court

GREENBELT, Md. — John Bolton arrived at a federal courthouse Friday to surrender to authorities and make his first court appearance on charges accusing the former Trump administration national security adviser of storing top secret records at home and sharing with relatives diary-like notes that contained classified information.

The 18-count federal indictment Thursday also suggests classified information was exposed when operatives believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked Bolton’s email account and gained access to sensitive material he had shared. A Bolton representative told the FBI in 2021 that his emails had been hacked, prosecutors say, but did not reveal that Bolton had shared classified information through the account or that the hackers had possession of government secrets.

The closely watched case centers on a longtime fixture in Republican foreign policy circles who became known for his hawkish views on American power and who served for more than a year in Trump’s first administration before being fired in 2019. He later published a book highly critical of Trump.

The third case against a Trump adversary in the past month will unfold against the backdrop of concerns that the Justice Department is pursuing the Republican president’s political enemies while at the same time sparing his allies from scrutiny.

“Now, I have become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts,” Bolton said in a statement.

Even so, the indictment is significantly more detailed in its allegations than earlier cases against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Unlike in those cases filed by a hastily appointed U.S. attorney, Bolton’s indictment was signed by career national security prosecutors. While the Bolton investigation burst into public view in August when the FBI searched his home in Maryland and his office in Washington, the inquiry was well underway by the time Trump had taken office in January.

Sharing of classified secrets

The indictment filed in federal court in Greenbelt, Maryland, alleges that between 2018 and this past August, Bolton shared with two relatives more than 1,000 pages of information about his day-to-day activities in government.

The material included “diary-like” entries with information classified as high as top secret that he had learned from meetings with other U.S. government officials, from intelligence briefings or talks with foreign leaders, according to the indictment. After sending one document, Bolton wrote in a message to his relatives, “None of which we talk about!!!” In response, one of his relatives wrote, “Shhhhh,” prosecutors said.

The indictment says that among the material shared was information about foreign adversaries that in some cases revealed details about sources and methods used by the government to collect intelligence.

The two family members were not identified in court papers, but a person familiar with the case, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss nonpublic details, identified them as Bolton’s wife and daughter.

The indictment also suggests Bolton was aware of the impropriety of sharing classified information with people not authorized to receive it, citing an April news media interview in which he chastised Trump administration officials for using Signal to discuss sensitive military details. Though the anecdote is meant by prosecutors to show Bolton understood proper protocol for government secrets, Bolton’s legal team may also point to it to argue a double standard in enforcement because the Justice Department is not known to have opened any investigation into the Signal episode.

Bolton’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, said in a statement that the “underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago.”

He said the charges stem from portions of Bolton’s personal diaries over his 45-year career in government and included unclassified information that was shared only with his immediate family and was known to the FBI as far back as 2021.

“Like many public officials throughout history,” Lowell said, “Bolton kept diaries — that is not a crime.” He said Bolton “did not unlawfully share or store any information.”

Controversy over a book

Bolton suggested the criminal case was an outgrowth of an unsuccessful Justice Department effort after he left government to block the publication of his 2020 book “The Room Where It Happened,” which portrayed Trump as grossly misinformed about foreign policy.

The Trump administration asserted that Bolton’s manuscript contained classified information that could harm national security if exposed. Bolton’s lawyers have said he moved forward with the book after a White House National Security Council official, with whom Bolton had worked for months, said the manuscript no longer had classified information.

In 2018, Bolton was appointed to serve as Trump’s third national security adviser. His brief tenure was characterized by disputes with the president over North Korea, Iran and Ukraine. Those rifts ultimately led to Bolton’s departure.

Bolton subsequently criticized Trump’s approach to foreign policy and government in his book, including by alleging that Trump directly tied providing military aid to Ukraine to that country’s willingness to conduct investigations into Joe Biden, who was soon to be Trump’s Democratic 2020 election rival, and members of Biden’s family.

Trump responded by slamming Bolton as a “washed-up guy” and a “crazy” warmonger who would have led the country into “World War Six.”

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. Durkin Richer reported from Washington.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — A federal appeals court panel rejected the Trump administration’s request to overturn a lower court order blocking deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday said U.S. President Donald Trump‘s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois “likely” violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which outlines specific state power.

“The facts do not justify the president’s actions,” the 18-page ruling read, adding that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

Roughly 200 federalized National Guardsmen currently sit in Illinois via Texas and more than a dozen from California. Trump federalized an additional 300 troops over the objection of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, both Democrats.

Trump has repeatedly described Chicago and other Democratic-governed cities as a “war zone.” Pritzker has said there’s no evidence for Trump’s claims and led the state’s legal actions against the White House with other local and state officials.

During an appearance on Politico’s The Conversation podcast — to be aired Sunday — Pritzker said that Trump has “got the biggest platform in the country, the presidency, and he just says things.” He attacked Trump’s “lies” on crime.

“It’s propaganda, again, not true, but he’ll say it over and over and over again, hoping that people will believe him,” the governor said.

On Thursday, the court panel added the administration was unlikely to prove a rebellion against the U.S. government or that Trump as president could not enforce the law using regular federal forces.

The judges wrote in the decision they saw “insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois.”

“The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority,” it continued.

An hearing is scheduled for Wednesday to determined if the temporary restraining order should be extended, which remains in effect until Thursday.

“To Illinoisans: Stay safe, record what you see and post it, and continue to peacefully protest. Make sure that your community members know their rights in times of crisis,” the two-term Pritzker said Thursday night on Bluesky.

Former US National Security Adviser John Bolton is making an initial court appearance as he faces charges in an 18-count indictment of mishandling classified information. Bolton, who served under Donald Trump in his first term, has become a vocal critic of the US president.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has said handing over the Ukrainian diver is not in the country’s best interests.

A Polish court has blocked the extradition of a Ukrainian diver wanted by Germany in connection with the 2022 Nord Stream gas pipeline explosions, a handover that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said earlier this month was not in his country’s best interests.

The Warsaw District Court rejected the extradition of the man, only identified as Volodymyr Z, on Friday and ordered his immediate release.

The government had previously said that the decision about whether Volodymyr Z should be transferred to Germany was one for the courts alone.

Tusk has said the problem was not that the undersea pipelines, which run from Russia to Germany, were blown up in September 2022, but that they were built at all.

The explosions ruptured the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which was inaugurated in 2011 and carried Russian natural gas to Germany under the Baltic Sea until Russia cut off supplies in August 2022.

