court

Hardcover fiction

1. The Secret of Secrets by Dan Brown (Doubleday: $38) Symbologist Robert Langdon takes on a mystery involving human consciousness and ancient mythology.

2. My Friends by Fredrik Backman (Atria Books: $30) The bond between a group of teenagers 25 years earlier has a powerful effect on a budding artist.

3. Katabasis by R. F. Kuang (Harper Voyager: $35) The deluxe limited edition of a dark academia fantasy about two rival graduate students’ descent into hell.

4. The Academy by Elin Hilderbrand and Shelby Cunningham (Little, Brown &. Co.: $30) Scandal and drama unfold at a New England boarding school.

5. Culpability by Bruce Holsinger (Spiegel & Grau: $30) A suspenseful family drama about moral responsibility in the age of artificial intelligence.

6. Among the Burning Flowers by Samantha Shannon (Bloomsbury Publishing: $30) Long-slumbering dragons awaken in a prequel to fantasy bestseller “The Priory of The Orange Tree.”

7. Clown Town by Mick Herron (Soho Crime: $30) The disgraced spies of Slough House are caught between MI5’s secret past and its murky future.

8. The Shattering Peace by John Scalzi (Tor Books: $30) A return to the galaxy of the Old Man’s War series.

9. Wild Dark Shore by Charlotte McConaghy (Flatiron Books: $29) As sea levels rise, a family on a remote island rescues a mysterious woman.

10. The Emperor of Gladness by Ocean Vuong (Penguin Press: $30) An unlikely pair develops a life-altering bond.

…

Hardcover nonfiction

1. All the Way to the River by Elizabeth Gilbert (Riverhead Books: $35) The bestselling author’s memoir about an intense and ultimately tragic love.

2. The Book of Sheen by Charlie Sheen (Gallery Books: $35) The movie and TV star reflects on his turbulent life.

3. Good Things by Samin Nosrat (Random House: $45) The celebrated chef shares 125 meticulously tested recipes.

4. We the People by Jill Lepore (Liveright: $40) The historian offers a wholly new history of the Constitution.

5. Art Work by Sally Mann (Abrams Press: $35) The artist explores the challenges and pleasures of the creative process.

6. The Let Them Theory by Mel Robbins (Hay House: $30) How to stop wasting energy on things you can’t control.

7. Night People by Mark Ronson (Grand Central Publishing: $29) The Grammy-winning record producer chronicles his early DJ days.

8. Mother Mary Comes to Me by Arundhati Roy (Scribner: $30) The acclaimed novelist’s first memoir takes on the complex relationship with her mother.

9. Coming Up Short by Robert B. Reich (Knopf: $30) A memoir by the political commentator of growing up in a baby-boom America.

10. Poems & Prayers by Matthew McConaughey (Crown: $29) The Oscar-winning actor shares his writings and reflections.

…

Paperback fiction

1. The Ministry of Time by Kaliane Bradley (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $19)

2. Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir (Ballantine: $20)

3. The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon (Vintage: $18)

4. The City and Its Uncertain Walls by Haruki Murakami (Vintage: $19)

5. Tell Me Everything by Elizabeth Strout (Random House Trade Paperbacks: $18)

6. The Safekeep by Yael van der Wouden (Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster: $19)

7. Martyr! by Kaveh Akbar (Vintage: $18)

8. Red Rising by Pierce Brown (Del Rey: $18)

9. The Lion Women of Tehran by Marjan Kamali (Gallery Books: $19)

10. Starter Villain by John Scalzi (Tor Books: $19)

…

Paperback nonfiction

1. All the Beauty in the World by Patrick Bringley (Simon & Schuster: $19)

2. On Tyranny by Timothy Snyder (Crown: $12)

3. Nexus by Yuval Noah Harari (Random House Trade Paperbacks: $25)

4. The Art Thief by Michael Finkel (Vintage: $18)

5. Autocracy, Inc. by Anne Applebaum (Vintage: $18)

6. The Friday Afternoon Club by Griffin Dunne (Penguin Books: $21)

7. Catching the Big Fish by David Lynch (Tarcher: $20)

8. Braiding Sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer (Milkweed Editions: $22)

9. The Wager by David Grann (Vintage: $21)

10. How to Dream by Thich Nhat Hanh (Parallax Press: $11)

Kim Keon-hee is standing trial on three charges related to corruption and stock manipulation.

Former South Korean First Lady Kim Keon-hee has appeared in court for her first hearing in a corruption trial involving bribery and stock manipulation.

With her face partially covered with a mask and wearing her inmate number, 4398, Kim, 53, was brought to the Seoul Central District Court on Wednesday from detention, where she had been held since August 12.

During an identity check from the bench, Kim told the court she was currently “unemployed” and did not want a jury trial.

Kim becomes the first spouse of a former president to stand trial after she was accused of violating the Capital Markets Act, the Political Funds Act and a law on the acceptance of bribes for mediation.

The former first lady’s charge under the Capital Markets Act is related to claims that she conspired with the former head of Deutsch Motors, a BMW dealer, and a close associate to manipulate the company’s stock prices and make 810 million won ($581,000) in profits in two years, between 2010 and 2012.

Kim’s second charge is based on allegations that she and her husband, ousted President Yoon Suk-yeol, received free opinion polls from a self-proclaimed power broker, for free, ahead of the 2021 elections, which Yoon went on to win.

However, the trade-off for the free polling was securing the nomination of the former People Power Party representative, Kim Young-sun, for a by-election later that year.

Kim’s final charge, related to corruption, is connected to her alleged acceptance of luxury bags and jewellery from the Unification Church in 2022.

The head of the church, Han Hak-ja, was arrested on Tuesday for bribing Kim, a claim that Han and her church have denied.

Meanwhile, Yoon is also standing trial for his failed attempt to impose martial law in the country in December of last year.

The Home Office has been refused permission to appeal against a temporary injunction blocking an Eritrean man from being removed to France as part of the “one in, one out” agreement between the two countries.

