court

Two lawsuits already serve as backdrops to the unseemly sequence of events that led to Bryce Harper sending Thanksgiving wishes on behalf of FanDuel to an admitted sports gambling addict.

Could there be a third?

Legal experts say Harper might have grounds to sue FanDuel for false endorsement, misappropriation and invasion of privacy.

The Philadelphia Phillies All-Star first baseman said in a statement posted on Instagram that he created a personalized 21-second video on behalf of FanDuel but would not have done so had he known the online sportsbook allegedly intended to use it to entice VIP customer Terry Thompson to continue gambling.

“I did not know FanDuel would do this,” Harper wrote. “I did not consent to it, and FanDuel had no right to do it.”

Harper said he received a request on Cameo in November 2024 to read a message provided by FanDuel VIP host Bryttanni Morgan for a personal “holiday video for Terry.”

“Hey, Terry? What’s up, brother? Hey, man, your host Bryttanni from FanDuel wanted to make sure your Thanksgiving was extra special,” Harper says in the video.

Thompson sued FanDuel, Morgan, DraftKings and the NFL in March, alleging that the sportsbooks caused him to lose about $1.6 million while betting an estimated $18.5 million over a four-year period.

“Had I known FanDuel’s true intent, I would not have made the video,” Harper said. “The same is true had I known anything about Terry or his situation, or about any alleged ‘partnership’ between Cameo and FanDuel.”

The lawsuit filed by the nonprofit Public Health Advocacy Institute on behalf of Thompson and fellow gambler Christopher Sage alleges that FanDuel and DraftKings intentionally fostered addiction by providing enticements such as Super Bowl tickets, hotel accommodations and access to athletes and celebrities.

Thompson said his home fell into foreclosure after he took out second and third mortgages. He borrowed money from family and friends and burned through his savings, losing his last $10,000 on a DraftKings parlay bet in February.

He describes in the lawsuit feeling so desperate that he reached out to his therapist, who called police officers to his home to prevent him from harming himself.

Sportico legal analyst Michael McCann wrote that Harper likely has grounds to sue FanDuel over the video.

Harper, an eight-time All-Star and two-time Most Valuable Player, has earned nearly $252 million in salary over his 15-year MLB career and is owed another $75 million before his contract expires after the 2031 season. He also earns about $9 million a year in endorsements, according to Sportico.

In a legal action, Harper could seek monetary damages by alleging that the video tarnished his reputation. The perception that he urged a gambling addict to continue destructive behavior could negatively impact his ability to land endorsement deals.

“Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act prohibits false endorsements, including when a business draws from an athlete’s NIL and other identifying characteristics without permission,” McCann wrote. “There can be a viable claim when that unauthorized use leads consumers to believe the athlete endorses the business’s product or service.

“Harper could also sue over unauthorized use of his name, image, voice and other uniquely identifying features. To that end, he could argue the video constitutes misappropriation or invasion of privacy.”

FanDuel, in turn, could counter by pointing out that Harper agreed to create the video as part of his relationship with Cameo, a company that connects fans with celebrities and creators for personalized digital interactions.

“False endorsement and misappropriation, FanDuel could insist, are inapplicable to a personalized video setting where the video’s talent voluntarily assents in exchange for compensation,” McCann wrote. “Further, FanDuel could assert that Harper was, or should have been, aware of a potential connection between the video and FanDuel and, more generally, sports betting.”

FanDuel issued a statement after the Harper video came to light in an investigative story published July 9 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

“We are committed to fostering a culture of responsible gaming and protecting our customers,” the statement said. “Unlike illegal offshore sportsbooks, FanDuel employees are trained to recognize and flag signs of problem gambling and offer resources and tools, and we continue to review and strengthen our policies to ensure we have the industry’s strongest consumer protection initiatives.”

FanDuel and DraftKings, the leading sportsbooks since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that states could legalize sports betting, have developed lucrative partnerships with leagues in all major sports. The 2022 MLB collective bargaining agreement opened the door for players to do promotional work for sportsbooks.

Yet the collaborations have not come without problems. The MLB players union’s licensing and marketing arm filed a lawsuit in 2024 that accused DraftKings, FanDuel and Bet365 of using without permission or compensation photos of players on its betting app and in social media posts.

