court

WASHINGTON — In firing up a trade war with Canada, President Trump turned to a 96-year-old statute so obscure that many trade lawyers didn’t even know it was still on the books.

Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on Aug. 24 to slap a 50% tax on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. The move prompted dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa and strained already-tense relations between the neighbors and longtime allies.

The president’s Section 338 tariff authority has never been used, let alone tested in court. “This law is literally a blank canvas because it’s never been litigated,’’ said Ryan Majerus, a partner at law firm King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

So it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest Canada tariffs could survive a legal challenge, and some lawyers argue that the Depression-era law has been rendered obsolete by more recent trade laws.

Trump raises Section 338 from the dead

To sanction Canada allegedly for discriminating against U.S. dairy, auto and alcoholic beverage exports this summer, the Trump administration reached back to the Great Depression.

The 1930 tariff legislation is known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act after its congressional sponsors. With the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress raised tariffs on hundreds of imports in an attempt to protect American farmers and manufacturers.

The tariffs are notorious among economists and historians for shutting down world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. (Trump, who proudly calls himself “Tariff Man,” has a different view, arguing that the Smoot-Hawley levies simply came too late to rescue the American economy.)

In addition to raising tariffs themselves, lawmakers in 1930 gave the president new power to impose them himself: Section 338 authorizes presidential tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses.

Before Trump, no president had actually used the statute.

“Until Trump’s second term, few trade lawyers were aware that Section 338 remained on the books or understood what it did,” legal scholars Peter Harrell and Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University wrote this month in the libertarian magazine Reason.

Harrell and Hillman cite State Department records to show that the U.S. considered using Section 338 in trade disputes — against Spain in 1932 and against newly communist China in 1949 — but never did. After the Depression, U.S. policy focused more on using negotiations — rather than sanctions — to open foreign markets.

So Section 338 sat moldering in the law books.

Other laws take hold

As the years went by, the United States passed new trade laws. Some of them ceded to the president tariff power, which the Constitution originally granted to Congress. But the new laws also limited the president’s authority to certain circumstances — including dealing with national security threats and foreign currency crises — and required the government to carry out investigations and meet other procedural requirements beforehand.

“There is a very strong argument that [Section 338] was superseded,” said Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group that represented businesses that successfully challenged the earlier Trump tariffs with the Supreme Court.

If Congress wanted the president to retain Section 338 power, Albrecht asks, why did lawmakers pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed for national security tariffs? And the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president power to go after other countries’ unfair trade practices?

Battling over Canada’s dairy market

Legal experts see other weaknesses in the Section 338 tariffs.

Harrell and Hillman, for instance, write in Reason that Section 338 authorizes only tariffs that “offset” the harm that a foreign country’s trade practices do to American companies. But in targeting Canada, they note, the Trump administration made no attempt to calculate the dollar amount of damage arising from discrimination against U.S. farmers, automakers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. And the U.S. went after Canadian imports unconnected to those trouble spots, including hockey sticks and cement.

Harrell and Hillman also say that Canada’s protection of its dairy market does not single out U.S. farmers for discrimination; the rules apply to many other Canadian trading partners as well.

Moreover, the United States agreed to the Canadian system — in which Canada imposes stiff tariffs on dairy imports that exceed a quota — in a North America trade pact Trump himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico in his first term. Harrell and Hillman write that it is “incongruous, to say the least, for the United States to denounce as discriminatory the very terms it agreed to.”

But John Veroneau, former general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said the Section 338 tariffs are straightforward: They are justified when another country discriminates against U.S. imports by taxing them more than it taxes imports from other countries.

And in a “perverse irony,” Veroneau said, Canada did just that when it responded to tariffs Trump imposed on Canadian products last year with its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports. “Courts will rightly feel obliged in the face of any challenge [to decide]: Are the statutory requirements met or are they not met, however ludicrous the broader context might be,” said Veroneau, adjunct professor at the University of Maine School of Law.

Plaintiffs are so far hard to find

Trump’s other tools to impose his protectionist agenda already have floundered in court. The Supreme Court in February threw out his boldest gambit: invoking a 1977 national security law to hit almost every country on Earth last year with double-digit tariffs.

When Trump tried to replace the revenue lost to the Supreme Court defeat with a new set of tariffs, a specialized trade court in New York rejected those too — though the government was allowed to continue collecting the import taxes while the case works its way through the court system.

No one has filed a lawsuit challenging the Section 338 tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center has been looking for businesses willing to sue the government over the levies.

“I haven’t had a lot of response from plaintiffs,” Albrecht said. “Anytime you want to sue the government, it’s a hard proposition.” The Section 338 tariffs on Canada are also far smaller — just 5% of Canadian imports — than Trump’s 2025 worldwide tariffs, meaning that fewer companies have to pay them and can claim to have been injured by them.

There’s also a chance, Albrecht said, that the two countries will resume the talks they broke off Aug. 21 and reach a compromise to end a standoff neither country wants. “I’m hopeful that somebody blinks, that they come to some agreement and it all goes away,” she said.

