court

The postponed hearing could lead to the removal of Ozgur Ozel, the Republican People’s Party’s chairman.

A court in Ankara has postponed the hearing of a controversial case that could oust the leader of Turkiye’s main opposition party, amid protests against the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

On Monday, the hearing about alleged internal irregularities during the Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) 2023 congress was adjourned until October 24.

Prosecutors have accused CHP leaders of vote-buying at the internal event in 2023 in which Ozgur Ozel was elected chairman, allegations the CHP says are politically motivated.

The case is the latest in a long line of challenges faced by the party.

The Turkish government has rejected accusations of political interference, insisting the judiciary acts independently.

Officials said the cases against CHP figures stem from corruption charges, which the party denied and argued are designed to weaken the opposition.

Turkish authorities have jailed hundreds of CHP members this year for alleged corruption, including Erdogan’s main political rival, Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu, who was arrested in March.

Critics say the crackdown is an attempt to destabilise Turkiye’s oldest political party, which won a large victory over Erdogan’s AK Party, or Justice and Development Party, in local elections last year.

On Sunday, Ozel told thousands of protesters in the national capital that the case was part of Erdogan’s wider attempt to undermine democracy.

“This case is political, the allegations are slander,” said Ozel, who claimed CHP was experiencing the “grave consequences” of government oppression.

“Anyone who poses a democratic threat to the government is now the government’s target,” he suggested.

The government denies the claim. Erdogan has described the CHP network as corrupt, comparing it with “an octopus whose arms stretch to other parts of Turkiye and abroad”.

Reporting from Ankara, Al Jazeera’s Sinem Koseoglu said the CHP congress case had been criticised by legal experts.

“Many legal experts are against the procedure because, according to the Turkish laws, any irregularity related to a political party’s internal dynamics should be taken care of by the higher election board, not by a local board,” Koseoglu noted.

Imamoglu, the CHP’s presidential candidate, also accused Erdogan and his allies of anti-democratic actions.

“This isn’t about the CHP, it’s about the existence or absence of democracy in Turkiye,” he said, after appearing in court on Friday in an unrelated case.

The CHP has had a chequered history with democracy despite founding modern Turkiye. The CHP pursued authoritarian policies in the past that suppressed ethnic and religious minorities and it has been a key factor in how Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) were able to rise to power and hold it.

There is also an historical distrust of the CHP from many communities who will continue to stand with the AKP regardless.

After Imamoglu’s arrest, Turkiye experienced its largest protests in more than a decade.

In advance of the Ankara court ruling, at least 50,000 people took part in a protest in the capital on Sunday.

Over the weekend, the Turkish authorities arrested 48 more people as part of the inquiry into the CHP.

On September 2, a court removed the leadership of the party’s Istanbul branch over the allegations of vote-buying at its provincial congress. The decision was seen by analysts as a test run for the congress case that was adjourned on Monday.

Following the ruling earlier this month, Turkiye’s stock market plummeted by 5.5 percent, raising fears about its already fragile economy.

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels, was hit with a personal judgment of $4.85 million Monday for his failure to pay a debt to a former colleague at his longtime Newport Beach firm.

Less than an hour after his defeat in the Los Angeles lawsuit, Avenatti suffered another setback at a trial in Orange County: The Irvine Co. won a court order evicting him and his staff from their offices because the firm, Eagan Avenatti, skipped the last four months of rent.

The twin blows came as Avenatti was heading to New Hampshire for his third visit to the state that kicks off the 2020 presidential primaries. The celebrity lawyer is exploring a run for the Democratic nomination. His troubled financial history could emerge as a significant campaign issue if he joins the race.

The personal judgment against Avenatti by Judge Dennis J. Landin in Superior Court in Los Angeles was his latest in a series of courtroom losses in a protracted dispute with Jason Frank, the former colleague.

Eagan Avenatti emerged from federal bankruptcy protection in March after Avenatti promised that it would pay millions of dollars to Frank and other creditors, including the Internal Revenue Service. It has defaulted on nearly every payment that was due.

No one has pursued Avenatti more relentlessly than Frank, who has been fighting in federal court to collect on a $10-million judgment that he won against the firm in May.

“My client has had an awful lot of money owed to him for a lengthy period of time,” said Frank’s attorney, Eric George, “and it has been delayed through one tactic or another. Today, finally, the right thing happened.”

Avenatti has been the managing partner of Eagan Avenatti since its founding in 2007.

He recently told a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge that his other firm, Avenatti & Associates, wholly owned by Avenatti, had acquired 100% of the equity in Eagan Avenatti, buying out his minority partner, Michael Eagan of San Francisco.

But Avenatti told the Los Angeles Times on Monday that he hadn’t owned Eagan Avenatti for months. He refused to identify the new owner.

“Any judgment issued against me will be deducted from the over $12 million that Jason Frank owes me and my law firm Avenatti & Associates as a result of his fraud,” Avenatti said by email.

No court has found Frank engaged in fraud, and Avenatti is not pursuing any court case alleging that he did. When Frank and two others left Eagan Avenatti to form their own firm, some clients went with them, angering Avenatti.

Frank alleges that Eagan Avenatti cheated him out of millions of dollars in compensation.

As part of its bankruptcy settlement, Eagan Avenatti agreed to pay Frank $4.85 million. Avenatti guaranteed that if the firm missed the deadlines for making the payment, which it did, he would personally be required to pay Frank.

To enforce the personal guarantee, Frank sued Avenatti, and on Monday he won the case.

Daniels, the adult film star whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, is represented by Avenatti & Associates, which operates out of the same offices as Eagan Avenatti and uses the same attorneys. Daniels is trying to void a nondisclosure agreement that bars her from discussing her alleged sexual affair in 2006 with Donald Trump.

Last week, a judge dismissed the defamation suit that Avenatti filed on Daniels’ behalf against Trump, finding the president was exercising his right to free speech when he attacked her credibility on Twitter.

Avenatti had another reversal last month at the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. The Senate Judiciary Committee refused to interview an Avenatti client, Julie Swetnick, who alleged that Kavanaugh attended a 1982 party where where she said she was gang-raped.

In the Santa Ana trial, 520 Newport Center Drive LLC, an arm of the Irvine Co., alleged that Eagan Avenatti missed $213,254 in rent payments over the last four months for its ocean-view suite on the 14th floor of an office building at Fashion Island.

Nobody from Eagan Avenatti showed up for the trial.

Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss ordered the firm to vacate the premises and pay the landlord the full amount of overdue rent. He also canceled the remaining three months of the lease. If the firm fails to move out, it could take a few weeks for the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to enforce the eviction.

In court papers filed by Avenatti, the firm claimed it deducted the cost of needed repairs from its rent payments but did not receive proper credit.

The Irvine Co. denied that the offices needed any serious repairs. And the lease, signed by Avenatti, says the tenant “understands that it shall not make repairs at landlord’s expense or by rental offset.”

At the short morning trial, Mark A. Kompa, an Irvine Co. attorney, called just three witnesses. He asked one of them, Irvine Co. assistant manager Abigail Yocam, what happened to the last rent payments received from Eagan Avenatti in July.

She testified: “The checks bounced.”

[email protected]

Twitter: @finneganLAT

UPDATES:

3:55 p.m.: The article was updated with the testimony of Irvine Co.’s Abigail Yocam and background on Stormy Daniels and the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings.

1:45 p.m.: The article was updated with additional details on the court cases.

11:50 a.m.: The article was updated with background on Michael Avenatti exploring a run for president and the Stormy Daniels litigation against President Trump.

11:15 a.m.: The article was updated with a comment from Michael Avenatti, background on Eagan Avenatti and the eviction judgment.

The article was originally published at 10:15 a.m.

LOVE Islander Millie Court has showcased her stunning figure in a beautiful red dress, leaving ex-boyfriend Liam Reardon to contemplate what might have been.

Millie took to Instagram to share a series of snaps of her wearing the plunging lace number.

6

6

6

6

Earlier this month The Sun reported that Millie and Liam had split up for the second time.

It came after they’d first fallen for each other on series seven of the ITV2 reality show, which they went on to win.

They then broke up for the first time in 2022, before getting back together a year later.

They host the Liam and Millie podcast together, and for a while they were able to keep a long-distance relationship going, despite her being based in Essex and Liam living in Wales.

But unfortunately, it seems the distance between them became increasingly problematic, and they broke up for a second time earlier this month.

A source close to the couple exclusively told The Sun Online: “Millie and Liam have tried so hard to make their relationship work.

“But unfortunately, the distance was just difficult and they have sadly ended their relationship for a second time.

“Obviously, they’ve worked things out before, so friends are hoping this might just be a blip as it’s all still very fresh.

“But right now they are spending time apart. Everyone who loves them hopes they can work it out.”

When they broke up the first time Millie said the decision to split wasn’t taken lightly but was “best” for both of them.

She said on Instagram: “Hi everyone, to avoid any speculation Liam and I wanted to share with you that we have separated.

“It’s been a tough decision and I am gutted but it’s ultimately what is best for us right now. Thank you to every single one of you for supporting our relationship.

“Nothing will ever take away from the amazing experience we shared in Love Island and the past year and I wish Liam all the best in everything he does.