They also damaged the parallel Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which never entered service because Germany suspended its certification process shortly before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

The explosions largely severed Russian gas supplies to Europe, marking a major escalation in the Ukraine conflict and squeezing energy supplies.

Germany’s top prosecutors’ office says Volodymyr Z was one of a group suspected of renting a sailing yacht and planting explosives on the pipelines near the Danish island of Bornholm.

He faces allegations of conspiring to commit an explosives attack and of “anti-constitutional sabotage”.

His Polish lawyer rejects the accusations and says Volodymyr Z has done nothing wrong. He has also questioned whether a case concerning the destruction of Russian property by a Ukrainian at a time when the countries are at war is a criminal matter.

Volodymyr Z’s wife has told Polish media her husband is innocent and that they were together in Poland at the time the pipelines were blown up.

He is one of two Ukrainians whose extradition German judicial authorities have been trying to secure in the case.

A man suspected of being one of the attack’s coordinators was arrested in Italy in August. This week, Italy’s top court annulled a lower court’s decision to order his extradition and called for another panel of judges to reassess the case, his lawyer said.

John Bolton, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has arrived at a federal court to surrender to authorities on charges of mishandling classified information.

The 18 charges stem from allegations he shared or retained sensitive materials, including some characterised as top secret.

Bolton served during Trump’s first administration but parted with the White House contentiously, and has become one of the president’s most vocal public critics.

The indictment makes Bolton, 76, the third of the US president’s political opponents to face charges in recent weeks. Bolton has said he would defend his “lawful conduct”.

Prosecutors have accused Bolton of using personal messaging apps and email to illegally transmit sensitive information.

“These documents revealed intelligence about future attacks, foreign adversaries, and foreign-policy relations,” prosecutors wrote.

Responding to the charges, Bolton said he would defend his “lawful conduct.”

He added he had “become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he [Trump] deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts.”

ACTOR Kevin Spacey sexually assaulted a man despite being told, “No, this is not right”, court documents allege.

The star is being sued at the High Court by the man known only as LNP, who says he suffered pain, anxiety and distress.

Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel, for LNP, says in papers filed at the court that the alleged assaults happened on about 12 occasions from 2000 to 2005.

She says: “Mr Spacey would place his own hand on the claimant’s leg without consent.

“The claimant would attempt to remove the hand and say, ‘No, this is not right’.”

She called it a “breach of trust and exploitation by a powerful man in a position of responsibility on a much younger man”.

READ MORE ON KEVIN SPACEY

CANCELLED STAR RETURNS

Hollywood outcast Kevin Spacey plots shock comeback as hotel singer

WATCH THIS SPACEY

Kevin Spacey’s cunning Hollywood comeback plan as A-list star backs actor

Ms Gumbel said that LNP had suffered “pain and suffering at the time of the abuse itself, which was exacerbated by feelings of embarrassment, shame, dirtiness and confusion”.

He also suffered “anxiety and distress and mild post-traumatic symptoms from the abuse”.

She said: “The assaults were committed in circumstances of breach of trust and exploitation by a powerful man in a position of responsibility on a much younger man.

“The claimant seeks to claim aggravated damages.”

Oscar-winner Spacey, 66, has previously denied allegations of inappropriate behaviour and wrongdoing.

He has yet to file a defence to the claim.

CHICAGO — Cook County’s top judge signed an order barring ICE from arresting people at court. Cook County includes Chicago, which has seen a federal immigration crackdown in recent months.

Detaining residents outside courthouses has been a common tactic for federal agents, who have been stationed outside county courthouses for weeks, making arrests and drawing crowds of protesters.

The order, which was signed Tuesday night and took effect Wednesday, bars the civil arrest of any “party, witness, or potential witness” while going to court proceedings. It includes arrests inside courthouses and in parking lots, surrounding sidewalks and entryways.

“The fair administration of justice requires that courts remain open and accessible, and that litigants and witnesses may appear without fear of civil arrest,” the order states.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defended the practice of making arrests at courthouses, calling it “common sense.”

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” DHS said in a Wednesday statement. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Immigration advocates decry immigration enforcement outside courthouses

Local immigration and legal advocates, including the county’s public defender’s office, have called for an order like this, saying clients were avoiding court out of fear of being detained. The office has confirmed at least a dozen immigration arrests at or near county courthouses since the end of July, when representatives said they’ve seen U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence outside courthouses increase.

“I have had numerous conversations with clients who are presented with a difficult decision of either missing court and receiving an arrest warrant or coming to court and risk being arrested by ICE,” Cruz Rodriguez, an assistant public defender with the office’s immigration division, said at a news conference earlier this month.

Domestic violence advocacy organizations also signed on to a petition earlier this month calling for Cook County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Evans to issue the order. This comes after advocates said a woman was was arrested by ICE last month while entering the domestic violence courthouse.

Alexa Van Brunt, director of MacArthur Justice Center’s Illinois office, which filed the petition, said she was “gratified” by Evans’ order.

“This is a necessary and overdue action to ensure that the people of Cook County can access the courts without fear,” she said in a Wednesday statement to the Associated Press.

Evans said justice “depends on every individual’s ability to appear in court without fear or obstruction.”

“Our courthouses remain places where all people — regardless of their background or circumstance — should be able to safely and confidently participate in the judicial process,” Evans said in a statement.

ICE tactics outside courthouses seen across country

The tactic of detaining people at courthouses in the Chicago area is part of a larger jump in courthouse immigration arrests across the country. The flurry of immigration enforcement operations at courthouses has been condemned by judicial officials and legal organizations, and has drawn lawsuits from some states and the adoption of bills seeking to block the practice.

In June, President Donald Trump’s administration sued the state of New York over a 2020 law barring federal immigration agents from making arrests at state, city and other municipal courthouses.

Statehouse Democrats vow to adopt resolutions condemning federal immigration crackdown

Opening the second day of the six-day fall legislative session in Springfield, Ill., House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch decried the federal government’s immigration squeeze and vowed that his majority Democrats would use floor time Wednesday to adopt resolutions condemning the action.

“We won’t sit back and let our democracy be taken from us,” Welch said at the Capitol, surrounded by two dozen of his caucus members

Questioned about the practical impact of resolutions, Welch said there also are discussions about legislation to restrict federal agents’ patrol statewide. He lambasted reports of ICE arrests in medical facilities and applauded Evans’ ruling prohibiting warrantless arrests near courthouses.