Last week, the 25-year-old, who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was due to be among the first people sent to France under the pilot scheme.

However, in a last-minute reprieve, the High Court in London gave him at least 14 days to make representations to support his claim that he was a victim of modern slavery.

The government had argued the order risked undermining the new returns policy, but the Court of Appeal refused Home Office lawyers permission to appeal against that decision.

The “one in, one out” scheme was announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron in July.

Under the treaty, France agreed to take back migrants who had travelled to the UK by small boat and had their asylum claim withdrawn or declared inadmissible.

For each person returned to France, the UK will accept someone with a case for protection as a refugee who has not attempted to cross the Channel.

Lawyers for the Home Office had argued that Mr Justice Sheldon, the High Court judge that granted the last-minute order halting the removal, had made a mistake when he did so.

“The judge’s decision to grant interim relief, and for such a significant period in the context of this policy, causes real damage to the public interest and undermines a central policy objective,” Kate Grange KC said on behalf of the Home Office.

Sonali Naik KC, who represented the asylum seeker, said the judge was “entitled to grant the order in the urgent circumstances he did, for the reasons he gave and for the period he did”.

Ms Naik said the man’s case “should be considered in its own context and on its own facts”, adding that it did not have wider significance for others whom the government might seek to remove as part of the returns pilot scheme.

In their judgement on Tuesday, Court of Appeal judges said the lower court had been “correct to hold that there was a serious issue to be tried on the question of whether the Secretary of state was acting unlawfully” by seeking to remove the man in those circumstances.

He’s never held public office or donned a judge’s robes, but an arch-conservative Los Angeles County attorney is racing toward confirmation on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, accelerating the once-liberal court’s sharp rightward turn under President Trump.

A competitive target shooter with a background in a cryptocurrency, Eric Tung was approached by the White House Counsel’s Office on March 28 to replace Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, a Bush appointee and one of the court’s most prominent conservatives, who is taking senior status.

A new father and still a relative unknown in national legal circles, Tung found an ally in pal Mike Davis, a reputed “judge whisperer” in Trump’s orbit. Speaking to the New York Post in mid-March, Davis touted Tung as Ikuta’s likely successor.

The Pasadena lawyer appeared on a Federalist Society panel at the Reagan Library this year, debating legal efforts to restrain “ ‘agents’ of the left.”

“Eric is a Tough Patriot, who will uphold the Rule of Law in the most RADICAL, Leftist States like California, Oregon, and Washington,” Trump wrote on Truth Social when the nomination was announced in July.

The response from California senators was apoplectic.

“Mr. Tung believes in a conception of the Constitution that rejects equality and liberty, and that would turn back the clock and continue to exclude vast sections of the American public from enjoying equal justice under the law,” said Sen. Alex Padilla.

In the past, senators from a potential judge’s home state could block a nomination — a custom Trump exploded when he steamrolled Washington senators to install Eric D. Miller to the 9th Circuit in 2019.

Tung has been tight-lipped about his ascent to the country’s busiest circuit. He did not respond to inquiries from The Times.

A Woodland Hills native and conservative Catholic convert, Tung made a name for himself as a champion of the crypto industry and elegant legal writer, frequently lecturing at California law schools and headlining Federalist Society events.

After graduating from Yale and the University of Chicago Law School, he clerked for Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Neil Gorsuch before joining the white-shoe law firm Jones Day, a feeder to the Trump Justice Department.

Many lauded the nomination when it was first announced, including the National Asian Pacific American Bar Assn.

“Eric is a highly regarded originalist who would follow in the footsteps of Justice Scalia, for whom he clerked,” said Carrie Campbell Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal advocacy group.

Groups on the left, including Alliance for Justice, Demand Justice and the National Council of Jewish Women, have lobbied against putting Tung on the appellate court.

If confirmed, Tung will be Trump’s 11th appointment to the 9th Circuit, a court the president vowed to remake when he first took office in 2017.

During Trump’s first term, Judge Ikuta was part of a tiny conservative minority on the famously lopsided bench, a legacy of President Jimmy Carter’s decision to double the size of the circuit and pack it with liberal appointees.

Many Trump judges ruffled feathers at first, and most have shown themselves to be “pretty conservative and pretty hard nosed,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

Their ranks include the former Hawaii Atty. Gen. Judge Mark J. Bennett, as well as the circuit’s first openly gay member, Judge Patrick J. Bumatay.

Trump’s appellate appointees helped deliver him several controversial recent decisions, including the finding in June that Trump had broad discretion to deploy the military on American streets. Another 9th Circuit ruling this month found that the administration could all-but eliminate the country’s refugee program via an indefinite “pause.”

But they’ve also clashed sharply with the Justice Department’s attorneys, even in cases where the appellate panel ultimately sided with the administration.

That’s what the president is trying to avoid this time around — particularly with his picks headed in the west, experts said.

“People on the far right are pushing [Trump] to have people who will be ‘courageous’ judges — in other words, do things that are really unpopular that Trump likes,” Tobias said.

Tung may fit the bill. In addition to his crypto chops and avowed support for constitutional originalism, he has been an ardent defender of religious liberty and an opponent of affirmative action. He shoots competitively as part of the International Defensive Pistol Assn.

Both Tung and his wife Emily Lataif have close ties to the anti-abortion movement. Tung worked extensively with the architect of Texas’ heartbeat bill; Lataif interned for the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion policy group that seeks to make IUDs and emergency contraception illegal and opposes many forms of in-vitro fertilization.

“Emily is the epitome of grace under pressure, as was evidenced … when she and Eric had to evacuate their home during the California wildfires, only days after welcoming their first child,” Severino said. “She’s worked at the highest levels, from the White House to the executive team at Walmart, and her talent is matched only by her kindness and love for her family.”

When asked by Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware whether he believed IVF was protected by the Constitution, Tung declined to answer.