Coincidentally, Harper became embroiled in that lawsuit, in which the plaintiffs pointed to images of Harper’s face on the DraftKings app as evidence. The two sides reached a settlement in April ahead of trial.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told lawmakers Tuesday that a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices is increasingly encroaching on their personal and family lives.

During a rare appearance by justices before Congress, Barrett said she had to wear a bulletproof vest home a few years ago, something she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son.

“I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

She and Justice Elena Kagan testified before a House appropriations panel in support of a request to increase security funding for members of the nation’s highest court.

Judges around the country have seen a rise in threats of violence and intimidation. Barrett’s home was also targeted by a swatting call to police in May.

The hearing comes two weeks after the conservative-majority court finished handing down a series of major opinions, including a decision that increased President Trump’s power over federal regulatory agencies and another that rejected his wide-ranging tariffs, sparking harsh personal criticism.

It’s the first time justices have testified before Congress since 2019, and the two justices are facing wide-ranging questions about the court’s work.

Security is central to the Supreme Court’s budget request

The Supreme Court requested a total of $228 million for next fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase over the year before. About $18 million of that is for maintaining the building and grounds.

Much of the requested increase, $14.6 million, would go to expanding personal protection for justices, with six more agents for each.

An additional $2 million would fund an off-site residential security post aimed at making emergency responses faster, as well as increasing the number of Supreme Court police officers.

The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting judges, reported 564 threats in the government fiscal year that ended in September, an increase from the year before.

That total includes threats to the hundreds of federal judges around the country, though the nine-member Supreme Court has not been immune.

In May, Barrett’s security detail worked with police to quickly deal with the swatting incident, a fake 911 call designed to provoke a police response. Last year, her sister was the victim of a bomb threat in Charleston, S.C., police said. No bomb was found.

In 2022, shortly after the leak of a draft opinion overturning the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, a would-be assassin was arrested near the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh with weapons and zip ties. Threats to the Supreme Court increased after that leak and have continued to grow, Kagan said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has condemned the threats to all U.S. judges, saying during a speech in March that criticism of judicial opinions is understandable, but personally directed hostility is “dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Alexander, who signed a two-way deal with the Jazz last week. was injured in game against Chicago Bulls.

Utah Jazz guard Trey Alexander was taken from the court on a stretcher after appearing to injure his side on a drive to the basket in an NBA Summer League game against the Chicago Bulls.

Alexander, who signed a two-way deal with Utah last week, made contact with the Bulls’ Caleb Wilson during Monday night’s match while driving towards the basket. After tossing the ball towards the hoop, he went behind the basket, clutching his side or abdomen. He then dropped to the ground, appearing to be in great pain.

The 23-year-old was taken from the Thomas & Mack Center court on a stretcher. The incident occurred with just more than two minutes left in the fourth quarter.

There was no immediate word from the Jazz on Alexander’s injury.

Alexander played three seasons at Creighton University and skipped his final year of eligibility to turn pro. The rookie of the year in the G League, the NBA’s minor league, for the 2024-2025 season played 24 games for the Denver Nuggets that same season and nine games for the New Orleans Pelicans last season.

Under his current contract, Alexander is to play for the Jazz and its G League affiliate, the Salt Lake City Stars.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservative justices say they decide cases based on the words and original history of the Constitution — and not on their personal or political views.

Following the lead set by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, they say they see history and “originalism” as a guiding principle to prevent judges from changing the Constitution to adjust to new and changing times.

This text-and-history approach is said to contrast with an evolving or “living Constitution” favored by progressives and liberal activists.

But this year saw a flip of sorts on birthright citizenship.

The foremost conservatives agreed with President Trump that the surge of illegal immigration called for reconsidering the promise of citizenship at birth set out in the 14th Amendment of 1868.

“The number of illegal immigrants in this country exploded” in recent years, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent. The rule of citizenship at birth provides “a powerful incentive to enter or remain in this country illegally,” he added.

“The Constitution is an enduring document,” wrote Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, but its rules and meaning must adjust to “modern situations that were unknown or unanticipated by the Constitution’s Framers.”

In a concurring opinion, he said that “significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868.”

There were no federal immigration laws in the mid-19th century, but it was an era when a surge of Irish immigrants had settled on the East Coast and large numbers of Chinese immigrants came to California.