“If we can do something similar statewide, I’d love to get that done,” Welch said. “These should be safe spaces.”

Republicans questioned their opponents’ sincerity. Debating a resolution condemning political violence, GOP Rep. Adam Niemerg noted incendiary language from Gov. JB Pritzker — in the spring he called for “street fighters” to oppose the administration — although the governor has not espoused violence. Rep. Nicole La Ha, who said she has received death threats, accused Democrats of trying to stifle opposition.

“This is not a stand against violence,” La Ha said. “It is a tasteless tactic to punish dissent and difference of opinion.”

Illinois governor denounces tear gas use on protesters

Meanwhile, Pritzker suggested federal agents may have violated a ruling by a federal judge last week that said they could not use tear gas, pepper spray and other weapons on journalists and peaceful protesters after a coalition of news outlets and protesters sued over the actions of federal agents during protests outside a Chicago-area ICE facility. Pritzker said he expected the attorneys involved to “go back to court to make sure that is enforced against ICE”

“ICE is causing this mayhem,” he said. “They’re the ones throwing tear gas when people are peacefully protesting.”

The comments also come after Pritzker denounced Border Patrol agents for using tear gas on protesters who gathered Tuesday after a high-speed chase on a residential street on Chicago’s South Side.

A few protesters also gathered Wednesday afternoon outside an ICE facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview, where a fence that has been at the center of a recent lawsuit had come down.

A judge ordered ICE to remove the fence after the village of Broadview sued federal authorities for “illegally” erecting an 8-foot-tall fence outside the facility, blocking public streets and creating problems for local emergency services trying to access the area. On Monday, state legislators and Black mayors of nearby suburbs gathered outside the facility to demand the fence be removed and announce an executive order limiting protests in the area to designated zones. Trump has long targeted Black mayors in large Democratic cities, many of whom have voiced solidarity with one another in recent months amid federal interventions in their areas.

Community efforts to oppose ICE have also ramped up in the nation’s third-largest city, where neighborhood groups have assembled to monitor ICE activity and film any incidents involving federal agents in their areas.

On Tuesday, hundreds of people attended “Whistlemania” events across the city and made thousands of “whistle kits” with whistles, “Know Your Rights” flyers and instructions on how to use them to alert neighbors of when immigration enforcement agents are nearby.

An increasing number of GoFundMe pages have also been launched to pay for legal costs for community members detained by ICE, most recently a landscaper and father of three children detained earlier this month.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John O’Connor in Springfield contributed.

Elon Musk’s $56bn pay package from Tesla should have been restored by a vote of the company’s shareholders last year, a Tesla attorney has said to the Delaware Supreme Court in the United States.

The Tesla lawyer made his arguments on Wednesday as one of the biggest corporate legal battles entered its final stage after a lower court judge had in January 2024 rescinded the Tesla CEO’s record compensation. The company is also appealing a ruling by the lower court that rejected as legally invalid a vote by shareholders to restore the pay package.

“This was the most informed stockholder vote in Delaware history,” Jeffrey Wall, an attorney for Tesla, told the justices. “Reaffirming that would resolve this case.”

The case’s outcome could have substantial consequences for the state of Delaware, its widely used corporate law, and its Court of Chancery, a once-favoured venue for business disputes that has recently been accused of hostility towards powerful entrepreneurs.

The Court of Chancery ruling striking down Musk’s pay has become a rallying cry for Delaware critics. Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the Tesla board lacked independence from Musk when it approved the pay package in 2018 and that shareholders lacked key information when they voted overwhelmingly in favour of it. As a result, she applied a demanding legal standard and found the pay unfair to investors.

Musk did not attend the arguments, which were held in a special court to accommodate the 65 people in attendance, mostly lawyers.

The defendants, current and former Tesla directors, denied wrongdoing and said McCormick misinterpreted the facts and the law.

Dexit

Tesla argued in Dover, Delaware that the five justices on Delaware’s high court had three avenues to reverse the lower court ruling.

They could find that Musk, who owned 21.9 percent of Tesla stock in 2018, did not control the board pay negotiations and that shareholders were fully informed when they voted to approve it that year. They could determine that rescinding the pay was an improper remedy because it did not undo the work that Musk had done or the gains that shareholders had received. Or they could determine that last year’s vote demonstrated shareholders wanted to accept the pay deal, despite the legal flaws.

“Shareholders in 2024 knew exactly what they were voting for,” Wall said.

Greg Varallo, an attorney for Richard Tornetta, the small investor who brought the case in 2018, said if the court accepted ratification, it would allow a party to change the outcome after a court case had run its course. “Lawsuits would be interminable”, he told the justices.

Varallo tried to convince the justices the lower court ruling was a result of careful fact-finding and based on settled law. “There is nothing extraordinary about this trial opinion,” he said. “What makes it truly extraordinary is that it addresses the largest pay package in human history, awarded to the richest man on earth, who is also one of the most powerful men on earth.”

After the Musk pay ruling, large companies, including Tesla, Dropbox, and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, switched their legal homes to Texas or Nevada, where courts are friendlier toward directors. Delaware lawmakers responded to the corporate departures, a trend known as “Dexit,” by overhauling its corporate law.

If Musk loses the appeal, he will still reap tens of billions of dollars in stock from the electric vehicle (EV) company, which agreed in August to a replacement deal if his 2018 plan is not restored. Tesla has said the replacement plan will cost $25bn or more in accounting charges.

The company said the replacement award was meant to focus the attention of Musk, who said earlier this year that he was forming a new US political party, on transitioning Tesla to robotics and automated driving. Tesla is now incorporated in Texas, where it is far more difficult for a shareholder to challenge board decisions.

New pay plan

Tesla’s board last month proposed a $1 trillion compensation plan, highlighting confidence in Musk’s ability to steer the company in a new direction, even as Tesla loses ground to Chinese rivals in key markets amid softening EV demand.

The justices are considering the appeal of the pay ruling as well as the $345m legal fee that McCormick ordered Tesla to pay to the attorneys for Tornetta, who held just nine Tesla shares when he sued to block the pay deal. The court typically takes months to rule.

Tesla estimated in 2018 that the stock options plan would be worth $56bn if the company met operational and financial goals, which it did. Because the stock continued to appreciate, the options are currently worth closer to $120bn, by far the largest executive compensation ever. Musk is the world’s richest person with a fortune of around $480bn, according to Forbes.