It wasn’t the only question the nominee ducked. Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee accused Tung of giving only “sham answers” to their inquiries, both in chambers and through written follow-ups.

After pressing him repeatedly for his position on landmark cases including Obergefell vs. Hodges and Lawrence vs. Texas — privacy right precedents Justice Clarence Thomas wrote should be reconsidered after the fall of Roe vs. Wade — Sen. Adam Schiff pushed the nominee for his opinion on Loving vs. Virginia, the 1967 case affirming interracial marriage.

“Was that wrongly decided?” the California lawmaker asked the aspiring judge.

“Senator, my wife and I are an interracial couple, so if that case were wrongly decided I would be in big trouble,” Tung said.

“You’re willing to tell us you believe Loving was correctly decided, but you’re not willing to say the other decisions were correctly decided,” Schiff said. “That seems less originalist and more situational.”

Sept. 22 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to revisit a 90-year precedent, preventing presidents from removing independent regulators without just cause. The high court, which is scheduled to hear the case in December, will allow President Donald Trump‘s firing of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter to move forward.

The case centers on Trump’s attempt to remove Slaughter, who has been with the FTC since 2018. While a decision is not expected until next summer, the court order allows Trump to fire Slaughter despite dissents from the court’s liberal judges.

“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who was also joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the president, and thus to reshape the nation’s separation of powers,” Jackson added.

Earlier this month, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a brief administrative stay to an order by a district court that found Trump’s firing of the democratic FTC commissioner was illegal.

Attorney General Pam Bondi applauded Monday’s decision, saying it “secures a significant Supreme Court victory, protecting President Trump’s executive authority.”

“In a 6-3 decision, the Court stayed a lower court ruling which prevented the president from firing a member of the FTC’s board,” Bondi wrote Monday in a post on X. “This helps affirm our argument that the president, not a lower court judge, has hiring and firing power over executive officials.”

Trump fired Slaughter and another Democratic FTC commissioner, Alvaro Bedoya, in March. Slaughter sued Trump of illegally firing her without just cause, despite congressional protections.

“It is of imperative importance that any doubts concerning the constitutionality of traditional independent agencies be resolved promptly,” Slaughter’s lawyers wrote in court.

The Supreme Court’s 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, upheld the FTC’s protections from removal as constitutional.

The Supreme Court has also allowed Trump to fire National Labor Relations Board member Gwynn Wilcox and Merit Systems Protection Board member Cathy Harris.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court said Monday it will decide on reversing a 90-year precedent that has protected independent agencies from direct control by the president.

The court’s conservative majority has already upheld President Trump’s firing of Democratic appointees at the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. And in a separate order on Monday, it upheld Trump’s removal of a Democratic appointee at the Federal Trade Commission.

Those orders signal the court is likely to rule for the president and that he has the full authority to fire officials at independent agencies, if Congress said they had fixed terms.

The only hint of doubt has focused on the Federal Reserve Board. In May, when the court upheld the firing of an NLRB official, it said it decision does not threaten the independence of Federal Reserve.

The court described it as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” Trump did not share that view. He threatened to fire Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell during the summer because he had not lowered interest rates.

And he is now seeking to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, a Biden appointee, based on the allegation she may have committed mortgage fraud when she took out two home loans in 2021.

Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court last week seeking to have Cook removed now.

Long before Trump’s presidency, Chief Justice John G. Roberts had argued that the president has the constitutional power to control federal agencies and to hire or fire all officials who exercise significant executive authority.

But that view stands in conflict with what the court has said for more than a century. Since 1887, when Congress created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate railroad rates, lawmakers on Capitol Hill believed they had the authority to create independent boards and commissions.

Typically, the president would be authorized appoint officials who would serve a fixed term set by law. At times, Congress also required the boards have a mix of both Republican and Democratic appointees.

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld that understanding in a 1935 case called Humphrey’s Executor. The justices said then these officials made judicial-type decisions, and they should be shielded from direct control by the president.

That decision was a defeat for President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to fire a Republican appointee on the Federal Trade Commission.

In recent years, the chief justice and his conservative colleagues have questioned the idea that Congress can shield officials from direct control by the president.

In Monday’s order, the court said it will hear arguments in December on “whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U. S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.”

Justice Elena Kagan has repeatedly dissented in these cases and argued that Congress has the power to make the law and structure the government, not the president.

Joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she objected on Monday that the court has continued to fire independent officials at Trump’s request.

“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” she wrote. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

Spanish court documents, including the toxicology report for Jay Slater, were fraudulently leaked and shared on social media – despite being highly confidential

Jay Slater’s Spanish toxicology reports were fraudulently leaked online following the teen’s death. The teen, 19, from Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, was found dead in July last year after a month-long search for him.

Just weeks before Jay’s death, the teen had been attending a festival with friends Lucy Law, Brad Hargreaves and Brandon Hodgson. Jay was found dead in a ravine in Tenerife’s Parque Rural de Teno on July 15, 2024, following a month-long search. After leaving the RG music festival in Playa de las Americas on June 17, he travelled with two men to an Airbnb in the national park area, 22 miles from where he had been staying with his friends.

But following his disappearance, social media was flooded with conspiracy theories relating to his vanishing, including people claiming Jay was actually alive and his disappearance was a “scam”. But a new Channel 4 documentary reveals that the toxicology report from the Spanish courts was also fraudulently leaked.

It was revealed by Preston Coroner’s officer Alice Swarbrick that Jay’s body had traces of MDMA and cocaine in the hours prior to his death, but while there was evidence of the drugs in his system, this didn’t mean they formed part of the cause of his death. Jay’s mum explained that while it was a shock to her. “He’s a young adult and that’s what they do when they go to festivals, it’s not a shock, it’s just upsetting,” she said, adding that it was “upsetting the way he died.”

However, Jay’s heartbroken mum was informed that the toxicology report had only been disclosed to her and wouldn’t be shared anywhere else. But the documentary instantly cut to a string of YouTube videos, which shared screenshots of the toxicology report, stating Jay’s full name – Jay Dean Slater.

