decision

WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers may be turned away without a hearing at the southern border, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a historic retreat from the promise of relief for those who say they are fleeing persecution.

The justices split over whether this was a simple dispute over legal wording or a moral question involving desperate families.

Siding with the Trump administration, the court’s conservatives said the Refugee Act of 1980 offers a right to seek asylum to migrants who “arrive in the United States” but not those who are turned back when they approach a border crossing or a port of entry.

“This case presents a straightforward question” that turns on the word “in,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city, or a country — before the person enters that place.”

The liberal dissenters agreed with immigration rights lawyers who saw this as a nonsensical reading of the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the asylum law arose from the “international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust and World War II.”

She cited the infamous voyage of the MS St. Louis in 1939. More than 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee persecution in Nazi Germany by setting sail aboard the ship, which was turned away from Cuba and the United States.

Most of the passengers were returned to Europe, and several hundred died in the Holocaust, she said.

“Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M.S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U. S. soil,” Sotomayor wrote.

Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.

The decision upholds a turn-back policy that began in 2016 as an emergency response to a surge of Haitian immigrants at the San Ysidro border crossing.

The Department of Homeland Security said these asylum seekers must wait on the Mexican side of the border until they could return for a scheduled interview. The policy was extended to other border crossings, but it was challenged as illegal in federal court in San Diego.

Last year, a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.

“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”

She said the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”

The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge in San Diego who ruled for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”

The administration argued federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.”

From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” Sauer said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”

Defenders of the asylum system denounced the decision.

“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress,” said Erika Pinheiro, executive director of the migrant support organization Al Otro Lado, which led the legal fight. “For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders.”

“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system, said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. “It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform applauded the decision.

“Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement, not-anti-enforcement,” said Christopher J. Hajec, deputy general counsel of FAIR. “Because of this, courts that hamstring enforcement are often forced to violate basic logic, as the 9th Circuit did here. We are pleased the Supreme Court saw that the lower court’s reading would make immigration law incoherent, and reversed.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with the maker of the Roundup weedkiller Thursday in a ruling expected to block thousands of lawsuits alleging it failed to warn people the product could cause cancer.

The case came before the justices after a tidal wave of litigation that included some multibillion-dollar verdicts against the global agrochemical manufacturer Bayer, which acquired Roundup when it bought its original manufacturer Monsanto in 2018.

The decision is a victory for the Trump administration, but one that could be tricky politically since allies in the Make America Healthy Again movement want to rein in pesticide use.

The high court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the company can’t be sued in state courts because federal regulations have found a cancer link unlikely and do not require a warning label.

The decision “is good for science, farmers, and industries that depend on regulatory clarity for innovation,” Bayer said in a statement. “It should help significantly contain the Roundup litigation after nearly a decade of legal battles.”

Though Bayer said the ruling should result in the dismissal of pending lawsuits containing failure-to-warn allegations, the company said it plans to proceed with a proposed $7.25 billion class-action settlement intended to resolve many of the remaining claims.

Lawyers for some residents pursuing Roundup litigation criticized the court’s decision.

“This Supreme Court ruling wrongly slams the courthouse door on Americans sickened by pesticides,” said attorney Christopher Seeger, who is proposed as a claimants’ representative in the settlement. But he said a settlement still would allow some people to receive compensation.

The case before the Supreme Court was filed by Missouri resident John Durnell. He developed a cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after more than 20 years of serving as the neighborhood association’s “spray guy,” using Roundup on parks in his historic St. Louis community.

A jury agreed that the company failed to warn him about possible cancer dangers and awarded him $1.25 million. It’s one of thousands of similar cases, including some multibillion-dollar damage awards.

There’s still fierce debate about cancer and Roundup’s key ingredient, glyphosate. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the chemical as “probably carcinogenic” in 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that it’s not likely to cause cancer in humans when used as directed.

The agency approved a label without a cancer warning, and Bayer argues that it’s required to follow those federal standards — not the state laws that Durnell and others have sued under. The ruling still could allow other suits alleging problems with the way the product was designed, his attorney Ashley Keller has said.

Bayer disputes the cancer claims but previously set aside $16 billion to settle cases, and earlier this year proposed a $7.25 billion class-action settlement. A federal judge recently ruled that the proposed settlement will be heard in a Missouri state court, where many of the lawsuits have been filed. At the same time, the company has tried to persuade states to pass laws shielding it from liability in failure-to-warn lawsuits, and three states have agreed.

About 200,000 Roundup-related claims have been made against Bayer, mostly from home users. It has stopped using glyphosate in Roundup sold in the U.S. residential lawn and garden market.

The company has said it might have to consider pulling glyphosate from U.S. agricultural markets if it keeps getting sued. Agricultural industry group say could have a devastating effect on the food supply.

But pesticides have also created a rift between the Trump administration and members of Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s MAHA movement, adding to their frustration with an executive order aimed at boosting glyphosate’s production.

Kennedy himself has said repeatedly that glyphosate causes cancer, even as he says he recognizes the executive order was necessary for food supply and national security reasons.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer David A. Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Trump administration may end the Temporary Protected Status granted to more than 350,000 Haitians and Syrians whose home countries remain unsafe.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservative majority said Congress gave the administration, not judges, the power to cancel or renew this temporary protection for non-citizens who are living and working here.

In a second win Thursday for the Trump administration, the court also upheld the administration’s policy of blocking asylum seekers at the southern border.

By the same 6-3 vote, the court said migrants do not have a right to apply for asylum if they are not already in the United States.

The decision on Temporary Protected Status could affect up to 1.3 million non-citizens who are in the country.

In 1990, Congress authorized this emergency humanitarian relief for non-citizens whose home countries were wracked by armed conflict, natural disasters or other extraordinary disruptions.

Under the law, the Department of Homeland Security may grant this protection for 6, 12 or 18 months and either renew or extend it for a similar period.

But this legal authority has been under dispute since Trump returned to the White House last year and targeted the 1.3 million people with TPS from 17 countries who were living in the United States.

Trump’s lawyers said the law made clear there was “no judicial review” of the government’s decision to cancel the grant of temporary protection.

However, immigrant rights lawyers argued the government failed in its duty to consult the State Department and assess whether it was safe for migrants to return home.

Repeatedly, U.S. district judges agreed with the challengers and ruled the administration’s decisions were “arbitrary” and unreasonable. But in nearly every case, the Supreme Court granted emergency appeals from the administration and set aside those orders.

Since TPS was created, the government has ended the protected designation for citizens of 18 countries.

DHS under then-Secretary Kristi Noem ended TPS for Honduras, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Venezuela. A spokesperson for the agency previously said the Haiti designation became “a de facto amnesty program” and that allowing Syrians to remain is contrary to national interest.

Advocates for the immigrants argue that the administration failed to conduct the required process to properly evaluate each country’s conditions and instead acted on political grounds driven by racial animus.

State Department travel advisories for both countries warn people against traveling to either because of the risk of terrorism, kidnapping and widespread violence. But Federal Register notices announcing the terminations said country conditions had improved enough.

Recently released internal documents show that DHS decided to terminate protections for Haitians without any input from the State Department.

Citing the documents, which were obtained by the National TPS Alliance in a separate lawsuit, lawyers for the Haitians asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case and send it back to lower courts. They argued that the justices should first consider the communications before issuing a decision.

Internal emails show that homeland security officials sought a recommendation from the State Department in May 2025, ahead of Noem’s early June deadline on whether to extend protections for Haiti. But by the time Noem signed what appears to be a final decision memo, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had not received input from the State Department, the emails show.