The defendants have argued that McCormick erred in finding social and business ties to Musk compromised their independence, and said Tesla shareholders were informed of the economic terms of the pay deal before they approved the plan. The directors said she should have reviewed the pay package under the “business judgment” standard, which protects directors from second-guessing by courts.

The directors have long argued the pay package performed as hoped – it focused the attention of Musk, a serial entrepreneur, and he transformed Tesla from a startup into one of the world’s most valuable companies.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court may help the GOP keep control of the House of Representatives next year by clearing the way for Republican-led states to redraw election districts now held by Black Democrats.

That prospect formed the backdrop on Wednesday as the justices debated the future of the Voting Rights Act in a case from Louisiana.

The Trump administration’s top courtroom attorney urged he justices to rule that partisan politics, not racial fairness, should guide the drawing election districts for Congress and state legislatures.

“This court held that race-based affirmative action in higher education must come to an end,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his brief. The same is true, he said, for using the Voting Rights Act to draw legislative districts that are likely to elect a Black or Latino candidate.

Too often, he said, the civil rights law has been “deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”

The court’s conservatives lean in that direction and sought to limit the use of race for drawing district boundaries. But the five-member majority has not struck down the use of race for drawing district lines.

But the Trump administration and Louisiana’s Republican leaders argued that now was the time to do so.

If the court’s conservatives hand down such a ruling in the months ahead, it would permit Republican-led states across the South to redraw the congressional districts of a dozen or more Black Democrats.

“There’s reason for alarm,” said Harvard law professor Nicholas Stephanopoulous. “The consequences for minority representation would likely be devastating. In particular, states with unified Republican governments would have a green light to flip as many Democratic minority-opportunity districts as possible.”

Such a ruling would also upend the Voting Rights Act as it had been understood since the 1980s.

As originally enacted in 1965, the historic measure put the federal government on the side of Blacks in registering to vote and casting ballots.

But in 1982, Republicans and Democrats in Congress took note that these new Black voters were often shut out of electing anyone to office. White lawmakers could draw maps that put whites in the majority in all or nearly all the districts.

Seeking a change, Congress amended the law to allow legal challenges when discrimination results in minority voters having “less opportunity … to elect representatives of their choice.”

In decades after, the Supreme Court and the Justice Department pressed the states, and the South in particular, to draw at least some electoral districts that were likely to elect a Black candidate. These legal challenges turned on evidence that white voters in the state would not support a Black candidate.

But since he joined the court in 1991, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that drawing districts based on race is unconstitutional and should be prohibited. Justices Samuel A. Alito, Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett dissented with Thomas two years ago when the court by a 5-4 vote approved a second congressional district in Alabama that elected a Black Democrat.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote the opinion. Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh cast the deciding fifth vote but also said he was open to the argument that “race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future.”

That issue is now before the court in the Louisiana case.

It has six congressional districts, and about one-third of its population is Black.

Prior to this decade, the New Orleans area elected a Black representative, and in response to a voting right suit, it was ordered to draw a second district where a Black candidate had a good chance to win.

But to protect its leading House Republicans — Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise — the state drew a new elongated district that elected Rep. Cleo Fields, a Black Democrat.

Now the state and the Trump administration argue the court should strike down that district because it was drawn based on race and free the state to replace him with a white Republican.

MELBOURNE, Australia — Australia’s highest court on Wednesday rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens ’ bid to overturn an Australian government decision barring her from visiting the country.

Three High Court judges unanimously rejected Owens’ challenge to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s decision in 2024 to refuse her a visa on character grounds.

Owens had planned to begin a speaking tour in Australia last November and also visit neighboring New Zealand.

Burke used his powers under the Migration Act last October to refuse her a visa because she failed the so-called “character test,” court documents said.

Burke found there was a risk Owens would “incite discord in the Australian community” and that refusing her a visa was in the national interest.

Burke found that as a political commentator, author and activist, Owens was “known for her controversial and conspiratorial views.”

She had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred,” Burke said in court documents.

Owens’ lawyers had argued the Migrant Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communications.

Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment that states a right to free speech. But because Australia is a democracy, the High Court has decided that the constitution implies free speech limited to governmental and political matters.

Owens’ lawyers had argued that if the Migration Act was constitutional, then Burke had misconstrued his powers under that law in refusing her a visa.

The judges rejected both arguments and ordered Owens to pay the government’s court costs.

Burke described the ruling as a “win for social cohesion.”

“Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke said in statement.

Owens’ spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Wednesday Owens would comment on the court decision later on social media.

Burke had told the court that while Owens already had an ability to incite discord through her 18 million followers across social media platforms, her presence in Australia would amplify that potential.

He noted that when Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated from “possible” to “probable” last year, the national domestic spy agency reported an “increase in extremism.”

Australia has long used a wide discretion under the character test to refuse foreigners temporary visas.

Burke stripped Ye, the U.S. rapper formerly known as Kanye West, of an Australian visa after he released his single “Heil Hitler” in May this year.

Ye had been traveling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born.

Burke’s decision to ban Owens prompted neighboring New Zealand to refuse her a visa in November on the grounds that she had been rejected by Australia.

But a New Zealand immigration official overturned that refusal in December, citing “the importance of free speech.”

Owens’ spokeswoman on Wednesday had no information about plans to visit New Zealand.

McGuirk writes for the Associated Press.

Days before the Trump administration was supposed to file its response to a California lawsuit challenging its targeting of gender-affirming care providers, attorneys for the U.S. Justice Department asked a federal judge to temporarily halt the proceedings.

Given the federal shutdown, they argued, they just didn’t have the lawyers to do the work.

“Department of Justice attorneys and employees of the federal defendants are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property,’” they wrote in their filing Oct. 1, the first day of the shutdown.

The district judge presiding over the case, which California filed in federal court in Massachusetts along with a coalition of other Democrat-led states, agreed, and promptly granted the request.

It was just one example of the now weeks-old federal shutdown grinding to a halt important litigation between California and the Trump administration, in policy battles with major implications for people’s lives.

The same day, in the same Massachusetts court, Justice Department attorneys were granted a pause in a lawsuit in which California and other states are challenging mass firings at the U.S. Department of Education, after noting that department funding had been suspended and it didn’t know “when such funding will be restored by Congress.”

The same day in U.S. District Court in Central California, the Trump administration asked for a similar pause in a lawsuit that it had brought against California, challenging the state’s refusal to provide its voter registration rolls to the administration.

Justice Department attorneys wrote that they “greatly regret any disruption caused to the Court and the other litigants,” but needed to pause the proceedings until they were “permitted to resume their usual civil litigation functions.”