“We’re both ready for new chapters and I’m excited for what’s next. Love, Millie.”

Liam also addressed their first split, saying they were struggling to keep pretending to be happy, when that wasn’t how they were truly feeling.

 He said: “We want to keep it a bit more private to a certain extent.

“We spend our lives on social media, it’s hard not to share the relationship.

“But after Love Island we plastered as much of each other out there as possible, and I kind of felt like we had to show people we were really happy all the time even if we were unhappy.

“Now we’re just loving life.”

6

6

Google parent Alphabet (GOOG 0.27%) (GOOGL 0.22%) faced a frightening challenge after its search engine business was declared an illegal monopoly last August. Since then, investor concern over the potential consequences dampened Alphabet stock’s performance.

That changed on Sept. 2, when a federal judge finally delivered the legal penalties, and they largely favored Alphabet. The news sent the company’s stock to a record high.

Even so, Alphabet didn’t escape unscathed. While the penalties pose no immediate threat, over the long run, the possibility exists for damage to its critical artificial intelligence (AI) business. Digging into the court ruling’s implications can reveal if the tech titan’s AI aspirations face long-term risk.

Image source: Getty Images.

How the court’s decision affects Alphabet’s AI ambitions

The Sept. 2 legal ruling bars Alphabet from signing exclusive contracts with partners such as Apple. Deals are still allowed, as long as exclusivity isn’t a component, so no immediate revenue impact is involved here.

But another legal stipulation mandates sharing some of Google’s search data with competitors. This is where AI comes in.

Artificial intelligence relies on massive troves of data to perform tasks accurately. The court’s decision arms Alphabet’s rivals with ammunition to improve their AI models.

That competition includes Microsoft, which battles Alphabet on several fronts, including search, digital advertising, cloud computing, and of course, AI. The court’s requirement would deliver Google’s data insights to Microsoft’s Bing search engine, and feed across all the areas where the two corporations compete. But where it can really provide value is in AI.

Microsoft incorporates AI models developed by ChatGPT creator OpenAI into its offerings, since it has a stake in the company. ChatGPT’s introduction of generative AI to the world is one of the key drivers that kicked off the current artificial intelligence frenzy. Adding Google data to the mix could strengthen both Microsoft and OpenAI’s tech.

In fact, the judge who delivered the Sept. 2 ruling, Amit Mehta, noted, “The emergence of GenAI changed the course of this case.”

Is Alphabet’s AI position at risk?

Alphabet has the option to appeal the court’s penalties, but even if it doesn’t, the tech conglomerate’s impressive use of AI to date could be enough to prevent erosion of its businesses.

For instance, new AI features introduced to its Google search engine boosted usage. This enabled Google search revenue to hit $54.2 billion in the second quarter, up 12% from 2024’s $48.5 billion.

Alphabet’s AI advancements helped Google maintain a search market share of 90% in August, compared to next-closest competitor Bing’s 4%. Even if Google’s data helps Bing gain share, the gap between the rivals is so huge, Bing is unlikely to make a meaningful dent in Google’s lead anytime soon.

AI contributed to growth in Alphabet’s cloud computing segment, Google Cloud, as well. The division is bringing AI-powered shopping capabilities to PayPal. Such customer adoption of AI drove Google Cloud’s Q2 sales to $13.6 billion, a whopping 32% year-over-year increase.

Should cloud competitors improve their AI with Google data, the difference would have to be significant to get Alphabet’s customers to switch. Google Cloud integrations aren’t easily unfurled, leading to high switching costs.

Beyond search and cloud computing, Alphabet has injected AI into YouTube, its Waymo robotaxi service, Gmail, and more.

Alphabet isn’t out of the woods yet

Overall, Alphabet dodged a bullet in the Google search antitrust case. The legal penalties could have been as far-ranging as a forced divestiture of its popular Chrome browser and Android mobile operating system.

Considering these worst-case scenarios, Alphabet got off pretty light, and the ruling’s impact to its business over the long term looks minimal. The conglomerate’s widespread use of AI across its operations gives it a solid lead against competitors who may benefit from access to Google data.

But the legal dangers aren’t over yet. Earlier this year, Alphabet lost a separate antitrust case directed against its advertising empire. The penalties in that case are yet to be determined. However, Google was slapped with a $3.5 billion antitrust fine by the European Union on Sept. 5 for violating rules designed to protect a competitive advertising marketplace.

Compared to the Google search case, this separate antitrust lawsuit poses a lower risk. That’s because it involves advertising tech related to the company’s Google network, which produced $7.35 billion in Q2 sales, a drop from the $7.44 billion generated in the previous year. By comparison, Google search accounted for $54.2 billion of Alphabet’s $96.4 billion in Q2 revenue.

So while Alphabet isn’t out of legal trouble yet, the biggest long-term risk to its business is behind it, as long as the conglomerate can continue pushing AI innovation across its operations.

WACO, Texas — Justice Brett Kavanaugh says the genius of the American system of government is that no one should have too much power, even as he and other conservatives on the Supreme Court are facing criticism for deferring repeatedly to President Trump.

Invoking the list of grievances against King George III that the nation’s founders included in the Declaration of Independence, Kavanaugh said Thursday the framers of the Constitution were set on avoiding the concentration of power.

“And the framers recognized in a way that I think is brilliant, that preserving liberty requires separating the power. No one person or group of people should have too much power in our system,” Kavanaugh said at an event honoring his onetime boss, Kenneth Starr, a former federal judge and solicitor general celebrated by conservatives who died in 2022.

Trump’s aggressive effort to remake the federal government did not come up inside a gymnasium on the campus of McLennan Community College in Waco.

Across the street from the event, though, several dozen protesters offered a different view of Kavanaugh and Trump.

“Basically, the Supreme Court has handed the country to Trump,” said J.W. LaStrape, the head of the Baylor University Democrats who was among the protesters.

“BK- Trump Flunky,” one banner said. “Shame on You. No One is Above the Law,” a placard read in a reference to the court’s 2024 decision, which Kavanaugh joined, that helped Trump avoid prosecution for his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss.

The court’s liberal justices also have objected to the conservatives’ repeated votes in favor of Trump’s emergency appeals to the Supreme Court, including the most decision this week to allow the resumption of sweeping immigration operations in Southern California.

Kavanaugh’s appearance in Waco highlighted Kavanaugh’s long history with Starr, most notably his stint as a prosecutor in Starr’s independent counsel investigation of President Bill Clinton.

Starr became a household name in the late 1990s because of his investigation of Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Kavanaugh pushed Starr to ask Clinton in graphic detail about phone sex and specific sexual acts, according to a 1998 memo.

“The President has disgraced his office, the legal system and the American people by having sex with a 22-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles – callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Starr followed Kavanaugh’s advice and his report, filled with the salacious details, was released in full by House Republicans, who ultimately impeached Clinton for lying under oath. The Senate acquitted him.

At a dinner honoring Starr a year later, Kavanaugh said Starr deserved a seat on the Supreme Court, though he acknowledged it was unlikely. Still, he called Starr a hero who did not let attacks dissuade him from doing what he thought was right.

“Be sorry for his critics because they were the ones who sacrificed law and principle for politics and expediency,” Kavanaugh said. “Ken Starr never did that.”

In 2018, Starr was among those who publicly defended Kavanaugh, then a Supreme Court nominee, as he faced sexual misconduct allegations, including from Christine Blasey Ford, who said he groped her at a party when they were teenagers and tried to remove her clothes.

Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations in an emotional statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, harking back to Starr’s investigation when he said “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” was part of the motivation for what he termed a “calculated and orchestrated political hit.”

Starr’s widow, Alice, introduced the justice Thursday, saying she was distraught when Kavanaugh’s character was called into question.

“Not one bit of negative press was true,” she said, adding that she was well familiar with such criticism from her husband’s time as independent counsel.

Ken Starr did varied work after the Whitewater investigation. He represented Jeffrey Epstein when the financier was first accused of having sex with underage girls. Epstein pleaded guilty to minor charges and accepted a light sentence in Florida in 2008, in a deal that avoided a more serious federal prosecution.

Starr served as dean of the Pepperdine University law school in the Los Angeles area and then as president of Baylor University, also in Waco. But he was forced out of the Baylor job in 2016 in the midst of a sexual assault scandal involving players on the school’s football team. A school-commissioned report found that under Starr’s leadership, Baylor did little to respond to the allegations.

Then in 2020, Starr joined Trump’s defense team that won Senate acquittal of the president after his first impeachment.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro has been sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison, shortly after a majority of a Supreme Court panel voted to convict him on charges related to an attempted military coup.

On Thursday, four out of five of the justices had found Bolsonaro guilty of trying to illegally retain power after his 2022 electoral defeat to President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

Justice Carmen Lucia said there was ample evidence that Bolsonaro acted “with the purpose of eroding democracy and institutions”.

A fourth judge, Justice Luiz Fux, broke with his colleagues on Wednesday and voted to acquit the 70-year-old former president of all charges.

Currently under house arrest, Bolsonaro faced up to 40 years in prison after being found guilty on five charges, including leading a “criminal organisation” to conspire to overthrow Lula.