“State recommendation for Haiti TPS has not come in despite of many outreach,” a homeland security deputy assistant secretary wrote in a June 2, 2025, email. A recommendation “would be helpful to have,” the person added.

Eleven days later, a USCIS project manager wrote in an email that Noem “recently elected to terminate Haiti without country conditions from DOS.”

USCIS initially recommended automatically extending protections before Homeland Security decided to terminate them, earlier versions of the memo indicate.

The June decision was blocked by a federal judge. In November, DHS issued another notice terminating TPS protections for Haitians.

That time, according a previously publicized email, a homeland security senior counselor asked a State Department official for the agency’s views on the country conditions in Haiti. The official, Spencer Chretien, didn’t address the country conditions but responded that “there would be no foreign policy concerns.”

Lawyers for the Haitians argued that response didn’t meet the legal standard for a sufficient consultation, though the Trump administration disagreed.

JUNEAU, Alaska — A man with the same name and party affiliation as Alaska Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan on Monday challenged a decision by a top state elections official to disqualify his candidacy and remove him from the August primary ballot.

A court filing, on behalf of the challenger Sullivan by his attorneys, said the decision by Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualifying him violates state and federal law. It asks that he be placed on the ballot. Sullivan, a retired teacher from the small fishing community of Petersburg, has maintained that he’s a qualified candidate for U.S. Senate and that election officials lacked a legal basis to boot him from the ballot.

The U.S. Constitution lays out three exclusive qualifications for the Senate, addressing age, citizenship and residency, his attorneys wrote.

“Nothing in Alaska law regulates in any way the private motivations that draw individuals to declare or campaign for office,” the filing by attorneys Jeffrey Robinson, Bryn Pallesen and Zoe Eisberg states.

Sullivan’s entrance into the race, days before the June 1 filing deadline, drew condemnation from Sen. Sullivan and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. They called the challenger a sham candidate and alleged he was working with Democrats to boost Democratic former U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola’s chances in the race. Peltola’s campaign and state Democrats have denied the allegation, as has the challenger.

Sen. Sullivan and Peltola are the highest-profile contenders in a race with more than a dozen candidates. It’s one of the most prominent U.S. Senate races in this year’s midterm elections — one both parties consider crucial to their efforts to control the chamber.

Steve Kirch, a spokesperson for the division, said the agency had no comment and does not discuss “ongoing reviews, investigations or related proceedings.” Beecher has previously noted that ballots are due to be printed on Sunday.

Alaska Department of Law spokesperson Sam Curtis said the agency will defend the division’s finding and looked forward to a swift ruling from the court.

On June 15, a week after Republican Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced an investigation into the challenger Sullivan’s run, Beecher disqualified him. She concluded that his declaration of candidacy “was not filed in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the office of United States Senator, but was instead filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot’s fairness or neutrality.”

In announcing an investigation, Dahlstrom cited “credible allegations” that Sullivan declared his candidacy “in coordination with another candidate and campaign” with an intent to confuse and “manipulate” voters. But in removing the challenger from the ballot, Beecher did not mention finding any evidence of alleged coordination with Peltola or Democratic Party officials.

The challenger Sullivan, when asked in an interview with the Associated Press earlier this month if he’d had any contact with Peltola’s campaign, responded ”zero, none, zilch.”

Beecher said she based her decision on factors including that he had registered to vote as Daniel J. Sullivan Jr. and in conjunction with his candidacy changed his party affiliation to Republican. She cited similarities between his campaign website and the senator’s, and his work with a consultant whose clients have included some Democrats.

The form congressional candidates in Alaska complete asks them how they would like to be referred to on the ballot and their preferred party affiliation.

Beecher said she acted in line with a regulation that says a candidate’s name may not appear on a ballot with academic or professional titles or “in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.”

In response to questions from Democratic state Rep. Andrew Gray, legislative attorney Andrew Dunmire last week said the regulation cited by Beecher does not forbid placing Sullivan’s name on the ballot. He said the elections division could comply with it by designing the ballot in a way that allows voters to distinguish between both Sullivans.

It’s a position echoed by the attorneys for the challenger Sullivan.

The challenger initially had been certified and listed on the state’s candidate list as Dan J. Sullivan. The senator was listed as Dan S. Sullivan and denoted as the incumbent.

Alaska has open primaries in which the top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the ranked-choice general election.

Bohrer writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON  — Prison inmates whose religious rights are clearly violated by guards and wardens may not sue them for damages, a divided Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices said federal law protecting religious liberty allows for suits against state prison systems, but not employees of the prison.

The decision came in the case of a devout Rastafarian in Louisiana. Damon Landor had grown dreadlocks for nearly two decades. He had three weeks left in a five-month prison term when he was transferred to another prison in Louisiana.

He had with him a copy of a federal appeals court opinion that said Rastafarian inmates had a protected religious right to wear dreadlocks.

Congress in 2000 adopted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act to protect religious liberty.

But the guards threw the appeals court decision in the trash, and the warden ordered the guards to handcuff Landor to a chair and shave his head.

Shortly after he was released, Landor sued the warden and the guards for violating the 2000 law, known as RLUIPA, which promised “appropriate relief” to those whose rights were violated.

But a federal judge, the 5th Circuit Court and now the Supreme Court have tossed out Landor’s suit.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for the six conservatives.

He explained that when the federal government gives states money for prisons, education, healthcare and other matters, it can require them to follow the law but it does not authorize private lawsuits against their employees

“To know that is enough to know the Court of Appeals was correct. Mr. Landor does not have a federal RLUIPA cause of action against the officers,” Gorsuch wrote. “Congress lacks regulatory authority to impose liability on them directly.”

The three liberals dissented.

“Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Prisoners like Landor who suffer violations of their religious freedom in state prisons — no matter how blatant — will often be left remediless.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

Civil liberties advocates denounced the decision.

“Our justice system is built on the promise of accountability when rights are violated,” said Rachel Rossi, president of the Alliance for Justice. “If there is no remedy for such a transgression, then there is no justice. This ruling will further erode critical civil rights protections of the far too many incarcerated people in this country.”

Rachel Laser, chief executive of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said today’s decision “endangers the religious freedom of incarcerated people, like Damon Landor, who are particularly vulnerable to abuse and having unnecessary burdens placed on their religious exercise. Once again, we see a court that will bend over backward for the religious freedom of Christians, but allows the government to trample the religious freedom of non-Christians.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Monday to block an excessive force lawsuit against a former Los Angeles Police Department officer who shot and killed a knife-wielding man whose speeding truck had slammed into several cars near downtown Los Angeles.

The court turned down an appeal petition from the Los Angeles city attorney’s office, over the objections of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Litigation over the six-second shooting incident has extended over six years.

Federal judges in California agreed that Officer Toni McBride had reason to fire four shots at the suspect in April 2020 but not the two final shots that killed him.

Daniel Hernandez was alleged to be under the influence of methamphetamine when he got out of his truck and walked toward the officer. She repeatedly ordered him, “Drop the knife,” as he approached.

But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, by a 6-5 vote, ruled last year that a jury could decide the officer went too far when she fired two final shots after the suspect had fallen to the ground.

The majority reasoned that in the one-second pause between shots four and five, McBride “could have and should first reassessed the situation” and possibly concluded the suspect no longer posed a danger.

That ruling would have sent the case to a trial.

But the Los Angeles city’s attorney’s office appealed to the Supreme Court in October and urged the justices to review and reverse the 9th Circuit’s decision.