“25th March 2025. In Tenerife, Spanish court documents are fraudulently leaked and published on YouTube,” the caption says, adding: “Including Jay’s Spanish toxicology reports.”

Speaking on the documentary, Jay’s mum, Debbie Duncan, said: “It’s just another kick in the teeth, but how is it even allowed? Official court documents, talking about our son, it’s lawless, ain’t it? There’s nothing we can do, we’re just powerless.”

Later on, pathologist, Dr Richard Shepherd, explained that ruling out injuries inflicted by a third party was “a very, very important part of this investigation, as Jay had “not been shot, he’s not been stabbed, he’s not been strangled.”

“A major head injury at the side, how do we explain that?” before going on to state that Jay’s injuries are consistent with severe trauma to the head, which could have been a result of falling down a slope. He also stated that he couldn’t rule out the possibility of Jay being pushed, as the push would leave no marks.

Dr James Adeley, Senior Coroner for Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen explained that the case had become complicated due to social media coverage, as witnesses had expressed fear over giving evidence, due to the social media commentary from online slueths. “Social media has made obtaining answers more difficult,” he said.

Only three of five witnesses were able to be located: Ayub Qassim and Lucy Law both gave virtual evidence, while Bradley Geoghegan gave evidence in person. Jay was found dead in a ravine in Tenerife’s Parque Rural de Teno on July 15, 2024. After leaving a festival in Playa de las Americas on June 17, he travelled with two men to an Airbnb, 22 miles from where the friends were staying.

The Channel 4 film also reveals previously unheard audio, as well as unsent messages, as well as access to the Slater family as they continue to search for answers about what had happened to him.

The Disappearance of Jay Slater airs on Channel 4 on Sunday, September 28, at 9pm.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Sept. 19 (UPI) — After nearly 12 years of review and controversy, Chile’s Supreme Court has rejected appeals from President Gabriel Boric’s government and environmental groups that seek to block the Dominga mining project.

The potential mine, situated in the Coquimbo region, has been one of Chile’s most controversial in recent years because of its proximity to the Humboldt Penguin National Reserve, home to penguins, sea lions and bottlenose dolphins.

It was first submitted for an environmental impact study in September 2013.

The high court’s ruling does not give the project a green light to operate, but sends it back to the Committee of Ministers — made up of the economy, health, energy, mining and agriculture ministries — that already voted against it three times.

The decision is a blow to the government because it must review the case again and issue a verdict.

Dominga involves a $2.5 billion investment and about 30,000 jobs. It was expected to produce 12 million tons of high-grade iron concentrate and 150,000 tons of copper concentrate annually over a 26 1/2-year lifespan.

“This is a historic ruling, not only for the company but also for the country and its environmental institutions. Dominga is the project with the longest review in the 30 years of the Environmental Impact Assessment System, becoming a true symbol of bureaucracy and judicialization,” Andes Iron, the company that owns the project, said after the ruling.

“With this decision, more than 12 years of procedures and litigation come to an end, clearing all legal and technical questions and opening the way for Dominga’s construction,” the company added. It said the actions of the Committee of Ministers had been irregular, “with legal flaws, unjustified delays and unsupported changes in technical criteria.”

The Confederation of Production and Commerce, which represents Chile’s business sector, also welcomed the ruling.

“It is a clear confirmation that the project complies with current regulations and with all environmental requirements for its construction and operation,” the group’s president, Susana Jiménez, said in a statement.

She added that the “long and cumbersome process Dominga has had to face is proof of the urgent need for a more transparent and technical environmental review system — one that allows projects meeting established requirements to move forward without obstacles.”

The government has not given up, however, saying the Supreme Court’s ruling “does not imply a final decision on the project,” according to the Environment Ministry, one of Dominga’s main opponents.

“The Supreme Court also reaffirms that authority to decide on the project lies with the Committee of Ministers, which already issued a decision in January 2025. The Humboldt Archipelago is a unique ecosystem, a heritage of all Chileans, and the Environment Ministry continues to work decisively for its protection,” the agency said.

Economic analyst Jorge Berríos, academic director of the Finance Program at the University of Chile’s Faculty of Economics and Business, told UPI that Dominga is “a special project, with a strong political component, because it was linked to former President Sebastián Piñera.”

In 2010, the right-wing former president sold his stake in the project for $152 million while in office, a period in which he placed his investments in a blind trust.

The sales agreement included a clause stating that the final payment would only be made if the area where Dominga is located was not declared an environmental reserve by the Chilean government — a condition that was ultimately met.

“From that moment, Dominga took on a political character. The current government does not want it and should be more explicit about that. The company has decided to pursue every legal avenue because it already has its environmental permits,” Berríos said.

He added that the conflict highlights Chile’s serious institutional problem in approving investment projects.

“If a company has to wait five or 10 years to get a permit, it will think twice and move to another country. This cannot happen because it hurts the country’s competitiveness. It has already happened that the forestry company Arauco decided not to invest in Chile but did so in Brazil, where it obtained operating permits in just nine months,” Berríos said.

A federal judge ruled that terminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans violates laws on government conduct.

The United States government has, for a second time, asked the Supreme Court to issue an emergency order allowing it to strip legal protections from more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants.

The Department of Justice on Friday submitted an emergency application asking the nation’s top court to overturn a federal judge’s ruling that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem did not have the authority to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the migrants.

“So long as the district court’s order is in effect, the Secretary must permit over 300,000 Venezuelan nationals to remain in the country, notwithstanding her reasoned determination that doing so even temporarily is ‘contrary to the national interest’,” the Justice Department argued in its filing to the court.

In May, the Supreme Court sided with the Donald Trump White House, overturning a temporary order from US District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco that had blocked the termination of TPS while the case moved through the courts.

On September 5, Chen issued his final ruling, concluding that Secretary Noem’s decision violated a federal law regulating the conduct of government agencies.