Still, Fux’s vote could invite challenges to the ruling.

Bolsonaro has maintained he will run for president in 2026, despite Brazil’s top electoral court barring him from running in elections until 2030 for spreading unfounded claims about Brazil’s electronic voting system.

The Supreme Court also convicted seven co-conspirators, including former defence minister and Bolsonaro’s 2022 running mate Walter Braga Netto; former Defence Minister Paulo Sergio Nogueira; Bolsonaro’s former aide-de-camp Mauro Cid; his military adviser Augusto Heleno Ribeiro; former Justice Minister Anderson Torres; former naval chief Almir Garnier Santos; and ex-police officer Alexandre Ramagem.

Reporting from Brasilia, Al Jazeera’s Lucia Newman said the sentencing, which was originally scheduled for Friday, was unexpected.

“It’s extremely significant and also a surprise,” she said. “The last of the five justices gave his guilty verdict just a short time ago, and then he and the remaining four had to calculate what the sentence would be.”

“We have to keep very much in mind that this may or may not happen immediately,” she added. “Bolsonaro’s lawyers and that of the other seven co-defendants still have some legal wiggle room here.”

“Apart from that, the supporters of Bolsonaro in Congress have already submitted an amnesty law, hopefully to get Bolsonaro off the hook,” she said.

United States President Donald Trump has called his ally’s trial a “witch-hunt”, hitting Brazil with 50 percent tariffs, imposing sanctions against the presiding judge, Alexandre de Moraes, and revoking visas for most members of Brazil’s high court. Trump said on Thursday that he was very unhappy about Bolsonaro’s conviction.

In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the US would “respond accordingly to this witch-hunt”.

“The political persecutions by sanctioned human rights abuser Alexandre de Moraes continue, as he and others on Brazil’s supreme court have unjustly ruled to imprison former President Jair Bolsonaro,” Rubio said.

Antiestablishment anger

Bolsonaro, a former army captain and paratrooper, became known for his defence of Brazil’s two-decade military dictatorship after being elected to the back benches of Congress in 1990 in the early years of Brazil’s democracy.

He never hid his admiration for the military regime, which killed hundreds of Brazilians from 1964 to 1985.

In one interview, he said Brazil would only change “on the day that we break out in civil war here and do the job that the military regime didn’t do: killing 30,000”. He was referring to leftists and political opponents.

Later, he surfed on mass protests that erupted across Brazil in 2014 during the sprawling “car wash” bribery scandal that implicated hundreds of politicians – including Lula, whose conviction was later annulled.

His antiestablishment anger helped elevate him to the presidency in 2018, and dozens of far-right lawmakers were elected on his coattails, creating roadblocks to Lula’s progressive agenda.

Facing a close re-election campaign against Lula in 2022 – an election Lula went on to win – Bolsonaro’s comments took on an increasingly messianic quality, raising concerns about his willingness to accept the results.

“I have three alternatives for my future: being arrested, killed or victory,” he said in remarks to a meeting of evangelical Christian leaders in 2021. “No man on Earth will threaten me.”

Bolsonaro maintains a solid political base within Brazil, and the verdict is expected to be met with widespread unrest.

About 40,000 of his supporters took to the streets of Brasilia over the weekend to voice their discontent, supporting his claim that he is being politically targeted.

The request comes after a federal court earlier this week blocked Lisa Cook’s firing while her lawsuit challenging her dismissal moves forward.

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has asked an appeals court to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors by Monday, before the central bank’s next vote on interest rates.

The request on Thursday represents an extraordinary effort by the White House to shape the board before the Fed’s interest rate-setting committee meets next week on Tuesday and Wednesday.

At the same time, Senate Republicans are pushing to confirm Stephen Miran, Trump’s nominee to an open spot on the Fed’s board, which could happen as soon as Monday.

In a court filing on Thursday, the Department of Justice asked the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to pause US District Judge Jia Cobb’s Tuesday ruling temporarily blocking Cook’s removal, pending the administration’s appeal.

Trump moved to fire Cook in late August. Cook, who denies any wrongdoing, filed a lawsuit saying Trump’s claim that she engaged in mortgage fraud before she joined the central bank did not give him legal authority to remove her, and was a pretext to fire her for her monetary policy stance.

Cobb’s ruling prevents the Fed from following through on Cook’s firing while her lawsuit moves forward.

In their emergency appeal, Trump’s lawyers argued that even if the conduct occurred before her time as governor, her alleged action “indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy”.

The administration asked an appeals court to issue an emergency decision reversing the lower court by Monday. If their appeal is successful, Cook would be removed from the Fed’s board until her case is ultimately resolved in the courts, and she would miss next week’s meeting.

If the appeals court rules in Cook’s favour, the administration could seek an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court.

The case, which will likely end up before the US Supreme Court, has ramifications for the Fed’s ability to set interest rates without regard to politicians’ wishes, widely seen as critical to any central bank’s ability to keep inflation under control.

The Supreme Court and lower appeals courts, including the DC Circuit, have temporarily lifted several other rulings that briefly blocked Trump from firing officials at agencies that have historically been independent from the White House.

On Wednesday, however, the DC Circuit blocked Trump from firing US Copyright Office director Shira Perlmutter while she appeals a lower court’s refusal to reinstate her to the post.

Trump has demanded that the Fed cut rates immediately and aggressively, repeatedly berating Fed Chair Jerome Powell for his stewardship over monetary policy. Cook has voted with the Fed’s majority on every rate decision since she started in 2022, including on both rate hikes and rate cuts.

Fed’s independence

The law that created the Fed says governors may be removed only “for cause”, but does not define the term nor establish procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed governor, and the law has never been tested in court.

Cobb on Tuesday said the public’s interest in the Fed’s independence from political coercion weighed in favour of keeping Cook at the Fed while the case continues.

She said that the best reading of the law is that a Fed governor may only be removed for misconduct while in office. The mortgage fraud claims against Cook all relate to actions she took prior to her US Senate confirmation in 2022.

Trump and William Pulte, the Federal Housing Finance Agency director appointed by the president, say Cook inaccurately described three separate properties on mortgage applications, which could have allowed her to obtain lower interest rates and tax credits.

The Justice Department has also launched a criminal mortgage fraud probe into Cook and has issued grand jury subpoenas out of both Georgia and Michigan, according to documents seen by Reuters and a source familiar with the matter.

SIMI VALLEY — Jadyn Winsett twisted her new engagement ring around her finger, scanning the sea of navy sport coats, sailor stripes and string pearls at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library for a glimpse of a Supreme Court justice.

Across the room stood Amy Coney Barrett, the high court’s youngest member, who could hardly have picked a more dramatic moment to turn up.

A day earlier, Barrett joined the conservative majority in a decision that cleared federal immigration agents to detain people in Southern California simply because they have brown skin or speak Spanish.

The response across much of Los Angeles was outrage and concern that the 4th Amendment has been trampled.

But at the Reagan Library, the mood was triumphant.

Winsett, 23, and her fiance were among the admirers who gathered to hear Barrett speak about her new memoir, “Listening to the Law.” For the supporters who turned up, Barrett evokes values cherished by President Trump’s faith-driven acolytes: beatific motherhood, Southern charm, Christian piety and steadfast constitutional originalism.

A Texas native, Winsett’s partner had popped the question two days before at Yosemite National Park. She said the proposal was the highlight of the couple’s California holiday. But the chance to meet Barrett at Reagan’s final resting place was a close second.

“I sent [my fiance] so many text messages in the span of a couple minutes just being excited that this event was going on, and we had to come,” Winsett said. “I’m a really big fan of Justice Scalia … so knowing [Barrett’s] book is supposed to bit of an expansion on Justice Scalia’s ‘Reading Law,’ that’s gonna be really cool. “

Jadyn Winsett, left, and Reese Johnson, a newly engaged couple from Texas, planned their trip to attend the justice’s book launch.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

Barrett said almost nothing about her controversial rise to the court or the jurisprudence behind her most contested decisions during Tuesday’s event, instead dishing out details about Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s race with the Nationals’ foam-headed Lincoln and Roosevelt mascots and how she’d brought Starbucks coffee to the Supreme Court cafeteria.

But the previous day’s immigration raid ruling still hovered in the air.

When asked to explain the court’s “shadow docket”, she ad-libbed a hypothetical all but identical to Monday’s real decision.

“Let’s say that some policy of the administration has been enjoined,” Barrett said. “The administration might say, ‘While we are litigating this case, having this injunction in place is irreparably harming us in a way we can’t recover from, so in the interim, please stay this injunction.’”

A packed room listens and watches monitors as Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett takes questions at the launch of her new book.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

Later, when asked about constitutional interpretation, she opined about the slippery text of the 4th Amendment, the same amendment implicated in Monday’s unsigned order.

“[Look at] the protection against unreasonable search and seizures,” she invited the audience.

“When you have a word like that, ‘unreasonable,’ there’ll be a range where everybody will say, outside of this, we all agree this is unreasonable,” Barrett explained. “Then, there’s a range right here where we all say this is reasonable. But then there’s going to be a band where there’s room for disagreement. One of the great things about the Constitution is that it leaves some of that play in the joints.”