The city’s attorneys said the appeals court failed to consider the “totality of circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene” and its decision refused “to allow for reasonable mistakes in fast-moving, life-threatening encounters.”

UC Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky filed a response for the Hernandez family. He urged the court to stand aside and let a jury decide whether the officer’s actions were reasonable.

“The 9th Circuit simply held that it should be for the jury to resolve the factual dispute over what happened,” he said.

The justices had considered the appeal since late February before finally turning it down without comment on Monday.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled police officers may be sued for unreasonable searches and seizures only if they are shown to have knowingly violated clearly established law.

However, this doctrine of “qualified immunity” has divided judges over whether a particular rule or limit has been clearly established.

The 9th Circuit majority said shooting a fallen suspect crosses the line.

“It has been clearly established for more than a decade that when an officer shoots and wounds a suspect, and he falls to the ground, the officer cannot continue to shoot him, absent some indication that he presents a continuing threat,” wrote Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen.

“A fallen and injured suspect armed only with a bladed instrument does not present a continuing threat merely because he makes nonthreatening movements on the ground. … Under such circumstances, a jury could reasonably find that she employed constitutionally excessive force. If so, she is not entitled to qualified immunity,” she said.

The five dissenters said the officer made a reasonable split-second decision.

Judge Ryan Nelson said McBride “was justified in shooting Daniel Hernandez to alleviate the risk that he posed when he advanced toward her while armed and ignoring commands to stop. … She cannot be reasonably expected or required to reassess her shooting in a tight six second period during an intense and dangerous situation throughout which Hernandez was rising and never stopped moving.”

Judge Patrick Bumatay echoed this concern.

“Judges review police shootings only in hindsight. We review police tapes years after the fact. We get to rewind, pause, fast forward — analyzing the situation frame-by-frame. While the advent of police bodycam videos has been a welcome change, we can’t ignore that real life isn’t in slow motion,” he said.

Granted the Makerfield parliamentary seat has elected Labour MPs for yonks, but just a matter of weeks ago, at the local elections, Reform UK were dominant in this collection of towns broadly to the south of Wigan – places like Abram, Hindley, Orrell and Winstanley.

June 17 (Asia Today) — Canada is expected to select a preferred bidder within 30 days for a major submarine procurement program, narrowing the competition to South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean and Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems.

The Canadian Patrol Submarine Project calls for the acquisition of up to 12 conventionally powered submarines to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s four aging Victoria-class vessels.

The acquisition, infrastructure and long-term maintenance program has been estimated by South Korean industry officials at at least 60 trillion won, or about $39.7 billion. Some estimates place its potential value over several decades as high as 120 trillion won, or about $79.4 billion.

Stephen Fuhr, Canada’s secretary of state for defence procurement, said Ottawa expected to choose a preferred bidder within 30 days, according to Politico.

The selection would grant one bidder the right to enter detailed negotiations with the Canadian government, although it would not constitute a final contract award.

Canada previously identified Hanwha Ocean and Germany’s Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems as the two qualified suppliers for the program.

The contest has entered its final stage as South Korea promotes a package combining submarine construction, government-backed financing and broader industrial cooperation.

Canadian procurement chief visits South Korea

Fuhr visited Hanwha Ocean’s shipyard in Geoje, about 205 miles southeast of Seoul, on Feb. 2 with Canadian government and business representatives.

He toured the shipyard’s assembly facilities and automated production equipment and boarded the ROKS Jang Yeong-sil, the first 3,000-ton submarine in South Korea’s Dosan Ahn Changho Batch-II class, while it was undergoing sea trials.

Fuhr was accompanied by Hanwha Ocean Chief Executive Kim Hee-cheul and senior South Korean officials.

He later visited the South Korean Navy’s Submarine Force Command in Jinhae to examine its training, logistics and maintenance systems.

Hanwha Ocean said the visit allowed the Canadian delegation to assess South Korea’s submarine manufacturing capacity and its ability to provide long-term maintenance and operational support.

Canada seeks submarines for three oceans

Canada wants its future fleet to operate across the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans while maintaining interoperability with the United States and other allies.

Its requirements include long range, extended endurance, under-ice capability and reliable maintenance support.

Hanwha Ocean is offering a version of South Korea’s Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarine, also known as the KSS-III.

The company has emphasized that the platform is already in production and can be delivered more quickly than a newly developed design. It has also proposed cooperation with Canadian universities, shipyards and defense companies.

Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems is offering the Type 212CD submarine, a new design being developed for Germany and Norway.

The German bidder has highlighted its long-standing relationships within NATO, European defense supply chains and proposed investment in Canadian industry.

Germany and Norway have also reportedly examined changes to their own production schedules to make earlier delivery slots available to Canada.

Industrial benefits could determine outcome

Canada has made domestic jobs, industrial investment and long-term economic benefits central elements of the procurement.

The government has said work associated with the submarines should strengthen Canada’s marine and defense industries throughout the fleet’s operational life.

South Korea has therefore sought to expand its proposal beyond the construction of submarines.

Canadian officials have discussed potential South Korean investment in Canada’s automotive and transportation industries, according to people familiar with the negotiations.

South Korean companies have responded by exploring a hydrogen-powered commercial vehicle and fueling network rather than committing immediately to a conventional automobile assembly plant.

Hyundai Translead, Hyundai Motor Group’s North American trailer manufacturing subsidiary, has signed a dealership agreement with Canadian commercial vehicle dealer Breadner Trailers for Hyundai’s XCIENT hydrogen fuel-cell trucks.

The trucks have accumulated more than 1 million miles, or 1.6 million kilometers, of commercial driving in North America, according to Hyundai.

Glenn Copeland, president of Hanwha Ocean’s Canadian subsidiary, previously said Hyundai Motor Group had presented an initial proposal to Canadian officials for a hydrogen freight transportation corridor.

The plan could support Canada’s transportation decarbonization policies while adding a civilian industrial component to South Korea’s submarine offer.

Seoul prepares financial support

The South Korean government and state financial institutions are also preparing export financing to support the bid.

The Korea Trade Insurance Corp. and the Export-Import Bank of Korea have expanded financing programs for major overseas projects in defense, nuclear power and other strategic industries.

South Korean officials have said as much as 100 trillion won, or about $66.1 billion, from a broader export financing initiative could be made available for defense and nuclear energy projects. The amount does not represent financing committed exclusively to the Canadian submarine program.

Hanwha Ocean has also sought to demonstrate the strength of its domestic supply chain.

At the World Defense Show in Riyadh in February, the shipbuilder signed cooperation agreements with 11 South Korean defense and submarine equipment companies, including LIG Nex1, Hanwha Aerospace, Kolon Spaceworks, KTE and Firstec.

Hanwha Ocean says more than 80% of the components used in its proposed submarine can be supplied domestically.

A South Korean defense industry official said the final decision would depend not only on submarine performance but also on financing, delivery schedules, maintenance support and benefits for Canadian industry.

“Canada’s submarine project is more than a weapons sale,” the official said. “The remaining competition will be decided by which bidder can offer the most credible combination of capability, delivery and long-term industrial cooperation.”

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260616010005537

ATLANTA — Georgia’s Republican legislative leaders on Wednesday rejected Gov. Brian Kemp’s call to redraw congressional and legislative districts during a special session, citing concerns about moving too quickly after a U.S. Supreme Court decision weakened federal Voting Rights Act protections for minority voters.

House Speaker Jon Burns sent Kemp a letter hours before a special session was set to begin Wednesday, and he announced the decision as demonstrators filled the Georgia Capitol with chants of “Black voters matter!”