Under the law, their children were deemed to be citizens at birth.

Among the conservative originalists, only Justice Amy Coney Barrett signed the majority opinion that was written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and joined by the three liberals.

The opening words of the 14th Amendment of 1868 say: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of citizenship at birth in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents.

In an executive order, Trump proposed to end birthright citizenship for the newborns whose parents were in the country illegally or temporarily.

Writing for the court, the chief justice said the words of the 14th Amendment were clear and were clearly understood at the time. He dismissed the “dramatically revisionist view” that has been cited recently.

Kavanaugh voted with the majority to block Trump’s order from taking effect. He did so because Congress had adopted birthright citizenship in a 1952 law.

“Consistent with the 14th Amendment, Congress could … enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship,” he wrote.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Alito wrote long dissents arguing that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not or would not have favored birthright citizenship.

They pointed to recent scholarship by law professors that raised questions about the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment and the citizenship rule.

Thomas said citizenship of the child should turn on whether the parents were “domiciled” in this country. Black people who were enslaved were undoubtedly domiciled here, but the same is not true of temporary visitors.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch agreed in part with Thomas and questioned whether the newborns of temporary visitors should be deemed as citizens at birth.

Many court commentators were surprised by the close 5-4 divide on the constitutional issue.

“Given how clear the language was, I expected it to be 7 to 2,” said Melissa Murray, a New York University law professor. “I really gasped when I saw it was 5-4. This is not settled. We’re not done with this debate.”

Sarah Isgur, a podcaster and SCOTUSblog analyst, said that “originalism is getting more and more muddled. Either the history matters or it doesn’t.”

However, she agreed with Kavanaugh’s approach of leaving it to Congress to reconsider the issue.

Not all originalists are conservative.

Yale Law Professor Akhil Amar, a constitutional historian, argued that the history of birthright citizenship is clear and not subject to revisionist thinking. He said the Reconstruction Congress adopted this principle of citizenship at birth and stated their intent in clear words in the 14th Amendment.

“When a baby is born on American soil and an American flag flies above, that baby is a birthright citizen, as the Reconstruction Republicans across the land understood,” he wrote in February. This rule “has virtually nothing to do with the baby’s parents.”

Last week, he was mostly cheered by the court’s ruling.

“It’s a triumph, but it should have been 9-0,” Amar said on a review of the court term sponsored by SCOTUSblog. “Shame on the dissenters. They didn’t even the address the statute” and its wording.

But the majority led by Roberts “clearly affirmed the plain meaning of the constitutional text and its history. And that’s a win,” he said.

History has a recurring role at the Supreme Court.

Isgur noted the court will hear arguments in the fall on whether the 2nd Amendment of 1791 gives gun owners a right to have “assault weapons” like AR-15 rifles.

She said the court will decide then between history and changed circumstances.

At issue is whether these modern rapid-fire rifles fit within the history of the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment or instead represent a new and dangerous threat to public safety that was unknown in 1791.

Scalia’s opinion upholding gun rights in 2008 is often cited as a model of originalism, but it too emerged from a court divided 5-4.

The 2nd Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For decades, the Supreme Court had all but ignored the 2nd Amendment, viewing it as a somewhat outdated provision involving militias, akin to the 3rd Amendment. It forbids having soldiers “quartered in any house … in time of peace.”

Four liberal dissenters in 2008 said the court should stand by that understanding of history.

Justice John Paul Stevens said the 2nd Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect state militias from federal interference. Moreover, the reference to “bear arms” suggests it was about militias, he said.

But Scalia’s opinion stands as the landmark precedent, and he said the dissenters had the history all wrong.

The right to have guns for self-defense arose in England and came to the American colonies. “By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects,” he wrote.

The 2nd Amendment did not establish a new right, he said. Rather, it “codified a pre-existing right [of] having and using arms for self-preservation and [defense],” he wrote.

“There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history,” Scalia wrote, “that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

July 10 (Asia Today) — South Korean Chief Justice Cho Hee-dae appointed Justice Roh Kyung-pil as the new head of the National Court Administration, filling a vacancy that had lasted about four months.

The Supreme Court announced Friday that Roh, 62, will begin his term Tuesday.