Aug. 28 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against a policy by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that greatly expanded detention for migrants living in the country for years.

Under the Trump administration, ICE has changed its policies to treat people with extensive ties to the United States as still “seeking admission.”

That policy shift allows the agency to subject people who have lived in the country for years to mandatory detention without bond.

On Friday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the policy, marking the eighth time ICE has been rejected over this same issue in federal appeals court.

In more than 13,000 cases challenging the policy, judges have ruled against ICE more than 90% of the time, Politico reported.

The federal panel said ICE’s policy is incongruent with the law, which is to be applied differently depending on how recently a specific person entered the country.

“Contrary to the Government’s view, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (‘IIRIRA’) retained two tracks for detention even though it overhauled the procedures for removing noncitizens from the United States,” the court wrote in its decision.

“Before IIRIRA, noncitizens arriving in the United States were subject to ‘exclusion’ and those already in the country were subject to ‘deportation’ — the former were held in mandatory detention while the latter were afforded bond.”

The appeals court also ruled that ICE’s policy violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

“The Supreme Court has recognized the Fifth Amendment’s ‘Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent.'”

The court added: “Because Petitioners here have lived in the United States for decades, they have ‘established connections’ in the country and are entitled to due process rights beyond those provided to noncitizens at the border.”

Aug. 28 (UPI) — The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to allow the Pentagon to ban transgender individuals from serving in the military.

A federal appeals court ruled in June that the military’s attempts to remove transgender Americans was “both arbitrary and based upon animus.”

On Friday, Solicitor General John D. Sauer appealed to the country’s top court to reverse the ruling.

“The court asserted that the policy likely denies equal protection because it reflects invidious discrimination against trans-identifying people,” Sauer wrote in his petition. “That gravely erroneous holding warrants this Court’s review.”

“The authority of the U.S. military to determine who may serve in the Nation’s armed forces is a matter of exceptional importance,” he added. “Whether the Constitution prohibits the military from exercising that authority by adopting a policy like the one here is a recurring issue, which has arisen before and will likely arise again absent this Court’s review.”

President Donald Trump has targeted transgender service members since the first days of his second administration.

He signed an executive order saying transgender troops’ health needs are “inconsistent” with service in the military.

The National Center for LGBTQ Rights and GLAD Law sued in February, and the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs.

Judge Robert Wilkins said the ban on transgender service members “appears driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”

“We are confident the Supreme Court will affirm that the Trump administration cannot base policies on hostility toward a group of people,” said Jennifer Levi, GLAD Law senior director of transgender and queer rights, in a statement.

“As the Trump administration’s own attorneys admitted, these are qualified individuals who are meeting all military standards,” Levi added. “There is no reason to waste millions of taxpayer dollars to kick out thousands of highly trained, skilled, and decorated troops based on nothing but hostility and this administration’s political whims.”

The Supreme Court is on summer recess and will return on Oct. 5.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — A Manhattan federal judge on Thursday signed off on a $72.5 million settlement between Bank of America and victims of Jeffrey Epstein over the banking giant’s involvement in the convicted sex offenders crimes.

Judge Jed Rakoff said the agreement was a move toward accountability for the victims, he added that the pain caused by Epstein could be undone. “No amount of money can ever fully compensate Epstein victims for the harm they’ve suffered,” he said.

Around 60 women who were trafficked or abused by Epstein or any of his associates between June 2008 and July 2019 will be covered by the settlement, attorneys for the women have said.

The Charlotte, N.C.-based bank was accused in a class-action lawsuit of ignoring red flags in Epstein’s transactions in the years after he was first charged with sexually abusing girls and young women.

The lawsuit, which was filed last October, accused Bank of America of “absolute loyalty” to Epstein.

According to Senate Finance Committee data, Bank of America filed suspicious activity reports about more than $170 million in suspicious transactions between billionaire Leon Black and Epstein.

Similar settlements have been reached with JPMorgan Chase for $290 million and Deutsche Bank for $75 million.

None of the banks have admitted wrongdoing.

European football’s governing body considers making a criminal complaint ​against Infantino over World Cup selloff plans.

UEFA has asked ⁠a US ⁠federal court for permission to obtain testimony and documents from FIFA entities in ⁠Florida for use in a planned criminal complaint in Switzerland against FIFA President ⁠Gianni Infantino, according to a court filing.

In an ex parte application filed under US law, European football’s governing body said it is considering ‌criminal proceedings against Infantino and potentially other FIFA officials and advisers over a now-abandoned plan to transfer commercial rights linked to men’s and women’s World Cups and the Club World Cup into a new ⁠subsidiary called FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE).

“UEFA is actively considering legal action arising out of and in connection with the … plan proposed by FIFA,” read the legal document filed in a Florida court in the United States, according to the AFP news agency.

“More specifically, UEFA and other interested parties are preparing to bring criminal claims in Switzerland against Infantino and possibly other FIFA officials and advisors for criminal mismanagement under Article 158 of the Swiss Criminal Code.”