People line up to get their book signed at the Reagan Library.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

Earlier in the evening, Barrett and her husband, Jesse, had paid their respects at the Reagan Memorial and briefly admired the chunk of Berlin Wall, flanked by a coterie of federal agents while protests raged outside.

Many in the crowd said they, like the Catholic justice, were devout Christian believers and credited her with casting the decisive vote to end abortion as a constitutional right in the United States.

“I’m a born-again Christian and I believe it was the hand of God that put her on the court … to be able to overturn Roe vs. Wade,” said Glovioell Dixon of Pasadena, who’d arrived hours before the program to beat the crowds.

Others were taken with Barrett’s command of the law — several mentioned the fact she’d barely used notes at her confirmation hearing — and her poise under pressure.

“She’s one of the smartest people I’ve ever observed,” said Elizabeth Pierce of Newbury Park, the lone red baseball cap in a field of cognac loafers and Chanel-inspired skirt suits. “This is the chance of a lifetime.”

A few even credited the justice for realizing their American dream.

Sean Chen, 52, of East Los Angeles said he’d just attended his daughter’s medical school white coat ceremony and praised Barrett’s 2023 ruling to strike down race-based affirmative action in the case Fair Admissions vs. Harvard.

“That’s directly related to the future of my kids,” Chen said. “Without the work from the Supreme Court [overturning affirmative action], maybe I wouldn’t even have that chance.”

A Chinese immigrant, Chen called the opportunity to learn from one of the nation’s nine law-givers part of his journey to becoming “spiritually American.”

Barrett divulged little Tuesday about her memoir, for which she was paid $425,000 in 2021, the first tranche of a reported $2-million advance, according to financial disclosures.

“We’re gonna pray we’re gonna get our books signed!” an event coordinator encouraged those near the back of the line as the sun set over the golden hills.

Die-hard fans were reminded not to try to snap selfies, though keepsake photos would be taken and could be purchased after the event.

Julia Quiroz, 23, left, and her mom, Gaby Quiroz, in line waiting to get their book signed by the Supreme Court justice.

(Al Seib / For The Times)

Julia Quiroz, 23, waited with her mother to have her book signed.

“I see her as exemplary in her vocation as a mother,” Quiroz said of Barrett.

Her mom, Gaby, agreed — mostly.

As a Catholic, Quiroz said she agrees with Barrett’s rulings on abortion, but despaired of realizing the family’s dream of ending the procedure from coast to coast.

“She’s going to do the right thing for the country and the law,” Gaby Quiroz said. “I don’t know that her decisions will always align with ours.”

Other attendees said they were in lockstep with Barrett and her rulings in support of the president’s agenda — whatever its impact on their neighbors.

“I’m very happy,” said Kevin Rivero of Palmdale. “She is ensuring the president has the power to do what the executive branch is empowered to do. As an L.A. citizen, I’m for it.”

Dixon, the Pasadena Christian, said she agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling on immigration raids even though her ex-husband was once an undocumented immigrant, who could have faced deportation had they not gotten married.

“America’s for everyone. We’re a welcoming country, you know?” Dixon said. “Bring us your poor — what was that saying on the Statue of Liberty? That line? I’m all for that. But do it in a way that honors our country.”

Sept. 10 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday said it would review a challenge to President Donald Trump‘s sweeping tariffs, expediting the case to be heard in two months.

The high court justices issued the one-page order that set the schedule for the case, with the arguments session to take place during the first week of November.

Trump asked the justices to intervene last week, seeking an early November review by the conservative-leaning high court to make a speedy decision on his controversial tariffs, after twice being told by the courts they are illegal.

“It is gratifying to see the Supreme Court accept these cases on an unusually fast track,” Andrew Morris, senior litigator with the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which filed amicus briefs against Trump’s tariffs in both cases challenging them, told UPI in an emailed statement.

“The court should act promptly to strike down the tariffs. It should hold that the president cannot invoke emergency powers — and national security — to impose tariffs on the American people.”

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has turned to tariffs as a key tool of his economic policy to right what he sees as unfair trading relationships that the United States has with other nations.

In April, he imposed a 10% tariff on nearly all goods imported from nearly all countries, followed by so-called reciprocal tariffs slapped on specific countries and at specific rates in order to redress those perceived negative trade imbalances.

Trump has argued he has the power to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which permits the president to implement asset freezes, trade embargoes and other similar economic sanctions during a national emergency.

On April 22, the educational toy manufacturer Learning Resources Inc. sued the Trump administration, arguing the president did not have the power to impose sweeping tariffs, only Congress does.

“The Constitution vests the power to impose tariffs in Congress,” the company said in its complaint, while arguing Trump was misusing the IEEPA, which was intended to impose sanctions on foreign terrorist and hostile nations representing an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. society.

“The statute does not mention tariffs or duties, and in the five decades and eight administrations since its enactment, no president besides President Trump has ever invoked IEEPA to impose a tariff or a duty.”

Several other lawsuits followed, and in May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York ruled against the Trump administration, finding the tariffs were illegal and that the IEEPA did not give the president import tax powers.

Late last month, a divided appeals court agreed. However, the tariffs remain in place, at least for now.

While Trump and his administration have boasted that the tariffs will raise billions in revenue, critics say it is the American public, and not the foreign companies, that are footing the bill.

WASHINGTON — Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that U.S. Border Patrol agents violated the Constitution when they stopped a car on a freeway near San Clemente because its occupants appeared to be “of Mexican ancestry.”

The 4th Amendment protects Americans from unreasonable searches, the justices said then, and a motorist’s “Mexican appearance” does not justify stopping them to ask about their immigration status.

But the court sounded a decidedly different note on Monday when it ruled for the Trump administration and cleared the way for stopping and questioning Latinos who may be here illegally. By a 6-3 vote, the justices set aside a Los Angeles judge’s temporary restraining order that barred agents from stopping people based in part on their race or apparent ethnicity.

“Apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “However, it can be a relevant factor when considered along with other salient factors.”

Critics of the ruling said it had opened the door for authorizing racial and ethnic bias.

UCLA law professor Ahilan Arulanantham called it “shocking and appalling. I don’t know of any recent decision like this that authorized racial discrimination.”

Arulanantham noted that Kavanaugh’s writings speak for the justice alone, and that the full court did not explain its ruling on a case that came through its emergency docket.

By contrast, he and others pointed out that the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. prohibited the use of race or ethnicity as a factor in college admissions.

“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Roberts wrote for a 6-3 majority in 2023. That decision struck down the affirmative action policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

“Today, the Supreme Court took a step in a badly wrong direction,” Ilya Somin, a George Mason University law professor, wrote on the Volokh Conspiracy blog. “It makes no sense to conclude that racial and ethnic discrimination is generally unconstitutional, yet also that its use is ‘reasonable’ under the 4th Amendment.”

Reports had already emerged before the decision of ICE agents confronting U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents before they have been able to prove their status, compelling many to begin carrying documentation around at all times.

In New York on Monday, one man outside a federal court was pushed by ICE agents before being able to show them his identification. He was let go.

Asked by The Times to respond to increasing concern among U.S. citizens they could be swept up in expanded ICE raids as a result of the ruling, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that individuals should not be worried.

She added that immigration agents conduct targeted operations with the use of law enforcement intelligence.

“The Supreme Court upheld the Trump administration’s right to stop individuals in Los Angeles to briefly question them regarding their legal status, because the law allows this, and this has been the practice of the federal government for decades,” Leavitt said. “The Immigration and Nationality Act states that immigration officers can briefly stop an individual to question them about their immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the United States. And reasonable suspicion is not just based on race — it’s based on a totality of the circumstances.”

On X, the House Homeland Security Committee Democrats responded to Leavitt’s comments, writing: “ICE has jailed U.S. citizens. The Trump Admin is defending racial profiling. Nobody is safe when ‘looking Hispanic’ is treated as probable cause.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent pointed out that nearly half of the residents of Greater Los Angeles are Latino and can speak Spanish.

“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground and handcuffed because of their looks, their accents, and the fact that they make a living by doing manual labor,” she wrote. “Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

At issue in the case was the meaning of “reasonable suspicion.”

For decades, the court has said police and federal agents may stop and question someone if they see something specific that suggests they may be violating the law.

But the two sides disagreed over whether agents may stop people because they appear to be Latinos and work as day laborers, at car washes or other low-wage jobs.

President Trump’s lawyers as well as Kavanaugh said agents may make stops based on the “totality of the circumstances” and that may include where people work as well as their ethnicity. They also pointed to the data that suggests about 10% of the people in the Los Angeles area are illegally in the United States.

Tom Homan, the White House border advisor, said that the legal standard of reasonable suspicion “has a group of factors you must take into consideration,” adding, “racial profiling is not happening at all.”

It is a “false narrative being pushed,” Homan told MSNBC in an interview, praising the Supreme Court decision. “We don’t arrest somebody or detain somebody without reasonable suspicion.”

The Supreme Court has scheduled to hear the case in November, lightning fast by its typical standards.

The United States Supreme Court has granted an unusually quick hearing on whether President Donald Trump has the power to impose sweeping tariffs under federal law.