The head of the National Court Administration oversees personnel and budgets for courts nationwide. The chief justice appoints the official from among sitting Supreme Court justices, and the justice does not handle trials while serving in the post.

Roh, a native of Haenam, South Jeolla Province, began his judicial career as a judge at the Seoul District Court in 1997. He later served as a Supreme Court research judge, Seoul High Court judge, presiding judge at the Gwangju High Court, and presiding judge and senior presiding judge at the Suwon High Court. He was appointed to the Supreme Court on Aug. 2, 2024.

The Supreme Court said Roh is qualified for the post because of his “leadership of listening and inclusion,” saying he is suited to strengthen public trust in the judiciary by communicating with court members and broader society and working to build a swift and fair judicial system for the public.

The post had been vacant since Justice Park Young-jae tendered his resignation as head of the National Court Administration on Feb. 27. Ki Woo-jong, deputy head of the administration, had served as acting chief.

With the vacancy resolved, attention is turning to whether stalled Supreme Court justice nominations will gain momentum.

The Supreme Court justice candidate recommendation committee in January recommended four candidates to succeed former Justice Roh Tae-ak: Seoul High Court judges Kim Min-ki and Park Soon-young, Daegu District Court Presiding Judge Son Bong-gi and Seoul High Court Presiding Judge Yoon Seong-sik. No final recommendation has been made.

The selection process is also underway for a successor to Justice Lee Heung-gu, who is scheduled to retire in September.

The Supreme Court on July 3 completed its review of public comments on 28 recommended candidates who agreed to be screened by the recommendation committee. If the committee recommends at least three candidates this month, Cho will select a final nominee and recommend the candidate to President Lee Jae Myung for appointment. The nominee would then go through a National Assembly confirmation hearing before final appointment.

The National Court Administration is also tied to one of the ruling party’s major judicial reform agendas. After legislation on three judicial reform measures, including criminalizing distorted application of the law, allowing constitutional complaints against court rulings and expanding the number of Supreme Court justices, a separate bill has been introduced to revise the Court Organization Act and abolish the National Court Administration.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260710010003920

CONCORD, N.H. — Two transgender girls who were the first to challenge President Trump’s executive order, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” have withdrawn their lawsuit in New Hampshire based on a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld state bans on transgender athletes in girls’ sports and their own personal hardships, their lawyer said.

“This case was always about two courageous young girls who simply wanted the same opportunities as their peers to participate in school life,” their lawyer, Chris Erchull of GLAD Law, said in a statement Thursday. “Their willingness to stand up to extraordinary hostility made clear the human cost of laws that target transgender youth.”

The teenagers, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, took on Trump’s executive order last year, amending their 2024 complaint against New Hampshire’s law on banning transgender girls from school sports. A federal judge had granted a court order allowing them to play as the case proceeded.

For Tirrell, it meant being able to keep playing on her high school girls’ soccer team. For Turmelle, it was having a chance to try out for different sports.

Both sides agreed to pause the case and wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court as it considered similar state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school and college athletic teams in Idaho and West Virginia. Last month, the court upheld the laws. It also said that barring transgender girls and women doesn’t run afoul of the federal law known as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education.

One teen and her family decided to move from New Hampshire

Turmelle and her family moved out of New Hampshire last summer following proposed legislation against transgender people. One measure signed into law by Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte last year prohibits medical professionals from providing puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy to new transgender patients under age 18.

“Though there may be a carve-out for people already receiving gender-affirming care, that is way too close a call for us to risk staying,” Turmelle’s mother, Amy Manzetti, wrote in an op-ed piece at the time. “Other New Hampshire laws also seek to erase her.”

Most Republican-controlled states in the past five years have adopted laws or policies limiting gender-affirming care for transgender minors and limiting which school bathrooms transgender people can use, as well as sports restrictions. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that about 3% of youth ages 13 to 17 identify as transgender.

“The challenges with relocation are significant and burdensome — this includes having to find new employment, buying and selling homes, packing and moving possessions, integrating kids with a new school system, losing access to longstanding family and friends, and potential loss of income,” Corinne Goodwin, the executive director of Eastern PA Trans Equality Project in Pennsylvania, said in an email.

“But these families do so because they love their kids and know that supporting them with the care and opportunities they need is critical to their long-term success and happiness.”