The decision marked a setback for both Kemp and President Trump, who has urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts to their advantage. Ten states already have enacted new congressional districts ahead of the November midterm elections. Georgia would have been the first to change districts for the 2028 elections.

Burns said lawmakers want to take their time after the court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which struck down Louisiana’s congressional map as an illegal racial gerrymander and laid the groundwork for other Southern states to redraw their congressional districts. Burns said it was more important for lawmakers to focus on economic matters rather than “partisan games.” He also cited pending litigation over existing Georgia districts and the need for the state to understand the full ramifications for how race can or cannot be used in redistricting.

Republican legislative leaders did not rule out revisiting redistricting later this year.

Minority voting rights are especially salient in Georgia, where the Capitol complex includes a statue of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and sits blocks from where the slain civil rights icon lived, preached and led the movement that yielded the Voting Rights Act in 1965.

Conservative justices gave the green light

Before Callais, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was understood to require maps — for Congress, state legislatures and local legislative bodies — that gave historically marginalized minorities a reasonable chance to select candidates of their choice. Nationally and in Georgia, those so-called “opportunity districts” have disproportionately elected Black and other nonwhite representatives.

For example, about a third of Georgia’s 180 state representatives are Black. Latino, Asian and other minorities bring the total nonwhite share to about 40% — roughly reflecting the state’s overall population. Georgia’s U.S. House delegation has five districts out of 14 total where the electorate is majority or plurality nonwhite. All elected Black Democrats in 2024.

With the Callais ruling, issued in April, a conservative majority of justices concluded that jurisdictions drawn with racial makeup in mind are discriminatory and violate the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. The justices declared that apportionment should be “race neutral.”

Their stated reasoning did not hinge on party interests, and federal courts have said partisan gerrymandering is constitutionally permissible. But in Southern states, especially, party loyalty dovetails considerably with race and ethnicity. So the decision has allowed Republicans — a party dominated by white people — to redraw maps to goose likely GOP districts by redistributing nonwhite voters who tend to support Democrats.

That, many civil rights activists and experts argue, makes it impossible for Southern legislatures to be genuinely “race neutral” when drawing boundaries.

Emory University professor Carol Anderson compared Callais and the resulting redistricting push to poll taxes and literacy tests imposed by white Southern conservatives — and blessed by the Supreme Court — during the Jim Crow era.

“They used racially neutral language for policies that were clearly racially targeted,” said Anderson, who is also a board member of Fair Fight Action, a group organizing against the Georgia redistricting.

There were risks for Kemp and Republicans

It’s not guaranteed that Georgia Republicans can get what they want from new maps.

Partisan gerrymandering involves redistributing voters — packing certain citizens into fewer districts or dividing them across more districts. Around metro Atlanta, spreading nonwhite, Democratic-leaning voters across more districts could make more seats seem to lean Republican. The risk, however, is that more battleground districts emerge because white metropolitan voters are trending less conservative, which could give Democratic candidates of any race or ethnicity more chances to win.

That’s perhaps not a major factor in the Georgia state Senate, which already is considered gerrymandered for Republicans. But it could be a consideration when drawing state House and U.S. House maps.

Kemp was effectively asking Republicans, especially in metro Atlanta, to redraw their own boundaries and take on new, unfamiliar territory.

Trump started the fight before the Supreme Court decision

Nationally, a partisan redistricting battle started last year when Trump urged Republican-controlled states to redraw congressional boundaries to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority in Washington this November. Texas answered the call first.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democrats in Sacramento answered with their own gerrymander that voters later approved. A succession of states followed. The outcome would have been close to even had the Virginia Supreme Court, controlled by conservatives, not struck down new Democratic-drawn maps approved by the state’s voters. All told, Republicans think they could gain as many as 16 seats from their redistricting efforts while Democrats think they could gain six seats from new districts in California and Utah.

That still may not be enough for the GOP to hold a congressional majority, given Trump’s lagging approval ratings. But it could mitigate Democratic gains and set Republicans up well for 2028 and beyond.

Barrow writes for The Associated Press.

Published on
17/06/2026 – 12:55 GMT+2

The era of Chair Warsh begins in earnest this Wednesday, as US President Donald Trump’s pick to run the Fed presides over his debut rate decision and steps before the cameras for his first press conference in the role.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Few economists anticipate dramatic action on day one, but the meeting carries unusual weight for what it might reveal about the months ahead.

Policymakers are expected to hold the benchmark rate steady at a target range of 3.50% to 3.75%, which would mark the fourth consecutive meeting without a move. The committee cut 25 basis points in December 2025.

The bigger question is the language, with officials potentially revising their post-meeting statement to drop any hint that the next step will be a reduction, signalling instead that rates may stay elevated for some time, or even rise should inflation prove sticky.

Warsh inherits a far less accommodating picture than the one he faced when he was widely seen as campaigning for the job last year.

At that time, he argued forcefully for lower rates, echoing US President Donald Trump’s demands, and pointed to AI as a force that could expand the economy’s productive capacity and tame prices over time.

Many economists doubted that thesis even then, noting that the surge of investment in semiconductors and computing equipment was adding to inflationary pressure rather than easing it.

A changed economic backdrop

Inflation has indeed accelerated since the outbreak of the Iran war in late February, climbing to a three-year high of 4.2%, driven largely by costlier petrol.

US President Donald Trump has announced a framework for a peace deal that could end the conflict, but it is unclear whether the truce will hold, and prices for fuel, groceries and airfares could take months to cool even if Middle Eastern oil flows freely again.

By the Fed’s preferred gauge, inflation has now run above its 2% target for more than five years. Hiring, meanwhile, has remained resilient.

May brought 172,000 new jobs, a third straight month of solid gains, removing much of the rationale for the two rate cuts the Fed had pencilled into its January projections.

Because the rate itself looks settled, attention turns to the Fed’s updated Summary of Economic Projections and its closely watched “dot plot”, the quarterly projection of future interest rates.

According to Bank of America economist Aditya Bhave, the new dot plot could show the Fed keeping rates on hold for the rest of 2026, with at least three of the committee’s 12 voting members potentially pencilling in rate hikes this year.

Communication is the other wildcard. Warsh has argued that the central bank should speak less often and keep a lower profile, on the view that publicly stated positions can trap policymakers into defending them well past their usefulness.

One option would be to thin out the calendar of press conferences, reverting to the every-other-meeting rhythm favoured by Ben Bernanke, who chaired the Fed from 2006 to 2014, when the format was introduced. Leaner guidance, however, risks unsettling markets long accustomed to clear direction.

Adding intrigue, predecessor Jerome Powell remains on the board as a governor, a seat he can hold until January 2028, and is expected to vote on Wednesday’s decision, denying the Trump administration an additional vacancy to fill.

Additional sources • AP

Brendan Sorsby won’t be playing football for Texas Tech this fall after all.

It’s not because the transfer quarterback has been permanently banned by the NCAA for wagering on college sports — an injunction issued by a Texas judge last week appeared to clear the way for Sorsby to play for the Red Raiders in 2026.

That ruling, however, was being challenged through separate court filings by the NCAA and the Big 12 Conference. Facing that uncertainty over his final season, and with the deadline to enter the NFL supplemental draft quickly approaching, Sorsby opted to leave the Red Raiders without playing a down.

Sorsby’s decision was announced Monday night in an open letter by Cody Campbell, chairman of the Texas Tech board of regents.