The justices said on Tuesday that they will hear arguments in November, which is lightning fast by the typical standards of the nation’s highest court.

The small businesses and states that challenged the tariffs in court also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump illegally used emergency powers to set import taxes on goods from almost every country in the world, nearly driving their businesses to bankruptcy.

The justices also agreed to hear a separate challenge to Trump’s tariffs brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources.

Two lower courts have found that most of the tariffs were illegally imposed, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The levies are part of a trade war instigated by Trump since he returned to the presidency in January, which has alienated trading partners, increased volatility in financial markets and driven global economic uncertainty.

Trump has made tariffs a key foreign policy tool, using them to renegotiate trade deals, extract concessions and exert political pressure on countries. Revenue from tariffs totalled $159bn by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and that the country would be on “the brink of economic catastrophe” if the president were barred from exercising unilateral tariff authority.

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the US Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs.

Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

Impact on trade negotiations

US Solicitor General D John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already impacting those trade negotiations. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it has collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against the tariffs could even hamper the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president, and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It does not include his levies on foreign steel, aluminium and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing on President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Tuesday, putting a policy at the center of his economic agenda squarely before the nation’s highest court.

The tariffs will remain in place in the lead-up to arguments set for November, a lightning-fast timetable by the Supreme Court’s typical standards.

The court agreed to take up an appeal from the Trump administration after lower courts found most of his tariffs illegal.

The small businesses and states that challenged them also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump’s import taxes on goods from nearly every country in the world have nearly driven their businesses to bankruptcy.

Two lower courts have agreed that Trump didn’t have the power to impose tariffs on nearly every country on earth under an emergency powers law, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and striking down the tariffs would put the country on “the brink of economic catastrophe.”

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs. Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

While the tariffs and their erratic rollout have raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth, Trump has also used them to pressure other countries into accepting new trade deals. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already affecting those trade negotiations. If the tariffs are struck down, the U.S. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it’s collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against them could even the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It doesn’t include his levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by Democratic President Biden.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

My dad’s passport is among his most valuable possessions, a document that not only establishes that he’s a U.S. citizen but holds the story of his life.

It states that he was born in Mexico in 1951 and is decorated with stamps from the regular trips he takes to his home state of Zacatecas. Its cover is worn but still strong, like its owner, a 74-year-old retired truck driver. It gives Lorenzo Arellano the ability to move across borders, a privilege he didn’t have when he entered the United States for the first time in the trunk of a Chevy as an 18-year-old.

The photo is classic Papi. Stern like old school Mexicans always look in portraits but with joyful eyes that reveal his happy-go-lucky attitude to life. He used to keep the passport in his underwear drawer to make sure he never misplaced it in the clutter of our home.

At the beginning of Trump’s second term, I told Papi to keep the passport on him at all times. Just because you’re a citizen doesn’t mean you’re safe, I told my dad, who favors places — car washes, hardware stores, street vendors, parks, parties — where immigrants congregate and no one cares who has legal status and who doesn’t.

“Exagera,” my dad replied — Trump exaggerates. As a citizen, my dad reasoned he now had rights. He didn’t have to worry like in the old days, when one shout of “¡La migra!” would send him running for the nearest exit of the carpet factory in Santa Ana where he worked back in the 1970s.

Then came Trump’s summer of deportation.

Masked migra swept across Southern California under the pretense of rounding up criminals. In reality, they grabbed anyone they thought looked suspicious, which in Southern California meant brown-skinned Latinos like my father. The feds even nabbed U.S. citizens or detained them for hours before releasing them with no apology. People who had the right to remain in this country were sent to out-of-state detention camps, where government officials made it as difficult as possible for frantic loved ones to find out where they were, let alone retrieve them.

This campaign of terror is why the ACLU and others filed a lawsuit in July arguing that la migra was practicing racial profiling in violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. A federal judge agreed, issuing a temporary restraining order. The Trump administration appealed, arguing to the Supreme Court that it needed to racially profile to find people to kick out of the country, otherwise “the prospect of contempt” would hang “over every investigative stop.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices lifted the temporary restraining order as the ACLU lawsuit proceeds. L.A.’s long, hot deportation summer will spill over to the fall and probably last as long as Trump wants it to. The decision effectively states that those of us with undocumented family and friends — a huge swath of Southern California and beyond — should watch over our shoulders, even if we’re in this country legally.

And even if you don’t know anyone without papers, watch out if you’re dark-skinned, speak English with an accent or wear guayaberas or huaraches. Might as well walk around in a T-shirt that says, “DEPORT ME, POR FAVOR.”

The ruling didn’t surprise me — the Supreme Court nowadays is a Trump-crafted rubber stamp for his authoritarian project. But what was especially galling was how out of touch Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion was with reality.

Kavanaugh describes what la migra has wrought on Southern California as “brief investigative stops,” which is like describing a totaled car as a “scratched-up vehicle.” A citizen or permanent resident stopped on suspicion of being in this country illegally “will be free to go after the brief encounter,” he wrote.

The justice uses the words “brief” or “briefly” eight times to describe what la migra does. Not once does he mention plaintiff Brian Gavidia, the U.S. citizen who on June 9 was at a Montebello tow yard when masked immigration agents shoved him against the fence and twisted his arm.

Gavidia’s offense? He stated he was an American three times but couldn’t remember the name of the East L.A. hospital where he was born. A friend recorded the encounter and posted it to social media. It quickly went viral and showed the world that citizenship won’t save you from Trump’s migra hammer.

Would Kavanaugh describe this as a “brief encounter” if it happened to him? To a non-Latino? After more cases like this inevitably happen, and more people are gobbled up by Trump’s anti-immigrant Leviathan?

Brian Gavidia stands in a parking lot next to East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park. A video of him having his arm twisted and held by an immigration officer against a wall despite being a U.S. citizen went viral. He’s currently a plaintiff in a federal lawsuit alleging the Trump administration is violating the 4th Amendment with indiscriminate immigration raids.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Anyone who applauds this decision is sanctioning state-sponsored racism out of apartheid-era South Africa. They’re all right with Latinos who “look” a certain way or live in communities with large undocumented populations becoming second-class citizens, whether they just migrated here or can trace their heritage to before the Pilgrims.

I worry for U.S.-born family members who work construction and will undoubtedly face citizenship check-ins. For friends in the restaurant industry who might also become targets. For children in barrios who can now expect ICE and Border Patrol trucks to cruise past their schools searching for adults and even teens to detain — it’s already happened.

Life will irrevocably change for millions of Latinos in Southern California and beyond because of what the Supreme Court just ruled. Shame on Kavanaugh and the five other justices who sided with him for uncorking a deportation demon that will be hard to stop.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor recounts Gavidia’s travails in her dissent, adding that the Real ID he was able to show the agents after they roughed him that established his citizenship “was never returned” and mocking Kavanaugh’s repeated use of “brief.”

“We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job,” she wrote. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

I will also dissent, but now I’m going to be more careful than ever. I’m going to carry my passport at all times, just in case I’m in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even that is no guarantee la migra will leave me alone. It’s not a matter of if but when: I live in a majority Latino city, near a Latino supermarket on a street where the lingua franca is Spanish.

And I’m one of the lucky ones. I will be able to remain, no matter what may happen, because I’m a citizen. Imagine having to live in fear like this for the foreseeable future for those who aren’t?

There’s nothing “brief” about that.

In this podcast, Motley Fool contributors Travis Hoium, Lou Whiteman, and Rachel Warren discuss:

• Google keeps Chrome.
• Kraft Heinz to split.
• An IPO frenzy.

To catch full episodes of all The Motley Fool’s free podcasts, check out our podcast center. When you’re ready to invest, check out this top 10 list of stocks to buy.

A full transcript is below.

This podcast was recorded on Sept. 03, 2025.

Travis Hoium: Alphabet stock is up 9% today. Did the courts save Google’s cash cow? Motley Fool Money starts now. Welcome to Motley Fool Money. I’m Travis Hoium joined by Lou Whiteman and Rachel Warren. Let’s start with the big news today, and that is Alphabet. The stock is soaring today. After the market closed on Tuesday, we learned that Google, will technically still a monopoly isn’t going to have to change a lot about its business, not going to have to spin off Chrome or Android. They can still pay to be the default on devices like the iPhone. That’s going to be a benefit for Apple as well. There were some changes. They have to share data with competitors. We don’t know exactly what those details are going to look like. The idea is to bring more competition into the market, but ironically, OpenAI and the competition from artificial intelligence may have saved Google’s massive search business. What did you take away from this, Rachel?

Rachel Warren: I think this is definitely a case that shareholders in Alphabet like myself have been watching closely for a while now, and I think the key takeaway here is, Alphabet has avoided the worst case scenario that I think a lot of investors had feared, and shareholders like myself should be happy with that. But I think there’s also been a lot of confusion around this case, trying to understand why is this so important to Alphabet’s future as a business? Well, Chrome plays a really instrumental role. Really in the ecosystem that Alphabet has, it’s a key distribution channel for its profitable Google search business, its advertising services. The Chrome browser itself isn’t directly monetized, but it has this key and dominant market position, and so that allows Alphabet to maintain control over user data, over the flow of Internet traffic. It also reinforces the dominance of Google search, because Chrome has been set historically as the default search engine. It’s also a really crucial mechanism for collecting data on user browsing habits. It serves as a really key entry point to the broader Google ecosystem. It encourages users to adopt other products, like Gmail, Google accounts, their AI product, Gemini. I haven’t wavered on my thesis for this business. We’ve seen the stock really beaten down in the last months in anticipation of this ruling. Shares soaring today. I think that this ruling reinforces the strength of the business as it moves forward in the AI revolution, and I think investors should be happy with these results.