Since then, the court in Central California has advised the parties of alternative dispute resolution options and outside groups — including the NAACP — have filed motions to intervene in the case, but no major developments have occurred.

The pauses in litigation — only a portion of those that have occurred in courts across the country — were an example of sweeping, real-world, high-stakes effects of the federal government shutdown that average Americans may not consider when thinking about the shutdown’s impact on their lives.

Federal employees working in safety and other crucial roles — such as air traffic controllers — have remained on the job, even without pay, but many others have been forced to stay home. The Justice Department did not spell out which of its attorneys had been benched by the shutdown, but made clear that some who had been working on the cases in question were no longer doing so.

Federal litigation often takes years to resolve, and brief pauses in proceedings are not uncommon. However, extended disruptions — such as one that could occur if the shutdown drags on — would take a toll, forestalling legal answers in some of the most important policy battles in the country.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office has sued the Trump administration more than 40 times since January, has not challenged every request for a pause by the Trump administration — especially in cases where the status quo favors the state.

However, it has challenged pauses in other cases, with some success.

For example, in that same Massachusetts federal courthouse Oct. 1, Justice Department attorneys asked a judge to temporarily halt proceedings in a case in which California and other states are suing to block the administration’s targeted defunding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.

Their arguments were the same as in the other cases: Given the shutdown, they didn’t have the attorneys to do the necessary legal work.

In response, attorneys for California and the other states pushed back, noting that the shutdown had not stopped Department of Health and Human Services officials from moving forward with the measure to defund Planned Parenthood — so the states’ residents remained at imminent risk of losing necessary healthcare.

“The risks of irreparable harms are especially high because it is unclear how long the lapse in appropriations will continue, meaning relief may not be available for months at which point numerous health centers will likely be forced to close due to a lack of funds,” the states argued.

On Oct. 8, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani denied the government’s request for a pause, finding that the states’ interest in proceeding with the case “outweighs” the administration’s interest in pausing it.

Talwani’s argument, in part, was that her order denying a pause would provide Justice Department officials the legal authority to continue litigating the case despite the shutdown.

Bonta said in a statement that “Trump owns this shutdown” and “the devastation it’s causing to hardworking everyday Americans,” adding that his office will not let Trump use it to cause even more harm by delaying relief in court cases.

“We’re not letting his Administration use this shutdown as an excuse to continue implementing his unlawful agenda unchecked. Until we get relief for Californians, we’re not backing down — and neither are the courts,” Bonta said. “We can’t wait for Trump to finally let our government reopen before these cases are heard.”

Trump and Republicans in Congress have blamed the shutdown on Democrats.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and left in place the $1.4-billion judgment against him over his description of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting as a hoax staged by crisis actors.

The Infowars host had argued that a judge was wrong to find him liable for defamation and infliction of emotional distress without holding a trial on the merits of allegations lodged by relatives of victims of the shooting, which killed 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Conn.

The justices did not comment on their order, which they issued without asking the families of the Sandy Hook victims to respond to Jones’ appeal. An FBI agent who responded to the shooting also sued.

A lawyer who represents Sandy Hook families said the Supreme Court had properly rejected Jones’ “latest desperate attempt to avoid accountability for the harm he has caused.”

“We look forward to enforcing the jury’s historic verdict and making Jones and Infowars pay for what they have done,” lawyer Christopher Mattei said in a statement.

A lawyer representing Jones in the case didn’t immediately respond to an email seeking comment. During his daily show on Tuesday, Jones said his lawyers believed his case was “cut and dry,” while he had predicted the high court wouldn’t take up his appeal.

“I said no, they will not do it because of politics,” Jones said.

Jones mocked the idea that he has enough money to pay the judgment, saying his studio equipment, including five-year-old cameras, was only worth about $304,000.

“It’s all about torturing me. It’s all about harassing me. It’s about harassing my family. It’s about getting me off the air,” said Jones, who urged his listeners to buy merchandise to keep the show running.

Jones filed for bankruptcy in late 2022, and his lawyers told the justices that the “plaintiffs have no possible hope of collecting” the entire judgment.

He is separately appealing a $49-million judgment in a similar defamation lawsuit in Texas after he failed to turn over documents sought by the parents of another Sandy Hook victim.

In the Connecticut case, the judge issued a rare default ruling against Jones and his company in late 2021 because of what she called Jones’ repeated failure to abide by court rulings and to turn over certain evidence to the Sandy Hook families. The judge convened a jury to determine how much Jones would owe.

The following year, the jury agreed on a $964-million verdict and the judge later tacked on another $473 million in punitive damages against Jones and Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company, which is based in Austin, Texas.

In November, the satirical news outlet The Onion was named the winning bidder in an auction to liquidate Infowars’ assets to help pay the defamation judgments. But the bankruptcy judge threw out the auction results, citing problems with the process and The Onion’s bid.

The attempt to sell off Infowars’ assets has moved to a Texas state court in Austin. Jones is now appealing a recent order from the court that appointed a receiver to liquidate the assets. Some of Jones’ personal property is also being sold off as part of the bankruptcy case.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Conn., contributed to this report.

PHILADELPHIA — President Trump’s legal team suffered yet another defeat in court Friday as a federal appeals court in Philadelphia roundly rejected its latest effort to challenge the state’s election results.

Trump’s lawyers vowed to appeal to the Supreme Court despite the judges’ assessment that the “campaign’s claims have no merit.”

“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here,” Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the three-judge panel.

The case had been argued last week in a lower court by Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, who insisted during five hours of oral arguments that the 2020 presidential election had been marred by widespread fraud in Pennsylvania. However, Giuliani failed to offer any tangible proof of that in court.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann had said that the campaign’s error-filled complaint, “like Frankenstein’s Monster, has been haphazardly stitched together,” and he denied Giuliani the right to amend it for a second time.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called that decision justified. The three judges on the panel were all appointed by Republican presidents, including Bibas, a former University of Pennsylvania law professor appointed by Trump. Judge Maryanne Trump Barry, Trump’s sister, sat on the court for 20 years, retiring in 2019.

Friday’s ruling comes four days after Pennsylvania officials certified their vote count for President-elect Joe Biden, who defeated Trump by more than 80,000 votes in the state. Nationally, Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris garnered nearly 80 million votes, a record in U.S. presidential elections.

