs. Egypt, 11 a.m., Fox, Telemundo
Argentina vs. Cape Verde, 3 p.m., Fox, Telemundo
Colombia vs. Ghana, 6:30 p.m., Fox, Telemundo

Round of 16 schedule

Saturday
Canada vs. Morocco, 10 a.m., Fox, Telemundo
Paraguay vs. France or Sweden, 2 p.m., Fox, Telemundo

Sunday
Brazil vs. Norway or Ivory Coast, 1 p.m., Fox, Telemundo

Dodgers defeat the Athletics

From Bill Shaikin: Teoscar Hernández was back from a hamstring injury, and a little bit humble. He was about to play his first game in a month for the Dodgers.

“I don’t think they really need me in the lineup,” he said, with a hint of a smile.

Hernández hit 58 home runs over his first two seasons with the Dodgers, each of which ended in a World Series championship, so of course they need him. But, in his absence, the Dodgers had more than doubled their National League West lead.

Hernández is back, but Will Smith and Kiké Hernández still are out. So are Tyler Glasnow, Blake Snell and Edwin Díaz.

No matter: The Dodgers boosted their division lead to 11 games Monday with a 9-4 victory over the Athletics. Shohei Ohtani, Max Muncy and Andy Pages homered to highlight a 17-hit attack.

Continue reading here

Dodgers box score

MLB standings

Angels lose to Mariners

Cole Young hit two home runs to back eight strong innings from George Kirby as the Seattle Mariners came from behind to beat the Angels 6-2 on Monday night.

Dominic Canzone also went deep to help Seattle (43-43) get back to .500 and stay a half-game behind the first-place Texas Rangers in the American League West.

Zach Neto doubled to center field leading off the game against Kirby (7-7), and Denzer Guzman singled two pitches later for a 1-0 lead. Neto hit his 18th home run in the third — a two-out shot that made it 2-0.

Continue reading here

Angels box score

MLB standings

Who is coming back to the Lakers?

From Broderick Turner: As LeBron James dominated the news cycle regarding his future on the eve of NBA free agency, another member of the Lakers’ starting lineup returned.

Deandre Ayton is picking up his contract option for $8.1 million, according to people not authorized to publicly discuss the decision.

The 7-foot Ayton averaged career lows in points (12.5), rebounds (8.2) and minutes per game (27.2) in his first season with the Lakers, but played a career-high 72 games and shot a career-best 67.1% from the field. He averaged 10 points and 9.6 rebounds in the playoffs.

Lakers guard Marcus Smart declined his option of $5.9 million and will become an unrestricted free agent, according to people not authorized to publicly discuss the decision.

Smart is expected to have several teams pursue him in free agency, with the Houston Rockets reportedly among them.

He was the Lakers’ best defender and averaged 9.3 points and 3.0 assists last season, also his first with the team.

As for James, he’s an unrestricted free agent who earned $52.6 million last season. Lakers president of basketball operations Rob Pelinka said during his season-ending news conference in May that they would give James time with his family to decide his future.

Continue reading here

Former Lakers Malik Beasley and Ed Davis accused of illegal gambling, wire fraud and money laundering

This day in sports history

1909 — Jack Johnson fights Tony Ross to a no decision in 6 rounds at Duquesne Gardens, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to retain his heavyweight boxing title.

1916 — Amateur Chick Evans Jr. wins the U.S. Open with a record 286 total.

1929 — Bobby Jones beats Al Espinosa by 23 strokes in a 36-hole playoff to win the U.S. Open.

1962 — Murle Lindstrom wins the U.S. Women’s Open by two strokes over Jo Anne Prentice and Ruth Jessen.

1965 — The NFL grants Atlanta a franchise. Rankin Smith Sr., an Executive Vice President of Life Insurance Company of Georgia, pays $8.5 million for the franchise. It’s the highest price paid in league history at the time.

1975 — Muhammad Ali retains world heavyweight boxing crown by beating Englishman Joe Bugner by unanimous points decision in a re-match in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

1991 — Wimbledon breaks 114 years of tradition by playing on the middle Sunday of the tournament, a move forced by a huge backlog of matches caused by rain earlier in the week.

1991 — Meg Mallon sinks a 10-foot birdie putt on the final hole to break a tie with Pat Bradley and Ayako Okamoto and win the LPGA Championship.

1993 — NBA Draft: Michigan center Chris Webber first pick by Orlando Magic (traded to Golden State).

1994 — Diego Maradona is kicked out of the World Cup by FIFA for failing a drug test after Argentina’s June 25 victory over Nigeria in Foxboro, Mass.