Travis Hoium: Lou, this is one of the companies that has been the cheapest in the Mag 7 for quite a while. Earlier this year, trading for less than 20 times earnings. We’re now up to 22, 23 times earnings, but it seems like this is a sigh of relief for a lot of investors in Alphabet, given that Google, and we’re going to use these names interchangeably, but Alphabet is the parent company, Google is the business that we all probably know and use, but it’s a sigh of relief for investors right now.

Lou Whiteman: Google’s to cash cow. For these purposes, we can go ahead and talk. This is Google. It isn’t status quo. I think, the lawyers would argue with me on that, and both sides are going to appeal because that’s what they do. But as far as we need to look at it, it is the status quo, that the important tenants that have made Alphabet the business they are, that they remain. I think, Travis, the lesson for investors here is, yes, it’s underperformed. I think a lot of that has been just vague fears but antitrust. We probably were too clever for our own good beating the stock down, worrying about this stuff. Yes, we’re getting a bounce back rally here. We were probably overly worried about it before, but the Alphabet we know, this cash cow generate money making machine, there’s still threats out there, but the government isn’t going to break it up. We can just keeping on.

Travis Hoium: One of the reasons they’re not breaking it up that I thought was really interesting in the opinion was because of artificial intelligence and companies like OpenAI. They basically said, you know what? A few years ago, I believe the term was a no fly zone for investors, and then said, you know what? There’s hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into these AI companies that have explicitly said they’re going after Google’s business. Lou is, this one of these cases where disruption or the potential for disruption came out of nowhere? This suit was filed long before ChatGPT was launched. OpenAI existed at that time, but ChatGPT was not the name that it is today. Now you do have this vector of competition that has allowed Google to keep these points of strength and maybe give it a little bit of a leg up, trying to compete with these companies that everybody thinks is going to disrupt the core search business.

Lou Whiteman: Definitely. It’s a fascinating case. I guess, to the court’s credit, they did adapt at times. Because the court wasn’t stuck in the past here, which they could have been. But now, look, disruption is real. As an investor, you always have to be watching all things. We were so focused on the court case. I don’t think we’ve ignored AI, but I do think, AI is coming, whether or not that’s a threat to Google or an opportunity both, probably. But it’s funny to think about how the world has changed since this suit was first filed. I think the court appropriately reflected that change in their decision. They’re not anchored in the past, which they could have been.

Travis Hoium: Rachel, one of the companies that we probably aren’t talking enough about today is Apple. Apple is the company that is getting that $20 billion or so check from Alphabet, from Google, every single year to be the default on the search engine. That’s one of the things that was kept in place in this. They can pay for this. The logic here was pretty interesting. It wasn’t that this wasn’t going to help Google maintain its previous monopoly status. It was going to harm the ecosystem. That check that they write gets the most attention. But if you think about companies like Mozilla, I think, it’s 80% of Mozilla’s revenue comes from a similar deal with Google to be paid to be the default search engine. If that money goes away, Mozilla has a really hard time building their browser. But this is a big benefit for Apple, who’s going to continue getting this cash cow, for essentially doing nothing but saying, hey, default is Google.

Rachel Warren: Well, even though Alphabet can’t enter into deals that would prevent other search engines or browsers from being pre-installed on different devices, as you noted, it can continue to pay these fees to distributors. Apple being a key entity there to be that go to or default search engine. There is a real positive impact for Apple, which interestingly, hasn’t seemed to really respond in terms of a share price perspective, the same way that we’ve seen Alphabet shares rocket today, but that essentially secures what is something like an annual payment of $20 billion from Google for being the default search engine on iPhone. There are certainly reverberations from this ruling that go far beyond just the Alphabet ecosystem.

Travis Hoium: Final question for both of you, and just to put some numbers on Apple. Apple stocks actually down as we’re recording. We’re about an hour into trading on Wednesday. That’s a shocker to me, because I think that was really financially the biggest risk if they were deemed not able to pay that fee to Apple to be the default search engine, that could have just been money that Google kept rather than paying to Apple. But the market is not seeing it that way. Alphabet stock is up about 8% as we’re recording. We now know that this is at least for now behind us. Lou said that there are going to be appeals. Rachel, I’ll start with you. Do you own shares, and does this make you more bullish or does it change your thesis with Alphabet at all?

Rachel Warren: Interestingly, I own shares of both Alphabet and Apple. Speaking to Alphabet specifically, I think my thesis on the company remains unchanged. I had not been, perhaps, as alarmed by what we had been seeing in this particular element of the antitrust case in recent months as, perhaps, the market’s broader reflection was. I had an inkling that this would be something that would perhaps end in Alphabet’s favor, based on just the trends we’re seeing in the AI space. I think, as Lou mentioned, the judge’s ruling was very much within the context of the changes we are seeing rapidly amid the AI revolution. For Alphabet shareholders like myself, I think this really bolsters the underlying thesis that this is a business that has a really key role to play in the AI space moving forward.

Lou Whiteman: I don’t know, neither. I’m the Mag 7 through all my mutual funds, so I just don’t bother. But I will say, Alphabet still looks intriguing to me. We were caught up in this anti trust thing. We’re still caught up in the AI threat that could be an opportunity. There’s always dramas. There’s always something to worry about. Alphabet is a really well run good company. I think buy good companies for the long haul, focus on that long haul. I think it works here. I think if I was to buy a Mag 7, Alphabet would be on the top of my list.

Travis Hoium: Alphabet is another one that I own, as well. I just have not understood why this was so overlooked by the market, but maybe that sentiment is going to be changing just for a little bit of perspective. They’re still growing their revenue double digits. Apple, three-year growth rate 1.8% on a compound annual basis. Yet, Google even after today’s move is trading for about 22 times earnings. Apple’s trading for 35 times earnings. Maybe we see an inversion of those in the future, but I think Alphabet is probably much better positioned today knowing that they’re going to keep Chrome and Android in house. When we come back, we’re going to talk about the resplit of Kraft Heinz, and Lou is going to explain what dis-synergies are. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. Kraft Heinz has plan to split again into companies that they are currently calling Global Taste Elevation and American Grocery Company, inspiring names coming out of Kraft Heinz. The other thing that they talked about was the dis-synergies of this deal. Lou, this has been, I think, probably a failure up and down. It’s hard to look at this merger, what was it a decade ago and see really any positives. But first of all, what are these dis-synergies? What are you taking of this resplit of the company?

Lou Whiteman: Those terrible names are probably the icing on the cake. They’re the perfect final chapter of this. Dis-synergy seems like the perfect term because there is no way this drives efficiency, getting smaller, doubling up back off, because everything we talk about when we talk about the advantage of M&A, they are getting rid of. They are using terms like simplicity, but for logistics, for negotiating just share in grocery stores, scale matters. Bottom line here, Travis, like you said, this has been a disaster. This has been a failure of management. The deal made sense. The compelling, if you get it right, made sense, but the execution was wrong. Now it’s back to the drawing board. They’ve already divested some assets. Honest to God, I wonder if that isn’t just a better way to go here, see what they can sell off to others, because scale does make sense, but it has to be scale in the hands of a management team that knows what to do with it.

Travis Hoium: This seemed to be, at least when the deal was initially announced, a management team that should have known what they were doing. 3G ran the deal. Buffett was involved. Rachel, how does this go so wrong for investors, because this seemed like one of those slam dunk businesses. Kraft and Heinz aren’t going anywhere. Turns out they are.

Rachel Warren: Look, I mean, the namesake brands aren’t going anywhere, even if they’re under different entities moving forward. But it’s very fair to say that this merger, which was engineered by Buffett along with 3G Capital back in 2015, it has not performed as expected. There’s been a lot of challenges for the Kraft Heinz business in particular. I mean, that’s very much been reflected in the share price of the company in recent years. There’s been a shifting consumer preference toward healthier options and away from a lot of the process products that Kraft Heinz sells. They have, as a business, had to enact significant asset write downs. All of this has created a picture of difficulty for the business, and it’s also been a difficult dynamic for Berkshire Hathaway. This is a company that is the largest shareholder of Kraft Heinz. They hold a 27.5% stake in the business. Buffett has been doing the interview rounds the last few days. He said he believes this is code a repudiation of the original vision of the 2015 merger. There’s a lot that’s gone wrong with the business the last few years. It’s really unclear, though, whether trying to turn the ship around, so to speak, from that decision made a decade ago is actually going to solve the problems that Kraft Heinz is facing.