The other teen gave up playing soccer at high school

Tirrell, 17, began her junior year last fall on the girls’ junior varsity soccer team. Things were fine at first, and each time she scored a goal, she got a round of ice cream from her parents. But a few weeks into the season, she decided to stop playing.

“With all of the political stuff going on, soccer wasn’t just about the game anymore,” her mother, Sara Tirrell, told The Associated Press in an interview.

It became more about preparing for the possibility of conflict.

“Were there any local Facebook groups where they were sort of agitating about potential protests and how do we prepare, and what are we walking into, and we never kind of knew,” she said. “We were on a lot of pins and needles, especially after the previous season.”

She was referring to a controversy at an away game where two dads from an opposing team were banned from school grounds for wearing pink wristbands marked “XX” to represent female chromosomes. They sued the school district and a judge ruled against them. They have appealed their case.

Last fall, there was an increased presence of school administrators at the games and bus drivers pulled in closer to the field so the students weren’t in the parking lot, she said.

“Parker didn’t talk about it a lot, but I think she could see that stress for everybody — for her, for her teammates, for her coaches,” Sara Tirrell said. “She felt kind of bad about pulling them all into that circus again. And so she ultimately said, ‘This isn’t fun anymore and I don’t want to do it.’”

Parker’s father described the atmosphere as “palpable tension.”

Even playing on her own turf, “there would typically be a couple of police officers at the home games where there weren’t previously,” Zach Tirrell said.

In the past, Parker also played soccer in a recreation league and could still do so.

“But I think it all kind of still sort of weighs on her,” her mother said. “It’s the same group of kids that she plays with who, honestly, have been very supportive and love to have her on the team and have expressed that to her many times over. But I think she still has that worry in her brain around, ‘What are other people going to say and do if I show up at a game?’”

Parker’s parents hope she’ll return to playing soccer some day. In the meantime, “she plans to be around and use her voice to continue standing up to discrimination,” her mother said. “In some ways she’s had to grow up a lot faster than some of her peers.”

McCormack writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Geoff Mulvihill in Haddonfield, N.J., contributed to this report.

July 9 (UPI) — An Argentine court convicted former Navy Capt. Claudio Villamide and sentenced him to three years of suspended prison time for his role in the 2017 sinking of the submarine ARA San Juan, the country’s deadliest peacetime naval disaster.

The sinking killed all 44 crew members. The submarine was located in late 2018 at a depth of roughly 3,000 feet in the South Atlantic. It has not been recovered.

According to Argentine media reports, the court in Río Gallegos found Villamide guilty Wednesday of aggravated negligence and failing to fulfill the duties of a public official. In addition to the suspended sentence, he was barred from holding public office for six years.

Prosecutors argued that Villamide, who commanded the Argentine Navy’s Submarine Force at the time of the disaster, authorized the patrol mission despite knowing the vessel had serious maintenance deficiencies. The submarine had pending post-repair tests and was subject to a technical diving restriction that was ignored, prosecutors said.

Villamide maintained his innocence throughout the trial, arguing the submarine met operational requirements, and that investigators had not conclusively determined the physical cause of the disaster.

Because the sentence was suspended, Villamide will not serve time in prison.

In a unanimous decision, the court acquitted three other former naval officers charged in the case: former Rear Adm. Luis Enrique López Mazzeo, former Capt. Héctor Aníbal Alonso and former Capt. Hugo Miguel Correa.

Relatives of the victims expressed outrage over the ruling and what they described as the leniency of the only conviction.

According to Argentine newspaper Página/12, many family members believe the verdict fell short of delivering justice because it did not hold the Navy’s top commanders or senior government officials from the time accountable.

Lawyers representing the victims’ families said they will appeal the ruling before Argentina’s Federal Court of Cassation beginning Aug. 21, seeking to overturn the acquittals and increase Villamide’s sentence. At the same time, they described the decision as an unprecedented institutional milestone, according to La Nación.

For the first time, an Argentine court ruled that the loss of a military vessel during peacetime was not solely the result of weather conditions, but also of serious human failures and omissions.

Villamide’s defense also rejected the verdict.

His attorneys called the conviction “unusual and unjust,” arguing the trial established there was no direct causal link between the orders issued by naval command and the submarine’s final collapse in the South Atlantic, according to La Opinión Austral.