UEFA ⁠alleges Infantino developed the proposal in secret with a small group of advisers and investors, bypassing FIFA’s normal ⁠governance processes and failing to consult the FIFA Council, regional confederations ⁠or member associations.

The filing asks ⁠a US court to authorise discovery from FIFA (AMERICAS), Inc. and FWC2026 US, Inc., two Florida-based FIFA entities. UEFA ‌said the organisations may possess documents and witnesses relevant to how the FFE transaction ‌was ‌conceived, structured, valued and approved.

Jeanie Buss is taking her siblings to court. Again.

Attorneys representing the Lakers’ controlling governor filed a petition in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday to block her five siblings from trying to sell the family’s remaining 17.82% of the NBA franchise the Buss family has owned since 1979.

Jeanie contends that her siblings should abide by a 2017 court order that mandated the family’s co-trustees to “take all actions reasonably available to ensure that Jeanie is appointed and remains as the NBA controlling owner of the Lakers.” The 2017 legal battle installed Jeanie’s younger siblings, Janie and Joey, as her fellow co-trustees, two roles that were previously held by her older brothers Jim and Johnny, who were ousted after a failed attempt to wrestle control away from Jeanie.

The 97-page petition accuses Janie, Joey and the other siblings Jim, Johnny and Jesse of “devious behavior” for not including Jeanie in discussions to sell the family’s last stakes in the team earlier this month. While the other siblings elected to sell soon after Bob Iger and Joshua Kushner agreed to a record-breaking transaction with Mark Walter and released a statement attributed to the Buss family, Jeanie “never agreed to any sale, was never consulted and was never even informed,” the petition states.

“Jeanie thought she had put all of her siblings’ scheming and manipulations behind her in 2017,” the petition reads. “Sadly, that was not the case — and Jeanie must respectfully request relief from this Court a second time.”

Among five points on the petition, Jeanie hopes to declare her siblings’ votes to sell the team void, remove Janie and Joey as co-trustees for “breach of fiduciary duty” and hold both in contempt of court and hold Jim, Johnny and Jesse in contempt and liable for “aiding and abetting.”

Jeanie, the third-oldest child of former Lakers owner Jerry Buss, was hand-picked by the family patriarch to oversee his prized investment that grew from a $67.5-million purchase into a $12.5-billion world-renowned brand. Iger, the former Disney chief executive, and Kushner, founder of a venture capital firm, bought a majority stake of the Lakers from Walter earlier this month at a record valuation, and reports of five of the Buss siblings’ plans to sell their ownership stake in the team came days later.

To remain on the NBA board of governors, Jeanie would need to own at least 15% of the team. She was to stay in the leadership role for at least the next four seasons after the Buss family relinquished control of the team to Walter in 2025.

That unique aspect of the 2025 sale “demonstrated the co-trustees could fulfill their duties under the trust — and honor Dr. Buss’s intent — while also delivering extraordinary financial returns to the beneficiaries,” the petition states.

Jeanie contends that not only is her latest fight to maintain her governor role a way to “enforce of her parents’ intent,” but the petition says Jeanie also believes remaining the governor can “protect the strategic decision by the trustees less than a year ago to sell a portion of the team and retain an interest sufficient to maintain control and to benefit from the continuously skyrocketing value.”

Since Jerry Buss built the Lakers into the NBA’s most glamorous franchise during four decades of stewardship, the team will now have a third controlling owner in as many years. Walter, who previously owned a minority stake in the team, took majority control in 2025 when the team was valued at $10 billion. His reign was short-lived; he shockingly sold his shares of the team to Iger and Kushner for a 25% profit 14 months after Walter’s purchase offer was accepted by the Buss family trust.

The sale from Walter to Iger and Kushner is not expected to be affected by the Buss family’s legal proceedings, according to a source close to the matter but not authorized to speak publicly.

The petition adds that Lakers minority owners Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times and said he plans to hold onto his 4% stake in the Lakers, and real estate developer Ed Roski Jr. believe Jeanie is “the right person to continue as controlling owner and NBA governor of the Lakers to help preserve and continue to grow the value of the Lakers stock investments.”

The Lakers functioned as a family-run business for decades under the Buss family. Each child held different roles, but Jeanie is now the only one left at the organization. Jim and Johnny were ousted in 2017. Janie, Joey and Jesse were all fired soon after Walter’s sale was approved in November. Joey was the chief executive of the G League affiliate South Bay Lakers and Jesse was the Lakers’ director of scouting. Janie led the organization’s charity efforts. ESPN reported that Jim and Johnny had returned to roles with the team and were among those fired in November.

After Jeanie and her legal team announced their intention to contest the siblings’ attempt to sell, the five other siblings released a statement saying they were “united” in their decision and intended to “move forward thoughtfully, respectfully and through appropriate process.”

“The Los Angeles Lakers have never been just a basketball team,” the statement released Aug. 18 continued. “They have been one of the greatest privileges of our lives. Our focus has always been on what we believe is best for the Lakers, the fans who have supported this franchise for generations and the greater Los Angeles community.”