Trump has said he hopes the Supreme Court will intervene in the race as it did in 2000, when its decision to stop the recount in Florida gave the election to Republican George W. Bush. On Nov. 5, as the vote count continued, Trump posted a tweet saying the “U.S. Supreme Court should decide!”

Ever since, Trump and his surrogates have attacked the election as flawed and filed a flurry of lawsuits to try to block the results in six battleground states. But they’ve found little sympathy from judges, nearly all of whom dismissed their complaints about the security of mail-in ballots, which millions of people used to vote from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trump perhaps hopes a Supreme Court he helped steer toward a conservative 6-3 majority would be more open to his pleas, especially since the high court upheld Pennsylvania’s decision to accept mail-in ballots through Nov. 6 by only a 4-4 vote last month. Since then, Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett has joined the court.

“The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud,” Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis tweeted after Friday’s ruling. “On to SCOTUS!”

In the case before Brann, the Trump campaign asked to disenfranchise the state’s 6.8 million voters, or at least the 700,000 who voted by mail in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and other Democratic-leaning areas.

“One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption,” Brann wrote in his Nov. 21 ruling. “That has not happened.”

A separate Republican challenge that reached the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this week seeks to stop the state from further certifying any races on the ballot. Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration is fighting that effort, saying it would prevent the state’s Legislature and congressional delegation from being seated in the coming weeks.

On Thursday, Trump said the Nov. 3 election was still far from over. Yet he offered the clearest signal to date that he would leave the White House peaceably on Jan. 20 if the electoral college formalizes Biden’s win, which appears certain.

“Certainly I will. But you know that,” Trump said at the White House, taking questions from reporters for the first time since election day.

Yet on Friday, he continued his baseless attacks on Detroit, Atlanta and other Democratic cities with large Black populations, calling them sources of “massive voter fraud.” And he claimed, without evidence, that a Pennsylvania poll watcher had uncovered computer memory drives that “gave Biden 50,000 votes” apiece.

All 50 states must certify their results before the electoral college meets Dec. 14, and any challenge to the results must be resolved by Dec. 8. Biden won both the electoral college and popular vote by wide margins.

EX-FOOTIE star and manager Iain Dowie faces being made bankrupt after being taken to court by the taxman.

Cult hero Dowie, 60 – who coined the term “bouncebackability” – has been hit with the bankruptcy petition by HMRC with a hearing due at the High Court.

2

2

It comes almost two decades after ex-Luton, Southampton and West Ham striker Dowie was clobbered with a huge legal bill after leaving Crystal Palace as manager.

A court ruled in 2007 that Dowie deceived Palace into waiving a £1 million compensation clause when he quit.

And a source said: “It looks like Iain’s financial problems might date back to that legal action – there doesn’t seem to be any other reason for it.

“It is a shame for him as he’s such a likeable bloke, but he hasn’t cashed in with punditry as much as some other ex-players and he probably could have done.

“But Iain is a bright bloke and I am sure he will bounce back.”

After leaving Palace, Dowie joined Charlton – but left the Addicks after just 15 games.

His contract contained a clause that Palace would receive £1 million in compensation if Dowie left to join another club.

The 59-cap Northern Ireland international worked as a sales manager and a Sky Sports pundit since his football career ended.

In 2023, Dowie told how he had landed a new position – as a mortgage advisor at a law firm.

He joined Alexander Grace Law, based near Burnley, as a business director leading its re-mortgaging team.

Dad of two Dowie, whose wife Debbie was also working for the company, said: “While people may wonder how I’ve gone from the football pitch to the office I have been working within the conveyancing arena for some four years now and when I was asked if I would come on board with them it was a no-brainer.”

Last year Dowie – who scored 105 goals in 388 league games – said he was lucky to be alive after suffering cardiac arrest during a spin class at a gym in Chorley, Lancs.

After he was treated by other gym-goers and paramedics, Dowie backed calls for more people to learn CPR and said he survived due to the “brilliance of everyone involved”.

Dowie famously used the word “boucebackability” to describe a Crystal Palace comeback and it entered the Oxford dictionary in 2005.

A spokesperson for the star did not respond to a request for comment.

Reporting from Washington — By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court kept in place Wednesday its order blocking video coverage of the trial of California’s Proposition 8, with a conservative majority ruling that defenders of the ban on same-sex marriage would likely face “irreparable harm” if the proceedings were broadcast to the public.

“It would be difficult — if not impossible — to reverse the harm of those broadcasts,” the court wrote in an unsigned opinion. The witnesses, including paid experts, could suffer “harassment,” and they “might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings.” The high court also faulted U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker for changing the rules “at the eleventh hour” to “allow the broadcasting of this high-profile trial” that will decide whether gays and lesbians have a right to marry in California.

The unsigned opinion clearly speaks for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The four liberal justices dissented and accused their colleagues of changing the court’s rules so as to “micromanage” a trial judge.

“The Court today issues an order that will prevent the transmission of proceedings in a nonjury civil case of great public interest to five other federal courthouses,” wrote Justice Stephen G. Breyer. “The majority’s action today is unusual. It grants a stay in order . . . to intervene in a matter of local court administration that it would not (and should not) consider. It cites no precedent for doing so. It identifies no real harm, let alone ‘irreparable harm’. . . . And the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts.”

Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor agreed.

The court’s order means that the trial can be seen only inside the courthouse in San Francisco.

Last week, Walker said the trial would be taped each day and posted on YouTube each evening. On Monday, he revised that plan somewhat and said the video coverage would appear on the court’s website. He also planned to have the proceedings streamed live to several courthouses around the country.

But the high court issued a temporary order Monday morning to stop the video coverage. The extent of the split became apparent Wednesday afternoon when the court issued the 17-page opinion and 10-page dissent.

The majority cited newspaper accounts from the last year to bolster its contention that opponents of same-sex marriage have been “subject to harassment,” including “confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages” and even “death threats.” Under the court’s rules, the justices do not intervene in pending cases unless they are convinced that the appealing side has a strong legal claim as well as evidence of “an irreparable harm” if the court fails to act.

Breyer scoffed at the notion that the witnesses in this case would face harm, because they have gone on television in the past to advocate their views. “They are all experts or advocates who have either already appeared on television or Internet broadcasts, already toured the state advocating a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 8,” he said.

Advocates for equal marriage rights lambasted the decision. “The Supreme Court just struck a huge blow against transparency and accountability,” said Rick Jacobs, chairman of the Courage Campaign in Los Angeles. “The five conservative justices are enabling Prop. 8 supporters to mask their radical views. This historic trial will remain largely hidden from public view.”