The defense said it also plans to appeal in an effort to obtain a full acquittal.

The ARA San Juan reported flooding and an electrical fire caused by seawater entering its battery compartment on Nov. 15, 2017. After contact with the submarine was lost, its wreckage, crushed by an implosion, was found about a year later nearly 3,000 feet below the surface of the South Atlantic.

President Trump’s administration is threatening to withhold some federal funding from states that don’t make changes to voting practices and is warning state election officials that they face arrest if they don’t remove noncitizens from voter rolls.

Letters to states and grant application details are the latest in a line of actions by Trump’s administration to shape details of running elections that have long been the job of states.

Courts have largely rejected the administration’s previous efforts, which reflect untrue claims about widespread voting fraud and come less than four months ahead of crucial midterm elections where Democrats seek to take control of one or both chambers of Congress and check Trump’s power.

“The overall point is that Trump is trying to use whatever levers of power and persuasive power that he might have to try to interfere with how states and localities are going to conduct the 2026 election,” said Rick Hasen, a UCLA law professor and the director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project. “Some of this is aimed at changing how the rules are conducted. Some of it appears to be aimed at undermining voter confidence in the integrity of the election process.”

Justice Department warns election officials of prosecution

In letters sent Tuesday, to election officials for all 50 states and the District of Columbia — often secretaries of state — the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division said they and other election administrators could face criminal charges if they knowingly allow nonvoters to vote or remain on voting rolls.

It also called on the states to tell the federal government within five days how they intend to comply with the law.

Derek Muller, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame who specializes in election law, said it’s not clear the 50-state letter means anything except to restate some parts of the law, with a request to follow up, “which I’m sure many states will ignore.”

The letter also warns that anyone who knowingly and willfully gives false information in registering to vote or voting would face criminal prosecution.

Antiterrorism grants include election requirements

A Federal Emergency Management Agency antiterrorism grant announcement in June includes a list of election-related requirements, saying that 20% of grants for states and urban areas would be withheld until they comply.

The program includes more than $1 billion for states and local and tribal governments for a variety of programs aimed at preventing terror at crowded places, online, with border security — and around elections. FEMA expects to award 56 grants.

“Recipients can ensure that their efforts contribute to a secure, transparent, and resilient electoral process, thereby reinforcing public trust and the integrity of democratic institutions,” the grant announcement says, noting that securing election infrastructure is a national security priority.

The list of items for states includes verifying the citizenship of all registered voters and election workers.

Places that use electronic voting systems that use bar codes or QR codes to count votes would have to submit plans to switch to hand-marked paper ballots. Every jurisdiction would have to show it audits results.

UCLA’s Hasen said it could be difficult even for states that want to comply. It’s too close to the midterm election to make some of the changes, he said, and some would require state legislatures to pass new laws.

The White House on Wednesday referred questions to FEMA, which did not immediately respond to an interview request.

Response from states appears to be partisan

Some states are pushing back, while others are defending the latest actions.

They seem to be breaking along party lines.

Oregon’s secretary of state, Democrat Tobias Read, accused the Justice Department of “knocking on our door again with more threats and no evidence to back up their fever dreams about non-existent voter fraud.”

Oregon elections are secure, accurate, and fair, he said, adding that he isn’t “intimidated by political threats or manufactured controversy.”

The Michigan secretary of state’s office, headed by Democrat Jocelyn Benson, said it has discussed its work repeatedly with the Justice Department and in public statements, congressional hearings and court testimony — information that it said “is either in the DOJ’s possession or easy reach.”

“We will be happy to provide it again to help address any confusion,” the office said in a statement.

In a statement, Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose defended the Justice Department’s missive to states, saying it’s reminding them of their legal obligation regarding election integrity. A lot of states aren’t taking it seriously, he said without giving examples or citing evidence. He said Ohio has worked with the federal government to ensure that its voter rolls are accurate and that only U.S. citizens vote.

Georgia’s secretary of state’s office says the state has already taken many of the actions required in the FEMA grant, including a citizenship audit of voter rolls.

Several of Trump’s election actions have faced resistance

Trump has repeatedly and wrongly asserted that fraud cost him reelection in 2020, and his administration has put forth a series of policies and actions aimed at how elections are run.