A court hearing to review the request is scheduled for Nov. 5, according to the petition. The Lakers will be two weeks into their season at the time.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — A divided federal appeals court has ruled that Rep. LaMonica McIver is not immune from prosecution on charges stemming from a confrontation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents outside a federal immigration detention facility in 2025.

The New Jersey Democrat was charged with three federal counts of impeding and interfering with federal immigration officers over alleged conduct on May 9, 2025, as they were attempting to arrest Newark Mayor Ras Baraka during an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of Delaney Hall Federal Immigration Facility.

McIver denies the allegations and has sought their dismissal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 Wednesday that two of the three charges against McIver may proceed to trial, while the third was sent back to a lower court for reconsideration.

McIver said she disagrees with the ruling and was “exploring” her options.

“To protect the people, their elected representatives must be authorized to conduct oversight of the executive branch without fear of retaliation,” McIver said in a statement.

“Today’s decision chills that authority and emboldens the Trump administration to continue persecuting our most vulnerable communities, those who try to defend them and anyone who dares hold the president or his lackeys accountable.

“I will not fold to this administration,” she continued. “The administration will not stop me from doing my job or standing for what is right. This is not over.”

Federal prosecutors charged McIver in a three-count indictment in June 2025, a month after the incident at Delaney Hall.

According to the court document, she and two other members of Congress were at the facility to conduct an unannounced congressional oversight inspection of the facility as a protest was occurring outside against the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policy and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

After arriving at the facility, Baraka entered but was informed by a federal officer he was not authorized to be there, according to federal prosecutors, who said McIver prevented the federal officers from arresting the mayor, who was allegedly given multiple warnings to leave.

Outside the facility, McIver allegedly placed herself in front of Baraka and wrapped her arms around him to prevent his arrest. During the situation she is accused of having “slammed her forearm into the body of one law enforcement officer,” whom she also allegedly tried to retrain by grabbing him.

Court documents also accuse her of striking a second officer with both of her forearms.

Video of the incident posted online shows a chaotic scene that day outside the facility.

Baraka was eventually arrested and charged with trespassing, though the case against him was later dropped.

McIver moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing it violated the Speech or Debate Clause and the constitutional principle of separation of powers as well as under selective prosecution and enforcement claims, while also arguing selective and vindictive prosecution and enforcement.

All three counts accuse her of forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating and interfering with federal officers. However, the appeals court sent count three back to the lower court to review whether it includes conduct that can be considered legislative acts.

While counts one and two identify specifics act, count three encompasses a range of alleged conduct over a broad time frame, both inside and outside the facility, the court said.

Numerous Democrats came to McIver’s defense, arguing it is an attack on congressional oversight.

“Donald Trump wants Congressmembers to fall in line & not conduct oversight of detention centers,” Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts said in a statement.

“And he wants to make an example out of @RepLaMonica. But we’re not letting up.”

New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill similarly said that she continues to stand with her friend.

“Trump weaponizing the Department of Justice to target members of Congress simply for doing their jobs is straight out of his corruption playbook,” she said in an online statement.

“It’s a brazen and unlawful abuse of power, and a direct attack on congressional oversight.”

A Maryland court has ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2028 elections.

The ruling Wednesday by a judge in the state’s capital city marks another setback in Democrats’ national attempts to counter a Republican redistricting movement pushed by President Trump ahead of this year’s elections. The judge ruled that the amendment cannot appear on the November ballot, but he paused the effect of that ruling to allow for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Democrats already control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore called lawmakers into a special session in August with a goal of making it easier to claim that final seat.

An amendment referred to the ballot by lawmakers seeks to sidestep a court ruling that struck down a previous Democratic redistricting plan in 2022. It would declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and take into account “natural boundaries” applies only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.

That would allow Democratic state lawmakers to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, reshaping a district east of the bay that is held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a law signed by Moore that set a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

The state attorney general’s office argued that deadline didn’t apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers wrote their own ballot summary for it, using their constitutional authority. The judge disagreed, instead siding with arguments by the conservative Oversight Project and Republican state lawmakers who sued.

Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court also invalidated a redistricting ballot measure because of procedural violations by state lawmakers. In that case, voters had already approved an amendment in April authorizing mid-decade redistricting when the court ruled that lawmakers last year had waited too long to take an initial step necessary to qualify it for the ballot.

Virginia and Maryland both were seeking to follow the path of California, where voters approved a Democratic-backed amendment authorizing mid-decade redistricting. Democrats hope to gain as many as five congressional seats from California’s redrawn districts, plus an additional seat from new districts in Utah.

But Republicans hope to win as many as 16 additional seats from new U.S. House districts enacted in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

Redistricting typically happens near the beginning of each decade, after new census data is released. But a mid-decade redistricting battle broke out after Trump urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts in hopes that it might help Republicans hold onto a slim House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has blocked Texas from banning drag performances as unconstitutional, ruling that the solution to the problem is for those who find such events offensive to just not attend.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 into law in June 2023 to ban “sexually oriented performances” via civil penalties on businesses that host them and criminal penalties on performers.