“This case is familiar to the court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this court’s orders on the emergency docket,” the Justice Department told the Supreme Court.

“This court’s orders are binding on litigants and lower courts. Whether those orders span one sentence or many pages, disregarding them – as the lower courts did here – is unacceptable.”

Millions of people have fled Venezuela in recent years due to political repression and a crippling economic crisis spurred in part by US sanctions against the government of President Nicolas Maduro.

Before leaving office, the administration of former US President Joe Biden had extended TPS for about 600,000 Venezuelans through October 2026.

TPS, created by the US Congress in 1990, grants people living in the US relief from deportation if their home country is affected by extraordinary circumstances such as armed conflict or environmental disasters.

An individual who is granted TPS cannot be deported, can obtain an employment authorisation document and may be given travel authorisation. A TPS holder cannot be detained by the US over their immigration status.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to let it enforce a passport policy for transgender and nonbinary people that requires male or female sex designations based on birth certificates.

The Justice Department appealed a lower-court order allowing people use the gender or “X” identification marker that lines up with their gender identity.

It’s the latest in a series of emergency appeals from the Trump administration, many of which have resulted in victories amid litigation, including on banning transgender people from the military.

The government argues it can’t be required to use sex designations it considers inaccurate on official documents. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, say the policy violates the rights of transgender and nonbinary Americans.

The State Department changed its passport rules after Trump handed down an executive order in January declaring the United States would “recognize two sexes, male and female,” based on what it called “an individual’s immutable biological classification.”

Transgender actor Hunter Schafer, for example, said in February that her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker, even though she submitted the application with the female gender marker she has used for years on her driver’s license and passport.

A judge blocked the Trump administration policy in June after a lawsuit from nonbinary and transgender people, some of whom said they were afraid to submit applications. An appeals court left the judge’s order in place.

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to put the order on hold while the lawsuit plays out.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the government from defining sex in terms of an individual’s biological classification,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote.

He pointed to the high court’s recent ruling upholding a ban on transition-related health care for transgender minors. The courts conservative majority found that law doesn’t discriminate on the basis of sex, and Sauer argued that finding also supports the Trump administration’s decision to change passport rules issued in 2021.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, on the other hand, said the passport rules are discriminatory.

“This administration has taken escalating steps to limit transgender people’s health care, speech, and other rights under the Constitution, and we are committed to defending those rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the LGBTQ & HIV Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Authorities say Russians and Ukrainians are collaborating to form crime rings on Indonesia’s most famous holiday island.

An Indonesian court has sentenced a Ukrainian man to life in prison for his role in a large-scale Russian-Ukrainian drug ring operating on the tourist island of Bali.

Thai authorities arrested Roman Nazarenko, who was listed as a fugitive by Interpol, at Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport in December as he attempted to flee to Dubai, then extradited him to Indonesia.

Nazarenko had spent seven months on the run after police raided a holiday villa in Bali in May 2024, finding a laboratory in the basement used to grow marijuana and produce a precursor of the synthetic drug ecstasy.

During Nazarenko’s trial at Denpasar District Court on Thursday, prosecutors argued he was one of the masterminds of a drug ring.

The Ukrainian claimed he was tricked into joining the ring and sat silently as the panel of three judges handed down a life sentence.

“There is no reason to forgive or justify the defendant; he deserves to be punished commensurate with what he has done,” presiding Judge Eni Martiningrum said.

“His crime could damage the mental state of the young generation.”

Marthinus Hukom, the head of Indonesia’s National Narcotics Agency, said there is a growing issue of Russians and Ukrainians collaborating in crime rings on Indonesia’s most famous holiday island.

“This is a very unique phenomenon,” Hukom said.

“Two countries that are at war, but here in Bali, their citizens are partners in crime, engaging in illicit drug trafficking.”

Authorities also arrested two Ukrainian brothers, Mykyta Volovod and Ivan Volovod, and a Russian man, Konstantin Krutz, during the earlier raid on the villa. The same court sentenced each of the men to 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors argued that the Volovod brothers were the drug producers, while Krutz sold their product.

Prosecutors have also identified a Russian man, Oleg Tkachuck, who they believe to be the drug ring’s overall mastermind. He remains at large.

According to the Volovod brothers, Tkachuck paid them $30,000 in September 2023 to install equipment at the villa to produce hydroponic marijuana and mephedrone – used in the production of ecstasy pills.

According to prosecutors, Nazarenko recruited the other convicted men for Tkachuck, as well as provided equipment and marijuana seeds, and oversaw operations of the lab.

Nazarenko argued in court that he had been tricked by Tkachuck and expressed remorse for his role in the drug operation.

Indonesia has some of the strictest drug laws in the region, with drug smugglers sometimes executed by firing squad.

Bali, meanwhile, has become a magnet for thousands of people from Russia and Ukraine fleeing the horrors of war since President Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion in early 2022.

Russian visitors, in particular, more than tripled between 2022 and 2024 – growing from 57,860 to 180,215 last year.

UK High Court ruled against Eritrean man in case that tested new ‘one in, one out’ migration scheme.

An Eritrean man who has been fighting to stay in the United Kingdom is set to be deported to France after losing a High Court bid to have his removal temporarily blocked.

The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, crossed the English Channel in August and was originally due to be removed on Wednesday under a “one in, one out” pilot scheme agreed between the UK and France in July.

But London’s High Court granted him an interim injunction on Tuesday, preventing his removal, pending a full hearing of his trafficking claim.

The man told the court he fled Eritrea in 2019 because of forced conscription before ultimately making his way to France. In France, he went to Dunkirk, on the English Channel, where he stayed in an encampment known as “the jungle” for about three weeks before travelling to the UK.

The UK’s Home Office opposed the bid to temporarily block the man’s removal and, at a hearing on Thursday, the High Court agreed, saying there was “no serious issue to be tried in this case”.