In recent days, courts have rejected the Justice Department’s effort to collect the names and contact information for every election worker in Georgia in the 2020 election and others trying to force New Hampshire and Pennsylvania to turn over detailed information about registered voters. With those rulings, the federal government has lost similar cases more than 10 times around its requests for details from 30 states and the District of Columbia.

Last week, a group of Democratic governors asked the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw its proposed rule seeking to implement an order from Trump to create a list of eligible voters — and potentially limit who can receive a ballot in the mail. A court previously put the order on hold, saying it was unconstitutional.

Also last week, the Supreme Court rebuked Trump and ruled that states can count mailed ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Mulvihill and Levy write for the Associated Press. AP writers Gabriela Aoun Angueira, Bill Barrow, Kate Brumback and Josh Kelety contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — A former Olympic canoe racer pleaded not guilty on Thursday to deliberately damaging the recently renovated Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, a politically charged case that his defense attorneys and other Trump administration critics have derided as an abuse of prosecutorial power.

David Hearn, who competed in three Summer Olympics, entered the plea through one of his attorneys during his initial appearance in Washington, D.C. Superior Court. Hearn, 67, of Bethesda, Md., was indicted last Thursday on a single felony count of property destruction.

In front of a packed courtroom, D.C. Superior Court Judge Carmen McLean did not require Hearn to be supervised by the court while he is free awaiting a trial. A status hearing was scheduled for Aug. 5.

Prosecutor Kevin Reddington said the government wasn’t seeking any court supervision for Hearn, but just a “ stay-away order” without specifying in court where it wanted to keep Hearn away from.

Mary Dohrmann, one of Hearn’s attorneys, urged the judge not to impose any conditions of court supervision, calling Hearn an “upstanding citizen and member of the community.”

“The government’s evidence is weak,” she added.

Dozens of supporters, many carrying homemade signs, gathered outside the courthouse and waited for Hearn to leave after the hearing.

President Trump ordered a multimillion-dollar renovation of the Reflecting Pool ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary this month, but the project has been plagued with problems. Workers have used chemicals to curtail an algae bloom. Trump has said the pool likely would need to be drained again for liner repairs after chunks of blue coating were seen floating at the surface.

Trump has claimed without substantiation that vandals dumped fertilizer into the pool and slashed the coating with a box cutter. U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro, the top federal prosecutor for the District of Columbia, said last week that six other people were arrested on misdemeanor charges related to the $16 million pool project.

Hearn’s attorneys have said the charges against him are based on a “concocted narrative” and “should be alarming to every American.”

“This indictment reflects the administration’s effort to shift blame for their own failures,” the lawyers said in a statement. “The justice system exists to determine facts, not to provide political cover.”

Hearn previously told the Associated Press that he was detained by National Guard troops and U.S. Park Police for five hours after stopping by the pool during a 64-mile bike ride on June 19. He said he reached in to examine newly peeled coating and briefly touched a chunk attached to the side of the pool, but obeyed a park worker who told him to let go of it.

Pirro accused Hearn of causing more than $1,000 in damage by ripping up recently installed sealant from the pool and acting belligerently toward an employee who told him to stop.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Trump’s name was removed from the centre’s facade and signage last month, after a judge ordered its removal.

A US appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump’s name must remain off the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, while the organisation appeals an earlier ruling that found a name change illegal.

Trump’s name was removed from the centre’s facade and signage last month after US District Judge Christopher Cooper ordered the removal and blocked Trump’s plans to close the centre for renovations. An appeal against this ruling was struck down by a three-judge panel on Wednesday.

It is another setback for the centre’s board of trustees, of which Trump is chairman, in a saga that began earlier this year when the Kennedy Center became: “The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.”

The conspicuous addition, and ensuing legal battle, became symbolic of Trump’s broader push to imprint his legacy – and, in this case, his actual name – on the nation’s capital in his final term.

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to pause the lower court order in a lawsuit brought by Democratic Representative Joyce Beatty, a Kennedy Center board member.

“Today’s ruling again affirms that this administration’s efforts to rename the Kennedy Center were unlawful,” Beatty said in a statement.

“His name no longer desecrates this sacred memorial, which belongs to the American people.”