Edward Whelan, a conservative critic of Walker, praised the majority for acting to rebuke him. He accused Walker of seeking a “show trial” in San Francisco to intimidate and embarrass the defenders of California’s voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.

[email protected]

Oct. 9 (UPI) — InfoWars publisher Alex Jones wants the Supreme Court to pause a $1.44 billion defamation judgment against him for making false claims about a 2012 school shooting.

Conservative conspiracy theorist Jones on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to pause his payments to the surviving families of the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims, according to The Hill.

The families successfully sued Jones for defamation after he claimed the school shooting was a hoax and are readying to take control of InfoWars, which they intend to turn over to the satirical news site The Onion.

In Thursday’s emergency filing, Jones says the pause is necessary to stop his InfoWars site from being “acquired by its ideological nemesis and destroyed,” NBC News reported.

A Connecticut court in 2022 ordered Jones to pay $1.44 billion to the surviving families of 20 schoolchildren, who were shot and killed by Adam Lanza on Dec. 14, 2012.

Jones filed for personal bankruptcy soon after several judgments were entered against him, but his petition was denied.

He earlier was fined $25,000 per day by a Connecticut judge for refusing to submit to a deposition in the matter.

Lanza, 20, murdered his mother and used her firearm to shoot and kill 20 school children and six adults at the same elementary school he once attended in Newtown, Conn.

He shot and killed himself when law enforcement arrived at the school, which since has been razed and replaced.

When federal prosecutors arrested a man Wednesday for setting a small fire that reignited days later into the deadly Palisades blaze, they suggested the arrest largely settled the matter of blame.

“A single person’s recklessness caused one of the worst fires Los Angeles has ever seen,” Bill Essayli, acting United States attorney for Central California, said as he announced the arrest of Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old Uber driver.

But the new details they offered about the cause of the fire only added to residents’ anger and dismay about how city officials handled the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,700 structures across Pacific Palisades and Malibu. It also renewed calls for City Hall to be held accountable.

The Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades was going through maintenance and empty during the Palisades fire. Photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Until this week, the focus of Palisades residents has been on a reservoir that was supposed to be a key source of water for the neighborhood being dry and other issues related to the fire response. But federal investigators concluded Wednesday that L.A. firefighters thought they had put out the small fire Rinderknecht allegedly set Jan. 1 only for it to smolder and burn underground and then rekindle in heavy winds Jan. 7.

This latest revelation is fueling debate over whether the city of L.A. or the state of California can be found civilly liable for its role in the fire.

Already, a flurry of complaints have been filed over the last 10 months accusing various L.A and California officials of failing to prepare for and respond to the fire.

Most legal experts agree that cases against government entities are tough because California law gives public officials broad immunity from failing to provide fire protection. Some argue that a criminal case against Rinderknecht could ultimately hurt residents’ civil complaints.

“Now those civil cases are dead in the water, because you have an arsonist,” said Neama Rahmani, president of the L.A.-based law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, which is handling Eaton fire cases against Edison.

“That ultimately means that the already weak civil cases against the government became even weaker,” he said, “because now you have the person who’s really at fault for all this.”

EPA crews comb the ruins for hazardous material at a home on Miami Way, that was burned in the Palisades Fire, Thursday, February 6, 2025.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

But lawyers suing the government on behalf of Pacific Palisades residents disagree, and maintain that Rinderknecht’s arrest does not undermine their case.

Just hours after federal law enforcement officials announced Rinderknecht’s arrest, attorneys representing thousands of Palisades fire victims filed a new master complaint against the city of L.A. and the state of California, plus about a dozen new defendants, including Southern California Edison, Charter Communications and AT&T.

“We never allege that the state or the city started the Palisades fire,” said Alexander “Trey” Robertson, an attorney representing 3,300 Palisades fire victims. Rather, he said, their case against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the California Department of Parks and Recreation hinged on the lack of preparations in advance of the fire and the response after the fire started. “That has nothing to do with what started the Lachman fire,” he said. “It is what transpired after that fact.”

The 198-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was not a response to Rinderknecht’s arrest or the new details provided by federal prosecutors. Wednesday just happened to be the deadline a judge set for lawyers to file an omnibus complaint on behalf of 10,000 residents and business owners.

Robertson noted that his complaint did not include the Los Angeles Fire Department: California government code gives it broad immunity against claims of negligent firefighting.

But Robertson argued that the LADWP is liable, because the draining of the Santa Ynez reservoir resulted in fire hydrants running dry and their energized power lines came down on homes and vegetation that ignited additional fires. And the state of California is also liable, he said, because it did not inspect its land in the days between the Lachman and Palisades fires to ensure that no smoldering embers or residual heat remained that could reignite during the predicted Santa Ana wind event.

Robertson said there is case law that holds that a public entity is liable for a “dangerous condition” allowed to exist on its property that causes a fire.

“We allege that the embers from the Lachman Fire which the state allowed to burn for six days on its land (Topanga State Park) constituted a ‘dangerous condition of public property.’ This claim is expressly authorized by statute and not barred by the immunity statutes.”

Rahmani, whose law firm is handling cases against Edison in the Eaton fire, said that would be a very tough ‘dangerous condition’ case.

“What was the dangerous condition here that caused this fire?” he asked. “You’re saying the state has a legal duty. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of square miles of state parks in California to inspect the land. I don’t think any judge would say that there’s a legal duty to inspect forest land for smoldering fire.”

David Levine, a professor of law at UC San Francisco, said Wednesday’s arrest ultimately didn’t seem to change the limited liability public officials have in a fire through government immunity.

“It would be hard to prove liability on that because they’re going to have so much protection due to immunity,” Levine said. “Because these are public entities, they’re not going to be liable for punitive damages.”

Still, Levine said, plaintiff lawyers’ could try to thread the needle by using a ‘dangerous condition’ exception. “The statutes allow for that kind of a claim, but you have to prove it,” he said. “That’s a factual matter that would have to be developed.”

Rahmani said he always thought the cases against government entities in the Palisades fire were weak because California statute gives officials broad immunity from failing to provide fire protection.

“I personally feel that they’re leading people on, giving them hope that does not exist,” Rahmani said.

The emergence of a criminal suspect in the Palisades fire further hindered attorneys’ case, Rahmani said, because judges and juries tend to put all the fault on the criminal, even if there was a claim for negligence. “Because you have an intentional criminal act,” he said, “liability would have to be apportioned between the bad actors.”

