decision

Less than four weeks after suffering a Grade 2 left oblique muscle strain, Austin Reaves is closing in on a return with the Lakers in position to clinch a spot in the Western Conference semifinals.

Reaves will officially be a game-time decision before Wednesday’s potentially series-clinching Game 5 against the Houston Rockets at 7 p.m. at Crypto.com Arena. He was questionable for Games 3 and 4, warming up on the court before each game, but was ultimately ruled out.

The Lakers have a 3-1 lead in the best-of-seven series despite playing without Reaves and leading scorer Luka Doncic, who is out because of a Grad 2 left hamstring strain.

“JJ [Redick] specifically was like you have to be comfortable with your body and what you can do to go out there and help us be successful,” Reaves said of his coach in his first comments to reporters since suffering the injury on April 2. “And I want to get back out there as fast as I can. But like I said, I feel good and trending in the right direction and can’t wait to wake up tomorrow and attack another day.”

Reaves said he typically has a very high pain tolerance. Even though he finished the game against Oklahoma City on April 2, he wasn’t surprised the injury that left him grabbing at his left side repeatedly during the game turned out to be significant enough to sideline him for several weeks.

The game was especially painful for the Lakers, who also lost Doncic on the same night. Reaves’ regular-season ending injury news came a day after Doncic’s. The Lakers, then in third place in the Western Conference, came crashing down from a 15-2 record in March. They suddenly looked like sitting ducks in the playoff hunt.

At least only to those outside the locker room.

“Our confidence doesn’t waver as a team,” Reaves said. “Basically the message from that day forward was … that they were going to do everything as a team to give us an opportunity to come back and play. And they’ve done exactly what they said.”

The Lakers finished the regular season with three consecutive wins to hold onto home-court advantage as the fourth seed. They raced out to a 3-0 series lead against the Rockets, who staved off elimination with a blowout win in Game 4.

Doncic is progressing in his return, but still has not started playing one-on-one yet. Last weekend, he improved enough to incorporate movement into his on-court work instead of just standstill shooting.

The United States army announced last month that it would raise the maximum age at which Americans can enlist from 35 to 42 years to expand its pool of eligible candidates amid recruiting challenges in recent years.

An updated version of US Army Regulation 601–210, dated March 20, outlined the changes, including the elimination of rules requiring anyone with a single conviction for marijuana possession or drug paraphernalia to obtain a waiver to enlist.

Government data shows that while the US army has met its recruitment goals over the last two years, it fell short in 2022 and 2023 and has consistently failed to meet targets for the Army Reserve, shortcomings that analysts have attributed to several possible factors.

The new age limit was announced during the US-Israel war on Iran, towards which young people have expressed widespread opposition.

Here’s what you need to know about the changes.

When does the regulation go into effect?

The updated version of Army Regulation 601–210 officially takes effect on Monday, April 20.

What has the military said about the changes?

The US army announced updated enlistment regulations on March 20, with the changes scheduled to take effect one month later on April 20 and applying to the Regular Army, Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.

The maximum enlistment age is raised from 35 to 42, and previous restrictions requiring anyone with a single conviction for possession of marijuana or drug paraphernalia to obtain a waiver to enlist are done away with.

Do these changes apply to the whole US military?

The changes announced in March are specific to the US army.

The military news outlet Stars and Stripes reported that those changes bring the army into greater alignment with the maximum enlistment age of other branches of the military, such as the Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, and Space Force, which accept enlistees in their early 40s.

The maximum enlistment age for the US Marines is 28.

What factors explain the change?

While the US army did not comment on the reasons for the increase, data from the US Army Recruiting Command show that the army has struggled with recruitment challenges.

While the army met 100 percent of its recruitment goals in 2025 and 2024, it missed its target by about 23 percent in 2023 and 25 percent in 2022.

That data also shows that the army has fallen short of recruitment targets for the Army Reserve for the last six years in a row.

The average age of army recruits has risen in recent years to 22.7, up from 21.7 in the 2000s and 21.1 in the 2010s, according to the military news outlet Army Times, citing data from a US army spokesperson.

The US Army Recruiting Command has attributed such challenges to issues such as changes in the labour market, limited awareness about military service, and a lack of qualified young people due to issues such as obesity, drug use, and mental health issues.

A 2018 poll listed concerns over possible injury and death, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), separation from family and friends, and other career interests as top reasons offered by young people for not joining the military.

Does the change have to do with the war in Iran?

Analysts have been discussing the possibility of raising the enlistment age for years as a means of addressing recruiting challenges, with a 2023 research report from the RAND Corporation, a US think tank, calling “older youth” a “crucial, largely untapped, yet high-quality pool of potential recruits”.