“This decision was made with Brendan and his family and is purely an output of practical analysis of the situation,” Campbell wrote. “Brendan and Texas Tech stand on very solid and legitimate legal ground, but he faces a June 22nd deadline to be eligible to enter the NFL’s supplemental draft, and there is no practical way to resolve all the various pending legal disputes and ensure his eligibility prior to this date. This is the only viable and fair path for Brendan and his future, as well as for his teammates, and our university.”

Sorsby posted a statement Monday night on Instagram.

“I am grateful for the support from my family, my Tech coaching staff, teammates, the community, and so many others who have encouraged me to address and learn more about this important issue,” Sorsby wrote. “As my journey continues, I remain fully committed to and focused on being the best I can be, both on and off the field.”

Sorsby transferred to Texas Tech this offseason, after two years each at Indiana and Cincinnati, for a reported multimillion-dollar deal. In late April, he and Texas Tech jointly announced that he had entered a residential treatment program for gambling addiction. Sorsby completed the 35-day program in May.

Court records show that Sorsby has admitted to wagering at least $90,000 during his time as an NCAA student athlete, including 40 bets on Indiana football games he was not participating in while a freshman backup with the Hoosiers in 2022.

“Texas Tech will continue to provide the support and recovery resources Brendan requires on this journey,” Campbell wrote. “Furthermore, Texas Tech will not seek return of any amounts already paid to Brendan through his NIL agreements.”

In May, Sorsby filed a lawsuit in Lubbock County District Court asking to have his eligibility restored because the NCAA “failed to comply with its contractual commitments” to him as a student athlete and therefore “is precluded from enforcing its gambling bylaws against Mr. Sorsby to deny or withhold his reinstatement.”

Last week, judge Ken Curry granted a temporary injunction that would have allowed Sorsby to play for the Red Raiders in 2026. He would have had to miss the first two games of the season as one of the conditions of the ruling.

Without the injunction, Curry wrote in his ruling, Sorsby would “suffer a probable, imminent and irreparable injury” by missing out on the “elite coaching, training resources, camaraderie, and regimen that only being a member of a Division I college football team can provide.”

The final hearing had been scheduled to begin Feb. 8, nearly two weeks after college football’s national championship game.

Following the ruling, several teams and conferences discussed a ban on playing Texas Tech in any sport. After appealing the decision last week, the NCAA filed an emergency motion on Monday to stay the injunction and asked for the case to be resolved before the start of the Red Raiders season.

Also on Monday, the Big 12 filed for a judgment from a U.S. District Court in Dallas protecting the conference’s ability under its bylaws to sanction Texas Tech, a member school, if Sorsby played this season.

“An athlete with an extensive, documented history of wagering on intercollegiate athletic contests — especially his own team’s games — presents a reputational and integrity risk to the conference and its championship competition that the conference has both the right and the responsibility to address,” attorneys for the Big 12 wrote in the filing.

Soon after Campbell announced Sorsby’s decision, Texas Tech president Lawrence Schovanec and athletic director Kirby Hocutt issued a joint statement on the matter.

“When Brendan’s lawsuit resulted in the granting of a temporary injunction, we found ourselves in a difficult situation,” they wrote. “With his health and wellness as our top priority, we supported him in spite of very different perspectives and opinions. Our position was challenged by many but our support for him never changed.

“We will continue to extend all available resources that Brendan had as a student and athlete to ensure his transition is as successful as possible.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SAN FRANCISCO — The toughest decision of the Sparks’ season to date is fast approaching.

Within the next few games, the team will have to decide whether they are going to keep fan-favorite Kate Martin around.

She joined the roster on a developmental contract at the start of the season after being waived by the Golden State Valkyries the day of roster releases. Developmental contracts were introduced this year as part of the league’s new collective bargaining agreement.

Each team can carry up to two players on developmental deals. Those players are allowed to practice and travel with the team, but they can only be active for a maximum of 12 games during the season.

The Sparks’ Kate Martin shoots over the Fire’s Nyadiew Puoch at Crypto.com Arena on June 7.

(Luiza Moraes / Getty Images)

Typically, developmental players are used as emergency depth, stepping into the lineup only when injuries create a short-term need. That hasn’t been the case for Martin, who has been active for eight of the Sparks’ first 13 games, making her a regular part of the team’s plans.

“I’ve been activated for quite a few games and that is a blessing,” Martin said. “I feel very grateful to have been activated for so many games so far, but I think just like not knowing until like game day, trying to figure out, like, ‘Oh, am I going to be activated, am I not?’ I think that’s probably the biggest difference, but you know, they don’t treat me any differently.”

When given the opportunity, Martin has brought energy and impact off the bench. She is shooting 47.4% from the field and taking 1.6 shots from three-point range per game despite playing just 7.4 minutes. Martin often receives the loudest cheers from fans during home games.

She delivered her strongest offensive performance in a loss to the Tempo on May 17, scoring 11 points on 4-of-7 shooting, but since then she has been used as a first-half rotation player to rest the Sparks guards as a reliable shooter and defender.

Even with the Sparks at full strength against the Portland Fire last week, Martin still earned eight minutes of play. Then she played four minutes in Saturday’s overtime win against Phoenix.

“We’re figuring it out in real time,” Sparks coach Lynne Roberts said. “These are new positions, and so each player only gets 12 games, but Kate does have experience. She is a spark off the bench. Everyone out there trusts her. There’s value to that. It’s hard, though, as a [developmental] player, to play one game and not play the next, and like it’s just hard for the rest of the group. So that part’s been tricky, and we’re figuring it out as we go.”

With seven active appearances already used, Martin has just four games remaining under the terms of her developmental contract. The Sparks must either preserve those appearances for later in the season or make a long-term commitment by signing her to a standard contract or she will become a free agent again.

The challenge is that Los Angeles does not currently have an open roster spot, meaning the team would need to waive a player to make room.

The Sparks’ Dearica Hamby and Kate Martin chest bump to celebrate after scoring against the Dallas Wings at Crypto.com Arena on June 5.

(Luiza Moraes / Getty Images)

Rookies Jihyun Park and 2026 second-round draft pick Ta’Niya Latson have both appeared in fewer games than Martin, as have veteran Emma Cannon and second-year forward Sania Feagin, who was injured earlier this season but hasn’t claimed a rotation spot since her return.

Martin was a regular part of the rotation with the Valkyries in her one season with the franchise, playing in 42 games and averaging 6.2 points per game and 31% shooting from three-point range. She was inconsistent at times, but also provided a spark off the bench and it was a surprise when they cut her.

After an emotional few days after being waived, Martin joined the Sparks, where she was excited for the opportunity to develop. Now, she sees herself as a fit beyond the 12-game limit.

“The system that we want to run at a very fast pace,” Martin said. “Spread the floor and shoot a lot of threes, and I think that I am good at spacing the floor, and I think that what they want to run here offensively benefits my game in a lot of ways, and I think I fit kind of seamlessly in that way.”

Investors are bracing for an ECB rate hike on Thursday. Markets expect the European Central Bank to raise rates by 25 basis points, which could weigh on growth and corporate earnings. Investors are also awaiting guidance on whether further hikes will follow.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ING said in an analysis on Thursday morning that: “We expect the ECB to hike by 25 basis points from 2.0% to 2.25%, supported by a hawkish tone, but the bar has risen to surprise markets. Despite oil prices testing new lows earlier this week, the EUR curve is increasingly set on three rate hikes.”

Stock markets across Europe opened in positive territory despite the drop in Asian shares following another sell-off in AI-related stocks on Wall Street on Wednesday.

The Euro Stoxx 50 opened 1.2% higher but the broader pan-European Stoxx 600 rose was flat in early trading.