1994 — Tonya Harding is stripped of her national title and banned for life from the U.S. Figure Skating Assn. because of her role in an attack on Nancy Kerrigan.

1996 — UEFA European Championship Final, Wembley Stadium, London, England: Oliver Bierhoff scores his second goal in extra time as Germany beat Czech Republic, 2-1.

1999 — NBA Draft: Duke power forward Elton Brand first pick by Chicago Bulls.

2002 — Ronaldo scores both goals to lead Brazil to a 2-0 victory over Germany for the team’s record fifth World Cup title.

2012 — Yaroslava Shvedova of Kazakhstan becomes the first player in a Grand Slam tournament to win every point of a set on her way to beating French Open runner-up Sara Errani 6-0, 6-4 in the third round of Wimbledon.

2013 — Inbee Park wins the U.S. Women’s Open for her third straight major this year. Babe Zaharias is the last player to win three straight majors on the calendar, but that was in 1950 when that’s all there were.

2013 — NHL Draft: Halifax Mooseheads (QMJHL) center Nathan MacKinnon #1 pick by Colorado Avalanche.

2015 — The United States defeat Germany 2-0 in semifinals at Women’s World Cup. Carli Lloyd converts a penalty kick for Team USA and a 1-0 lead. Substitute Kelley O’Hara scores in the 84th minute off a Lloyd cross to seal the U.S. team’s 2-0 victory.

2018 — FIFA World Cup: Kylian Mbappé (19) becomes only 2nd teenager (Pelé 1st 1958) to score twice in a World Cup match as France eliminate Argentina 4-3 in Kazan.

2020 — FC Barcelona’ Argentine soccer player Lionel Messi scores his 700th career goal in a 2-2 draw with Atletico Madrid.

Compiled by the Associated Press

This day in baseball history

1908 — Cy Young of the Boston Red Sox pitched the third no-hitter of his career at age 41, an 8-0 win over the New York Highlanders.

1948 — Cleveland’s Bob Lemon pitched a 2-0 no-hitter against the Detroit Tigers for the first American League no-hitter at night.

1962 — Sandy Koufax of the Dodgers struck out 13 New York Mets en route to the first of four career no-hitters, a 5-0 victory at Dodger Stadium.

1970 — Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati was dedicated, but Henry Aaron spoiled the show for the crowd of 51,050 with a first-inning homer off Jim McGlothlin to send Atlanta past the Reds 8-2.

1978 — Willie McCovey became the 12th player in major league history to hit 500 home runs. His shot off Atlanta’s Jamie Easterly wasn’t enough, with the Braves beating the visiting San Francisco Giants 10-5 in the second game of a doubleheader.

1986 — 1985 Heisman Trophy winner Bo Jackson makes his pro baseball debut with the Memphis Chicks of the double-A Southern League and goes 1 for 4 with two strikeouts.

1995 — Eddie Murray of the Cleveland Indians became the second switch-hitter and the 20th player in baseball history to reach 3,000 hits when he singled against the Minnesota Twins. Murray joined Pete Rose, the career hits leader with 4,256, as the only switch-hitters to get 3,000.

1997 — Bobby Witt of Texas hit the first home run by an American League pitcher in a regular-season game in almost 25 years, connecting off Ismael Valdes in the Rangers’ 3-2 interleague victory over the Dodgers.

1998 — Sammy Sosa hit his 20th home run in June, extending his major league record for most homers in a month with an eighth-inning shot for the Cubs against Arizona.

2005 — Chad Cordero earned his 15th save in June in the Washington Nationals’ 7-5 victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates. He tied a major league record set by Lee Smith in 1993 and matched by John Wetteland in 1996.

2006 — Adam Dunn hit a grand slam with two out in the bottom of the ninth inning off closer Bob Wickman to lead Cincinnati to a 9-8 victory over Cleveland.

2008 — Nick Swisher homered from both sides of the plate, hitting his second grand slam in four games and adding a solo shot to lead the Chicago White Sox past Cleveland, 9-7.

2009 — Nick Markakis hit a two-run double off Boston closer Jonathan Papelbon to complete the biggest comeback in Baltimore Orioles history for an 11-10 win. Baltimore trailed 10-1 before scoring five runs in the seventh inning and five more in the eighth.

2016 — Coastal Carolina capitalized on two errors on the same play for four unearned runs in the sixth inning, and the Chanticleers won their first national championship in any sport with a 4-3 victory over Arizona in Game 3 of the College World Series finals. The Chanticleers became the first school since Minnesota in 1956 to win the title in its first CWS appearance.

