court

VICTORIA Beckham has lost a row with US luxury handbag brand Vera Bradley over using the initials VB.

The fashion designer’s Victoria Beckham Ltd team hired intellectual property lawyers in a bid to stop the company registering the letters.

They argued that Posh Spice Victoria was now known globally for her initials — the basis of her beauty firm logo.

But they have now backed down and the application, first published in the Trademark Journal in the US last year, has been registered.

Vera Bradley rakes in more than £200million a year, with customers including Taylor Swift and Sarah Jessica Parker.

Victoria Beckham Ltd — represented by top LA attorney Eleanor Lackman from law firm Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp — asked for more time to put together their case before finally dropping it.

FAMILY FIRST

Victoria Beckham addresses ‘publicly challenging year’ amid Brooklyn feud

ALWAYS BE THERE

Spice Girls mark Victoria Beckham’s birthday with sweet throwback photos

The US Patent and Trademark Office said: “The Board notes the request, filed by Potential Opposer, Victoria Beckham Limited, to relinquish its extension of time to file a notice of opposition.

“In view thereof, the relinquishment releases the record of application for further processing.”

Last October, Victoria, 52, lost a similar battle with the Norwegian firm Vendela Beauty, with the company successfully arguing she was not famous enough in their country.

And in 2020, the former Spice Girl settled with Australian-based VB Skinland after they successfully registered the trademarks VB Salon and VB Skinlab.

Nic kick a Vic shtick

ACTRESS Nicola Peltz gets her kicks by poking fun at her mother-in-law’s trademark pose.

Brooklyn Beckham’s wife, 31, plays a ballerina in upcoming film Prima — and posted a picture online showing her leg pointed high in the air.

But one comment said: “This is Victoria Beckham’s signature move — stop trolling your mother-in-law.”

Nicola and Brooklyn, 27, are embroiled in a feud with his parents Victoria and David.

By Olivia Monk

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that U.S. troops may sue military contractors for their injuries, siding with a soldier who was badly injured when a Taliban operative working at the Bagram Airfield detonated a suicide bomb.

Five soldiers were killed and 17 were wounded, including 20-year-old Winston Henceley, who suffered a fractured skull and brain injuries and is permanently disabled.

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that neither federal law nor the Constitution shields military contractors if their mistakes or negligence result in solders being injured in a combat zone.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the court’s opinion for an unusual majority that included Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In the past, Thomas has objected to court precedents that prevented troops from suing the U.S. government for their injuries, including from medical practice.

And he said that rule should not be expanded to shield military contractors.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, along with Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

“Because the Constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority over foreign affairs and the conduct of wars, federal law preempts all state law that substantially interferes with the Government’s exercise of those powers,” Alito wrote.

Hencely had tried to stop and question Ahmad Nayeb, an Afghan employee, as he walked toward soldiers who had gathered for a Veteran’s Day 5K race in 2016.

The Army concluded that Hencely’s intervention “likely prevented a far greater tragedy,” and its investigation concluded that the Fluor Corporation that had a contract to run operations at the base was primarily responsible for the attack.

The report said Fluor was negligent in hiring an Afghan who had been a Taliban operative, and it failed to closely supervise him.

But Henceley sued Fluor for his injuries; a federal judge in South Carolina and the 4th Circuit threw out his suit.

“During wartime, where a private service contractor is integrated into combatant activities over which the military retains command authority, a tort claim arising out of the contractor’s engagement in such activities shall be preempted,” the 4th Circuit said.

The court agreed to hear his appeal and overturn the 4th Circuit, clearing his suit to proceed.

April 22 (UPI) — A U.S. appeals court has ruled that Texas can require schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments, finding the legislation that mandates the Decalogue in classrooms does not require students to believe in the religious teachings.

The Tuesday ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for Texas conservatives and Christians who have fought to further include religion in public spaces. The decision is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said in a statement.

“The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 10 into law June 10, directing every classroom in all Texas public schools to display the Ten Commandments starting Sept. 1, but has been tied up in litigation since.

While proponents argue the Decalogue is foundational to American life, opponents state that mandating it in schools is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented multi-faith Texas families in the case, said it was “extremely disappointed” by the decision and expects the Supreme Court to reverse it.

“The court’s ruling goes against fundamental First Amendment principles and binding U.S. Supreme Court authority,” the ACLU of Texas said in a statement.

“The First Amendment safeguards the separation of church and state, and the freedom of families to choose how, when and if to provide their children with religious instruction. This decision tramples those rights.”

The appeals court on Tuesday ruled 9-7 to overturn a lower court’s preliminary injunction that found S.B. 10 likely unconstitutional.

In its ruling, the appeals court found S.B. 10 “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment.”

“S.B. 10 authorizes no religious instruction and gives teachers no license to contradict children’s religious beliefs (or their parents’). No child is made to recite the Commandments, believe them or affirm their divine origin,” the court said.

WASHINGTON, April 22 (UPI) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday whether immigration officers can place permanent residents charged with a crime on parole if they leave and then re-enter the country.

In immigration, parole is a temporary, discretionary permission granted by the Department of Homeland Security that allows a person to enter or remain in the United States, even though they are not formally admitted.

Parole does not cancel a person’s green card, but essentially gives the Department of Homeland Security time to decide whether the person should be admitted or deported based on how the issue is resolved.

The court is poised to hear oral arguments in Blanche vs. Lau, which would determine when immigration officers can demote a permanent resident’s status to parole, a temporary status that can be revoked and result in deportation.

Lau is Chinese immigrant Muk Lau, a permanent resident with a green card. Blanche is Todd Blanche, the acting U.S. attorney general and named defendant in the case.

Typically, permanent residents are allowed to leave and re-enter the United States as they wish, with a few exceptions. If these immigrants have committed certain kinds of crimes, for example, officers can have them placed on parole when they return to the country after going abroad.

The case stems from an event on June 15, 2012, when 69-year-old Lau, who had gained permanent residency five years earlier, landed in a New York-area airport after traveling to China.

He presented his green card and passport to border control. His entry triggered an FBI match because a month earlier, Lau was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting for selling nearly $300,000 of fake designer shorts.

“I was arrested at a warehouse that contained some merchandise I had stored there,” Lau told the Customs and Border Protection agent, according to court documents. “I went to the warehouse to retrieve the merchandise because I had not paid rent, and when I got there, the cops were there and arrested me.”

The agent declared Lau inadmissible as a returning permanent resident due to the crime exception, and decided to let him in on parole, instead. A year later, Lau pled guilty to the counterfeiting, and in 2014, the Department of Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against him.

At the time, the Customs and Border Patrol agent did not know whether Lau was guilty — just that he had been charged with a crime. The crux of Lau’s case is whether the CBP agent needed “clear and convincing” evidence of a crime when placing him on parole or whether just charges were enough without such evidence.

Immigrant advocates argue the agent erred.

“Mr. Lau was absolutely, unequivocally, at that time, admissible,” said Jonathan Weinberg, who worked on the American Immigration Lawyers Association’s brief to the court. “He just was. He hadn’t been convicted of a crime. There was nothing else that would render him inadmissible.”

After an immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals sided with the government, Lau appealed to the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate court, agreeing with Weinberg’s reasoning, granted Lau’s petition in March 2025.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a nonprofit advocating for lower immigration rates, also submitted a brief to the court. It argued that the border patrol officer did the right thing by paroling Lau into the country, and that the clear and convincing standard was too high.

“If you’re going to say that the officer in an airport is supposed to have all this information, you’re assigning that individual with an impossible task,” FAIR spokesman Ira Mehlman said. “You have thousands of people coming through the airports every day, and these are decisions that have to be made on the spot.”

Mehlman also said that the decision “shouldn’t be a problem” for green-card holders without any criminal history.

“When you come to the United States as a non-citizen, you are here on a conditional basis,” Mehlman said. “Even if you’re a green card holder, you’re subject to removal if you violate the terms of your presence here in the United States.”

There are nearly 13 million legal permanent residents in the United States. Legal immigrants, including green card holders, commit crimes at lower rates than natural-born citizens, according to research by the Migration Policy Institute. However, Weinberg said the ultimate decision would impact all legal permanent residents, including those who have not been convicted of any crime.

“If the government can admit Lau on parole, then the government can basically admit any returning green card holder on parole if it chooses to,” Weinberg said.

Lau’s case joins several immigration-related issues, including birthright citizenship and temporary protected status, which have made their way to the Supreme Court this spring.

“The immigrant advocacy community is, I think, fighting an uphill battle,” Weinberg said. “But that doesn’t mean you don’t give it your best shot.”

WASHINGTON  — A man carrying a gun and a cellphone entered a federal credit union in a small town in central Virginia in May 2019 and demanded cash.

He left with $195,000 in a bag and no clue to his identity. But his smartphone was keeping track of him.

What happened next could yield a landmark ruling from the Supreme Court on the 4th Amendment and its restrictions against “unreasonable searches.”

Typically, police use tips or leads to find suspects, then seek a search warrant from a judge to enter a house or other private area to seize the evidence that can prove a crime.

Civil libertarians say the new “digital dragnets” work in reverse.

“It’s grab the data and search first. Suspicion later. That’s opposite of how our system has worked, and it’s really dangerous,” said Jake Laperruque, an attorney for the Center for Democracy & Technology.

But these new data scans can be effective in finding criminals.

Lacking leads in the Virginia bank robbery, a police detective turned to what one judge in the case called a “groundbreaking investigative tool … enabling the relentless collection of eerily precise location data.”

Cellphones can be tracked through towers, and Google stored this location history data for hundreds of millions of users. The detective sent Google a demand for information known as a “geofence warrant,” referring to a virtual fence around a particular geographic area at a specific time.

The officer sought phones that were within 150 yards of the bank during the hour of the robbery. He used that data to locate Okello Chatrie, then obtained a search warrant of his home where the cash and the holdup notes were found.

Chatrie entered a conditional guilty plea, but the Supreme Court will hear his appeal on April 27.

The justices agreed to decide whether geofence warrants violate the 4th Amendment.

The outcome may go beyond location tracking. At issue more broadly is the legal status of the vast amount of privately stored data that can be easily scanned.

This may include words or phrases found in Google searches or in emails. For example, investigators may want to know who searched for a particular address in the weeks before an arson or a murder took place there or who searched for information on making a particular type of bomb.

Judges are deeply divided on how this fits with the 4th Amendment.

Two years ago, the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled “geofence warrants are general warrants categorically prohibited by the 4th Amendment.”

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberals in a 4th Amendment privacy case in 2018.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

Historians of the 4th Amendment say the constitutional ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures” arose from the anger in the American colonies over British officers using general warrants to search homes and stores even when they had no reason to suspect any particular person of wrongdoing.

The National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers relies on that contention in opposing geofence warrants.

Its lawyers argued the government obtained Chatrie’s “private location information … with an unconstitutional general warrant that compelled Google to conduct a fishing expedition through millions of Google accounts, without any basis for believing that any one of them would contain incriminating evidence.”

Meanwhile, the more liberal 4th Circuit in Virginia divided 7-7 to reject Chatrie’s appeal. Several judges explained the law was not clear, and the police officer had done nothing wrong.

“There was no search here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a concurring opinion that defended the use of this tracking data.

He pointed to Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s declaring that check records held by a bank or dialing records held by a phone company were not private and could be searched by investigators without a warrant.

Chatrie had agreed to having his location records held by Google. If financial records for several months are not private, the judge wrote, “surely this request for a two-hour snapshot of one’s public movements” is not private either.

Google changed its policy in 2023 and no longer stores location history data for all of its users. But cellphone carriers continue to receive warrants that seek tracking data.

Wilkinson, a prominent conservative from the Reagan era, also argued it would be a mistake for the courts to “frustrate law enforcement’s ability to keep pace with tech-savvy criminals” or cause “more cold cases to go unsolved. Think of a murder where the culprit leaves behind his encrypted phone and nothing else. No fingerprints, no witnesses, no murder weapon. But because the killer allowed Google to track his location, a geofence warrant can crack the case,” he wrote.

Judges in Los Angeles upheld the use of a geofence warrant to find and convict two men for a robbery and murder in a bank parking lot in Paramount.

The victim, Adbadalla Thabet, collected cash from gas stations in Downey, Bellflower, Compton and Lynwood early in the morning before driving to the bank.

After he was robbed and shot, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s detective found video surveillance that showed he had been followed by two cars whose license plates could not be seen.