Germany’s Dax and France’s CAC 40 were both up by 1%, while the UK’s FTSE 100 led with a 1.2% gain. Meanwhile, Italy’s FTSE MIB rose by 0.7%.

In other dealings, Asian shares mostly fell on Thursday after another sell-off in artificial intelligence stocks weighed on Wall Street, while oil prices rose.

Japan’s Nikkei 225 lost 0.5%, South Korea’s Kospi fell 0.2%, and Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 slipped 0.2%. Taiwan’s Taiex declined 0.4%.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index edged 0.2% higher, while Shanghai’s Composite index dropped 0.2%.

On Wall Street, on Wednesday, the S&P 500 fell 1.6%, marking its first consecutive decline in three weeks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 1.9%, while the Nasdaq Composite lost 2%.

Wall Street has been unsettled since last week, when AI stocks reversed course after hitting record highs. Investors are weighing whether the recent pullback has eased concerns over excessive optimism or signals the beginning of a more prolonged downturn.

Super Micro Computer, which sells AI servers, plunged 28% after announcing late on Tuesday plans to raise $7 billion through sales of common stock and convertible preferred shares. Companies often seek to raise capital when share prices are elevated, though such moves can dilute existing shareholders’ stakes.

Micron Technology swung between gains and losses before ending down 4.7%. The stock has experienced sharp volatility in recent sessions, having fallen 7.7% last Thursday, dropped a further 13.3% on Friday and then rallied 9.9% on Monday. Despite the swings, its shares remain up 212.5% so far this year.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that has grown into a nearly $4.9 trillion company on the back of the AI boom, was the biggest drag on the S&P 500 after falling 3.7%. Broadcom, another major AI beneficiary, lost 5.1%.

Some pressure on AI-related shares may also be linked to investors raising cash ahead of several high-profile stock market debuts in the United States. SpaceX’s initial public offering could take place later this week.

Weakening stocks for companies with big fuel bills also pulled the market lower. United Airlines sank 6.2%, and cruise operator Carnival fell 6.3% after oil prices rose due to the latest fighting in the war with Iran.

Oil prices and US inflation

Brent crude rose 1.8% to $93.10 a barrel on Wednesday after President Donald Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for stalled negotiations between the two sides over the conflict. The war has effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz to oil tankers, disrupting crude shipments from the Persian Gulf to customers worldwide.

Higher oil prices have added to inflationary pressures. A report released on Wednesday showed US consumer prices rose in May at the fastest annual pace in three years.

Traders are increasingly betting that the Federal Reserve will need to raise its benchmark interest rate at least once this year in response to persistent inflation and a resilient labour market.

Higher yields can slow economic growth and weigh on a range of investments, including stocks and cryptocurrencies. They tend to hit the most highly valued assets hardest, and some critics argue that enthusiasm around AI has inflated a market bubble.

In early European trading, Brent crude was up by 0.5% at $93.60 a barrel, while US benchmark crude gained 0.7% to $90.70.

The US dollar traded at 160.58 Japanese yen in the morning. The euro rose slightly to $1.1542, and the UK pound cost $1.3377.

The gold prices dipped by 0.6% to $4,109.60 an ounce.

California’s slow vote counting process — still underway and causing friction after last week’s primary — may be forced to change before November’s midterm elections, as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to rule on whether mail ballots must be received by election day to count.

Whether those changes will speed things up — and help tamp down baseless claims from President Trump and others that the slow count is evidence of fraud — will depend on a variety of factors, election experts said, including how the high court rules, how state lawmakers and local elections officials respond, and whether they push any additional steps to quicken the count.

“We’re all on the edge of our seats, waiting to see what the Supreme Court does,” said Kim Alexander, president of the California Voter Foundation.

“We’re certainly planning for a bad Supreme Court decision in this case, but we don’t really know all of our options for how to respond until we see the court’s decision,” said Assemblymember Gail Pellerin (D-Santa Cruz), chair of the Assembly Elections Committee and a former top elections official in Santa Cruz County.

Pellerin said she has been working on contingency plans with other state officials — including some from the offices of Gov. Gavin Newsom, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — and has requested $35 million in state funds to educate voters on any new midterm deadlines, though that funding has not been appropriated.

Federal law has, since 1872, set “election day” as the first Tuesday following a Monday in November, and gives Congress oversight over elections for the president and members of Congress. However, most authority for running elections falls to the states.

California currently provides a grace period for ballots to be counted as long as they are postmarked by and received within seven days of election day. More than a dozen states have similar laws that allow for counting late-arriving ballots, and most states accept such mail ballots from members of the military who are stationed overseas.

In March, the nation’s high court heard arguments about a five-day grace period in Mississippi, with the court’s conservative majority appearing skeptical. Many observers expect from those arguments that the high court will rule, by the end of this month, that ballots — at least for federal races — must be received by election day to count.

That outcome — in the case Watson vs. Republican National Committee — is considered likely but not assured, and some elections experts believe the high court has little legal precedent to support such a conclusion.

“That is a bogus interpretation of the statute,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law. “It violates what the statute says as a matter of text and history, and just how it’s been understood since the Civil War basically.”

Hasen and others also doubt that such a change would have much impact on the speed of California’s vote counting process, given that huge volumes of mail ballots that are placed in ballot drop boxes or arrive at processing facilities on or just before election day would still count — and would still drag the counting process out for days after the election.

In 2024, California counted more than 406,000 late-arriving mail ballots, but they represented only about 2.5% of the statewide total.

“The main bottleneck is really not ballots that arrive after election day. The bottleneck is ballots arriving before or on election day,” Hasen said. “So I don’t think the Watson case — however it comes out — is going to appreciably change California’s timing on when they’ll get enough ballots counted in a close race for it to be able to be called by news organizations.”

Nonetheless, state and local elections officials are preparing for changes — and looking for other ways to speed up the vote count, which, as of Monday, had resulted in more than 7.7 million ballots counted from last week’s primary, but more than 1.7 million left to process.

State plans unclear

If the Supreme Court were to rule that votes cast in federal elections must be received by election day, California would need to respond quickly.

It would need to craft a messaging campaign to inform millions of voters of the new rules, and determine when to tell voters they must mail their ballots by in order for their votes to count, experts said. That calculation may be shaped in part by efforts by the Trump administration to assert federal control over the mail ballot process through the U.S. Postal Service, which California and other states are fighting in court.

California officials may also need to determine whether they will create a “bifurcated counting process” with different rules for primary and general elections and different rules for federal races and state and local races on the same ballots, Alexander said, as a narrow Supreme Court ruling may not apply to them all equally.

“That’s a big policy decision that lawmakers will need to make, and I’m not sure how that would go,” Alexander said, citing a lack of detailed public plans from state and local elections officials.

Weber — who urged voters to cast ballots early in last week’s election — did not respond to a request for comment.

Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor’s office doesn’t comment on “hypotheticals,” but that Newsom “is planning for all eventualities, including but not limited to attacks on our democracy and disruptions in our elections.”

Bonta’s office said it is “in communication with election officials and actively preparing for the possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court could require changes to California’s election procedures,” but that it could not provide details.

Dean Logan, head of the L.A. County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s office, said he was “not in a position to discuss specific contingency planning details” given the high court has yet to rule, but that his office “is closely monitoring the case and has begun evaluating potential impacts to election administration.”

If changes are required by the court, Logan said his office “is prepared to undertake a comprehensive voter education and outreach effort to ensure voters understand any new requirements, deadlines, or voting options,” which would be “multilingual, multi-channel, and designed to reach voters directly across Los Angeles County, particularly in communities that rely heavily on voting by mail and those that have historically done so.”