The panel of judges wrote on Wednesday that the board of trustees’ request “failed to show how they will be irreparably injured” if Trump’s name remains off the building through the appeal process.

The board had argued that the removal “threatens to impede” fundraising efforts, but the judges found that claim came without the support of “specific facts or evidence”.

The Kennedy Center did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment from the Associated Press news agency.

When Trump first took office in 2025, he replaced the Kennedy Center’s board of trustees, who then named him chairman. His name was quickly added to the building, but a federal judge then ruled that the name change was illegal, prompting the ensuing legal battle.

Caitlin Clark will be in the lineup when the Indiana Fever face the Sparks at Crypto.com Arena after a week-plus of discourse around the star player.

Clark, who has had season-long back problems, did not play on Sunday in Las Vegas. Fever coach Stephanie White said Clark would play on Wednesday against the Sparks.

Earlier in the day, a dozen Republican lawmakers announced they sent a letter to WNBA commissioner Cathy Engelbert arguing the league has failed to adequately protect Clark from physical play.

“Unfortunately, what they too often witness is not simply aggressive competition, but repeated acts of unnecessary physical hostility and violence,” the lawmakers wrote. “Clark has been hip-checked, poked in the eye, and struck in the throat during games. These incidents go far beyond routine physical play, yet the WNBA and its officiating have too often failed to address these unacceptable incidents and hold players accountable.”

When asked about the letter after their shootaround in Los Angeles on Wednesday morning, White stepped aside for team spokesperson Jackie Maynard to read a statement:

“Our organization, nor Caitlin, have had any interaction with anyone in the congressional group and were unaware of their letter. We have been clear in our public comments and in our ongoing dialogue with the league about the priority of player safety. Our players and our fans know where we stand on these issues and continue to stick up for our team and a standard of excellence across the league.”

Alyssa Thomas was given a flagrant foul 2 penalty, fined $1,000 and suspended one game at the start of July for pushing her right fist into Clark’s throat when they both fell on the court during the Mercury’s 111-109 win on June 24 in Indianapolis.

It was originally not called a foul, and a still image of Thomas’ hand in Clark’s throat went viral on social media and stirred up discourse among those in and out of the basketball world.

In the aftermath, Thomas said she got several online attacks, some of which are “threatening our lives.”

White denounced “unacceptable” online behavior from fans last week, and Clark followed up by saying, “I don’t want anyone to ever experience that.”

The letter was led by Texas congressman August Pfluger, chairman of the Republican Study Committee.

“As Commissioner, you have an obligation to ensure that every player competes in a safe and professional environment, both on and off the court, free from violence, discrimination, or retaliation,” the lawmakers wrote. “If discrimination or retaliation is occurring and creating a hostile work environment, we support any appropriate investigation by the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If true, such conduct could constitute violations of federal civil rights laws.”

The letter finished with three questions for Engelbert, which it demanded the commissioner respond to by July 24. What is your review mechanism for physical hostility and violence on the court? How will you hold players accountable for overly aggressive actions on the court, including towards Caitlin Clark? What steps are you taking to protect WNBA players from online harassment and off-the-court threats?

Conservative commentator Riley Gaines posted the letter and her support of it on social media, which showed signatures from Iowa lawmaker Zach Nunn and Indiana representatives Marlin Stutzman and Victoria Spartz.

White said that Clark would not play on Thursday night in Phoenix, rotating her with star center Aliyah Boston to manage both of their workloads on the team’s first set of back-to-back games.

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

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

Here’s what to know:

A conservative activist brought the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kaardal did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

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

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

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

(Kayla Wolf / Associated Press)

Liberal justices who control Wisconsin Supreme Court reject the case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case was one of several targeting the 2020 election

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

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

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

Trump won Wisconsin in 2024 after losing in 2020

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

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

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BREAKINGBREAKING,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More to come…

EXPLAINER

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

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

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

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

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

What was Le Pen convicted of?

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

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

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

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

What were the political implications of the verdict?

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

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

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

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

What could the Court of Appeal decide?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The administration is expected to put up a fierce defense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Kirsty Wigglesworth / Ap Photo/kirsty Wigglesworth)

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

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

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

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

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

Jovic “competes like an animal,” Pegula said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Matthew Stockman / Getty Images)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Home Plus is not publicly listed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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