Travis Hoium: Lou, I’m going to put you on the spot. We have two companies. I’m going to know which one you like better. Global Taste Elevation, $15.4 billion in 2024 sales, $4 billion in adjusted EBITDA. They will have Heinz, Philadelphia cream cheese, Craft Mac & Cheese or you get North American Grocery, $10.4 billion in sales, 2.3 billion in adjusted EBITDA. You get craft singles and lunchables. Which one are you taking?

Lou Whiteman: Probably want to take the first one, but gosh, you can’t get enough craft singles. The world revolves on craft signals.

Travis Hoium: Which one do you want, Rachel?

Rachel Warren: I got to say, Global Taste Elevation just sounds more exciting as a business.

Travis Hoium: It just rolls off the tongue.

Rachel Warren: It really does. It’s just so easy to say. Say it 10 times fast.

Travis Hoium: When we come back, we are going to talk about the hot IPO market. You’re listening to Motley Fool Money.

Welcome back to Motley Fool Money. The IPO market has suddenly opened up again with some huge IPOs from Circle Figma and Chime already this year, and we learned that Klarna, Figure Technology Solutions and Gemini Space Solutions are pricing their offerings. Stripe and Databricks seem to be waiting in the wings. Is this a healthy IPO market? Are we entering some 2021 style frenzy, given some of these stocks? I think Circle was up almost 10X from its IPO price. What do you think is going on here, Rachel?

Rachel Warren: I think, first, it is worth noting. In July of this year, we saw the most IPOs since November of 2021. We have seen a lot of recent IPOs really focus on areas around AI, crypto. There’s been a lot of strong first day or first week’s gains. There’s been a lot of focus as well in the IPO space this year on Fintech and other service oriented business. I don’t think it’s a one-to-one with what we saw in 2021. We obviously haven’t reached those levels yet in terms of companies entering the public markets, but it’s also a very different environment for the market for investors. A lot of these companies that are going public are tech, blockchain, crypto companies. With the passage of the Genius Act, there’s been a heightened appetite for those types of businesses. I think that that is very much being reflected in the types of companies that are now entertaining public offerings. Klarna, we’ve been waiting for a long time for them to actually formally announce their IPO after they had halted those plans earlier in the year. They’re targeting a valuation of up to $14 billion in their US IPO. Figure is another blockchain lender that said they’re going to go public. They’re looking at a valuation of about four billion. Then notably, you have Gemini. That’s the crypto exchange that was co-founded by the Winklevoss Twins, and they’re looking for a valuation around 2.2 billion. I think a lot of this is hype around AI and crypto, not all of it, certainly, but as always, it’s so important to take each company on its merits. The opportunities are there, but there’s a lot of hype and excitement right now, and sometimes differentiating that from a viable business, I think, can be really tough in this market.

Travis Hoium: Lou, IPOs are good. We need to have exits for some of these companies that have been staying private for longer than we have seen historically. Amazon and NVIDIA came public in the 1990s. When they were really small businesses, we don’t really see that today, even a company like Figure, Circle very well established, if Stripe does come public, that’s been rumored for what seems like a decade at this point. But how are you thinking about the IPO market that we have today, and potentially, considering these investments?

Lou Whiteman: For some context, yes. We’ve had a couple of hundred IPOs already this year. That’s up from 154 in ’23, so we are up. But there are over 1,000 in 2021. We are not anywhere near that level. Travis, I think a lot of a frenzy, and I do think there is some frenzy. But like you say, these are names that they’re quite mature. We know the names. There is just this demand because there’s built in familiarity. We want these companies. But look, the best advice is that, two things can be true at the same time. These can be great companies, and there can be a frenzy that makes the IPO dangerous. I think both of those things are true. If you look at Figma, Figma has lost half of its value since August 1st. I welcome these companies to the public. This is much different than the SPAC boom when it was all pre-revenue. I think this is healthy. But if I’m an investor, I’m not diving in on Day 1. I’m going to let these things play out. I don’t know if all of them will do what Figma did, but I think patience is the best bet now. If these companies are as good as we think they are, you can get in after a couple of months and still do fine over time.

Travis Hoium: One example with that is CoreWeave, and this is something we need to consider as well, there’s typically some lockup period for insiders who are not selling during the IPO. Their lockup period just ended. I believe insiders sold seven million shares of CoreWeave. Lou, that may just be another reason to wait it out. It’s OK to be six months late not get in on Day 1. Even some of the best companies in the world, Facebook [Meta‘s] traded below its IPO price. That was, I think, the first few weeks, but eventually the hype cycle typically wears off, whether it’s 2022 or 2023 that you jump into those 2021 IPOs or whether it’s just a few months later.

Lou Whiteman: Exactly. Look, everybody loves the excitement on Day 1. You love the pop. You love all that, but real wealth is created over the next five, 10 years by investing in good company, so you don’t have to be in Day 1.

Travis Hoium: Even getting in late on a IPO, like Google, a few years late would have been very good for investors, so something to keep in mind with that long-term. As always, people on the program may have interest in the stocks they talk about and the Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don’t buy or sell stocks based solely on what you hear. All personal finance content follows Motley Fool editorial standards, and is not approved by advertisers. Advertisements are sponsored content and provided for informational purposes only. To see our Fool advertising disclosure, please check out our show notes. For Lou Whiteman, Rachel Warren, Dan Boyd, behind the glass, and the entire Motley Fool team, I’m Travis Hoium. Thanks for listening to Motley Fool Money. We’ll see you here tomorrow.

Sept. 8 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court’s rulings blocking federal immigration officials from conducting raids in California seen by critics as unconstitutional racial profiling.

The high court voted 6-3 in favor of lifting temporary restraining orders preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out the raids.

“This is a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law,” Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a statement.

“DHS law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor.”

Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued two restraining orders in July, saying roving patrols “indiscriminately” rounded up people without reasonable suspicion, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. She also said that ICE denied the individuals access to lawyers, a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority on Monday, said it was reasonable to question people gathered in places seeking day work, landscaping, agriculture, construction and other types of jobs that don’t require paperwork and are therefore attractive to undocumented immigrants. He said reasonable suspicion cannot rely alone on ethnicity, but he called it a “relevant factor.”

“Under this court’s precedents, not to mention common sense, those circumstances taken together can constitute at least reasonable suspicion of illegal presence in the United States,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The three dissenters — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — agreed with civil rights activists who said that ICE’s approach of questioning people who appear to be of Hispanic origin or work in certain jobs would target many U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.

“We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low-wage job,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

The high court’s decision was swiftly rebuked by civil rights organizations, unions and Democrats.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who has fought against President Donald Trump‘s raids, described the action as an “attack” that not only targeted her city, but “an attack on every person in every city in this country.”

“Today’s ruling is not only dangerous — it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the U.S.,” she said in a statement on X.

The federal government raids in Los Angeles began June 6, sparking protests that prompted Trump to deploy thousands of National Guardsmen to the city.

On July 2, several people who were arrested in the operation filed a class action lawsuit against the federal government, calling on the courts to end the stop and arrests and to up hold due process and rights for immigration detainees to access to legal counsel.

Janet Murguia, president and CEO of UnidosUS, a nonpartisan nonprofit Hispanic civil rights organization, lambasted the ruling as opening the door for the federal government to indiscriminately stop and arrest minorities.

“It authorizes targeting by authorities that makes all immigrants, Hispanics and other non-White Americans, suspects simply because of the color of their skin or the language they speak. In doing so, the court has put the civil rights of every person in the United States at risk, Murguia said in a statement emailed to UPI.

“The Supreme Court, without proper review of explanation, has signaled that the administration can, with impunity, use profiling-based tactics nationwide.”

California’s top law enforcement official has weighed in on Monday‘s controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling on immigration enforcement.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta condemned the decision, which clears the way for immigration agents to stop and question people they suspect of being in the U.S. illegally based solely on information such as their perceived race or place of employment.

Speaking at a news conference Monday in downtown L.A., Bonta said he agreed with claims the ACLU made in its lawsuit against the Trump administration. He called indiscriminate tactics used to make immigration arrests a violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Bonta said he thinks it is unconstitutional “for ICE agents, federal immigration officers, to use race, the inability to speak English, location or perceived occupation to … stop and detain, search, seize Californians.”

He also decried what he described as the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on its emergency docket, which he said often obscures the justices’ decision-making.

“It’s disappointing,” he said. “And the emergency docket has been used more and more. You often don’t know who has voted and how. There’s no argument. There’s no written opinion.”

Bonta called Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s opinion “very disturbing.”

The Trump-appointed justice argued that because many people who do day labor in fields such as construction or farming, engagement in such work could be useful in helping immigrant agents determine which people to stop.

Bonta said the practice enables “the use of race to potentially discriminate,” saying “it is disturbing and it is troubling.”

LONDON — A new mural by elusive street artist Banksy showing a judge beating an unarmed protester with a gavel has appeared outside a London court.

The mural depicts a protester lying on the ground holding a blood-splattered placard while a judge in a traditional wig and black gown beats him with a gavel. Banksy posted a photo of the work Monday on Instagram, his usual method of claiming a work as authentic. It was captioned “Royal Courts Of Justice. London.”

While the artwork does not refer to a particular cause or incident, activists saw it as a reference to the U.K. government’s ban on the group Palestine Action. On Saturday almost 900 people were arrested at a London protest challenging the ban.