While the military has not suggested that the change is linked to the US-Israel war on Iran, where US President Donald Trump has previously said he could deploy ground troops, some social media users were quick to note the timing of the announcement.

Some in the online community joked that older supporters of the war would now be available to enlist.

“They raised the enlistment age to 42,” one X user said in response to a video of the conservative commentator Ben Shapiro praising Trump’s decision to attack Iran. “Why are you still here?”

Surveys have found that younger people are more likely to oppose the US war on Iran than those aged 65 and up, and polls in recent years have found that young people are more generally sceptical of US intervention abroad than older generations.

A 2024 Pew Research Center poll found that people between the ages of 18 and 29 were the only age bracket in the US who viewed the military more negatively than positively, with 53 percent saying the military had a negative effect versus 43 percent who said it had a positive effect.

How many people are currently in the US military?

According to the Pew Research Center, the US military has about 1.32 million active members. The US army accounts for the largest share, with nearly 450,000, while the US Navy is second with more than 334,000.

The Air Force has more than 317,000, the Marines more than 168,000, the Coast Guard nearly 42,000, and the Space Force nearly 9,700.

Data from the US Army Recruiting Command shows that about 80 percent of recruits in the Regular Army were men in 2025.

Black and Latino recruits also make up a larger share of army recruits than their percentage of the population, each making up about 27 percent of recruits while comprising 14 percent and 20 percent of the general population, according to data from the 2024 census.

White people made up about 40 percent of US army recruits, while about 57 percent of the general population.

One family on Rich House, Poor House decided to ‘break a rule’ halfway through the swap

*Warning: Contains spoilers for the latest episode of Rich House, Poor House*

A Rich House Poor House couple have broken one major show rule.

The hit Channel 5 series sees two families from opposite ends of the wealth divide swap homes, budgets, and lives for a week.

They both experience a dramatic shift in perspective as they step into each other’s worlds but one family appeared to break a rule as they left the property halfway through the swap.

During Sunday’s (April 19) episode, millionaire hotel owners Gez and Rosy Chetal swapped their luxury life with the Bloor family.

In Norfolk, John and wife Ann, live with their three children in a three-bedroom rented terrace house. After basic household bills they have just £79 a week to spend on everything else from food and travel to fun.

Mum Ann works as a cook in a mental health care home, meanwhile husband John works long hours as a bus driver, but they both have a passion for cooking.

Despite both grafting hard, the couple struggle to make ends meet and have previously gone bankrupt for £36k, but they dream of running a music café of their own one day.

Experiencing how the wealthiest 1% live, they exchanged homes for a week with hotel owners Gez and Rosy Chetal, who lived in their luxurious £1.7m 11-bedroom bespoke hotel with their 19-year-old daughter Saanchi.

Given his demanding lifestyle as an entrepreneur, the couple wanted to use the swap as a way for them to spend some quality time together and have a break from their business.

They swapped their hotel— complete with a wine cellar, a large dining room and private chef for a week-long stay in the Bloor family’s house.

While Gez and Rosy were forced to manage on a weekly budget of £79, John, wife Ann and their children got a taste of luxury living with £1,800 to spend.

However, not long into the swap it was clear that the Bloor family struggled to adjust to their new environment living in a hotel as Ann admitted: “My kids are not comfortable.”

After a restless night, Ann was visibly moved as she told husband John: “The children are really uncomfortable. They can’t be in their pyjamas because it’s a hotel, they can’t just go and get a drink, they can’t just go and get a sandwich.” John jumped in and added: “It’s not a home is it?”

Turning to John, Ann explained: “It’s nothing about the hotel. If it was just me and you.. I’d absolutely love it but actually to me we can’t really stay in the hotel.”

The couple then made a big decision and decided to abandon the hotel and use the remaining budget to book a luxury Airbnb, that cost a whopping £1,200.

When the two families finally reunited at the end of their swap, Ann went on to say: “We loved the hotel, unfortunately the children didn’t. They felt very separated from us.” Gez added: “It’s just a big house really, with 11 rooms.”

Rich House, Poor House airs Sunday night from 9pm on Channel 5

Nike has been refused a trademark for Bronny James‘ “b9” logo that appears on shoes have been worn in games by the second-year Lakers player and are being sold by the sports apparel giant.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office notified Nike of its decision with a letter of refusal earlier this week, citing “likelihood of confusion” with an already-registered mark by the Back9 Golf Apparel company.

“Applicant’s mark, B9, is confusingly similar to the registered mark, B9,” the refusal letter states. “The marks are similar in appearance, sound, and commercial impression. In addition, the marks are essentially phonetic equivalents and, thus, sound similar. Similarity in sound alone may be sufficient to support a finding that the compared marks are confusingly similar.”

Nike did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Times.