Funds needed for faster count

Alexander’s group has backed Pellerin’s request for $35 million for a marketing campaign to encourage voters to send midterm ballots in early, and advocated for another $55 million in state funding to support county efforts to build up their vote processing capabilities.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, said it would be “premature” to comment on those requests, but “discussions have been underway and are continuing.”

Both Alexander and Hasen said California should be investing more in its ballot processing capabilities even if the current process is fair and secure and the claims of fraud are baseless, because those claims have succeeded in diminishing trust.

“On the one hand, this is a manufactured crisis. There is nothing that is intrinsically bad about a slow count for a race,” Hasen said. “On the other hand, we live in an era of profound distrust in institutions and in the integrity of elections, in no small part because of Donald Trump.”

In 2012, slightly over half of all California votes were cast via mail ballots. However, that number has increased dramatically since, thanks in part to an expansion during the COVID-19 pandemic, and nearly 89% of ballots were cast by mail in last year’s special election.

Alexander said that throughout that same period, California lawmakers have passed new laws to expand access to the ballot but have not provided counties with the necessary funding to keep up with the volume — meaning “counties are left holding the bag.”

Alexander said California should fix that by providing consistent state funding for new ballot counting machines, more modern and efficient county processing facilities, and an expansion of a program backed by Pellerin and available in some counties already that allows voters dropping off ballot envelopes in person to essentially convert those ballots into in-person votes on the spot — which Alexander called a “hybrid” option that saves counties a huge amount of processing time.

She said the state spent millions to educate voters on new COVID-related vote-by-mail protocols and deadlines in 2020, and it led to both record turnout and a faster count — proving access and speed are not mutually exclusive.

“We’re being asked to make a false choice,” Alexander said. “It is possible to have accessible, secure, reliable and verified elections, and also an accelerated vote count.”

Times staff writer David G. Savage in Washington contributed to this report.

Two Dragons’ Den entrepreneurs were branded “delusional” by Touker Suleyman over their valuation after he turned down their pitch, but their vegan pet food brand is now worth £11,000,000.

Dragons’ Den stars who Touker Suleyman once labelled “delusional” have revealed their company is now turning over £11,000,000.

The Dragon confirmed at the weekend that he would be departing the show after “ten extraordinary years”.

In a social media post, Touker shared: “It has been an immense privilege to sit in that chair, to meet so many passionate and talented entrepreneurs, and to invest in businesses and people I truly believed in.

“The show gave me a platform not only to invest in leading British founders and companies, but to share hard-won wisdom built over decades in business – and I hope that, in some small way, I made a difference to those who stood opposite me.”

Yet one particular pair of entrepreneurs who faced Touker in the Den were on the receiving end of some scathing criticism from the businessman, reports Wales Online.

Omni founders Dr Guy Sandelowsky and Shiv Sivakumar appeared on the programme last year, seeking investment in their protein-based, vegan pet food brand.

Established in 2021, their brand centred on improving pets’ wellbeing through lab-grown food that was calorie-controlled and environmentally sustainable, while also delivering on taste.

Within two years, they had racked up over £2,500,000 in sales, and were seeking £75,000 from the Dragons in exchange for a 1% stake in their business.

Touker, however, remained wholly unimpressed, declaring he “wouldn’t even get out of bed for” that sum, and bluntly stated: “You’re delusional about what this is really worth.”

Although Deborah Meaden and Steven Bartlett championed the entrepreneurs, Touker rejected Omni’s lifetime value projections, and was swift to utter the infamous words, “I’m out.”

Yet, despite his scathing assessment, the Omni entrepreneurs disclosed in a 2025 interview that their business was valued at £7,500,000, and shortly afterwards, they’d soared to £11,000,000, even collaborating with Springwatch’s Chris Packham.

Reflecting on Touker and also Peter Jones’ brutal comments in the Den, Dr Guy and Shiv previously told Metro: “I feel like when we were in the Den, they were looking at our historical numbers and basing that on our valuation, but what we were basing it on was actually what our revenue was like at that point, because we’re so fast-growing.”

Dr Guy went on: “We can make quite reasonable assumptions about what we’re going to do in the coming months as well, and I felt like that wasn’t necessarily as much their focus. When you look at our run-rate based on our revenue, it’s not as crazy as they were sort of alluding to at all.”

He continued by stressing that their experience in the Den came down to their product, not their numbers.

He added: “In hindsight, the one disadvantage of it is that we didn’t get to show the nation so much of the other stuff we filmed, like the details of our products.”

Speaking back in March 2025, they said the response from the series had been “amazing”, adding: “We’re trying to keep up, honestly, we’re just a small business trying to help pets live happier lives, and we knew that going on the show would increase our exposure.

“But we never imagined the demand that we’re seeing now, we’ve had to re-evaluate our stock levels and the number of people helping with our customer service and packaging, so it’s been really, really positive.”

He went on: “It’s just a testament to the fact that so many people out there watching the show understood what we’re trying to do, aligned with our mission and were willing to give it a go.”

Sharing his announcement that he was stepping down from Dragons’ Den this weekend, Touker’s statement went on: “Stepping back from Dragons’ will give me more time to mentor the entrepreneurs I have invested in, and to give back the 50 years of business experience I have accumulated.

“If I can help the next generation avoid the pitfalls I’ve faced, seize the opportunities I almost missed, and build businesses they are truly proud of, then that will be the most rewarding chapter of my career yet.”

Touker concluded: “To the BBC, to my fellow Dragons past and present, to the production team, and above all to the entrepreneurs who dared to walk through those doors – thank you.

“It has been one of the greatest joys of my career. The fire in the Den burns on. I simply pass the torch.”

After Sara Davies’ departure last year, it has yet to be confirmed who will be joining Deborah Meaden, Peter Jones and Steven Bartlett in the Den.

Dragons’ Den is available to watch on BBC iPlayer.

BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday struck down a Trump administration policy enacted after the shooting of two National Guard members that made it harder for immigrants from dozens of countries to stay and enter the U.S.

In a ruling harshly criticizing the administration, U.S. District Chief Judge John McConnell Jr. said the policy “threw the lives of countless immigrants living in the United States into indeterminate legal limbo,” and he accused the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of ignoring the law.

“In enacting its latest immigration policies, USCIS: claims statutory and regulatory authority that it does not possess; makes decisions without the reasoned explanations that it must provide; acts without regard for the reliance interests of applicants that it must consider; and justifies its actions with pretextual concerns of ‘national security’ that mask anti-immigrant sentiments that it is forbidden from letting influence its decision-making,” he wrote. “In legal terms that means USCIS’s actions are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The policies enacted after the National Guard shooting last year meant that immigrants from 39 African, Asian, Latin American and Middle Eastern countries have been “categorically barred” from receiving final decisions on, among other things, their asylum, work permit, green card and citizenship applications.

“This ruling reaffirms a basic principle: the federal government cannot shut down lawful immigration pathways or discriminate against people based on where they come from,” said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful policies caused enormous harm to families, workers, asylum-seekers, and communities across the country who were left in limbo, unable to work, access protections, or move forward with their lives.”

The policies apply to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which approves applications for immigrants to work and become citizens. The agency, which is within the Homeland Security Department, often grants asylum, but only for those already in the United States when they apply. Immigration judges grant asylum to those who are stopped at the border; the ruling does not affect them, and neither do the policies that sparked the lawsuit.