The judge, Clive Sheldon, said the man gave inconsistent accounts of his allegations of trafficking.

“It was open to [the Home Office] to conclude that his credibility was severely damaged and his account of trafficking could not reasonably be believed,” the judge said.

The man is set to be deported to France on Friday at 6:15am local time (05:15 GMT).

UK puts new plan into action

As the court was ruling against the Eritrean man, the UK interior ministry, the Home Office, was actively testing out its new scheme, deporting a man from India to France. The man, who arrived in the UK on a small boat in August, was sent to France on Thursday on a commercial flight.

This deportation was the first under the partnership between the UK and France, with Prime Minister Keir Starmer saying it provided “proof of concept” that the deal works.

“We need to ramp that up at scale, which was always envisaged under the scheme,” Starmer told reporters at a news conference alongside US President Donald Trump.

Under the “one in, one out” plan between the UK and France, people arriving in the UK would be returned to France, while the UK would accept an equal number of recognised asylum seekers with family ties in the UK.

Downing Street has defended the plan, calling it a “fair and balanced” system designed to reduce irregular migration.

UK charities have condemned the scheme.

The “cruel policy targeting people who come here to seek safety” was a “grim attempt … to appease the racist far-right,” Griff Ferris, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, told the news agency AFP.

Anti-immigrant sentiment on the rise

While Starmer has made stopping small boat crossings central to his government’s agenda, anti-immigrant sentiment has continued to rise in the UK.

Up to 150,000 people marched through central London over the weekend in a protest organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson. Four police officers were seriously injured during the protest, with a glass bottle appearing to have smashed against a police horse at one point.

Tens of thousands of migrants have arrived annually on UK shores in recent years. At least 23 people have died so far this year, according to an AFP tally based on official French data.

Sept. 18 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow him to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

Trump has cited a fraud allegation against Cook for his reasoning for firing her, but Cook has fought back, arguing that he doesn’t have the authority.

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected Trump’s attempt to fire Cook.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 emergency ruling Monday, ahead of the central bank’s start of monetary policy meetings on Tuesday.

The Fed on Wednesday announced a 0.25% rate cut in the wake of Trump’s demands to do so.

The administration waited for the Fed’s meeting to conclude before going to the high court. It has often sided with Trump on emergency issues.

The Fed traditionally is an independent institution that doesn’t follow White House orders.

If the court agrees with Trump, it would be the first time a Fed governor was fired by a president in the central bank’s 111-year history.

Trump moved to fire Cook late last month on allegations of mortgage fraud, prompting Democrats to accuse the president of conducting a power grab.

Cook challenged her removal in court, and won reinstatement. The district found that her firing likely violated the so-called for-cause provision of the Federal Reserve Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Twice since Aug. 15, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, a Powell critic, sent criminal referrals for Cook to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Cook of mortgage fraud, alleging she listed properties she owns inconsistently on different forms. The allegations go back to before she was on the board. No charges have been filed.

Trump points to the mortgage fraud allegations as cause for her removal.

Democrats have backed Cook in the fight to keep her seat. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been among the most vocal and has described Trump’s attempt to remove Cook an “illegal authoritarian power grab.”

“The courts keep rejecting Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to take over the Fed so he can scapegoat away his failure to lower costs for American families,” Warren said in a statement following the ruling.

“If the courts — including the Supreme Court — continue to uphold the law, Lisa Cook will keep her seat as a Fed governor.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump appealed to the Supreme Court on Thursday seeking to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook from the independent board that can raise or lower interest rates.

The appeal “involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

The appeal is the second this month asking the court to give Trump broad new power over the economy.

The first, to be heard in November, will decide if the president to free to impose large import taxes on products coming into this country.

The new case could determine if he is free to remake the Federal Reserve Board by removing a Democratic appointee who he says may have broken the law.

Trump’s lawyers argue that a Fed governor has no legal right to challenge the president’s decision to fire her.

“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself—and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” Trump’s lawyer said.

Trump has chafed at the Federal Reserve board for keeping interest rates high to fight inflation, and he threatened to fire board chairman Jay Powell, even though he appointed him to that post in 2018.

But last month, Trump turned his attention to Cook and said he had cause to fire her.

Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.

Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”

The law does not define what amounts to cause.

President Biden appointed Cook in 2023 and she was confirmed to a full term.

In August, however, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.

Typically, borrowers obtain a better interest rate for a primary residence. But lawyers say charges of mortgage fraud are extremely rare if the borrower makes the required regular payments on the loan.

About 30 minutes after Pulte posted his allegations, Trump posted on his social media site: “Cook must resign. Now!!!”

Cook has not responded directly to the allegations, but her attorneys pointed to news reports which said she told the lender her Atlanta condo would be a vacation home.

Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25. “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referrral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.

Cook filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegations did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest the charges.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, agreed she made a “strong showing” the firing was illegal and blocked her removal.

She said Congress wrote the “for cause” provision to punish “malfeasance in office,” not conduct that pre-dated her appointment. She also said Cook had been denied “due process of law” because she was not given a hearing.

The U.S. appeals court in Washington, by a 2-1 vote, refused to lift her order on Monday.

Judges Bradley Garcia and J. Michelle Childs, both Biden appointees, said Cook had been denied “even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed.”

Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, dissented. He said “for cause” removal provision was broader than misconduct in office. It means the president may remove an officer for “some cause relating to” their “ability, fitness, or competence” to hold the office, he said.

And because a government position is not the property of office holders, they do not have a “due process” right to contest their firing, he said.

Germany says it’s possible to temporarily delay sanctions after E3’s top diplomats hold call with Iranian counterpart.

Germany says the “ball is still in Iran’s court” after the French, British and German foreign ministers held talks by phone with their Iranian counterpart, Abbas Araghchi, regarding Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Wednesday’s phone call came after the European powers last month triggered a 30-day deadline for “snapback” sanctions to come into force in the absence of a negotiated deal on the Iranian nuclear programme.