The James logo features a lowercase “b” with a “9” embedded in the center (where a hole normally would be). The Back9 logo has a capital “B” and a “9” of the same size next to each other. The logos are in different fonts.

In its trademark application, filed on Feb. 27, Nike had indicated the intention of using the logo on seemingly all types of athletic apparel, including footwear, headwear, shirts, pants, shorts and jackets. Polo shirts and golf caps were listed among the many specific examples of possible uses.

The refusal letter notes the use of similar or identical language in the description of goods in Back9’s trademark application, which was filed in May 2021 and approved a year later.

“The overriding concern is not only to prevent buyer confusion as to the source of the goods, but to protect the registrant from adverse commercial impact due to use of a similar mark by a newcomer,” the letter states. “Therefore, any doubt regarding a likelihood of confusion determination is resolved in favor of the registrant.

“Here, because the marks are similar and the goods are related and/or legally identical, there is a likelihood of confusion as to the source of applicant’s goods, and registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act.”

Nike has until July 13 to appeal the decision.

The Lakers, seeded No. 4 in the Western Conference, start their opening-round playoff series against the No. 5 Houston Rockets on Saturday at Crypto.com Arena.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The California Supreme Court ordered attorney and former law school dean John Eastman disbarred on Wednesday for his role aiding the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

The court ordered Eastman’s name be “stricken from the roll of attorneys” and that he pay $5,000 to the State Bar of California.

Eastman’s attorney, Randall A. Miller, told the Associated Press that the court’s decision “departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context.” Miller did not immediately return an after-hours phone call seeking comment from The Times.

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement that the ruling “underscores that Mr. Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney.”

“Today’s California Supreme Court order disbarring John Charles Eastman from the practice of law in California affirms the fundamental principle that attorneys must act with honesty and uphold the rule of law, regardless of the client they represent or the context in which that representation occurs,” said Cardona said.

The Supreme Court’s decision affirms a 2024 ruling from State Bar Judge Yvette Roland that Eastman be prohibited from practicing law.

In a marathon trial that lasted off and on from June to November 2024, the State Bar, which regulates lawyers in California, argued that Eastman was unfit to practice law for peddling bogus claims that fraud cost Trump the election and for promoting a fake-elector scheme to block the electoral count.

“It is true that an attorney has a duty to engage in zealous advocacy on behalf of a client,” Roland wrote in 2024 in a 128-page ruling. “However, Eastman’s inaccurate assertions were lies that cannot be justified as zealous advocacy.”

Roland found Eastman culpable of 10 of 11 counts of misconduct.

Eastman fomented “predictable and destructive chaos” when he stood beside fellow Trump adviser Rudolph W. Giuliani on Jan. 6, 2021, and told an enormous crowd at the Ellipse that the election had been fraudulent, the bar argued.

Eastman claimed he was acting in good faith, and as a vigorous champion of his client. But State Bar attorneys argued that “the evidence, including his often not-credible trial testimony, shows that he held — and still holds — truth and democracy in contempt.”

Despite Eastman’s repeated assertions that Joe Biden’s victory was illegal, Roland ruled, Eastman’s own words showed he knew that proof was lacking.

The judge cited an email that Eastman sent to a friend, Cleta Mitchell, on Nov. 29, 2020, acknowledging that fraud serious enough to sway the results could not be proved.

“It would be nice to have actually hard documented evidence of the fraud in the areas to which the analyses pointed,” Eastman wrote.

After the 2024 ruling Eastman responded on his Substack writing that he hoped the California Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court would “step in to put a stop to this lawfare that has become a serious threat to the First Amendment, the right of controversial clients and causes to legal representation, and more broadly to our adversarial system of justice.”

Eastman has a long history in California’s conservative legal circles. He was hired by Chapman’s law school in 1999 and was dean from June 2007 to January 2010, then continued to teach courses in constitutional law, property law, legal history and the 1st Amendment.

He retired in early 2021 after more than 100 Chapman faculty and others affiliated with the university signed a letter calling on the school to take action against him for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Wednesday’s decision is a bookend in a lengthy investigation into Eastman’s actions that began in 2021. In October of that year, the nonpartisan legal group States United Democracy Center filed an ethics complaint calling on the State Bar to investigate Eastman’s Jan. 6 actions.

Christine P. Sun, senior vice president of legal at the States United Democracy Center, said on Wednesday that the court’s decision is “part of a broader reckoning for those who seek to undermine the rule of law.”

“Eastman played a central role in the plot to overturn the 2020 election—pressuring state officials, advancing baseless claims in court, and promoting a fringe theory that the vice president could reject certified electoral votes,” Sun said in a statement. “His unethical actions have had real, lasting consequences for our democracy, and we applaud the California Supreme Court’s decision to disbar him.”

Staff writer Christopher Goffard contributed to this report