Defend Our Juries, the group that organized the protest, said in a statement that the mural “powerfully depicts the brutality unleashed” by the government ban. “When the law is used as a tool to crush civil liberties, it does not extinguish dissent, it strengthens it,” the statement said.

Security officials outside the courthouse covered the mural Monday with sheets of black plastic and two metal barriers, and it was being guarded by two officers and a CCTV camera.

Banksy began his career spray-painting buildings in Bristol, England, and has become one of the world’s best-known artists. His paintings and installations sell for millions of dollars at auction and have drawn thieves and vandals.

Banksy’s work often comments on political issues, with many of his pieces criticizing government policy on migration and war.

At the Glastonbury Festival last year, an inflatable raft holding dummies of migrants in life jackets was unveiled during a band’s headline set. Banksy appeared to claim the stunt, which was thought to symbolize small boat crossings of migrants in the Channel, in a post on Instagram.

The artist has also taken his message on migration to Europe.

In 2019, “The Migrant Child,” depicting a shipwrecked child holding a pink smoke bomb and wearing a life jacket, was unveiled in Venice. A year prior, a number of works including one near a former center for migrants that depicted a child spray-painting wallpaper over a swastika were discovered in Paris.

Banksy has also created numerous artworks in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the years, including one depicting a girl conducting a body search on an Israeli soldier, another showing a dove wearing a flak jacket, and a masked protester hurling a bouquet of flowers. He also designed the “Walled Off Hotel” guesthouse in Bethlehem, which closed in October 2023.

Last summer, Banksy captured London’s attention with an animal-themed collection, which concluded with a mural of a gorilla appearing to hold up the entrance gate to London Zoo.

For nine days straight Banksy-created creatures — from a mountain goat perched on a building buttress to piranhas circling a police guard post to a rhinoceros mounting a car — showed up in unlikely locations around the city.

Doye writes for the Associated Press.

FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal trial is scheduled to begin Monday for a man charged with trying to assassinate Donald Trump as he played golf in Florida in September 2024.

Jury selection is expected to take three days, with attorneys questioning three sets of 60 prospective jurors. They’re trying to find 12 jurors and four alternates. Opening statements are scheduled to begin Thursday, and prosecutors will begin their case immediately after that. The court has blocked off four weeks for the trial, but attorneys are expecting they’ll need less time.

Here’s what to know about the case:

Defendant to represent himself

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off in July on Ryan Routh’s request to represent himself during his trial, but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel.

The judge told Routh she believes it’s a bad idea for him to represent himself, but he wouldn’t be dissuaded. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood the potential challenges and would be ready.

Cannon confirmed during a recent hearing that Routh would be dressed in professional business attire for the trial. She also explained to Routh that he would be allowed to use a podium while speaking to the jury or questioning witnesses, but he would not have free rein of the courtroom.

“If you make any sudden movements, marshals will take decisive and quick action to respond,” Cannon said.

Self-styled mercenary leader

The 59-year-old Routh was a North Carolina construction worker who in recent years had moved to Hawaii. A self-styled mercenary leader, Routh spoke out to anyone who would listen about his dangerous, sometimes violent plans to insert himself into conflicts around the world, witnesses have told the Associated Press.

In the early days of the war in Ukraine, Routh tried to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova and Taiwan to fight the Russians. In his native Greensboro, N.C., he had a 2002 arrest for eluding a traffic stop and barricading himself from officers with a fully automatic machine gun and a “weapon of mass destruction,” which turned out to be an explosive with a 10-inch-long fuse.

In 2010, police searched a warehouse Routh owned and found more than 100 stolen items, including power tools, building supplies, kayaks and spa tubs. In both felony cases, judges gave Routh either probation or a suspended sentence.

Attempted assassination charge

Authorities said Routh tried to assassinate Trump, then the Republican nominee for president, while Trump played golf at his club in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Routh is facing five felony counts in federal court in Fort Pierce. They include attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possessing a firearm to carry out a violent crime, assaulting a federal officer, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.

Same judge presided over Trump case

Cannon is the same judge who presided over another high-profile case involving Trump — the classified documents case against him.

Last year, Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump during his first term, sided with Trump’s lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the U.S. Justice Department.

Cannon’s ruling halted a criminal case that, at the time it was filed, was widely regarded as the most perilous of all the legal threats the president faced before he returned to office in January. The felony case was being appealed when Trump was elected in November, after which that and other criminal indictments against him were dismissed, following a Justice Department policy not to charge a sitting president.

No signs of shots fired

Trump was uninjured, and there’s no evidence that Routh fired his weapon at the golf course. U.S. Secret Service agents stationed a few holes up from where Trump was playing golf noticed the muzzle of an AK-style rifle sticking through the shrubbery that lines the course, roughly 400 yards away. An agent fired, and the gunman dropped the rifle and fled in an SUV, leaving the firearm behind along with two backpacks, a scope used for aiming and a GoPro camera. He was later stopped by law enforcement in a neighboring county.

That alleged assassination attempt took place nine weeks after Trump survived another attempt on his life, in Pennsylvania, when a gunman’s bullet grazed the candidate’s ear during a rally.

Fischer writes for the Associated Press.

Reporting from Washington — It was an October afternoon when 13-year-old Andy Lopez, wearing shorts and a blue sweatshirt, walked down a sidewalk in Santa Rosa, Calif., loosely carrying at his side a plastic pellet gun that resembled an assault rifle.

Two Sonoma County sheriff’s deputies were driving in the neighborhood on a routine patrol. When Officer Erick Gelhaus, an Iraq war veteran, spotted the 5-foot-3 teenager, he thought the boy might be carrying an AK-47.

Their patrol car swung behind Andy. From 60 feet away, Gelhaus jumped out, crouched behind the door and shouted “Drop the gun!”

As Andy began to turn toward him, Gelhaus fired eight shots, killing the boy.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to shield the deputy from being sued by the parents of the boy on the grounds that no law “squarely governs” this situation and would have alerted the officer that shooting the teenager on the sidewalk amounted to the use of “excessive force.”

Decision time: Supreme Court tackles cases on gay rights, gerrymandering, unions »

Joined by several California law enforcement groups, Sonoma County’s lawyers are urging the justices to “support the common sense proposition that officers need not wait for a gun to actually be leveled or pointed at them before responding with deadly force to protect themselves and the public.”

They stand a good chance of prevailing, even though the high court grants only about 1% of appeal petitions.

In recent years, the justices have regularly intervened in police shooting cases to overturn rulings that cleared the way for a jury to decide whether an officer used excessive force.

In April, the high court, by a 7-2 vote, tossed out a lawsuit against a Tucson police officer who shot a woman four times as she stood in her front yard holding a large kitchen knife. The officer, one of three who came on the scene, decided she was threatening another woman who stood six feet away. The other woman later testified they were housemates, and she did not feel threatened.

The justices reversed the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had allowed the woman’s suit to proceed. “Use of excessive force is an area of law in which the result depends very much on the facts of each case, and thus police officers are entitled to qualified immunity unless existing precedent squarely governs the specific facts at issue,” the court said in Kisela vs. Hughes.

In dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the decision “sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers … that they can shoot first and think later.”

The shooting of Andy Lopez in 2013 sparked protests in Santa Rosa and an FBI investigation. But no charges were brought against Gelhaus, and the officer returned to duty in two months.

Andy’s parents sued under the long-standing federal civil rights law that authorizes suits against officers who violate a person’s constitutional rights. In this instance, the suit alleged a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Chief District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland refused to grant immunity to the officer, and the 9th Circuit Court, by a 2-1 vote, affirmed her decision last year.

Judge Milan D. Smith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the officer did not appear to face an imminent threat.

“Andy was walking normally … in broad daylight in a residential neighborhood” and carrying a weapon that another driver in the area saw as being a toy gun, even though it did not have an orange plastic tip. “Gelhaus deployed deadly force while Andy was standing on the sidewalk holding a gun that was pointed down at the ground,” Smith wrote. And he “shot without having warned [him] that such force would be used, and without observing any aggressive behavior.”

In dissent, Judge Clifford Wallace, a Nixon appointee, called the case “tragic. A boy lost his life, needlessly, as it turns out.” But the suit should be dismissed nonetheless. “The majority greatly understates the potential danger Andy posed as perceived by Deputy Gelhaus. [He] reasonably believed that Andy was carrying an AK-47,” he wrote.

Sonoma County appealed to the Supreme Court in Gelhaus vs. Lopez and said the recent ruling in the Tucson case calls for throwing out the suit against the deputy.

“No existing precedent ‘squarely governs’ the ‘specific facts’ at issue here,” the county said. Its petition described “the specific situation” as “an individual apparently armed with an assault rifle refusing to drop a weapon. … An officer need not wait to be put in harm’s way before responding in defense of himself and the surrounding community … when confronting an assault weapon capable of spraying 30 bullets in seconds.”

The justices considered the appeal in their private conference on May 31 and relisted it for further consideration this past week. They could act on the case as soon as Monday.

If they deny the appeal, the parents’ suit would go to trial in Oakland. The court could agree to hear the case in the fall. Or the justices may reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision to allow the suit by citing their recent ruling in the Tucson case.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage