decision

The DOJ argued that the federal judge did not have the authority to make the decision.

A United States judge in Texas has approved the Department of Justice’s request to dismiss a criminal case against Boeing despite his objections to the decision.

On Thursday, Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court in Fort Worth dismissed the case, which will allow the plane maker to avoid prosecution over charges related to two deadly 737 MAX crashes: the 2018 Lion Air crash in Indonesia and the 2019 Ethiopian Airlines crash.

O’Connor said he disagreed with the Justice Department’s argument that ending the case served the public interest, noting that he lacked the authority to overrule it.

The government argued Boeing has improved, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is providing enhanced oversight. Boeing and the government argued O’Connor had no choice but to dismiss the case.

He said the deal with the aerospace giant “fails to secure the necessary accountability to ensure the safety of the flying public”.

In September, O’Connor held a three-hour hearing to consider objections to the deal, questioning the government’s decision to drop a requirement that Boeing face oversight from an independent monitor for three years and instead hire a compliance consultant.

O’Connor said the government’s position is “Boeing committed crimes sufficient to justify prosecution, failed to remedy its fraudulent behaviour on its own during the [deferred prosecution agreement], which justified a guilty plea and the imposition of an independent monitor, but now Boeing will remedy that dangerous culture by retaining a consultant of its own choosing”.

The DOJ first criminally charged Boeing for the crashes in January 2021, but also agreed to deferred prosecution in the case.

The plane maker was charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud the US. Courts found that Boeing deceived the FAA about what is called the manoeuvring characteristics augmentation system, which affects flight control systems on the aircraft.

“Boeing’s employees chose the path of profit over candor by concealing material information from the FAA concerning the operation of its 737 Max airplane and engaging in an effort to cover up their deception,” acting Assistant Attorney General David P Burns of the DOJ’s criminal division said in a statement at the time.

O’Connor said in 2023 that “Boeing’s crime may properly be considered the deadliest corporate crime in US history”.

Under the non-prosecution deal, Boeing agreed to pay an additional $444.5m into a crash victims’ fund to be divided evenly per victim of the two fatal 737 MAX crashes, on top of a new $243.6m fine and more than $455m to strengthen the company’s compliance, safety, and quality programmes.

On Wall Street, Boeing’s stock was up by 0.2 percent as of 11am in New York (16:00 GMT).

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court on Thursday gave new life to President Trump’s bid to erase his hush money conviction, ordering a lower court to reconsider its decision to keep the case in state court instead of moving it to federal court.

A three-judge panel in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein erred by failing to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request to move the New York case to federal court, where he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

But, the appeals court judges said, they “express no view” on how Hellerstein should rule.

Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, twice denied Trump’s requests to move the case. The first time was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment; the second followed Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts.

In the later ruling, at issue in Thursday’s decision, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the high burden of proof for changing jurisdiction and that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal life, not official actions that the Supreme Court ruled are immune from prosecution.

Hellerstein’s ruling, which echoed his previous denial, “did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed” the hush money case into one that relates to official acts, the appeals court panel said.

The three judges said Hellerstein should closely review evidence that Trump claims relate to official acts.

If Hellerstein finds the prosecution relied on evidence of official acts, the judges said, he should weigh whether Trump can argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties, whether Trump “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

Ruling came after oral arguments in June

Judges Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Myrna Pérez made their ruling after hearing arguments in June, when they spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

Carney and Lohier were nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama. Pérez was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

“President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be immediately overturned and dismissed.”

Bragg’s office declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose allegations of an affair with Trump threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim, said he did nothing wrong and has asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.

It was the only one of the Republican’s four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump team cites Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity

In trying to move the hush money case to federal court, Trump’s lawyers argued that federal officers, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks that Trump wrote while he was president.

Trump’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wall, argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. He also said they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under that ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall told the three-judge panel in June. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

In addition to reining in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts, the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, called the president “a class of one,” telling the judges that “everything about this cries out for federal court.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment. Exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Hellerstein concluded that Trump hadn’t shown “good cause” to request a move to federal court as such a late stage. But the three-judge panel on Thursday said it “cannot be confident” that the judge “adequately considered issues” relevant to making that decision.

Wall, addressing the delay at oral arguments, said Trump’s team did not immediately seek to move the case to federal court because the defense was trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

Merchan rejected Trump’s request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom stepped to the microphone at the state Democratic headquarters in mid-August with the conviction of a man certain he was on the right side of history, bluntly saying California has a moral obligation to thwart President Trump’s attempt to tilt the balance of Congress.

Over the next 2½ months, Newsom became the public face of Proposition 50, a measure designed to help Democrats win control of the U.S. House of Representatives by temporarily redrawing California’s congressional districts.

Newsom took that leap despite tepid support for a gerrymandering measure in early polls.

With Tuesday’s election, the fate of Proposition 50 arrives at a pivotal moment for Newsom, who last week acknowledged publicly that he’s weighing a 2028 presidential run. The outcome will test not only his political instincts but also his ability to deliver on a measure that has national attention fixed squarely on him.

From the outset, Newsom paired his conviction with caution.

“I’m mindful of the hard work ahead,” Newsom said in August, shortly after lawmakers placed Proposition 50 on the ballot.

It was familiar territory for a governor who has built a career on high-stakes political bets. As San Francisco mayor, his decision to issue same-sex marriage licenses in 2004 made him a progressive icon. It also drew accusations he’d energized conservative turnout that year in the presidential election that ended with George W. Bush winning a second term.

As the state’s newly elected governor, he suspended the death penalty in 2019 despite voters having twice rejected measures to do so, calling it a costly and biased system that “fails to deliver justice” — a move that drew fury from law enforcement groups and victims’ families. His decision to take on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in a 2023 prime-time debate hosted by Sean Hannity on Fox News was intended to showcase his command of policy and political agility, but instead fell flat amid an onslaught of insults.

With Proposition 50, Newsom placed himself at the center of another potentially career-defining gamble before knowing how it would land. Ahead of Tuesday’s special election, polling suggests he may have played his cards right. Six out of 10 likely voters support Proposition 50, according to a survey by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies that was co-sponsored by The Times.

“You know, not everybody would have done it,” veteran Democratic strategist Gale Kaufman said. “He saw the risk and he took it.”

If approved by voters, the ballot measure would redraw California’s congressional maps to favor Democrats beginning with the 2026 midterm elections in hopes of discounting Republican efforts to gerrymander more seats for themselves. California introduced the measure in response to Trump and his political team leaning on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines to help Republicans retain control of the House.

The balance of power in the closely divided House will determine whether Trump can advance his agenda during his final two years in office — or face an emboldened Democratic majority that could move to challenge, or even investigate, his administration.

And while critics of the governor see a power-craving politician chasing headlines and influence, supporters say this is classic Newsom: confident, risk-tolerant and willing to stand alone when he believes he’s right. He faced intense backlash from his political allies when he had conservative personality Charlie Kirk as his inaugural guest on his podcast this year, on which Newsom said he believed it was “deeply unfair” for transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports. After Kirk was killed, Newsom regularly brought up that interview as a point of pride, noting the backlash he received from his own party over hosting a Trump ally.

In recent months Newsom struck a deal to stabilize struggling oil refineries, pushed cities to ban homeless encampments and proposed walking back healthcare coverage for undocumented immigrants — a series of moves that have tested his standing with progressives. Supporters say the moves show his pragmatic streak, while critics argue they reflect a shift to the center ahead of a possible presidential run.

“In so many ways, he is not a cautious politician,” said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School. “His brand is big, bold decisions.”

With Proposition 50, Newsom has cast the redistricting counterpunch as a moral imperative, arguing that Democrat-led states must “fight fire with fire,” even if it means pausing a state independent redistricting process largely considered the gold standard. The measure upends a system Californians overwhelmingly endorsed to keep politics out of the map-drawing process.

Levinson said Newsom’s profile has been rising along with the polling numbers for Proposition 50 as he has booked national television shows like ‘The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” and appeared in an ad in favor of the ballot measure with former President Obama, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other prominent Democrats that ran during the World Series.

“We are talking about Proposition 50 on a nationwide scale,” Levinson said. “And it’s really hard to talk about Proposition 50 without saying the words ‘Gov. Newsom of California spearheading the effort to pass.’”

California Republicans have called the effort misguided, arguing that the retaliatory response creates a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box.

“When you fight fire with fire, the whole world burns,” said California Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), whose district is among those that would be overhauled under Proposition 50. “Newsom is trying to claim that Texas did a bad gerrymandering, but what California is doing is a good gerrymander because somehow it’s canceling it out … I just think gerrymandering is wrong. It’s wrong in Texas and it’s wrong in California.”

Kiley said Newsom never has been one to shy away from national attention “and for pursing explicitly partisan goals.”

“He’s certainly used this as an opportunity to do both of those things,” Kiley said.

Out of the gate, the redistricting plan had lackluster support. Then came the flood of ads by proponents peppered with talking points about Trump rigging the election.

Supporters of Proposition 50 took in more than four times the amount that opponents raised in recent weeks, according to campaign finance reports filed with the state by the three main committees campaigning about the measure. Supporters of Proposition 50 raised so much money that Newsom told them “you can stop donating.”

Political analysts said the redistricting fight has given Newsom what every ambitious politician craves: a narrative. It’s allowed him to cast himself as a defender of democracy while reenergizing donors. That message sharpened when Trump administration officials said they’d monitor polling sites in several California counties at the state GOP’s request, prompting Newsom to accuse the Trump administration of “voter intimidation.”

Republican strategist Rob Stutzman said the campaign gave Newsom something he’d struggled to find: “an authentic confrontation” with Trump that resonates beyond California.

“And I think it’s worked well for him nationally,” Stutzman said. “I think it’s been great for him in some ways, regardless of what happens, but if it does lose, it’ll hurt the brand that he can win and there will be a lot of disgruntled donors.”

While Newsom has framed the measure as good for the country, Stutzman said it’s clear that Proposition 50 has been particularly good for the governor.

“He’s used it for his own purposes very, very effectively,” Stutzman said. “If he becomes the [presidential] nominee, you could look back and say this was an important part of him getting there.”

European benchmarks began the week with gains. Oil and gold prices increased, but the euro weakened against the dollar. Sentiment was influenced by OPEC+’s decision to pause production hikes in the first quarter of next year, which led to a modest rise in oil prices as fears of oversupply eased. Gains were, however, mostly lost by late morning.

The international benchmark, Brent crude futures, traded at $64.76, while US West Texas Intermediate cost $60.92 a barrel.

Alongside pauses in the new year, OPEC+ countries agreed on Sunday to increase output by a small 137,000 barrels per day in December, maintaining the pace set for October and November.

Meanwhile, investors expect fresh Western sanctions on Russia, targeting Rosneft and Lukoil, to hinder the country’s ability to boost production further.

At the same time, major Western oil companies are benefitting from the disrupted supply of Russian refined fuels due to attacks and sanctions. Refining margins have risen substantially, giving the oil majors a boost. Both BP and Shell share prices were slightly up on Monday before noon in Europe.

“The decision by producers’ cartel OPEC+ to pause further output hikes at the start of next year, amid concerns about a glut of supply, helped give oil prices a lift and, in turn, boosted UK market heavyweights BP and Shell,” said AJ Bell investment director Russ Mould.

The movements also came as BP announced it had agreed to divest stakes in US shale assets to Sixth Street investment firm on Monday.

Winners in Europe

At 11:00 CET, the UK’s FTSE 100 was up by a few points. The DAX in Frankfurt was leading the gains, up 0.8% after an initial stutter. The CAC 40 in Paris started climbing, reaching gains of nearly 0.2%. The lift in France came despite national budget uncertainties and the release of negative PMI data, which showed that the country’s manufacturing sector was still contracting in October.

US futures were positive around the same time, rising between 0.1% and 0.5%.

Meanwhile, the earnings season continues. A number of European companies are reporting this week, including AstraZeneca, BP, BMW, and Commerzbank.

Ryanair opened the week by posting stronger-than-expected results for the first half of its financial year, spanning April to September. Revenues rose 13% to €9.82bn, as traffic grew 3% and fares increased by 13%. Over the same period, profit rose by 42% year-on-year to €2.54bn, driven by a strong Easter season.

The airline’s shares were up 2.90% in Dublin at around midday.

Looking ahead, Ryanair’s outspoken CEO Michael O’Leary criticised countries in Europe where airlines face high taxes, including environmental duties. In an interview with CNBC, he threatened to move capacity outside the UK should the new budget include such a levy.

“Ryanair is also one of several airline operators with an eagle eye on taxes and costs. It is no longer putting up with unfavourable tax systems, preferring to switch flights and routes to less punitive locations,” Mould commented.

In other markets, the euro weakened against the US dollar by more than 0.2%, hitting a rate of $1.1517 by 11:00 CET. At the same time, the Japanese yen and the British pound were also losing ground against the greenback, with the dollar trading at ¥154.15 and the pound costing $1.3136.

Gold traded just above $4,000, rising slightly by 0.3%.

On an overcast morning in September, Hector Alessandro Negrete left his beloved Los Angeles — the city he was brought to at 3 months old — and headed down Interstate 5 to Mexico, the only country where he held a passport.

It was a place that, to him, had “always felt like both a wound and a possibility.”

Negrete, 43, sat in the passenger seat as a friend steered the car south and two more friends in another car followed. He had condensed his life to three full suitcases and his dachshund mix, Lorca.

They pulled over at the beach in San Clemente. Angel Martinez, his soon-to-be former roommate, is deeply spiritual, and his favorite prayer spot is the ocean, so he prayed that Negrete would be blessed and protected — and Lorca too — as they began a new stage in their lives.

On the near-empty beach, the friends embraced and wiped away tears. Martinez handed Negrete a small watermelon.

As instructed, Negrete walked to the edge of the water, said his own prayer and, as a gift of thanks to the cosmos, plopped it into a crashing wave.

Negrete, holding a drink, embraces his friend Angel Martinez as they visit a drag club in Tijuana after leaving Los Angeles a day earlier.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Negrete doesn’t call it self-deportation.

“Self-repatriation,” he said. “I refuse to use this administration’s language.”

President Trump had been in office just over a month when Negrete decided he would return to Mexico. Methodical by nature, he approached the decision like any other — by researching, organizing and planning.

Negrete secured three forms of Mexican identification: his voter credential, a renewed passport and a card akin to a Social Security ID.

He registered Lorca as an emotional support animal, paid for a vaccine card and a certificate of good health, and crate-trained her in a TSA-approved carrier.

He announced his decision to leave in June on his Substack newsletter: “If you’re thinking, ‘Alessandro’s giving up,’ look deeper. I am choosing freedom. For the first time, I feel unshackled from the expectations of waiting.”

Negrete walks the streets of Boyle Heights while shopping for moving supplies after deciding he would leave the U.S. on his own terms.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Negrete had grown tired of wishing for immigration reform. He had built his career advocating for immigrants such as himself, including stints as statewide coordinator for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, and as executive director for the California Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance.

He said his work had helped legalize street vending in Los Angeles and he assisted the office of then-California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris in securing the release of a young woman from immigration detention. He was the first openly undocumented and LGBTQ+ person on the Boyle Heights Neighborhood Council.

Under previous administrations, Negrete’s political work had felt like a shield against deportation. Even during Trump’s first term, Negrete had marched at rallies denouncing his immigration policies.

But that was before the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement patrols that tore into Southern California during Trump’s second term. On June 6, as anti-ICE protesters took to the streets, Negrete rushed to downtown Los Angeles when fellow activists told him street medics were needed.

“One of my homies said, ‘Hey fool, what are you doing here?’” he recalled. Seeing Los Angeles police officers advancing on the crowd, he realized that no amount of public support could protect him.

He fled. “Thank God I left.”

Negrete, in red, with his friends and colleagues at a farewell party and yard sale in August.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

In mid-August, Negrete hosted a yard sale and going away party. The flier was tongue-in-cheek: “Everything must go! Including me!”

His red T-shirt stated plainly, “I AM UNDOCUMENTED,” and his aviator sunglasses hid the occasional tears. Tattoos dotted his extremities, including an anchor on his right leg with the words “I refuse to sink.”

“I think it hit me when I started packing my stuff today,” he told a former colleague, Shruti Garg, who had arrived early.

“But the way you’ve invited everyone to join you is so beautiful,” she replied.

One table held American pop-culture knickknacks — sippy cups with Ghostface from the movie “Scream,” collectible Mickey Mouse ears, a Detective Batman purse shaped like a comic book, another purse shaped like the locker from the ‘90s cartoon “Daria.”

• Share via Close extra sharing options

Negrete said the items reminded him of his youth and represented the gothic, quirky aspects of his personality.

“I was born in Mexico, but I don’t know Mexico,” he said. “So I’m leaving the American parts of me that are no longer going to serve me.”

The back yard slowly filled with loved ones from Negrete’s various social circles. There was his mostly queer softball team — the Peacocks — his running group, his chosen family and his blood family.

Negrete’s close friend Joel Menjivar looked solemn.

“I’m scared it’s going to start a movement,” he said. “Undocumented or DACA friends who are talented and integral to the fabric of L.A. might get ideas to leave.”

Another friend, Mario Mariscal, said he took Negrete’s decision the hardest, though at first he didn’t believe Negrete was serious. More than once he asked, “You really want to give up everything you’ve built here for a new start in Mexico?”

Eventually, Negrete had to tell Mariscal that his questions weren’t helpful. During a deeper conversation about his decision, Negrete shared that he was tired of living with the constant fear of getting picked up, herded into an unmarked van and taken away.

“I just kept telling him, ‘That’s not going to happen to you,’” Mariscal said. “But the more this administration keeps doing it, the more it’s in our face, the more we’re seeing every horror story about that, it became clear that, you know what, you do have a point. You do have to do what’s right for you.”

Negrete continues packing for his move to Mexico as roommate Martinez works at their Boyle Heights home.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Negrete is cognizant of the privilege that makes his departure different from that of many other immigrants. He is white-passing, fluent in Spanish and English, and moved with $10,000 in savings.

In June, he was hired as executive director of a U.S.-based nonprofit, Old School Hub, that works to combat ageism around the world. The role allowed him to live wherever he wanted.

He decided to settle in Guadalajara, a growing technology hub, with historic buildings featuring Gothic architecture that he found beautiful. It also helped that Guadalajara has one of the country’s most vibrant LGBTQ+ scenes and is a four-hour drive from Puerto Vallarta, a renowned queer resort destination.

As Negrete began his new job while still in L.A., he picked a moving date — Sept. 4 — and booked a two-week Airbnb near the baseball stadium.

That Guadalajara’s team, the Charros de Jalisco, wore Dodger blue felt like a good omen.

On the day he left the United States, Negrete and Martinez hold a prayer at the beach in San Clemente in which Negrete offers thanks to the universe with an offering of a watermelon.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

On the drive toward the border, messages poured into Negrete’s phone.

“I’m sending you all my love Alessandro,” one read. “Cuídate. [Take care.] Know that even though you’re far away from home, you carry us with you.”

“Todo te va a salir bien,” read another. Everything will go well for you, it said. “Spread your wings and flyyyyy.”

Afraid of being stopped and detained at the airport, as has happened to other immigrants attempting to leave the country, Negrete preferred to drive to Tijuana and then fly to Guadalajara.

Negrete’s driver, his friend Jorge Leonardo, turned into a parking lot at the sign reading “LAST USA EXIT.”

Negrete put on his black felt tejana hat and called Iris Rodriguez, who was in the companion car. He asked her to cross on foot with him.

Negrete walks his last few steps on American soil as he enters Mexico en route to Guadalajara, his new home.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

“I don’t want to go alone,” he said.

“We’re still on American soil,” Leonardo said. “You can still change your mind.”

Negrete ignored him.

“See y’all on the other side,” he said as he hopped out of the car.

He and Rodriguez stopped for photos in front of a sign with an arrow pointing “To Mexico.” Around a corner, the border came into full view — a metal turnstile with layers of concertina wire above it.

The line for Mexicanos was unceremoniously quick. The immigration agent barely glanced at Negrete’s passport before waving him through.

On the other side, a busker sang “Piano Man” by Billy Joel in perfect English.

“Welcome to the motherland,” Rodriguez told him. Negrete let out a deep breath.

Negrete tours downtown Guadalajara, where he now lives.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Negrete’s immediate family members, and almost all of his extended family, live in the U.S.

He was born in Manzanillo, Colima, in 1982. Three months later, the family relocated to Los Angeles, where his parents had two more children.

At 17, Negrete was one of two students in his graduating class at Roosevelt High School to get into UC Berkeley. That’s when he found out he didn’t have papers.

His parents had divorced and his father married a U.S. citizen, obtaining a green card when Negrete was at Roosevelt. They began the legalization process for Negrete in 1999, he said, but two years later he came out to his family as gay.

His father was unsupportive and refused to continue seeking to adjust his immigration status. By the time they mended their relationship, it was too late. Negrete had aged out of the pathway at 21.

In 2008, Negrete said, he was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. Four years later, President Obama established the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program to protect immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. Negrete failed to qualify because of the DUI.

He said he got his record expunged in 2016, but — again — it was too late.

The following year, Trump began unwinding DACA, shutting out new generations of would-be recipients, including Negrete.

Negrete waited until his last night in the U.S. to tell his mother, who now lives in Colorado, that he was leaving. He had grown tired of friends and other family members begging him to change his mind.

He had partially hinged his decision on the fact that his mom was in remission from her third bout with cancer and had just obtained legal residency. With life more stable for her, he could finally seek stability for himself.

“You taught me to dream,” Negrete recalled telling her. “This is me dreaming. I want to see the world.”

She cried and scolded him, promising to visit and repeating what she had said when he came out to her all those years before: “I wish you told me sooner.”

At a hotel in Tijuana, Negrete’s emotions finally caught up with him.

The day after Negrete and his three friends left L.A., three more friends surprised him by arriving in Tijuana for a final Friday night out together. One of them presented a gift he had put together with help from Negrete’s entire social circle — a video with loved ones sharing messages of encouragement.

Negrete shares a tearful moment with his friend Joel Menjivar, who gifted him a self-produced video of friends and colleagues offering good wishes.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

In Negrete’s hotel room, as he and his friends watched, the mood grew sentimental.

“You’re basically the one that formed the family friend tree,” one friend said in her clip. “Friendships do not die out in distance.”

Negrete sobbed. “Yes! Friendships don’t have borders,” he said.

“Every single one of you has said this hasn’t hit y’all, like it’s a mini vacation,” he said. “I want to think of it as an extended vacation.”

“This isn’t goodbye, this is we’ll see each other soon,” he continued.

Off his soapbox, Negrete then chided his friends for making him cry before heading to a drag show.

Negrete had a habit of leaving social gatherings abruptly. His friends joked that they would refer to him as “catch me on the 101” because every time he disappeared during a night out, they would open Apple’s Find My app and see him on the freeway heading home.

“We’re not gonna catch him on the 101 no more,” Martinez said.

The last few flights of stairs lead Iris Rodriguez and Negrete to his Airbnb apartment in Guadalajara.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

On the flight to Guadalajara, Negrete’s heart raced and he began to hyperventilate. The anxiety attack caught him off guard.

Negrete had worked hard to show his friends and family that he was happy, because he didn’t want them to think he had doubts — and he had none. But he began to worry about the unknown and to mourn his former dreams of gaining legal status and running for public office.

“It hit me all at once,” he recounted. “I am three hours away from a whole new life that I don’t know. I left everything and I don’t know what’s next.”

Many deep breaths by Negrete later, the plane descended through the clouds, revealing vibrant green fields and a cantaloupe-hued sunset.

Negrete tests the bed at his temporary home in Guadalajara.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Inside the Airbnb, he was surprised to find a clothesline instead of a dryer. Noticing the blue 5-gallon jug of water in the kitchen, he remarked that he would have to remember tap water wasn’t safe to cook with. But alongside the new was something familiar: The view from his 11–story apartment showed off a sprawling metropolis dotted with trees, some of them palms.

The next day started off like any Sunday, with a trip to Walmart and drag brunch.

Negrete marveled at the cost of a large carton of egg whites ($1) and was shocked to see eggs stored at room temperature, liquid laundry detergent in bags and only single-ply toilet paper. He treated himself to a Darth Vader coffee mug and a teapot featuring characters from “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”

After brunch, it was time to play tourist. Negrete was accompanied by Rodriguez, who stayed with him for the first two weeks, and a new friend, Alejandro Preciado, whom he had met at Coachella in April and happened to be a Guadajalara local.

Negrete tours downtown Guadalajara. He was drawn to the city, in part, by its Gothic architecture.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Their first stop was the city’s Spanish Renaissance cathedral, where Negrete said a quick prayer to the Virgin Mary at his mother’s request. Negrete treated his friends to an electric carriage ride around the historic buildings, where he excitedly pointed out the Gothic architecture, then they bought aguas frescas and walked through an open-air market, chatting in an English-heavy Spanglish.

“I’m trying to look at how people dress,” Negrete said, suddenly self-conscious about his short shorts. “I’m pretty sure I stand out.”

After dinner, Negrete was booking an Uber back to his Airbnb when a message popped up: “We’ve detected unusual activity.”

The app didn’t know he had moved.

Before he arrived in Guadalajara, Negrete had already joined an intramural baseball team and a running club. Practices began days after his arrival.

Negrete enjoys a view of the sprawling hills of Guadalajara.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Within a month, he moved into an apartment, visited Mexico City and reconnected with aunts in Mexico City and Guadalajara he hadn’t seen in decades.

He reflected on the small joys of greeting neighborhood señoras on morning dog walks, discovering the depths of Mexican cuisine and the peace of mind that came with no longer feeling like a target — though he’ll still freeze at the sight of police lights.

Still, Negrete remained glued to U.S. politics. In late September, the federal government detailed plans to begin processing initial DACA applications for the first time in four years. Had Negrete stayed in the U.S., he would have finally qualified for a reprieve.

He isn’t regretful.

Lorca greets Negrete as he arrives home after touring Guadalajara.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

His new dreams are wide-ranging. He wants to buy a house in Rosarito, where friends and family from L.A. could visit him. He wants to travel the world, starting with a trip to Spain. And he wants to help U.S. organizations build resources for other immigrants who are considering repatriating.

The goal isn’t to encourage people to leave, he said, but to show them they have agency.

“I actually did it,” he said. “I did it, and I’m OK.”

Now, he said, Mexico feels like an estranged relative that he’s getting to know again.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

Here’s what to know.

Judge finds age restriction on concealed carry unconstitutional

A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

“Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

Open carry ruling sparks questions

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

“I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

Advocates push for expanding gun laws

In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

“We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

“I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

Payne writes for the Associated Press.

At the center of the sprawling legal battle over President Trump’s domestic military deployments is a single word: rebellion.

To justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and other cities over the outcry of local leaders, the Trump administration has cited an obscure and little-used law empowering presidents to federalize soldiers to “suppress” a rebellion, or the threat of one.

But the statute does not define the word on which it turns. That’s where Bryan A. Garner comes in.

For decades, Garner has defined the words that make up the law. The landmark legal reference book he edits, Black’s Law Dictionary, is as much a fixture of American courts as black robes, rosewood gavels and brass scales of justice.

The dictionary is Garner’s magnum opus, as essential to attorneys as Gray’s Anatomy is to physicians.

Now, Black’s definition of rebellion is at the center of two critical pending decisions in cases from Portland, Ore., and Chicago — one currently being reheard by the 9th Circuit and the other on the emergency docket at the Supreme Court — that could unleash a flood of armed soldiers into American streets.

That a dictionary could influence a court case at all owes in part to Garner’s seminal book on textualism, a conserative legal doctrine that dictates a page-bound interpretation of the law. His co-author was Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice whose strict originalist readings of the Constitution paved the way for the court’s recent reversal of precedents on abortion, voting rights and gun laws.

On a recent weekday, the country’s leading legal lexicographer was ensconced among the 4,500 some-odd dictionaries that fill his Dallas home, revising the entry for the adjective “calculated” ahead of Black’s 13th Edition.

But, despite his best efforts not to dwell on the stakes of his work, the noun “rebellion” was never far from his mind.

Federal authorities stand guard at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., that has been the site of protests against the Trump administration.

(Sean Bascom / Anadolu via Getty Images)

“One of the very first cases citing my book sent a man to his capital punishment,” he explained of an earlier dictionary. “They cited me, the guy was put to death. I was very disturbed by that at first.”

He managed his distress by doubling down on his craft. In its first 100 years, Black’s Law Dictionary was revised and reissued six times. From 1999 to 2024, Garner produced six new editions.

“I work on it virtually every day,” he said.

Most mornings, he rises before dawn, settling behind a desk in one of his three home libraries around 4 a.m. to begin the day’s defining.

That fastidiousness has not stopped the lexical war over his work in recent months, as judges across the country read opposite meanings into “rebellion.”

The Department of Justice and the attorneys general of California, Oregon and Illinois have likewise sparred over the word.

In making their case, virtually all have invoked Black’s definition — one Garner has personally penned for the last 30 years. He began editing the 124-year-old reference book in 1995.

“The word ‘rebellion’ has been stable in its three basic meanings in Black’s since I took over,” he said.

“Ooo! So at some point I added, ‘usually through violence,’” he amended himself.

This change comes from the definition’s first sense: 1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.

States have touted this meaning to argue the word rebellion cannot possibly apply to torched Waymos in Los Angeles or naked bicyclists in Portland.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has leaned on the second and third senses to say the opposite.

The California Department of Justice wrote in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Illinois case that federal authorities argue rebellion means any form of “resistance or opposition to authority or tradition,” including disobeying “a legal command or summons.”

“But it is not remotely plausible to think that Congress intended to adopt that expansive definition,” the state said.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth walks onstage to deliver remarks as part of the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton on Oct. 18.

(Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images)

Although the scope and the stakes of the rebellion fight make it unique, the debate over definitions is nothing new, experts say.

The use of legal dictionaries to solve judicial problems has surged in recent years, with the rise of Scalia-style textualism and the growing sense in certain segments of the public that judges simply make the law up as they go along.

By 2018, the Supreme Court was citing dictionary definitions in half of its opinions, up dramatically from prior years, according to Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School.

Splitting hairs over what makes a rebellion is a new level of absurdity, he said. “This is an unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s obsession with dictionaries.”

“Reducing the meaning of a statute to one (of the many) dictionary definitions is unlikely to give you a useful answer,” he said. “What it gives you is a means of manipulating the definition to achieve the result you want.”

Garner has publicly acknowledged the limits of his work. Ultimately, it’s up to judges to decide cases based on precedents, evidence, and the relevant law. Dictionaries are an adjunct.

Still, he and other textualists see the turn to dictionaries as an important corrective to interpretive excesses of the past.

“The words are law,” Garner said.

Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as a protester stands outside in an inflatable frog costume on Oct. 21 in Portland, Ore.

(Jenny Kane / Associated Press)

Judges who cite dictionaries are “not ceding power to lexicographers,” he argued, but simply giving appropriate heft to the text enacted by Congress.

Others call the dictionary a fig leaf for the interpretive excesses of jurists bent on reading the law to suit a political agenda.

“Judges don’t want to take personal responsibility for saying ‘Yes, there’s a rebellion’ or ‘no, there isn’t,’ so they say ‘the dictionary made me do it.’” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “No, it didn’t.”

Though he agreed with Black’s definition of rebellion, Segall rejected the idea it could shape jurisprudence: “That’s not how our legal system works,” he said.

The great challenge in the troops cases, legal scholars agree, is that they turn on a vague, century-old text with no relevant case law to help define it.

Unlike past presidents, who invoked the Insurrection Act to combat violent crises, Trump deployed an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to wrest command of National Guard troops from state governors and surge military forces into American cities.

Before Trump deployed troops to L.A. in June, the law had been used only once in its 103-year history.

With little interpretation to oppose it, the Justice Department has wielded its novel reading of the statute to justify the use of federalized troops to support immigration arrests and put down demonstrations.

Administration attorneys say the president’s decision to send soldiers to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago is “unreviewable” by courts, and that troops can remain in federal service in perpetuity once called up, regardless of how conditions change.

Border Patrol official Greg Bovino marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Judges have so far rejected these claims. But they have split on the thornier issues of whether community efforts to disrupt immigration enforcement leave Trump “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” — another trigger for the statute — and if sporadic violence at protests adds up to rebellion.

As of this week, appellate courts also remain sharply divided on the evidence.

On Oct 23, Oregon claimed the Department of Justice inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland in response to protests to more than triple its actual size — a mistake the department called an “unintended ambiguity.”

The inflated number was repeatedly cited in oral arguments before the 9th Circuit and more than a dozen times in the court’s Oct. 20 decision allowing the federalization of Oregon’s troops — an order the court reversed Tuesday while it is reviewed.

The 7th Circuit noted similar falsehoods, leading that court to block the Chicago deployment.

“The [U.S. District] court found that all three of the federal government’s declarations from those with firsthand knowledge were unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were undermined by independent, objective evidence,” the panel wrote in its Oct 11 decision.

A Supreme Court decision expected in that case will probably define Trump’s power to deploy troops throughout the Midwest — and potentially across the country.

For Garner, that decision means more work.

In addition to his dictionaries, he is also the author of numerous other works, including a memoir about his friendship with Scalia. In his spare time, he travels the country teaching legal writing.

The editor credits his prodigious output to strict discipline. As an undergrad at the University of Texas, he swore off weekly Longhorns games and eschewed his beloved Dallas Cowboys to concentrate on writing, a practice he has maintained with Calvinist devotion ever since.

“I haven’t seen a game for the last 46 years,” the lexicographer said, though he makes a biannual exception for the second halves of the Super Bowl and college football’s national championship game.

As for the political football with Black’s “rebellion,” he’s waiting to see how the Illinois Guard case plays out.

“I will be looking very closely at what the Supreme Court says,” Garner said. “If it writes anything about the meaning of the word rebellion, that might well affect the next edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.”

Oct. 27 (UPI) — The Federal Reserve will meet Wednesday, as the U.S. government shutdown enters its fifth week, to decide whether to cut interest rates for a second time since September.

Last week, the Labor Department released its Consumer Price Index, showing inflation rose at a rate of 3% last month. While inflation remains above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target, many economists expect a rate cut this week.

“Concerns about tariffs driving prices higher are still not showing up in most categories,” Scott Helfstein, Global X’s head of investment strategy, told CBS News on Friday. “Nothing in the inflation print should stop the Fed from cutting rates next week. Yes, prices are higher, but not enough to keep them from helping the economy.”

While some economic data has not been released amid the government shutdown, forcing the Federal Reserve to make its decision without some key information, a quarter-point cut to benchmark federal funds this week would lower the target to somewhere between 3.75% and 4%.

“This time around, there are warning signs all around the economy, from rising unemployment to seven straight months of contraction in manufacturing due to tariffs,” Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told Fox Business. “That is what is pushing Fed officials towards cutting rates. But that stimulus comes with a tradeoff: it risks higher inflation. They’re taking a chance, and it might not pay off.”

Last month, Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell announced a 0.25% rate cut, the first of President Donald Trump‘s second term and the first since the United States imposed wide-ranging tariffs. The Federal Reserve works to control inflation, while maximizing job growth.

U.S. markets, which closed higher Monday, are also expecting another rate cut this week, along with a third in December.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 are currently sitting at record highs. On Friday, the Dow closed for the first time above 47,000, buoyed by the expectation of another rate cut this week, as well as big tech earnings reports and a possible China trade deal.

EU leaders had hoped to agree on a plan to fund a loan of 140 billion euros to bolster Ukraine.

Leaders across the European Union have agreed to help Ukraine fund its fight against Russia’s invasion, but stopped short of approving a plan that would draw from frozen Russian assets to do so, after Belgium raised objections.

EU leaders met in Brussels on Thursday to discuss Ukraine’s “pressing financial needs” for the next two years. Many leaders had hoped the talks would clear the way for a so-called “reparation loan”, which would use frozen Russian assets held by the Belgian financial institution Euroclear to fund a loan of 140 billion euros ($163.3bn) for Ukraine.

The EU froze about 200 billion euros ($232.4bn) of Russian central bank assets after the country launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In order to use the assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, the European Commission, the EU’s executive, has floated a complex financial manoeuvre that involves the EU borrowing matured funds from Euroclear.

That money would then, in turn, be loaned to Ukraine, on the understanding that Kyiv would only repay the loan if Russia pays reparations.

The scheme would be “fully guaranteed” by the EU’s 27 member states – who would have to ensure repayment themselves to Euroclear if they eventually decided Russia could reclaim the assets without paying reparations. Belgium, the home of Euroclear, objected to this plan on Thursday, with Prime Minister Bart De Wever calling its legality into question.

Russia has described the idea as an illegal seizure of property and warned of retaliation.

Following Thursday’s political wrangling, a text approved by all the leaders – except Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban – was watered down from previous drafts to call for “options for financial support based on an assessment of Ukraine’s financing needs.” Those options will be presented to European leaders at their next summit in December.

“Russia’s assets should remain immobilised until Russia ceases its war of aggression against Ukraine and compensates it for the damage caused by its war,” the declaration added.

Earlier, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a guest at the summit, had urged a quick passage of the plan for the loan.

“Anyone who delays the decision on the full use of frozen Russian assets is not only limiting our defence, but also slowing down the EU’s own progress,” he told the EU leaders, saying Kyiv would use a significant part of the funds to buy European weapons.

Earlier, the EU adopted a new round of sweeping sanctions against Russian energy exports on Thursday, as well, banning liquefied natural gas imports.

The move followed United States President Donald Trump’s announcement on Wednesday that Russia’s two biggest oil companies would face US sanctions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday struck a defiant tone over the sanctions, saying they were an “unfriendly act”, and that Russia would not bend under pressure.

Oct. 22 (UPI) — A federal judge on Wednesday extended her order blocking the deployment of National Guard troops to Chicago before the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in.

District Judge April Perry, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, decided to keep the ban until there’s a full trial on the issue or the high court rules.

On Oct. 9, Perry issued the original order that was to expire Thursday.

Five days earlier, Trump ordered the deployment to Chicago.

Her earlier decision came as 200 members of the Texas National Guard arrived at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the south Chicago suburb of Broadway. People opposed to the ICE presence have protested there.

The deployment also included 300 members of the Illinois National Guard and 16 troops from California.

Perry had found there was “no credible evidence that there is a danger of rebellion in the state of Illinois.” She said the Department of Homeland Security’s information of protests are “unreliable.”

On Thursday, the three-judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals backed Perry’s ruling, writing that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

The Trump administration accused the appeals judges of “judicially micromanaging the exercise of the President’s Commander-in-Chief powers.”

The federal government filed an emergency appeal to the high court.

Originally, Department of Justice lawyers proposed extending that order another 30 days in a Tuesday filing.

But because a temporary restraining order can only be extended once, the judge warned Wednesday that “whatever extension we make has to be the right one” to prevent a gap in judicial orders “that would allow troops be deployed on the streets.”

In a filing Friday to the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer said the judicial branch has no right to “second guess” a president’s judgment on national security or military actions. He said the guard is needed to protect federal immigration agents and property from protesters.

Even if the high court stays Perry’s temporary restraining order, the state would seek a “quick trial” or other expedited injunction hearing, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul’s office said.

In Portland, Ore., an expedited trial is planned for next week after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday overturned another temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, blocking National Guard deployment there.

On Wednesday night, the Trump administration asked the full circuit not to examine the three-judge ruling.

The district judge in Oregon is planning a hearing on Friday to consider whether to dissolve or suspend the temporary restraining order.

The Trump administration is planning to send dozens of federal agents to San Francisco on Thursday, a source told CNN.

Three of the country’s most powerful judges met in Pasadena on Wednesday for a rare conclave that could rewrite the legal framework for President Trump’s expansive deployment of troops to cities across the United States.

The move to flood Los Angeles with thousands of federalized soldiers over the objection of state and local leaders shocked the country back in June. Five months later, such military interventions have become almost routine.

But whether the deployments can expand — and how long they can continue — relies on a novel reading of an obscure subsection of the U.S. code that determines the president’s ability to dispatch the National Guard and federal service members. That code has been under heated debate in courts across the country.

Virtually all of those cases have turned on the 9th Circuit’s decision in June. The judges found that the law in question requires “a great level of deference” to the president to decide when protest flashes into rebellion, and whether boots on the ground are warranted in response.

On Wednesday, the same three judge panel — Jennifer Sung of Portland, Eric D. Miller of Seattle and Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu — took the rare move of reviewing it, signaling a willingness to dramatically rewrite the terms of engagement that have underpinned Trump’s deployments.

“I guess the question is, why is a couple of hundred people engaging in disorderly conduct and throwing things at a building over the course of two days of comparable severity to a rebellion?” said Miller, who was appointed to the bench in Trump’s first term. “Violence is used to thwart the enforcement of federal law all the time. This happens every day.”

The question he posed has riven the judicial system, splitting district judges from appellate panels and the Pacific Coast from the Midwest. Some of Trump’s judicial appointees have broken sharply with their colleagues on the matter, including on the 9th Circuit. Miller and Bennett appear at odds with Ryan D. Nelson and Bridget S. Bade, who expanded on the court’s June ruling in a decision Monday that allowed federalized troops to deploy in Oregon.

Most agreethat the statute itself is esoteric, vague and untested. Unlike the Insurrection Act, which generations of presidents have used to quell spasms of violent domestic unrest, the law Trump invoked has almost no historical footprint, and little precedent to define it.

“It’s only been used once in the history of our country since it was enacted 122 years ago,” California Solicitor General Samuel Harbourt told the court Wednesday.

Attorneys from both sides have turned to legal dictionaries to define the word “rebellion” in their favor, because the statute itself offers no clues.

“Defendants have not put forward a credible understanding of the term ‘rebellion’ in this litigation,” Harbourt told the panel Wednesday. “We’re continuing to see defendants rely on this interpretation across the country and we’re concerned that the breadth of the definition the government has relied on … includes any form of resistance.”

The wiggle room has left courts to lock horns over the most basic facts before them — including whether what the president claims must be provably true.

In the Oregon case, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, called the president’s assertions about a rebellion there “untethered to the facts.”

But a separate 9th Circuit panel overruled her, finding the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to use soldiers domestically.

“The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts,” the court wrote in its Monday decision.

Nelson went further, calling the president’s decision “absolute.”

Upon further review, Sung signaled a shift to the opposite interpretation.

“The court says when the statute gives a discretionary power, that is based on certain facts,” she said. “I don’t see the court saying that the underlying decision of whether the factual basis exists is inherently discretionary.”

That sounded much more like the Midwest’s 7th Circuit decision in the Chicago case, which found that nothing in the statute “makes the President the sole judge of whether these preconditions exist.”

“Political opposition is not rebellion,” the 7th Circuit judges wrote. “A protest does not become a rebellion merely because the protestors advocate for myriad legal or policy changes, are well organized, call for significant changes to the structure of the U.S. government, use civil disobedience as a form of protest, or exercise their Second Amendment right to carry firearms as the law currently allows.”

The Trump administration’s appeal of that decision is currently before the Supreme Court on the emergency docket.

But experts said even a high court ruling in that case may not dictate what can happen in California — or in New York, for that matter. Even if the justices ruled against the administration, Trump could choose to invoke the Insurrection Act or another law to justify his next moves, an option that he and other officials have repeatedly floated in recent weeks.

The administration has signaled its desire to expand on the power it already enjoys, telling the court Wednesday there was no limit to where troops could be deployed or how long they could remain in the president’s service once he had taken control of them.

“Would it be your view that no matter how much conditions on the ground changed, there would be no ability of the district court or review — in a month, six months, a year, five years — to review whether the conditions still support [deployment]?” Bennett asked.

“Yes,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

Bennett pressed the point, asking whether under the current law the militia George Washington federalized to put down the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 could “stay called up forever” — a position the government again affirmed.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” McArthur said. “The president’s determination of whether the exigency has arisen, that decision is vested in his sole and exclusive discretion.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Tuesday that the federal government owes him “a lot of money” for prior Justice Department investigations into his actions and insisted he would have the ultimate say on any payout because any decision will “have to go across my desk.”

Trump’s comments to reporters at the White House came in response to questions about a New York Times story that said he had filed administrative claims before being reelected seeking roughly $230 million in damages related to the FBI’s 2022 search of his Mar-a-Lago property for classified documents and for a separate investigation into potential ties between Russia and his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump said Tuesday he did not know the dollar figures involved and suggested he had not spoken to officials about it. But, he added, “All I know is that, they would owe me a lot of money.”

Though the Justice Department has a protocol for reviewing such claims, Trump asserted, “It’s interesting, ‘cause I’m the one that makes the decision, right?”

“That decision would have to go across my desk,” he added.

He said he could donate any taxpayer money or use it to help pay for a ballroom he’s building at the White House.

The status of the claims and any negotiations over them within the Justice Department was not immediately clear. One of Trump’s lead defense lawyers in the Mar-a-Lago investigation, Todd Blanche, is now the deputy attorney general at the Justice Department. The current associate attorney general, Stanley Woodward, represented Trump’s valet and co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the same case.

“In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials,” a Justice Department spokesperson said. A White House spokesperson referred comment to the Justice Department.

Trump signaled his interest in compensation during a White House appearance last week with Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel and Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who was part of Trump’s legal team during one of the impeachment cases against him.

“I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said: ‘I’m suing myself. I don’t know. How do you settle the lawsuit?’” he said. ”I’ll say, ‘Give me X dollars,’ and I don’t know what to do with the lawsuit. It’s a great lawsuit and now I won, it looks bad. I’m suing myself, so I don’t know.”

The Times said the two claims were filed with the Justice Department as part of a process that seeks to resolve federal complaints through settlements and avert litigation.

One of the administrative claims, filed in August 2024 and reviewed by the Associated Press, seeks compensatory and punitive damages over the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate and the resulting case alleging he hoarded classified documents and thwarted government efforts to retrieve them.

His lawyer who filed the claim alleged the case was a “malicious prosecution” carried out by the Biden administration to hurt Trump’s bid to reclaim the White House, forcing Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars in his defense.

That investigation produced criminal charges that Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith abandoned last November because of department policy against the indictment of a sitting president.

The Times said the other complaint seeks damages related to the long-concluded Trump-Russia investigation, which continues to infuriate the president.

Nancy Pelosi’s plan to seek reelection extends one of San Francisco’s longest-running, most-fevered political guessing games: Who will succeed the Democrat when she finally does step aside?

The announcement Tuesday by the 81-year-old congresswoman was utterly predictable. Her decision augurs an election that will be thoroughly pro forma.

Pelosi will attract, as she always does, at least one candidate running to her left, who will insist — in true San Francisco fashion — that she is not a real Democrat. There will also be a Republican opponent or two, who may raise many millions of dollars from Pelosi haters around the country acting more out of spite than good sense.

And then, in just about nine months, she will be handily reelected to Congress for an 18th time.

Nob Hill may crumble. Alcatraz may tumble. But Pelosi, who hasn’t bothered running anything remotely resembling a campaign in decades, will not be turned out by her constituents so long as she draws a breath and stands for election.

There was speculation she might step aside and not run again. But Pelosi knows better than anyone the power and influence — not to mention prodigious fundraising capacity — that would diminish the moment she indicated the rest of the year would be spent marking time to her departure.

In an October 2018 interview, while campaigning in Florida ahead of the midterm election that returned her to the speakership, Pelosi allowed as how she didn’t envision staying in office forever. (It was a signal to those impatient Democrats in the House that their aspirations wouldn’t die aborning and helped her secure the votes she needed to retake the gavel.)

“I see myself as a transitional figure,” Pelosi said at a downtown Miami bistro. “I have things to do. Books to write; places to go; grandchildren, first and foremost, to love.”

But, she quickly added, she wasn’t imposing a limit on her tenure. “Do you think I would make myself a lame duck right here over this double espresso?” Pelosi said with a raised eyebrow and a laugh.

She won’t, of course, live forever, and so for many years there has been speculation — and some quiet jockeying — over who will eventually take Pelosi’s place.

To say her seat in Congress is coveted is like suggesting there’s a wee bit of interest in the city in a certain sporting event this weekend. (For those non-football fans, the San Francisco 49ers will be playing the Rams in the NFC championship game for a ticket to the Super Bowl.)

In nearly 60 years, just three people have served in the seat Pelosi now holds. Two of them — Phil Burton and Pelosi — account for all but a handful of those years. Burton’s widow, Sala, served about four years before, as she lay dying, she anointed Pelosi as her chosen replacement.

So succeeding Pelosi could be the closest thing to a lifetime appointment any San Francisco politician will ever enjoy. And given all the pent-up ambition, there is no shortage of prospective candidates.

One of the strongest contenders is state Sen. Scott Wiener, 51, who has built an impressive record in Sacramento in a district that roughly approximates the current congressional boundaries.

Another prospect is Christine Pelosi, 55, the most politically visible of the speaker’s five children and a longtime activist in Democratic campaigns and causes. If she ran, to what length — if any — would the speaker go in hopes of handing off the seat to her daughter?

Republicans seem exceedingly likely to win control of the House in November. It seems exceedingly unlikely that Pelosi would happily settle into the role of minority leader, much less fall back as a workaday member of a shrunken, enfeebled Democratic caucus.

Would she time her departure to benefit her daughter by, say, requiring a snap election that would take advantage of Pelosi’s brand name? Or would she avoid choosing sides and allow the election to play out in San Francisco’s typically brutal, free-for-all fashion?

The intrigue continues.

LeBron James no longer has to worry about having to appear in small claims court over the hundreds of dollars a Lakers fan spent on tickets while under the impression that the superstar player was retiring at the end of the season.

Norwalk resident Andrew Garcia filed Monday with Los Angeles County Superior Court to dismiss without prejudice a claim he had filed earlier this month seeking to recoup his money after a big announcement teased by James on social media ended up having nothing to do with his NBA career, now going into its 23rd season, coming to an end.

Garcia said Monday he decided to drop the case after he accepted an offer from the PrizePicks fantasy sports app. The company has deposited promo funds in the amount of $865.66 — the full amount Garcia spent on two tickets to the Lakers’ game against the Cleveland Cavaliers on March 31, 2026 — into Garcia’s PrizePicks account, according to documentation viewed by The Times.

Garcia said will be able to cash out any winnings he receives off those transactions. In addition, he said, PrizePicks will be giving him tickets to a Lakers game of his choice and some other merchandise.

“I didn’t have to dismiss the case” in order to receive the deal from PrizePicks, Garcia said, “but I chose to, because I was like, you know, you guys are fully compensating me for my loss, and then some. There’s no reason for me to further pursue this, because then it would look like I’m double-dipping, you know?”

PrizePicks vice president of communications Elisa Richardson confirmed the deal in an email to The Times.

“We reached out to Andrew after seeing the news and finding out he was a PrizePicks player,” Richardson wrote. “We’re always looking for ways to surprise and delight our players.”

On Oct. 6, James posted on social media that he would announce “the decision of all decisions” the next day. The NBA’s all-time leading scorer also included a video clip teasing “The Second Decision,” a reference to 2010’s “The Decision,” in which James famously announced his intention to play for the Miami Heat.

Garcia wasn’t the only person who thought a retirement announcement was imminent — and he also wasn’t the only one who wanted to be sure to see James on his farewell tour. According to Victory Live, which analyzes verified ticket resale data across the secondary market, ticket sales for Lakers games jumped 25 times higher after James’ teaser post and the average price for those tickets increased from $280 to $399.

Ticket sales and prices returned to normal soon after it was revealed that “The Second Decision” was nothing more than a Hennessy ad. In his lawsuit, Garcia claimed James owed him the amount paid for the tickets because of “fraud, deception, misrepresentation, and any and all basis of legal recovery.”

Andrea Owen, who has been TUI cabin crew since 2003, has shared her top tips for flying with children to boost your chances of as little going wrong as possible

A flight attendant has shared her top tip for boosting the chance that a flight with kids goes well.

Andrea Owen, who has been TUI cabin crew since 2003, has lifted the lid on some of the best tips for travelling with children that she’s learned in her 22 years of flying.

From short-haul to long-haul flights, Andrea has flown at least 3,000 times and sees hundreds of families take to the skies every week to some of TUI’s popular destinations, such as Majorca, the Canaries, Mexico, and Jamaica.

Andrea says: “After all these years of flying I have looked after thousands of families, I can tell you that the secret to stress-free family travel is preparation. I always tell parents to expect the unexpected, pack more snacks than you think you’ll need, and don’t be afraid to ask crew for help. A lot of us are parents too, and we genuinely want every family to have a great start to their holiday.”

READ MORE: ‘Heartbreak’ as another UK travel agent suddenly shuts with impact to bookingsREAD MORE: European hotspots are 22C right now with £15 flights – perfect for escaping rainy UK

Andrea’s number one tip to having a successful flight is to choose the right boarding time. When, exactly, is a personal decision.

“This one really depends on your child’s personality, and you know them best. Some families find that boarding as soon as possible gives them that extra breathing space to get settled, stow the bags, and get the kids comfortable in their seats without feeling rushed. But I’ve also seen plenty of parents who swear by boarding last, especially if their little ones can’t sit still for long,” she said.

Below are Andrea’s other top tips:

Relieve ear pressure

“This is one of the most common concerns parents ask me about, and it’s really easy to solve. For babies and toddlers, feeding during take-off and landing is brilliant, whether that’s breastfeeding, a bottle, or even just a dummy – the sucking motion helps equalize ear pressure. For older children, give them chewy sweets or lollipops about 30 minutes before landing as that’s when the pressure really starts to build. I’ve seen many tears avoided with this simple trick.”

Always pack a variety of activities

“I recommend packing a small bag stuffed with variety – different toys, activities, and snacks. What works brilliantly is either letting them pack their own bag so they’re excited or pack some surprise toys they haven’t seen before. Keep everything small and compact with plenty of pencils, crayons, and paper. A surprise sticker book with a little bag of sweets is absolute gold. The games I see working best are Snap, Dobble, and colouring. And here’s a lovely tip – encourage your children to draw pictures for the cabin crew. We absolutely love receiving them and always have a stash of stickers at the ready for every flight.”

Help them to feel prepared

“Preparation is everything when it comes to keeping children calm. Before you leave for the airport, talk through exactly what’s going to happen. Checking in, going through security, boarding the plane, and what take-off and landing will feel like. Let them know about the noises they might hear and explain that their ears might feel different. This is particularly useful if your child is neurodiverse. The key is to make it sound like an exciting adventure rather than something to worry about.”

Bring your home comforts

“Packing home comforts like a small pillow, blanket or cuddly toys can help children of all ages feel more relaxed. If you’re travelling at times when your child would normally be having a nap or going to bed, I really encourage parents to try and stick to that routine as much as possible. Let them sleep if they want to, you’ll arrive at your destination feeling so much fresher and ready to enjoy your holiday. It’s also worth thinking about time zones if you’re flying long haul. Maybe start adjusting their sleep schedule a day or two before you travel. A well-rested child makes for a much happier holiday start!”

Dress in layers

“The temperature on board can vary throughout the flight. That’s why I always recommend dressing your child in layers so you can add or remove clothing to keep them comfortable. It’s always handy to pack a spare pair of clothes in your hand luggage just in case of a spill or accident. I’ve seen many parents caught out without a change of clothes, and it makes the rest of the flight uncomfortable for the both of you.”

Snack trays

“Those little snack trays with multiple compartments come in really handy. Kids absolutely love them and there’s something about having lots of different treats in separate sections that keeps them entertained for ages. You can fill each compartment with different snacks: fruit, crackers, cheese cubes, raisins, a couple of sweets. It turns snack time into something fun and interactive, and it means you’re not constantly rummaging through bags. We also have healthy snack boxes for kids available onboard which they love, so there will always be something they can eat. “

Don’t be afraid to ask cabin crew for help

“Don’t ever feel worried about asking us for help, that’s what we’re here for. Over my 22 years of flying, I’ve seen everything. We’ve warmed countless bottles, fetched extra sick bags, provided colouring sheets, and even entertained little ones while parents take a breather. Many of us are parents ourselves, so we completely understand how overwhelming it can feel. Whether you need extra wipes, help with the overhead locker, or just some reassurance, we’re here to make your journey smoother.”

“We know flying can feel overwhelming for families, whether it’s your first flight with kids or you have an anxious flyer in the family, there are lots of simple and easy tips you can put into place to make it seem that little bit less daunting.”

Match of the Day pundit Shay Given says that referee Michael Oliver made the right decision to allow Bryan Mbeumo’s goal to stand in Manchester United’s 2-1 win over Liverpool in the Premier League.

WATCH MORE: Maguire heads Man Utd to victory against Liverpool

Available to UK users only.

MELBOURNE, Australia — Australia’s highest court on Wednesday rejected U.S. conservative commentator Candace Owens ’ bid to overturn an Australian government decision barring her from visiting the country.

Three High Court judges unanimously rejected Owens’ challenge to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke’s decision in 2024 to refuse her a visa on character grounds.

Owens had planned to begin a speaking tour in Australia last November and also visit neighboring New Zealand.

Burke used his powers under the Migration Act last October to refuse her a visa because she failed the so-called “character test,” court documents said.

Burke found there was a risk Owens would “incite discord in the Australian community” and that refusing her a visa was in the national interest.

Burke found that as a political commentator, author and activist, Owens was “known for her controversial and conspiratorial views.”

She had made “extremist and inflammatory comments towards Muslim, Black, Jewish and LGBTQIA+ communities which generate controversy and hatred,” Burke said in court documents.

Owens’ lawyers had argued the Migrant Act was unconstitutional because it infringed upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communications.

Australia doesn’t have an equivalent of the U.S. First Amendment that states a right to free speech. But because Australia is a democracy, the High Court has decided that the constitution implies free speech limited to governmental and political matters.

Owens’ lawyers had argued that if the Migration Act was constitutional, then Burke had misconstrued his powers under that law in refusing her a visa.

The judges rejected both arguments and ordered Owens to pay the government’s court costs.

Burke described the ruling as a “win for social cohesion.”

“Inciting discord might be the way some people make money, but it’s not welcome in Australia,” Burke said in statement.

Owens’ spokeswoman told The Associated Press on Wednesday Owens would comment on the court decision later on social media.

Burke had told the court that while Owens already had an ability to incite discord through her 18 million followers across social media platforms, her presence in Australia would amplify that potential.

He noted that when Australia’s terrorism threat level was elevated from “possible” to “probable” last year, the national domestic spy agency reported an “increase in extremism.”

Australia has long used a wide discretion under the character test to refuse foreigners temporary visas.

Burke stripped Ye, the U.S. rapper formerly known as Kanye West, of an Australian visa after he released his single “Heil Hitler” in May this year.

Ye had been traveling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born.

Burke’s decision to ban Owens prompted neighboring New Zealand to refuse her a visa in November on the grounds that she had been rejected by Australia.

But a New Zealand immigration official overturned that refusal in December, citing “the importance of free speech.”

Owens’ spokeswoman on Wednesday had no information about plans to visit New Zealand.

McGuirk writes for the Associated Press.

USC was down to two walk-ons in its battered backfield, when Trojans coach Lincoln Riley decided to dress injured sophomore running back Bryan Jackson for the second half of Saturday’s win over Michigan, despite the fact Jackson was listed by the team as out on the Big Ten’s pregame availability report.

Riley explained the decision to play Jackson after the game, describing it as “a unique situation” and “a wellness issue.” But on Monday, the Big Ten chose to slap USC with a fine of $5,000 for violating conference rules regarding its availability reports.

“Although these circumstances were unfortunate, it is critical for availability reports to be accurate,” a Big Ten spokesperson said. “Consequently, the conference is imposing a $5,000 fine and admonishes all institutions to use the “out” designation only if there are no circumstances under which a student-athlete could participate in a game. The conference considers the matter closed and will have no further comment.”

Jackson hadn’t suited up since Week 1 while dealing with a lingering turf toe issue. Coming into the game, Riley said that Jackson was unlikely to play “outside of a near catastrophe.” But when one back, Eli Sanders, suffered a potential season-ending injury in the first quarter, and another, Waymond Jordan, seriously injured his ankle in the second, plans changed quickly.

Riley said on Saturday night that USC was in communication with the league office at the time and explained the situation to conference officials beforehand.

Jackson was medically cleared by USC and entered the game in the fourth quarter. He rushed for 35 yards and a touchdown in five carries.

“The kid was ready to go and stepped up,” Riley said. “That’s what you gotta have, man. You gotta have tough guys to play through stuff if you want to win at this level.”

The three other options tabled by the WRU include two proposals suggesting a reduction in one side by keeping three teams. These choices are now seriously being considered by the WRU board.

Cardiff are owned by the WRU after the side temporarily went into administration in April.

With WRU chief executive Abi Tierney having already said she cannot see a situation where professional rugby would not be played in the Welsh capital, Dragons, Ospreys and Scarlets will be nervously watching what happens.

Reddin says he hopes a consensus could be reached if regions needed to be cut, with mergers an option.

Ospreys chief executive Lance Bradley says he can not imagine any possible merger with west Wales rivals Scarlets – that prospect having previously come close in 2019.

“I credit myself as a rather imaginative person but even I can’t imagine that,” Bradley told BBC Radio Wales Sport.

“I can’t see how it could work. It was proposed a few years ago but there would be so many barriers to it now, that I find it very hard to imagine.”

Bradley says he hopes to have some clarity by the end of October.

“We have been working closely with the WRU but at the end of the day it will be them who has to make the decision,” said Bradley.

“We have had a lot of conversations and they have been constructive.

“We felt that in a meeting we had with Dave Reddin that he genuinely listened to what we said and we hope that will be taken on board.”

PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s two-term Democratic Gov. Janet Mills will run for the U.S. Senate seat held by veteran Republican Sen. Susan Collins next year, two people familiar with Mills’ plans said Friday.

The development sets up a potential showdown between the parties’ best-known figures in a state where Democrats see a chance to gain a seat in their uphill quest for the Senate majority.

Mills is tentatively expected to announce her candidacy Tuesday, according to the people, who insisted on anonymity to discuss plans they were not authorized to share publicly.

Mills was the top choice of national Democrats who have long tried to unseat Collins, who has held the seat since 1997. She was urged to run by party leaders including New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader. And though she met only once with Schumer to discuss the race early this year, her decision is viewed as a recruiting win for Democrats, who also have well-known figures with statewide experience running for seats held by Republicans in North Carolina and Ohio.

Democrats see the Maine seat as especially important, considering it is the only one on the 2026 Senate election calendar where Republicans are defending an incumbent in a state carried last year by Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.

Still, a Democratic majority in the 100-member Senate remains a difficult proposition.

The party would need to gain a net of four seats, while most of the states with Senate elections next year are places where Republican Donald Trump beat Harris. Maine is an exception, while in North Carolina, where Trump narrowly won, Democratic former Gov. Roy Cooper is viewed as a contender, and Democratic former Sen. Sherrod Brown is running in Ohio, where Trump won comfortably and Brown was defeated in November.

Mills gained national attention in February during a White House meeting of governors with Trump when she announced to him, “We’ll see you in court,” over her opposition to his call for denying states federal funding over transgender rights.

In April, Maine officials sued the Trump administration in an effort to stop the federal government from freezing federal funding to the state in light of its decision to defy a federal ban on allowing transgender students to participate in sports.

Mills stoked Democratic enthusiasm in April when she said of the lawsuit, “I’ve spent the better part of my career listening to loud men talk tough to disguise their weaknesses.”

Mills, 77, is a former state attorney general who won the governorship in 2018 and again in 2022. Maine governors are barred from seeking a third term and, while Mills early this year seemed to dismiss a Senate campaign, she said she had rethought the notion and was “seriously considering” running.

She had set a November deadline for making a decision, though as of mid-September, she was interviewing prospective senior campaign staffers.

A campaign against Collins would pit her against a senator who has built a reputation as a moderate but who was a key supporter of Trump’s Cabinet and judicial nominations. A spokesperson for Collins declined to comment on the expected upcoming Mills announcement.

Collins, 72, has won all of her four reelection campaigns by double-digit percentages, except in 2020.

That year, Collins defeated Democratic challenger Sara Gideon, the former speaker of the Maine House of Representatives, by more than 8 percentage points in a race Democrats felt confident could help them gain a seat in the Senate. Collins won in a year Democrats gained a net of three seats in the chamber. She won despite Trump losing Maine to Democrat Joe Biden by 9 percentage points.

Like Collins, Mills was born in rural Maine. She became Maine’s first female criminal prosecutor in the mid-1970s, and she would later become the state’s first elected female district attorney as well as its first female attorney general and governor. She served as attorney general twice, from 2009 to 2011 and from 2013 to 2019.

A few other challengers have declared candidacies for the Democratic nomination, including oyster farmer Graham Platner, who has launched an aggressive social media campaign. Platner has the backing of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who posted on social media on Thursday that Platner is “a great working class candidate for Senate in Maine who will defeat Susan Collins” and that it’s “disappointing that some Democratic leaders are urging Gov. Mills to run.”

Whittle and Beaumont write for the Associated Press and reported from Portland and Des Moines, respectively. AP writer Seung Min Kim in Washington contributed to this report.