The detective then sought a geofence warrant from a Superior Court judge that asked Google for location data for six designated spots on the morning of the murder.

That led to the identification of Daniel Meza and Walter Meneses, who pleaded guilty to the crimes. A California Court of Appeal rejected their 4th Amendment claim in 2023, even though the judges said they had legal doubts about the “novelty of the particular surveillance technique at issue.”

The Supreme Court has also been split on how to apply the 4th Amendment to new types of surveillance.

By a 5-4 vote, the court in 2018 ruled the FBI should have obtained a search warrant before it required a cellphone company to turn over 127 days of records for Timothy Carpenter, a suspect in a series of store robberies in Michigan.

The data confirmed Carpenter was nearby when four of the stores were robbed.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, joined by four liberal justices, said this lengthy surveillance violated privacy rights protected by the 4th Amendment.

The “seismic shifts in technology” could permit total surveillance of the public, Roberts wrote, and “we decline to grant the state unrestricted access” to these databases.

But he described the Carpenter decision as “narrow” because it turned on the many weeks of surveillance data.

In dissent, four conservatives questioned how tracking someone’s driving violates their privacy. Surveillance cameras and license plate readers are commonly used by investigators and have rarely been challenged.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer relies on that argument in his defense of Chatrie’s conviction. “An individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in movements that anyone could see,” he wrote.

The justices will issue a decision by the end of June.

Above all else, the Lakers were committed to being resilient in Game 1 of the playoffs.

Even if they were missing their starting backcourt, the Lakers were committed to being resilient against the rugged and physical Houston Rockets, who were playing without Kevin Durant after the star suffered a bruised knee in practice.

And as a group the Lakers were resilient, following the lead of LeBron James and a career-best outing from Luke Kennard to pull out a gritty 107-98 win over the Rockets Saturday at Crypto.com Arena.

James was magnificent, collecting a near triple-double with 19 points on nine-for-15 shooting, 13 assists and eight rebounds.

Kennard was outstanding in his new role as facilitator and a main hub of the offense, scoring a playoff career-high 27 points. His three three-pointers in the fourth quarter gave the Lakers the separation they needed to take a 1-0 lead in the best-of-seven series. He was nine-for-13 shooting from the field and five for five from three-point range.

But James tied Hall of Famers Karl Malone and John Stockton by appearing in his 19th postseason, and Kennard had plenty of help from the rest of their starting mates.

Deande Ayton had a double-double with 19 points and 11 rebounds, Marcus Smart had 15 points and eight assists and Rui Hachimura scored 14.

Game 2 is Tuesday night here.

James had eight assists in the first quarter, his career-high for assists in any quarter of a playoff game.

The Lakers followed his lead.

They started the game with a purpose, making their first four shots, missing the next and then making their next four in a row to finish the first quarter shooting 15 of 19 from the field— 78.9%.

Kennard was the best in the group, shooting five for six in the first quarter and scoring 11 points to help the Lakers open a 33-29 lead by the end of the first 12 minutes.

Injured Rockets star Kevin Durant, third from left on bench, watches Lakers star LeBron James inbound the basketball during Game 1.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

But the game slowed down in the second quarter when the Lakers scored just 17 points while the Rockets could muster 19.

Forty minutes before the Lakers tipped off against the Rockets, Luka Doncic was seen walking down the hallway with his bodyguard toward L.A.’s locker room. Doncic was not playing because of a Grade 2 left hamstring strain, joining teammate Austin Reaves (Grade 2 left oblique muscle train) on the bench dressed in street clothes.

The Rockets announced that Durant was out for the first game because of a right knee contusion that occurred during practice Wednesday. Durant, the Rockets’ leading scorer (26.0 points per game), worked about before the game but was unable to play because of “soreness and tenderness.” The Rockets hope he’ll be available for Game 2.

“Bumped a knee in practice one of our days, on Wednesday,” Rockets coach Ime Udoka said. “Hopefully it’s a one-game thing, but [he] tried it out just shortly ago and didn’t feel good enough.”

For the Lakers, there was an element of shock they had to deal with when Doncic and Reaves were injured at Oklahoma City on April 2.

They eventually got past that, winning their last three games to end the regular season.

“Ten days ago, when our guys get hurt, I think it’s easy to look at adversity and the ups and downs of an NBA season as like some form of the basketball gods punishing you,” Lakers coach JJ Redick said. “The reality is it’s opportunities to build resilience. … Smart said it after our last regular-season game: ‘We’re right where we’re supposed to be.’ I think the whole season for the staff, our players, our team, our group, it’s been about building resiliency, and that’s what you need in the playoffs.”

Nearly two years after actor Alec Baldwin was cleared of criminal charges in the “Rust” movie shooting death, a long simmering civil negligence case is inching toward a trial this fall.

On Friday, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a summary judgment motion requested by the film producers Rust Movie Productions LLC, as well as actor-producer Baldwin and his firm El Dorado Pictures to dismiss the case.

During a hearing, Superior Court Judge Maurice Leiter set an Oct. 12 trial date.

The negligence suit was brought more than four years ago by Serge Svetnoy, who served as the chief lighting technician on the problem-plagued western film. Svetnoy was close friends with cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and held her in his arms as she lay dying on the floor of the New Mexico movie set. Baldwin’s firearm had discharged, launching a .45 caliber bullet, which struck and killed her.

The Bonanza Creek Ranch in Santa Fe, N.M. in 2021.

(Jae C. Hong / Associated Press)

Svetnoy was the first crew member of the ill-fated western to bring a lawsuit against the producers, alleging they were negligent in Hutchins’ October 2021 death. He maintains he has suffered trauma in the years since. In addition to negligence, his lawsuit also accuses the producers of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Prosecutors dropped criminal charges against Baldwin, who has long maintained he was not responsible for Hutchins’ death.

“We are pleased with the Court’s decision denying the motions for summary judgment filed by Rust Movie Productions and Mr. Baldwin,” lawyers Gary Dordick and John Upton, who represent Svetnoy, said in a statement following the hearing. “He looks forward to finally having his day in court on this long-pending matter.”

The judge denied the defendants’ request to dismiss the negligence, emotional distress and punitive damages claims. One count directed at Baldwin, alleging assault, was dropped.

Svetnoy has said the bullet whizzed past his head and “narrowly missed him,” according to the gaffer’s suit.

Attorneys representing Baldwin and the producers were not immediately available for comment.

Svetnoy and Hutchins had been friends for more than five years and worked together on nine film productions. Both were immigrants from Ukraine, and they spent holidays together with their families.

On Oct. 21, 2021, he was helping prepare for an afternoon of filming in a wooden church on Bonanza Creek Ranch. Hutchins was conversing with Baldwin to set up a camera angle that Hutchins wanted to depict: a close-up image of the barrel of Baldwin’s revolver.

The day had been chaotic because Hutchins’ union camera crew had walked off the set to protest the lack of nearby housing and previous alleged safety violations with the firearms on the set.

Instead of postponing filming to resolve the labor dispute, producers pushed forward, crew members alleged.

New Mexico prosecutors prevailed in a criminal case against the armorer, Hannah Gutierrez, in March 2024. She served more than a year in a state women’s prison for her involuntary manslaughter conviction before being released last year.

Baldwin faced a similar charge, but the case against him unraveled spectacularly.

On the second day of his July 2024 trial, his criminal defense attorneys — Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro — presented evidence that prosecutors and sheriff’s deputies withheld evidence that may have helped his defense . The judge was furious, setting Baldwin free.

Variety first reported on Friday’s court action.

April 17 (UPI) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Chevron in a case related to damage to wetlands in Louisiana that dates to World War II.

The case was brought more than a decade ago and relates to damage allegedly done when Chevron’s corporate predecessors were refining aviation gas on behalf of the federal government during the war, Scotusblog and The Washington Post reported.

The 8-0 ruling sent the federal lawsuit back to a lower court in a move that could jeopardize a $745 million ruling against the company to restore the wetlands, as well as other similar cases with fossil fuel companies before courts in the United States.

Parishes in Louisiana filed the case with the help of state officials against oil and gas companies refining crude oil along the coast during the war, claiming that proper permits were never obtained for their work and that they had not followed “prudent industry practices.”

The previous decision on the $745 million ruling was made by a state court, which Chevron contended does not have the jurisdiction to rule because it was working under the auspices of the federal government.