It has been debated in the courts since, with a court ruling it unconstitutional in 2023 and an appeals court in February allowing it to take effect while sending the case back to the district court for review.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Hittner, a Reagan appointee who issued the 2023 ruling, declared Senate Bill 12 an unconstitutional restriction on speech and ordered that the state be permanently enjoined from enforcing it.

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple … just don’t go,” Hittner said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for the U.S. Senate with President Donald Trump‘s endorsement, called the ruling in a statement “flawed,” arguing without proof that it will endanger children while being “an affront to Texas values.”

“I will appeal this decision immediately and continue to fight to protect our kids,” he said online.

Meanwhile, civil rights and LGBTQ advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that the legislature’s attempt to ban drag performances was unconstitutional from start to finish,” Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which filed the original lawsuit in August 2023, said in a statement.

“This law stifled free expression across our state and made people afraid to engage in or attend drag shows and other performances. But all Texans — no matter our gender or background — are guaranteed the right to free expression.”

Brigitte Bandit, a drag performer and a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was “a relief.”

“As a lifelong Texan, I’m sick of this state trying to censor art and stoke hatred and violence against drag artists and the LGBTQIA+ community. No one should be punished for performing drag, and I wish lawmakers would take steps to protect kids from real dangers in our state instead of trying to divide and marginalize us.”

Aug. 25 (UPI) — A man is facing federal charges for forging the signature of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and impersonating a federal agent.

Joshua M. Culver was indicted Friday in the Northern District of Indiana on four counts of falsely impersonating an officer of the United States and one count of forging the signature of a judge and court seal.

He was arrested in Colorado and has been assigned a public defender there.

The indictment alleges that Culver identified himself as a National Security Agency agent on at least two occasions in September 2025. He allegedly did so at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Office trying to get information about the location of a family member. The indictment also alleges that he made phone calls to someone at their employer threatening them and accusing them of breaking the law.

In January 2026, Culver allegedly claimed to be a “Special Master enforcing orders of the United States Supreme Court” to get a Lake County, Ind., judge to dismiss criminal cases and judgments against him.

He’s accused of forging Roberts’ signature and using a counterfeit seal on an order in September that told a Grant County, Ind., court to drop theft charges against him.

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is not lazy, I’ll give him that.

During his unsuccessful run for governor this year, you may recall that the MAGA devotee found time to seize more than 650,000 ballots from the Proposition 50 redistricting race, claiming he suspected there were tens of thousands more votes cast than there should have been — a favorite (and false) complaint of election deniers.

There were not.

Undaunted by reality, and likely law, Bianco announced he was going to have his deputies recount the votes, even though this kind of interference in the chain of custody of ballots never had occurred anywhere in the United States.

This unprecedented seizure of ballots — something election-denier-in-chief President Trump has been hinting at trying himself for years — quickly became a national news story, and a national concern.

With midterms looming and more than one MAGA sheriff out there, what would stop another conspiracy-minded, badge-wearing maverick from doing something similar this November, potentially throwing our national election into turmoil?

The specter of Bianco setting a precedent for like-minded conspiracists to follow prompted two significant lawsuits — one led by the election experts at the UCLA Voting Rights Project and the other from state Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments in those cases Monday, and while we’ll have to wait for the official rulings, things did not seem to go well for the sheriff.

What surprised me most, or maybe just relieved me, was how thin Bianco’s arguments were to support his actions. In the end, his legal team came with little more than contortions and cartwheels, trying to twist Bianco’s overreach into existing law.

His lawyer, Bradley Hertz, attempted to argue that legislators, when crafting laws protecting ballots, meant different rules to apply to investigations of elections preceding formal prosecutions. If that sounds confusing, it’s because it is.

Hertz seemingly was trying to convince the court that Bianco legally could pull his shenanigans as long as he didn’t actually find criminal wrongdoing, which would trigger a different set of rules.

“That seems bizarre,” Justice Goodwin H. Liu said during a back-and-forth with Hertz.

Indeed.

But it was Justice Joshua Groban who hit at the national implications of what Bianco had done — and what it could mean for the midterms if this court ruled in his favor.

“It seems like under your broad view of the warrant power … the sheriff could could seize ballots even before election day, right?” Groban asked. “Even before they were counted.”

It’s terrible to have ballots seized after they’re counted. It’s devastating if they were to be taken before there was an official tally, because how would anyone trust that there hadn’t been tampering? Simply seizing uncounted ballots, no matter what happens next, would create such paranoia and uncertainty that the election results almost certainly would be called into question — something that could play into the favor of, say, a wannabe authoritarian who fears he’s likely to lose a fair vote count.

Even Hertz seemed to acknowledge such a scenario was bad.

“If search warrants were allowed during the election or preelection, that would obviously wreak havoc,” he said. “There would be, kind of, a cat out of the bag, so to speak. You can’t count ballots if they’re not in the possession of the registrar.”

But then Hertz tried to come up with logic that what Bianco was arguing wouldn’t mean that ballots could be seized anytime, anyhow, and that instead courts could find a way to allow seizing only after the official count. The court did not seem convinced that this was a good idea, or that that is what the law should or did allow.