It is part of an ongoing effort by the administration to tighten U.S. entry standards for travel and immigration, in what critics say unfairly prevents travel for people from a broad range of countries. The administration suggested it would expand the restrictions after the arrest of an Afghan national suspect in the shooting of two National Guard troops over Thanksgiving weekend.

In its motion to dismiss, which the court denied, the government argued that Congress gave the executive branch broad authority over immigration policy, including “the entry of aliens into the United States as well as discretion within the statutory scheme to confer as well as withdraw various discretionary benefits.”

“This case rests on a remarkable premise: that a federal court should prevent an agency from issuing the very policy guidance that provides government personnel with the guardrails necessary to ensure consistent, non-arbitrary, and individualized decisionmaking consistent with federal law,” the government wrote in its brief.

Immigration groups celebrated the ruling.

“This ruling sets a powerful precedent that the administration cannot ignore the law as laid down by Congress and cannot arbitrarily bar immigration benefits on the basis of national origin by fiat,” said Jamal Abdi, president at the National Iranian American Council. “Fortunately, this is still a nation of laws, and those who uphold America’s values have recourse to challenge and push back on such discriminatory, arbitrary policies.”

Shawn VanDiver, a Navy veteran who heads a coalition that supports Afghan resettlement efforts called #AfghanEvac, said the ruling was a “significant victory for the rule of law and for thousands of Afghan allies and other immigrants who followed every requirement asked of them.”

“Just this week in Dallas and Fort Worth, we met people who feared losing jobs because delayed work permit renewals threatened their livelihoods, families who postponed education, travel, and homeownership because they did not know when their cases would be resolved, and future Americans who had expected to become citizens only to see their applications stall without explanation,” VanDiver said.

Casey writes for the Associated Press.

The Fortune viewers were left scratching their heads over the latest episode of the Channel 5 drama

The Fortune viewers were left baffled as the psychological drama progressed on Channel 5, with many questioning the storyline.

The series focuses on waitress Amanda Blakefield (portrayed by Poldark’s Eleanor Tomlinson) whose life is transformed when she discovers she’s set to inherit a substantial estate from a total stranger.

Amanda clashes with the wealthy man’s relatives, including son Anthony, portrayed by All Creatures Great and Small star Callum Woodhouse, and also experiences difficulties with her own husband Jimmy (Harry Potter star Matthew Lewis), who is receiving mysterious phone calls.

In the opening episode of the series, Amanda becomes trapped in a vehicle with a man named Boots who delivers her a menacing warning. She escapes and rushes home, but in the second episode chooses to return to the location and break into his eerie cottage during the middle of the night – alone – to investigate.

Audiences were left bewildered by the choice, with one describing it as “daft” and another observing that she was “messing with fire”, reports Wales Online.

“Who goes wandering at night and enters the house of someone who had threatened her?” one viewer questioned on X, as another stated: “He has already threatened her, so she goes to see him on her own at night.”

“She was (scared) last night in the taxi and here she is alone wandering around his house in the dark,” another posted on the platform, formerly known as Twitter.

“Now she’s being daft again,” remarked another viewer.

“Typical TV drama derangement syndrome. Do they: (a) consult a solicitor? (b) report threats and kidnapping to the police? No! It’s always (c) do it yourself and barge in uninvited to dangerous situations without telling anyone else.”

“Don’t think I’d want to be wandering around there at the dead of night,” admitted one viewer, as another posted: “Amanda’s messing with fire.”

Yet others were thoroughly gripped by the nail-biting mystery, with one declaring the episode “went with a bang” and another describing it as “interesting”. “I enjoyed it,” wrote one viewer, adding: “Good cast.”

Another gave it a firm thumbs up, while someone else commented: “Episode 2 so far is much better than the ludicrous episode 1.”

The Fortune is airing on Channel 5.

Los Angeles County prosecutors are reviewing two sex assault cases against Sean “Diddy” Combs that stem from allegations made by a Florida music producer last year, law enforcement officials and the alleged victim said Wednesday.

Investigators from the Los Angeles Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department presented the cases to prosecutors in January 2026, according to a statement from the district attorney’s office.

A spokesman for the district attorney’s office declined to say when the alleged incidents occurred or explain why it has taken nearly nine months to make a charging decision.

Combs — who rose to fame as a hip-hop mogul in the 1990s as the face of Bad Boy Records — has gone through a years-long public downfall following myriad allegations of domestic violence and sex abuse. In July, a New York jury convicted him of transporting prostitutes across state lines for drug-fueled bacchanals referred to as “freak offs.”

He was sentenced to four years in federal prison and remains incarcerated at a minimum-security prison in New Jersey.

Combs’ reputation and business began to publicly unravel in 2023 after federal authorities raided his homes, and a leaked video showed him beating his ex-girlfriend, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, at a Los Angeles hotel.

TMZ first reported on the D.A.’s office’s decision to review the L.A. allegations. A spokesman for Combs declined to comment.

In November, The Times reported that the Sheriff’s Department was investigating Combs on suspicion of a sex assault that happened in East L.A.

Jonathan Hay — a Florida-based music producer who was working with Combs on a project to remix songs written by deceased rap legend Notorious B.I.G., also known as Christopher Wallace — said Wednesday that he is the alleged victim in the cases under review by the district attorney.

Hay told several media outlets in 2025 that he was the “John Doe” from a civil lawsuit filed last July that accused Combs of sex assault in 2020 and 2021. Hay first reported the assaults to police in Largo, Fla., he has said.

According to the suit, Hay, Combs and others were at a Los Angeles warehouse that stored some of Wallace’s possessions in 2020 when Combs “provided drugs to everyone present” and subsequently began masturbating in front of Hay.

Combs “started watching porn on his cell phone, grabbed one of Biggie’s shirts off a rack, and began to masturbate with it in front of the plaintiff,” the suit alleges. In a separate incident in March 2021, Hay alleged Combs forced him to perform oral sex, according to the suit.

“I have an overwhelming feeling of hope as we are knocking on the door of criminal justice,” Hay wrote in an email to The Times on Wednesday. “I am beyond grateful that both the LASD and LAPD investigated this case thoroughly for many months and submitted it to the District Attorney.”

Combs’ civil attorney Jonathan Davis has previously denied Hay’s allegations.

“Let me make it absolutely clear, Mr. Combs categorically denies as false and defamatory all claims that he sexually abused anyone,” Davis said in a statement last year. “He looks forward to vindicating himself in court, where such matters are decided — and not in the media — based on admissible, material evidence, not rank speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.”

Times staff writer Richard Winton contributed to this report.

Love Island fans were left seething with the decision by bombshells George and Yasmin as two islanders were forced to leave the show already

Love Island is now into day three of the new series, and with the sun heating up, so is the drama. Viewers were left less than impressed as the bombshells made their eviction decision on Wednesday, calling it a ‘sinister’ move.

Yasmin was in tears as the time for the bombshells to make their decision approached. And their call stunned the viewers as Ellie and Samraj were sent home. But while tears ran down the villa, with gutted Samraj and Ellie needing to exit, they were told that all may not be as it seemed.

And the decision – and announcement – left fans stunned. On X, formerly known as Twitter, after Yasmin and George’s decision, one user wrote: “That was sinister #loveisland.”

Another said: “ELLIE & SAMRAJ ????? WOTTTTTTT #LoveIsland.” And a third agreed, calling the decision to dump Samraj “crazy”. With twists and bombshells already flowing, bosses would have expected the drama to unfold. And it appears that is exactly what is happening. Viewers questioned the cliffhanger as the show came to a close.