After the state court judgement was handed down, the company’s lawyers asked the U.S. Supreme Court to move the case to a federal court, where it may be able to have the ruling thrown out.

WASHINGTON — President Trump railed against a federal judge’s decision on Thursday that continues to block above-ground construction of a $400-million White House ballroom, allowing only below-ground work on a bunker and other “national security facilities” at the site.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon’s latest ruling comes in response to an appeals court’s instruction to clarify an earlier decision on the 90,000-square-foot ballroom planned for the site where the East Wing of the White House once stood.

Trump on social media called Leon, who was nominated to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush, a “Trump Hating” judge who “has gone out of his way to undermine National Security, and to make sure that this Great Gift to America gets delayed, or doesn’t get built.”

The administration filed a notice that it will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review Leon’s latest decision, too.

Carol Quillen, president and chief executive of National Trust for Historic Preservation, whose group sued to challenge the project, said in a statement that the group is pleased with the court’s ruling.

Leon said that below-ground work on security measures is exempt from his order suspending above-ground construction. Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of possible threats, such as drones, ballistic missiles and biohazards.

Leon’s latest ruling comes several days after a three-judge panel from the D.C. appeals court instructed him to reconsider the possible national security implications of stopping construction.

In his previous order, Leon barred above-ground work on the ballroom from proceeding without congressional approval. The judge also ruled on March 31 that any construction work that’s necessary to ensure the safety and security of the White House is exempt from the scope of the injunction. Leon said he reviewed material that the government privately submitted to him before concluding that halting construction wouldn’t jeopardize national security.

Leon had suspended his March 31 order for two weeks. He stayed his latest decision for another week, which gives the administration more time to seek Supreme Court review.

Leon said he is ordering a stop only to the above-ground construction of the planned ballroom, apart from any work needed to cover or secure that part of the project. Otherwise, the Trump administration is free to proceed with the construction of any excavations, bunkers, military installations, and medical facilities below the ballroom.

“Defendants argue that the entire ballroom construction project, from tip to tail, falls within the safety-and-security exception and therefore may proceed unabated,” the judge wrote. “That is neither a reasonable nor a correct reading of my Order!”

On Saturday, the appeals court panel said it didn’t have enough information to decide how much of the project can be suspended without jeopardizing the safety of the president, his family or the White House staff.

Leon said he recognizes the safety implications of the case, but stressed that “national security is not a blank check to proceed with otherwise unlawful activity.” He also said he has “no desire or intention to be dragooned into the role of construction manager.”

On April 2, two days after Leon’s previous ruling, Trump’s ballroom won final approval from the 12-member National Capital Planning Commission, which is charged with approving construction on federal property in the Washington region.

The preservation group sued in December, a week after the White House finished demolishing the East Wing to make way for a ballroom that Trump said would fit 999 people. Trump says the project is funded by private donations, although public money is paying for the bunker construction and security upgrades.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

April 14 (UPI) — The Justice Department on Tuesday asked a federal court to dismiss the convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers members who were found guilty of leading and organizing the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and attack on the U.S. Capitol.

The request includes 12 former members of the groups, all of whom prosecutors said were ringleaders of the attack. After his return to office in 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned most of those who were convicted for their parts in the riot, a move affecting more than 1,000 people. However, the sentences of some, including these 12, were commuted to time served instead, freeing them from prison though the convictions remained.

The group involved in the Justice Department request on Tuesday includes Stewart Rhodes, a leader of the Oath Keepers who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for seditious conspiracy and other charges. Prosecutors said Rhodes and other Oath Keepers “began plotting to oppose by force the lawful transfer of presidential power” after the 2020 election, CBS News reported.

Others whose sentences were commuted are Proud Boys leaders Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs, who were also convicted of seditious conspiracy for their role.

Appeals involving this group have continued, and the Justice Department requested Tuesday that federal appeals panels vacate the earlier convictions and drop the cases in whole.

“The United States has determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice,” wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Daniel Lenerz in the filing, Politico reported.

Greg Rosen, former chief of the Justice Department’s Capitol Siege Section, criticized the move, CBS News reported.

“It’s a reminder of what drove the pardons in the first place-the political violence is acceptable as long as your politics align,” he told CBS News. “And it’s a continuing and sad commentary on the current state of the department.”