2020 — Minor League Baseball officially announces the cancellation of its season as Major League Baseball will keep a “taxi squad” of eligible players that can be added to the roster if needed.

2021 — Washington Nationals shortstop Trea Turner ties the major league record by hitting for the cycle for the third time in his career in a 15-6 victory over the Tampa Bay Rays.

Compiled by the Associated Press

Until next time…

That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.

June 30 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday announced that it will decide if states and cities can bar people from owning semiautomatic weapons, including AR-15-style rifles.

The court had previously declined to hear this challenge in 2025 and other times previously, CNN reported. It includes an appeal from two Illinois residents who want to buy AR-15 rifles but cannot because of a county ordinance making it illegal to buy or possess some assault weapon types. The case will be combined with one involving Connecticut residents who challenged the state’s ban on the weapons.

The high court’s current 6-3 conservative majority often backs gun rights, NBC News reported. When the court declined to hear a similar case last year, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in an opinion that the court “should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon,” CNN reported. He said most states do not ban the weapons and those that do are “something of an outlier.”

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia ban the weapons.

People have used assault weapons such as AR-15 rifles and other semiautomatic rifles in multiple mass shootings, including the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. Twenty children and six adults died in that shooting, leading to the change in Connecticut’s laws to ban the weapons. Nineteen children and two adults died in a similar shooting involving semiautomatic weapons in 2022 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

The court will hear the challenge in its next term, which starts in October.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld laws in West Virginia and Idaho that forbid transgender athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams.

In a 6-3 decision, the court said the federal Title IX law envisioned separate teams for girls and boys based on their biological sex at birth.

“Separate sports teams for biological males and biological females are reasonable,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “Given the inherent physical differences between the sexes, allowing only biological females to play on women’s and girls’ teams can reduce the risk of physical injury and ensure fair competition.”

Kavanaugh, who has coached girls’ teams for many years, said 27 states have adopted laws prohibiting transgender athletes on girls’ teams.

But his opinion does not say states such as California must change their laws that forbid schools from discriminating based on gender. Instead, he stressed states are free to make their own decision.

“Consistent with Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, we hold that the states may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females. They may determine eligibility for women’s and girls’ sports based on biological sex. The Constitution and Title IX do not require an overhaul of women’s and girls’ sports throughout America,” Kavanaugh said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. She said the state should have considered transgender students on a case-by-case basis to decide whether they had an unfair advantage. Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented as well.

The court’s decision is likely to bolster the Trump administration’s drive to pressure states, schools and universities that permit transgender athletes to compete on girls’ and women’s sports teams.

Because the Education Department provides federal funds to these states and schools, it can require them to comply with Title IX.

The sole plaintiff in the court case was Becky Pepper-Jackson. Now 15, she has carried on a lonely legal fight to compete on her school’s track team in Bridgeport, W.Va.

Designated male at birth, she says she is the only transgender girl competing in her state and has been the target of complaints and protests.

Her case drew strong reactions on both sides of the issue.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey hailed Tuesday’s decision as “one of the most important victories for women’s athletics” since the passage of Title IX in 1972.

“We defended a simple principle most Americans instinctively understand — that women’s sports exist to provide women and girls a fair opportunity to compete and succeed,” he said.

Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, said “it is self-evident that males and females are biologically different, and the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed this truth. It is fundamentally unfair for a male who feels like a female to demand that biological categories be ignored to accommodate his desire to compete among females.”

Joshua Block, the ACLU attorney who argued the case, called it “a heartbreaking ruling for our clients and transgender girls like them who’ve asked for nothing more than the same opportunities afforded to their peers,” he said.

“The reality is that the equality of transgender women and girls takes nothing away from, and in fact promotes, the equality of all women and girls.”

“This ruling is deeply harmful for transgender women and girls who only asked for the ability to participate in sports with their peers,” said Sasha Buchert, senior attorney with Lambda Legal. “Countless studies have demonstrated the myriad benefits that come with participation in team sports.”

The sports career of Becky Pepper-Jackson reflects some of the difficulty of the issue.

In sixth grade, she participated in cross country and described herself as slow. She “routinely placed near the back of the pack,” her attorneys told the court.

Her court appeals focused on a wish to participate in sports, not to win. But upon reaching high school, she has been winning.

In 2024, she “placed in the top three in every track event in which B.P.J. competed, winning most,” the state’s attorneys said. In the spring of 2025, “focusing on strength events, B.P.J. bumped female competitors out of the state tournament, then placed third in the state in discus and eighth in shot put while competing against much older female athletes,” they told the court.

Her ACLU attorney explained she has been winning in the shot put and discus “through hard work and practice,” not because of an advantage based on biology.

He said she “received puberty-delaying medication and gender-affirming estrogen that allowed her to undergo a hormonal puberty typical of a girl.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will hear a 2nd Amendment challenge to the gun laws in Connecticut and Cook County, Ill., that ban most semiautomatic assault weapons.

Before leaving for the summer recess, the justices issued orders on new cases that will be heard in the fall. The new 2nd Amendment case figures to be a major test of what kinds of firearms and ammunition are off-limits to state or federal regulation.

The outcome will affect California and all the states led by Democrats that strictly regulate or prohibit semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15.

Gun-rights advocates say these are among the most common and popular weapons in the country, and they should not banned in some states.

In response, Connecticut state attorneys said only about 2% of Americans own assault weapons, and they rarely use them for self-defense.

Since 1989, California has prohibited the sale and possession of most semiautomatic rifles and pistols that can fire more than 10 shots before reloading. Nine other states led by Democrats have similar laws.

State lawmakers said these rapid-fire guns are not needed for self-defense but can be a weapon of mass murder. All of the blue-state bans could be struck down next year if the court’s conservatives rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment claim.

Gun-rights advocates say firearms in “common use” by law-abiding owners cannot be prohibited by the government.

Four of the court’s conservatives have said in past dissents they believe the state bans on assault weapons run afoul of the 2nd Amendment. They are Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

That suggests the fate of those state laws depends on Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Joining in support of the gun-rights challenge were the state attorneys for Montana, Idaho and 25 other Republican-led states.

They urged the court to prevent liberal judges and states led by Democrats from “rewriting the 2nd Amendment … to allow hostile jurisdictions to continue infringing on their citizens’ core constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

In 2016, California’s voters approved a ballot measure that makes possession of large-capacity magazines illegal. At least 10 states have similar laws, but they apply only to the manufacture and sale of large-capacity magazines.

Gun-rights advocates sued in San Diego, leading to nearly a decade of back-and-forth litigation. A federal judge struck down these restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, but the state appealed. They were eventually upheld by the 9th Circuit Court in an en banc ruling.

Meanwhile, the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago has upheld an Illinois law and the Cook County ordinance prohibiting semiautomatic rifles and pistols. Its opinion said rapid-fire guns do not differ significantly “from machine guns and military-grade weaponry,” which can be banned under the 2nd Amendment.

Before Tuesday, the justices had repeatedly refused to weigh in on whether the 2nd Amendment’s right to “keep and bear arms” includes the right to semiautomatic “assault weapons” and large-capacity magazines.

Since 2015, the court has turned down gun-rights appeals from blue states like Illinois and Maryland over their bans on “assault weapons,” despite dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

As an appeals court judge in Washington, D.C., Kavanaugh voted to strike down the city’s ban on assault weapons.

Three years after John Roberts became chief justice, the court ruled for the first time in 2008 that the 2nd Amendment protected individual gun rights, not just state militias. But the 5-4 decision simply struck down a city’s ban on having a hand gun at home for self-defense.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller said the Constitution gives law-abiding persons a right to have weapons in “common use” for self-defense, but not “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

Ever since, advocates for gun rights and gun control have been arguing over whether semiautomatic guns with large-capacity magazines can be regulated because they are uniquely dangerous or are protected because they are very common.

In the past two years, the Supreme Court has a mixed record on gun regulation.

Last year, the justices in a 6-3 decision struck down a federal regulation that banned “bump stocks,” which allow rapid-fire shooting with a semiautomatic rifle.

That regulation was adopted in the first Trump administration in response to the mass shooting at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas where a lone gunman fired as many as 1,000 shots from a hotel window.

The conservative majority ruled the bump stock devices did not fit the definition of a prohibited machine gun.

Earlier this year, however, the court in a 7-2 decision upheld a regulation prohibiting unregistered “ghost guns” that were made by parts kits.

Carl Erik Rinsch, the director of the 2013 Keanu Reeves action film “47 Ronin,” will serve more than two years in federal prison for defrauding Netflix of $11 million.

U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff on Monday sentenced 48-year-old Rinsch to 30 months in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, announced. Federal prosecutors convicted Rinsch in December of wire fraud, money laundering and other counts. A legal representative for Rinsch did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.

Federal prosecutors indicted Rinsch in March 2025, alleging the $11 million went into Rinsch’s personal accounts. The filmmaker “quickly transferred” the money from the Rinsch Co. account, where it had been deposited March 6, 2020, by Netflix, through additional accounts until about $10.5 million wound up weeks later in a personal brokerage account. He lost more than half of that money in less than two months via risky investments in the stock market, the indictment said.

Though Rinsch told the streamer that his sci-fi show “White Horse” was progressing nicely, the filmmaker allegedly moved the remaining money into cryptocurrency and profited from crypto speculation over the next couple of years. The streamer had invested around $44 million in the show. Rinsch was accused of spending around $10 million on five Rolls-Royces, a Ferrari, watches, clothing, luxury bedding and linens, credit card bills, attorneys to sue Netflix for more money, and lawyers to work on his divorce.

He was arrested in West Hollywood and released the same day after agreeing to post a $100,000 bond to guarantee his appearance in a New York federal court.

Rinsch never finished the Netflix show.

During his sentencing, Rinsch and his legal team told the court his behavior was a result of mental health struggles and medication problems and they are working to address those issues with a new care provider, the Associated Press reported.

“I failed to recognize the danger of the state I was in,” Rinsch said, though his mental issues were not described in court, and his attorneys declined to provide further detail.

Ahead of the sentencing, Reeves — the star of Rinsch’s most notable project to date — penned a letter in May requesting “leniency and mercy as well as justice” in the filmmaker’s sentencing.

In addition to prison time, Rinsch must serve three years of supervised release, forfeit the $11 million and pay $700 in mandatory special assessments, according to Monday’s announcement. U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton said in the announcement: “Today’s sentence sends a deterrent message: fraud will not be tolerated.”

The Associated Press and former Times assistant editor Christie D’Zurilla contributed to this report.

The high court strikes down campaign spending limits, citing First Amendment protections in a 6-3 decision

On the final day of rulings for the Supreme Court’s current term, the top US court overruled a case that would limit campaign spending by rejecting restrictions on coordinated spending efforts between political parties and their candidates on free speech grounds.

The court handed down the ruling on Tuesday in a 6-3 split, with the six conservative judges in the majority, citing free speech grounds, and the three liberal judges dissenting.

The Supreme Court ruled that a spending cap on campaign spending, with input from candidates, violates the United States Constitution’s First Amendment after a lower court upheld the limits.

The decision, stemming from a Republican-led lawsuit, strikes down a provision of a more than 50-year-old federal election law limiting coordinated party spending. Among the Republican candidates at the centre of the lawsuit is now Vice President JD Vance. Vance was running for the US Senate in Ohio when the lawsuit challenging the restrictions was filed in 2022.

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 regulates fundraising and spending in US elections by limiting the amount that can be spent on a candidate, aiming to prevent corruption.

Under that law, spending by a political party to advocate for or against a candidate that is not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign is considered an “independent expenditure” – and not subject to a cap.

Spending that is coordinated between a party and a campaign, however, has been restricted.

Tuesday’s decision overruled a 2001 decision in which the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee challenged the rule against the Federal Election Commission, but the high court had upheld the limits on a vote of 5-4.

In 2024, the US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had also upheld the limits.

On appeal, the plaintiffs said that developments in campaign finance over the intervening decades, including shifts in the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, had eroded the rationale for that 2001 ruling and urged the justices to overrule it.

Then, when Donald Trump took office, the Federal Election Commission declined to defend the provision of federal law challenged by Vance and the other plaintiffs. The Supreme Court appointed lawyer Roman Martinez to do so. It also granted a request by the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to intervene to defend the spending limits.

These spending limits have varied by state, being lower in states with smaller populations and higher in those with larger populations. In 2025, restrictions ranged from about $127,000 to $3.9m for Senate candidates and from approximately $63,000 to $127,000 for House of Representatives candidates.

The Supreme Court issued its campaign finance ruling with the November midterm elections looming, as President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans seek to retain control of Congress.

The three major Republican committees – the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee — ended May with $256m in cash and no debt. That was more than double the roughly $126m held by their Democratic counterparts, who also carried more than $18m in debt.

Election implications

The Supreme Court has issued multiple rulings during its current term that have election implications.

The justices on Monday backed state laws that allow mail-in ballots received after Election Day to be counted, rejecting a Republican-led challenge to a five-day grace period in Mississippi and dealing a setback to Trump.

The court in April gutted a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, opening the door for Republican-led Southern states to dismantle Democratic-held majority-Black and majority-Latino districts ahead of the midterms. Black and Latino voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

That decision prompted several Republican-led states to pursue redrawn electoral maps ahead of the midterms in an effort to threaten US House seats long considered safely Democratic.