If that case didn’t go well for Bianco, it was the second case brought by Bonta that really might end up being a hard loss.

For years, decades really, in California and across the country, there has been a group of sheriffs who have argued they are a law onto themselves because they are elected, not hired or appointed. Some of these sheriffs argue that they are literally above federal law.

In California, there has at times been momentum to rein in this line of thinking by creating clear boundaries in law, but the state Legislature always has backed down in the face of opposition from law enforcement.

One potential curb on sheriffs’ power comes from a single line in our state Constitution that seems to say the state attorney general has supervisory power over them. But the meaning and power of this particular clause has long been debated and seldom invoked.

Bonta, however, invoked it against Bianco, claiming the the sheriff had to back off the ballot-seizing because Bonta had authority to order him to stop. Bianco did stop, to his credit. But the standoff was heard by the court Monday and likely will force clarity on an issue that has long lacked it.

Here again, the justices seemed amenable to Bonta’s argument that sheriffs, at least to some extent, answer to him as the state’s chief law enforcement officer. But the justices seemed far more cautious on this issue, and even the state’s attorney conceded that “it’s actually pretty remarkable how little our Constitution says about county sheriffs.”

If Bianco loses on this issue, it would be huge. It would mean that Bianco not only overstepped his power by seizing the ballots, but that he also had forever lessened the power of California sheriffs by clarifying they do answer to the attorney general. I’m sure that will be very popular with other sheriffs.

We’ll see what the justices say, but at least it seems likely that this embarrassing chapter of California election history will end in favor of the law, and democracy.

Maybe Bianco really does believe his conspiracy theories. After all, “there are some people who believe they had breakfast with Elvis on Sunday,” pointed out Chad Dunn, who argued the case for the Voting Rights Project.

“We can’t satisfy them,” Dunn warned.

More importantly, we shouldn’t — even when they wear a badge. Our laws already have robust protections for elections, and rogue sheriffs aren’t one of them.

California Supreme Court justices hammered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco over his seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots in a pair of back-to-back hearings on Monday, appearing poised to order the ballots returned and sharply limit the sheriff’s power to snatch similar election materials in the future.

Bianco, a Republican who came in fourth in this spring’s crowded California gubernatorial primary, carted off truckloads of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in February, after securing a warrant based on claims that the office allowed fraudulent votes in the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts last fall.

According to a sworn declaration by one of Bianco’s sergeants, armed deputies from Riverside County’s Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Response Team and SWAT unit were sent to sweep up pallets of sealed votes and bring them to the Moreno Valley Sheriff’s Station on Feb. 26 — a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber ordered Bianco to stand down.

In the days that followed, deputies began their own ad hoc recount — an activity they’d never been trained for, and which state officials and civil liberties groups say flies in the face of the plain language of the state’s election law that says “in no event shall ballots be moved.”

Voters sued. So did Bonta. In oral arguments on both cases Monday morning, California‘s seven Supreme Court justices appeared at times flabbergasted by claims that the move was not only permitted but blessed under state law — and that California’s top cop had no power to block it.

“I’m just wondering … why didn’t the sheriff’s office contemplate the available routes under the elections code for resolving the alleged disparity?” asked Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu. “Isn’t there a procedure for resolving this?”

“Certainly there are other paths,” said Bianco’s attorney, Bradley W. Hertz.

Hertz, who argued the sheriff’s case after Riverside’s county counsel largely sided with the plaintiffs, said Bianco simply exercised his legal discretion.

“This wasn’t come in with guns blaring and take the documents,” Hertz said.

The dispute began over handwritten notes made as part of an experimental program to increase voter confidence in the county’s election procedures. That informal tally fell about 46,000 votes short of the official count, prompting accusations of fraud.

Officials contend the discrepancy between the computer count and the paper tally is “a good deed that went punished” — the result of exhausted officials being handed an extra-credit project they couldn’t quite execute.

“It was a pilot program that the registrar implemented at the request of the public, on top of all their other duties, to do these handwritten logs to try to track 350,000 pieces of mail that come in,” said Dale Larson, who represented Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco at the hearing.

Both times it was attempted, the hand tally produced a significant undercount, prompting officials to cancel the pilot, Larson said.

Bianco and his allies insist the difference is evidence of maleficence, and that criminal law authorizes the sheriff to sidestep the state’s detailed election code and the attorney general’s sweeping authority to get to the bottom of it.

The justices repeatedly pressed on Hertz to explain how the general authority conferred to the sheriff under criminal law could trump the specificity of the state’s election rules — a position that would seem to upend foundational rules of American law.

They also cast doubt on Bianco’s “counterintuitive” claim that Bonta’s “supervisory” role over the state’s elected sheriffs was merely advisory and did not carry the authority of law.

“It’s not just counterintiitive — again, we’ve said a million times, we’ve got to just look at the plain language,” said Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban. “Nobody would think that’s what ‘supervised’ means, so why should we think that here?”