A German Federal Foreign Office spokesman told the AFP news agency on Wednesday that the offer from the so-called E3 powers “to discuss a temporary extension of the snapback if Iran fulfils certain conditions remains on the table” but added: “At this point, the steps taken by Iran have not been sufficient.”

Before the call, Tehran called for a “positive approach and goodwill” from the E3.

The E3 has been warning Tehran for weeks that United Nations sanctions could be reimposed by October when a 2015 nuclear agreement between Tehran and major powers expires.

A spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has warned that renewing the sanctions would have consequences.

The E3 has accused Tehran of violating provisions of the 2015 nuclear pact, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The agreement, which all three countries signed, saw Iran agree to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for a lifting of international sanctions on its economy.

A component of the nuclear deal, the “snapback” mechanism, allows sanctions to be reimposed quickly if Iran is found to be in violation of the accord.

The call, which also included European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, followed an agreement reached by Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week on resuming cooperation between Tehran and the UN nuclear watchdog, including in principle the inspection of nuclear sites. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council has backed renewed nuclear inspections.

Earlier in the week, Iran was pushing for a resolution prohibiting attacks on nuclear installations at the IAEA’s General Conference, which started on Monday in Vienna and ends on Friday.

According to Iran’s deputy nuclear chief, Behrouz Kamalvandi, who is in Vienna, the United States is putting pressure on member states to block the resolution and has “even threatened the agency that they will cut off assistance to the organisation”.

During a 12-day conflict in June, Israel and the US struck Iranian nuclear facilities, claiming Iran was getting too close to being able to produce a nuclear weapon, and IAEA inspections were interrupted over security concerns and complaints by Tehran.

Resumed cooperation between Iran and the IAEA is one of the three conditions set by European powers to hold off on completing the UN snapback mechanism, which they invoked in August.

“It is a natural expectation that Iran’s positive approach and goodwill should be reciprocated by the European side. … If some European parties start nagging this is not enough, that would mean they do not accept the IAEA,” Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Wednesday.

“We hope that with contacts like today’s and future ones, all parties will come to the conclusion that escalating tensions and perpetuating the current situation is not in anyone’s interest.”

Since US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iranian nuclear deal in 2018 and reimposed sanctions, the Board of Governors of the IAEA has adopted four Western-backed censure resolutions against Iran, which maintains its nuclear programme is for peaceful civilian purposes.

Neither US intelligence nor the IAEA found earlier this year that Iran was pursuing an atomic weapon.

Prosecutors have revealed a digital trove of evidence including text messages, in the case against Charlie Kirk’s accused killer Tyler Robinson, who has appeared in court charged with murder.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum.

A British court has temporarily blocked the deportation of an asylum seeker to France, dealing an early setback to Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s plan to return people who arrive in the United Kingdom on small boats.

The 25-year-old Eritrean man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, crossed the English Channel on August 12 and was due to be removed on Wednesday under a “one in, one out” pilot scheme agreed between the UK and France in July.

But on Tuesday, London’s High Court granted him an interim injunction preventing his removal, pending a full hearing of his trafficking claim.

Judge Clive Sheldon ruled: “I am going to grant a short period of interim relief. The status quo is that the claimant is currently in this country and has not been removed.

“So, I make an order that the claimant should not be removed tomorrow at 9am, but that this matter should come back to this court as soon as is reasonably practical in light of the further representations that the claimant … will make on his trafficking decision.”

“The removal takes place against the backdrop of the recently signed agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the French Republic.

“It seems to me there is a serious issue to be tried with respect to the trafficking claim and whether or not the Secretary of State has carried out her investigatory duties in a lawful manner.”

The case follows a decision by the UK’s National Referral Mechanism (NRM) – which identifies and assesses victims of slavery and human trafficking – asking the man to submit further evidence in relation to his claim.

The ruling is a setback for Prime Minister Starmer, who has made stopping small boat crossings central to his government’s agenda.

His approach has drawn criticism from rights groups, who accuse him of bowing to pressure from the far right following attacks on asylum-seeker accommodation.

The UK-France scheme is also seen by analysts as part of the government’s attempt to blunt the growing support of the anti-immigrant Reform UK party, which has been climbing in opinion polls.

Under the plan, people arriving in Britain would be returned to France, while the UK would accept an equal number of recognised asylum seekers with family ties in Britain.

Downing Street has defended the plan, calling it a “fair and balanced” system designed to reduce irregular migration.

It insisted it expects deportations to begin “imminently”, with the prime minister’s official spokesman saying “for obvious reasons we’re not going to get into a running commentary on operational details before that”.

Human rights groups say the government risks breaching international law by denying people the right to claim asylum in the UK.

Tyler Robinson, 22, expected to face formal charges in the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

The man accused of fatally shooting conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Tyler Robinson, is scheduled to make his first court appearance on Tuesday afternoon in Utah, United States, where prosecutors are expected to formally charge him with murder.

Robinson is expected to attend the hearing remotely by video from his jail cell.

This is what we know:

What’s expected on Tuesday?

Robinson is behind bars as Utah County prosecutors move closer to filing charges in the killing.

Kirk, credited with rallying the Republican youth movement and helping Donald Trump reclaim the White House in 2024, was shot dead last week at Utah Valley University. Robinson was arrested two days later after a manhunt.

Prosecutors say charges could come on Tuesday, but the deadline could stretch to Friday if more time is needed to review what they call a “mountain of evidence”.

If the filing happens today, a news conference is likely.

“Assuming that we can file charges by Tuesday, we will hold a press conference to explain those charges and the next steps in this case. That press conference will be held Tuesday, September 16, 2025, at noon [18:00 GMT],” County Attorney Jeff Gray said in a press statement on Saturday.

The charges are expected to mirror Robinson’s initial booking.

“Our ability to file charges depends on how quickly we can gather and carefully review mountains of evidence. We will be thorough and deliberate at every stage of this case,” Gray added.