Jurors, he said, already tended to be reluctant to put a lot of liability on government defendants. “They’re thinking, ‘Hey, my taxes are gonna go up, who’s gonna pay for all this?’.. That’s why it’s very hard to get massive verdicts against government entities.”

Asked about potential liability for the state or other jurisdictions in the Palisades fire resulting from the reignition of an earlier fire, California Gov. Newsom said, “We will look at the facts and judge on the basis of those facts.”

“When it comes to the issue of fire liability, I know a thing or two, going back to Paradise…” Newsom added. “This is done without political interference. The facts need to be pursued.”

Some lawyers expect that claims will be filed against Uber, Rinderknecht’s employer.

“Obviously, Uber is going to fight that,” Rahmani said. “In terms of someone to go after, Uber seems to me to be the only entity, and that’s gonna be a tough argument.”

Legal experts appear to agree on one thing: Even if Rinderknecht is convicted, he cannot possibly compensate the thousands of residents in the affluent coastal neighborhood of Pacific Palisades who lost loved ones and homes.

“I’ll assume he’s not an heir of Elon Musk or Estee Lauder,” Levine said. “The private and public loss is so vast here. Whatever assets this guy has, I would say, wouldn’t even qualify as a drop in the bucket.”

“Criminal justice — having someone be held accountable — is important,” Rahmani said. “But obviously, as far as money in the bank, it’s not going to be helpful.”

If an arsonist was found responsible in the Eaton fire, Rahmani said, that would have a huge impact on legal claims.

“That would be a home run for Edison,” Rahmani said. “That would save them and the California Fire fund billions of dollars, because then they wouldn’t be a fault. It wouldn’t be their tower. It wouldn’t be the electrical fire. This sort of arson with an accelerant, it would completely change the game, and the value of those claims would go to almost nothing.”

Times Staff Writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report

A Texas court has issued a stay of execution for Robert Roberson, a man whose 2003 murder conviction has raised serious questions about the validity of “shaken baby syndrome” as a medical diagnosis.

Thursday’s decision arrived with only a week remaining until Roberson’s scheduled execution date on October 16.

Roberson, a 58-year-old autistic man, was accused of having killed his two-year-old daughter Nikki Michelle Curtis in January 2002, after he brought her to a hospital emergency room unconscious.

He has maintained that Nikki had been sick and fell from her bed overnight. But prosecutors argued that her head trauma must have been caused by “shaken baby syndrome”, a diagnosis popularised in the late 1990s as evidence of physical abuse in infants and toddlers.

But that diagnosis has been increasingly rejected, as doctors and medical researchers point out that the symptoms of “shaken baby syndrome” — namely, bleeding or swelling in the eyes or brain — can be caused by other conditions.

Roberson’s defence team has argued that Nikki suffered from chronic pneumonia in the lead-up to her death, and the medications she was given, including codeine, contributed to her death.

In Thursday’s decision, the judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to pause his execution in light of a similar case being overturned in 2024.

Judge Bert Richardson contrasted the shifting nature of the medical research with the finality of execution in his concurring opinion.

“There is a delicate balance and tension in our criminal justice system between the finality of judgment and its accuracy based on our ever-advancing scientific understanding,” Judge Richardson wrote.

“A death sentence is clearly final and, once carried out, hindsight is useless. Thus, when moving forward in such a way, we should require the highest standards of accuracy so that we can act with a reliable degree of certainty.”

But the court limited its judgement to reopening Roberson’s petition for habeas corpus, which questions the constitutionality of a person’s imprisonment.

It declined to reconsider Roberson’s case as a whole. That prompted some of the judges on the court to issue a partial dissent.

Judge David Schenck, for instance, argued that “a new trial is necessary and mandated by our Constitution”, given the new evidence that has emerged in the two decades since Roberson was sentenced to death.

“The merits of Roberson’s claims and the cumulative effect of the evidence Roberson presents — in his fifth application as well as his previous and subsequent applications — would be more properly and more swiftly assessed at this point by a jury in a new trial,” Schenck said.

He added that a new trial would also offer the state of Texas “an opportunity to present this case on its merits”.

Still, some judges on the panel said they were opposed to reopening the case, arguing that the shift in medical consensus did not rule out an act of violence in Nikki’s death.

“Arguably credible and reliable scientific evidence still exists to suggest that shaking a child can cause serious injury or death,” Judge Kevin Yeary wrote in his opinion.

This is not the first time that Roberson’s case has been delayed. He has spent nearly 23 years on death row and was also slated to be executed a year ago, in October 2024.

But that execution date was scuttled in an extraordinary series of events. With his execution scheduled for October 17 of that year, a bipartisan group of legislators in the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence agreed to issue a subpoena for Roberson on October 21 — effectively setting up a battle between the legislature’s will and the court’s.

The subpoen sparked a court case about the separation of powers in Texas: A witness could not answer a legislative subpoena if the justice system executed him first.

Further, the members of the Texas House committee had argued that a 2013 state law barring the use of “junk science” in court cases had failed to be applied in Roberson’s case.

The case reached the Texas Supreme Court, which halted Roberson’s execution while the matter was resolved. Execution dates are set with at least 90 days’ notice in Texas, resulting in a prolonged pause.

On July 16, after appeals from Roberson’s defence team, a new execution date was set for this month.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, has accused critics of Roberson’s sentence of “interfering with the capital punishment proceedings” and has repeatedly pledged to push forward with the execution.

But even those involved in Roberson’s original capital murder trial have sought to see his sentence overturned.

Brian Wharton, the lead investigator in Roberson’s case, had once testified in favour of the prosecution. But last year, he told the Texas House committee that he supported Roberson’s appeal, given the new evidence that has come to light.

“He is an innocent man, and we are very close to killing him for something he did not do,” Wharton said.

On Thursday, one of the jurors who helped convict Roberson also published an opinion column in the Houston Chronicle, asserting that she was “wrong” to side with the prosecution.

“If we on the jury knew then what I know now — about the new evidence of Nikki’s missed pneumonia, how her breathing would have been affected by the Phenergan and codeine doctors gave her that last week, the signs of sepsis, and all the things that were wrong with the version of shaken baby syndrome used in the case — we would have had a lot more to discuss,” Terre Compton wrote.

“Based on all that has come out since the trial, I am 100% certain that Robert Roberson did not murder his child.”

Texas has executed 596 people since 1982, the most of any state.