The court battle has played out with the UCLA Voting Rights Project bringing the suit on behalf of voters, and the Riverside County district attorney’s Office and the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. backing many of Bianco’s claims.
But it has also pitted the sheriff against the registrar, who was named as a co-defendent in the UCLA suit despite siding with plaintiffs in all but a narrow subset of its claims.

In court filings, Riverside County Counsel Minh C. Tran co-signed claims that Bonta and the voters had it right, carving out a narrow disagreement over whether Tinoco should have ignored the sealed warrant and faced arrest rather than allow ballots to be taken. They also questioned whether he was obligated to go to court himself to stop the seizure.

UCLA hit back at that claim, saying it was “the responsibility of the registrar to go to jail rather than hand over the ballots.”

“I know that’s strong medicine,” said Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “The registrar has a duty to announce publicly and get into court immediately, or at least allow the public to get into court immediately to contest the movement of ballots before it occurs.”

The decision looms as the Trump administration has moved to restrict mail-in voting and signaled it could contest results of the upcoming midterms — partisan flash points UCLA urged the court to address.

“This is bound to be repeated again,” Dunn said. “These are the public’s ballots, that’s why the election code is crafted the way it is, so that the public have a right to weigh in.”

Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can begin implementing measures from an executive order intended to restrict mail-in voting in many states and Washington, D.C.

However, legal challenges to that order could still cause issues for that plan before the midterm elections in November.

The ruling Monday means that the Department of Homeland Security can begin moving forward with compiling state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the states — all led by Democrats – that had challenged the executive order.

Another part of the executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to submit lists of eligible voters with information allowing those ballots to be tracked by the government. A lower court had blocked that policy nationwide in a separate case, meaning that more legal action will be needed before the postal service can continue.

The high court’s ruling did not address the overall legality of the executive order.

“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, theymay challenge that rule,” the ruling said.

The postal service entered an unpublished version of that final rule into the Federal Register late Friday despite the court injunctions against it.

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail-in voting is “inherently corrupt” and full of fraud, although voting experts have criticized the order and say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, NPR reported.

The high court handed down the ruling in an unsigned order over the dissent of three of its members: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a dissent, Jackson said the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” CNN reported.

She noted that, in the past, the Supreme Court has turned away challenges to election law because they were too close to elections. “Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring.”

When Lane Kiffin dials a number, the person on the other end usually answers and takes the call.

Todd Monken crossed paths with Kiffin many times while both crisscrossed the country for decades, taking this job and that, as head coaches and assistants at top colleges and in the NFL.

Monken became an NFL head coach for the first time in January, taking over the Cleveland Browns. Kiffin is about to begin his first season as the Louisiana State head coach, so Monken didn’t know why Kiffin’s number popped up on his screen over the weekend.

“I wondered why Lane Kiffin reached out to me a week ago,” Monken told reporters Sunday. “Now I know. I didn’t call him back. I guess I should have.”

Kiffin called to tell Monken something the rookie NFL coach learned later in the day. Dae’Quan Wright, a tight end the Browns waived Sunday morning, plans to play for LSU if he clears waivers, his agents told ESPN.

Dae’Quan Wright of the Cleveland Browns warms up before a preseason game against the Buffalo Bills at Huntington Bank Field on Aug. 22.

(Nick Cammett / Diamond Images via Getty Images)

Wright, who went undrafted after playing for Kiffin at Mississippi, is believed to be the first player to have an agreement to return to college football after signing with an NFL team. He was with the Browns for fewer than two weeks after the Philadelphia Eagles signed him as an undrafted free agent and placed him on waivers in early August.

Although Wright didn’t play in the Browns’ two preseason games, he suited up Saturday against the Buffalo Bills because injuries to other players created a potential need. He never left the sideline.

Another NFL player being courted by Kiffin, however, saw action. . Tampa Bay Buccaneers rookie linebacker Jack Pyburn recorded two sacks in a preseason victory over the New York Jets on Friday.

Pyburn, who also went undrafted after playing three years at Florida and his senior year at LSU, can regain his college eligibility if he terminates his contract with the Bucs and repays earnings. Pyburn’s deal guaranteed him $115,000 and included a $15,000 signing bonus.

LSU could pay him an estimated $1 million for his NIL, exceeding the NFL full-season rookie minimum of $885,000.

“I’m kind of caught in the middle of a whirlwind,” Pyburn told the Athletic, “and I’m just trying to play football.”

Wright and Pyburn are two of about 30 athletes who filed a lawsuit in Louisiana and were granted a temporary restraining order to return to college for one more season.

The lawsuit challenges new NCAA eligibility rules that give athletes a five-year window to compete in college sports. The plaintiffs are 2022 high school graduates whose college eligibility expired last spring under the previous rules. The NCAA did not include them in implementation of age-based eligibility, prompting lawsuits.

Several state courts have ruled in the players’ favor, and they have eligibility in the upcoming school year until appeals are ruled on. Most of the plaintiffs are basketball players, but Wright and Pyburn are two of 16 football players benefiting from the temporary restraining order granted by Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for President Trump to seek new limits on the use of mail ballots, but they are not likely to take effect this year.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the court’s conservatives granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked new federal regulations on states and their use of mail ballots.