If charges are filed on Tuesday, Robinson’s first court appearance will follow the same day at 3pm (21:00 GMT) over Webex.

What charges are likely to be filed?

It is not clear yet, but Robinson was arrested and booked into the Utah County Jail early on Friday morning on suspicion of three crimes:

• aggravated murder,
• obstruction of justice, and
• felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury.

Prosecutors have listed these offences in an affidavit filed with the court.

According to Gray, under Utah law, aggravated murder is punishable by death, life in prison without parole, or 25 years to life with the possibility of parole. Obstruction of justice carries a penalty of one to 15 years in prison, while felony discharge of a firearm causing serious bodily injury carries a sentence of five years to life.

According to a Public Safety Assessment Report filed in Utah state court, Robinson has no prior convictions and no history of violent offences.

He is currently being held without bail.

What else is happening on Tuesday?

FBI Director Kash Patel is preparing to face tough congressional scrutiny over his handling of the investigation into the killing of Kirk. Congresspeople are likely to press him on early missteps, including a now-corrected social media post wrongly claiming that a suspect was already in custody.

Patel will testify before the Senate and House judiciary committees on Tuesday and Wednesday, where questions will likely extend beyond the Kirk case to his broader leadership of the FBI. Congresspeople are expected to challenge him on whether he can steady an agency riven by political infighting and internal turmoil since his appointment, at a time when toxic partisan divisions continue to grip the nation.

The hearing will start at 9am (13:00 GMT) at the Hart Senate Office Building, Room 216. A livestream will be available here.

FBI Director Kash Patel is bracing for US congressional scrutiny over his leadership of the investigation into the killing of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk https://t.co/aykF1L4KXx pic.twitter.com/URPxRhw3ad

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) September 14, 2025

What else do we know about Robinson?

Robinson grew up in St George, southwestern Utah, where his parents, married for about 25 years, run a granite countertop business.

Eldest of the three brothers, he lived with his family in a six-bedroom home. Social media posts show an active, close-knit household that travelled widely and enjoyed outdoor activities such as boating, riding in all-terrain vehicles, and target shooting.

A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since childhood, Robinson excelled in school, making the honour roll and scoring in the 99th percentile on national tests.

In 2021, he earned a scholarship to Utah State University but left after one semester. He is now a third-year student in the electrical apprenticeship programme at Dixie Technical College in St George.

State records show he is registered to vote with no party affiliation and did not participate in the last two general elections. In their affidavit to the court, prosecutors said a family member of Robinson had told them that the 22-year-old had become “more political in recent years”. The relative also told prosecutors about a family dinner Kirk had attended before the September 10 shooting, where they had discussed Kirk. Robinson had mentioned, during that visit, about Kirk’s upcoming event at Utah Valley University.

“They talked about why they didn’t like him and the viewpoints he had. The family member also stated Kirk was full of hate and spreading hate,” the prosecutors wrote in the affidavit, referring to Robinson and the relative they spoke to.

Prosecutors have also said the ammunition recovered at the scene bore engravings tied to meme culture and anti-fascist themes.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox also said Robinson’s partner and flatmate, whom he described as “incredibly cooperative”, was transgender. However, though Kirk had anti-transgender views, investigators have not confirmed any link between that and his assassination.

Sept. 15 (UPI) — A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump‘s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, handing the American president another legal defeat in his effort to gain influence over the independent monetary policy-setting agency.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 emergency ruling Monday, ahead of the central bank’s start of monetary policy meetings on Tuesday.

The Trump administration had asked the appeals court to allow the president to fire Cook, the first Black woman to sit on the Federal Reserve Board, ahead of the meeting, but the court rejected his request, finding the administration had denied her due process protections.

“The government does not dispute that it failed to provide Cook even minimal process — that is, notice of the allegation against her and a meaningful opportunity to respond — before she was purportedly removed,” Judges Bradley Garcia and Michelle Childs, both President Joe Biden appointees, wrote in the ruling.

“Granting the government’s request for relief when Cook has received no meaningful process would contravene that principle.”

The president only has the power to remove someone from the independent bipartisan monetary-setting agency for cause.

Trump moved to fire Cook late last month on allegations of mortgage fraud, prompting Democrats to accuse the president of conducting a power grab.

Cook challenged her removal in court, and won reinstatement. The district found that her firing likely violated the so-called for cause provision of the Federal Reserve Act and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The appeals court majority on Monday agreed with the district court, stating its ruling “is correct.”

“Cook has been serving in her position continuously despite the President’s purported termination. Granting the government’s request for emergency relief would thus upend, not preserve, the status quo,” the court ruled.

“Given these unique circumstances, and Cook’s strong likelihood of success on at least her due process claim, the government’s request for relief is rightly denied.”

In dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, sided with the president, saying it was likely to prevail on its claims that it has cause for Cook’s removal.

Trump fired Cook as he was applying pressure on her boss, Fed Chair Jerome Powell, to lower interest rates, which he has been seeking for months.

Twice since Aug. 15, Federal Housing Finance Agency Director William Pulte, a Powell critic, sent criminal referrals for Cook to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Cook of mortgage fraud, alleging she listed properties she owns inconsistently on different forms. The allegations go back to before she was on the board.

No charges have actually been filed.

Trump points to the mortgage fraud allegations as cause for her removal. Democrats have backed Cook in the fight. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has been among the most vocal and has described Trump’s attempt to remove Cook an “illegal authoritarian power grab.”

“The courts keep rejecting Donald Trump’s illegal attempt to take over the Fed so he can scapegoat away his failure to lower costs for American families,” Warren said Monday night on X following the ruling.

“If the courts — including the Supreme Court — continue to uphold the law, Lisa Cook will keep her seat as a Fed governor.”

The ruling comes as Senate Republicans on Monday voted to confirm White House economic adviser Stephen Miran to join the Federal Reserve Board, despite Democrats voicing criticism over a White House advisor being a part of the independent agency.