It’s not clear, however, what happens now, since the midterm elections are less than three months away.

About 30% of the nation’s voters — and 80% of Californians — cast their ballots by mail in 2024. Trump, however, has long maintained the voting by mail leads to fraud, including voting by noncitizens.

The court’s order stressed the new regulations do not put new requirements on the states this year.

Trump’s executive order “is internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch,” the court said.

The Department of Homeland Security will compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are over 18 and eligible to vote.

“States are not required to use the Lists,” the court said, although they could lead to future prosecutions.

The most disputed provision could have authorized the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots to those who are on the Homeland Security lists, but that is a future proposal, not a rule that will take effect this year.

The unsigned order spoke for the six Republican appointees. The three liberals, all Democratic appointees, dissented into two separate opinions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Trump’s order was unlawful and should have been struck down. “It needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” she said.

“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. “Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”

Trump issued his executive order on March 31 with the aim of “ensuring citizenship verification” in federal elections. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued a few days later and said Trump sought to use the Postal Service to impose new restrictions on voting by mail. They also argued the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to regulate elections, not the president.

A federal judge in Boston and 1st Circuit Court agreed with the challengers and blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect for the November elections.

The case on appeal was Trump vs. California because California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta was a leader of the Democratic state attorneys who sued.

Aug. 22 (UPI) — The United States Postal Service has prepared a final rule changing how mail voting is administered under an executive order issued by President Donald Trump despite a pair of court injunctions against it, documents show.

An unpublished version of the rule was entered into the Federal Register late on Friday, indicating the USPS intends to press ahead with implementation of a measure the administration says is necessary to prevent fraud in mail-in voting — a popular method of casting ballots that Trump has called “inherently corrupt.”

But critics contend actual fraud in mail-in voting is exceedingly rare and have denounced the measure as one of the most serious attempts by the administration to federalize control of elections in violation of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves such power for the states.

A federal judge 10 days ago expanded an earlier injunction against Trump’s executive order, under which the USPS would be required to decide who will get mail-in ballots.

The injunction blocked it from implementing Section 3 of the order for this year’s midterm elections, which most polls shows will likely favor Democratic congressional candidates.

Despite the court rulings, USPS promulgated the final rule with Friday’s filing, thus making it available to be officially published in the Federal Register on Wednesday. After that it would theoretically take effect immediately, even though it will be blocked for this year’s midterm elections unless a court decides otherwise.

The current filing is an amended version of the initial proposal which received more than 200,000 comments during its review phase.

Trump signed the order on March 31 directing the Department of Homeland Security to build a list of citizens from federal data, which would then be sent to state election officials.

The USPS would then only send absentee or mail-in ballots to people it has determined are eligible to vote, and the U.S. Attorney General would investigate and prosecute election officials who issue federal ballots to those ineligible to vote.

Twenty-three mostly Democratic-led states sued to block the order and U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani agreed with the plaintiffs.

The administration appealed the decision and failed. It appealed again on July 27 to the Supreme Court, which has yet to make a ruling.

“Yesterday’s new mail-in voting rule is an attempt to weaponize USPS as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to take over elections,” Michael McNulty of the bipartisan political reform group Issue One said in a statement issued Saturday.

“If it holds up in court, it would mean postal workers shift from neutral transporters of a state-led process to a federal gatekeeper of states’ outbound mail ballots — requiring states to provide USPS with voter-level ballot information and giving USPS authority to reject ballots that do not meet the new federal requirements.”

He dismissed Trump’s oft-stated concerns about voter fraud as “tired, debunked conspiracy theories to justify gaining control over secure, verified, and effective methods of voting, including mail-in voting, to tilt the playing field” in favor of Republican candidates.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed construction on President Donald Trump‘s White House ballroom to continue, staying a lower court injunction demanding that it stop.

In a one-page order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court for now blocked an injunction issued in April by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruling that only that security-related, underground components of the $400 million project could move go ahead without congressional approval.

Leon’s ruling found that construction at the White House requires authorization from Congress and ordered the construction to halt while a legal challenge brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation plays out.

He carved out an exception for the government to continue underground work deemed necessary for the White House’s safety and security.

The administration quickly appealed that order, citing a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as evidence that the 90,000-square-foot ballroom is a security necessity.

Trump, meanwhile, harshly criticized Leon, calling him an “out of control Trump hating” judge whose ruling “severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House.”

The administration said in Supreme Court filings last week that construction on the ballroom is already 65% complete as a 250-person crew is working on it nearly 24 hours per day.

Leon’s ruling would “halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, while also claiming the group does not have standing to sue.

The National Trust, meanwhile, contended the administration is illegally trying to complete construction as soon as possible in a bid to “outrun judicial review” and push the project “beyond the point of no return.”

But its efforts “to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded with a stay that allows [it] to complete a ballroom [it] lacked any authority to commence in the first place,” the Trust argued.