denies

A federal appeals court Monday denied an emergency request from the U.S. Justice Department to step in and block California election officials from counting about 20,000 ballots from voters whose citizenship the Trump administration has questioned.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — composed of two judges appointed by President Trump and one by President Biden — ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the request, given that a lower district court has not yet made a ruling on it.

But two of the three judges also wrote separately to make clear they also would have denied the Trump administration’s request on other grounds, if they did have jurisdiction.

In an unsigned order — joined by Judge Mark J. Bennett, one of the Trump appointees, and Judge Gabriel P. Sanchez, the Biden appointee — the court granted a request from Los Angeles County to dismiss the appeal, writing that the Trump administration “failed to allow the district court adequate opportunity to consider” its request for a temporary restraining order barring the ballots from being counted before filing its unusual appeal to the appellate panel.

The court found that the “emergency” the Trump administration asserted was in part a “self-constructed one” and that delays in the district court were partly attributable to its “own delay in filing suit, in realizing that existing California state law governs the issuance and processing of ballots, in recognizing that California has millions of registered voters and processes ballots on a schedule aligned with that scale, and in communicating to the court its desired relief.”

Both Bennett and Sanchez also each wrote a concurring opinion — in which they made clear that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request even if they did have jurisdiction, too.

Sanchez wrote that federal law would bar the court from issuing such a demand on state elections officials so close to an election.

“The United States seeks to have a federal court dictate to California the manner in which it must administer its own electoral process by segregating mail-in ballots and undertaking a citizenship verification process the State has never done before,” Sanchez wrote. “The proposed injunction would transform California’s election rules for an election that is already underway and would cause widespread confusion among voters and election officials, divert election administration resources, and ‘usher in electoral chaos.’”

Bennett wrote that he would have denied the Trump administration’s emergency request for several reasons beyond jurisdiction, including that it would be likely unconstitutional under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which he wrote “confers broad authority only on Congress and the States, not the Executive,” and Congress has not acted to say that California’s existing laws for ensuring only U.S. citizens vote are problematic.

“Thus, under the Elections Clause, the legislature’s statutory scheme remains as the only method to do so,” Bennett wrote.

Bennett wrote that there are existing California laws to deal with the harm the Trump administration claims it is suffering, but that granting its request to intervene could “result in immense hardship” to the state “and harm the public by risking the disenfranchisement of eligible voters and putting the entire tabulation process in jeopardy.”

Bennett wrote that the Trump administration “offered no workable plan of any kind as to how the remedy it seeks could be accomplished in practice without potential catastrophic consequences to California’s ongoing election.”

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay, the other Trump appointee, dissented — arguing the Trump administration was well within its legal rights to intervene, and the appellate court did have jurisdiction to grant its request and bar the state “from accepting and processing ballots likely cast by aliens until their citizenship could be verified.”

“The question — does the federal government have the power to stop this potential attack on the integrity of our elections? Under both federal law and the Constitution, the answer must be ‘yes,’” Bumatay wrote. “Simply, the federal government has a sovereign interest in safeguarding federal elections and ensuring that the votes of noncitizens do not undermine our electoral results.”

The ruling clears the way for the lower court to proceed with a hearing scheduled Tuesday afternoon before U.S. District Judge David O. Carter in Los Angeles.

Carter, an appointee of President Clinton, previously rejected an attempt by the Trump administration to obtain California’s full voter rolls, calling that demand unlawful and a threat to democracy in January. Other federal judges made similar rulings in dozens of states across the country.

The question at issue Tuesday — and hashed over by the appellate court during oral arguments Sunday — is whether the courts should bar the state, Secretary of State Shirley Weber and Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan from processing and tabulating the flagged ballots until they can provide to the Trump administration proof that those individuals are citizens.

The Trump administration has argued in court filings that the federal government is suffering irreparable harm each day such counting is allowed to continue, as once California ballots are removed from their mail envelopes or cast in person, there is “no way to associate the voter with the ballot” or resegregate those ballots from others.

More than 3 million ballots have already been cast in the upcoming Nov. 3 midterm elections statewide, and more than 500,000 have already been cast in L.A. County.

Attorneys for California, Weber and Logan have argued in court filings that the administration’s demands to segregate 20,000 ballots and vet those voters for citizenship with just days to go before the election are impossible to comply with and would cause catastrophic disruptions if elections officials across the state were forced to try.

They have also said the demands are clearly unconstitutional, illegal under state and federal law, and based on federal immigration and third-party data sets that have been shown to be deeply flawed, inaccurate and inclusive of legitimate voters.

While the appellate court’s formal ruling Monday adhered closely to the technical issue of jurisdiction, its conversation Sunday did not — with both Bennett and Sanchez expressing substantial doubts about the lawfulness of the Trump administration’s request, just as they did in their separate concurrences.

Bennett grilled Matthew Donnelly, the attorney for the Justice Department, on how the executive branch’s demands squared with the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly gives states the power to set laws regarding the time, place and manner of elections and Congress — not the executive branch — oversight over those laws.

Bennett said that while the Trump administration is “unhappy” with how California law ensures voters are citizens — namely by requiring that they attest to their citizenship upon registration — the state has the right to determine its election laws under the Elections Clause of the Constitution, and Congress has not challenged its process.

“It seems to me that you want us to issue an injunction that is entirely inconsistent with the law the California Legislature has adopted pursuant to the Elections Clause,” Bennett said. “How can we do that?”

Bennett and Sanchez both questioned how the appellate court could step in and adjudicate whether to grant the Trump administration’s request to intervene in the state’s election when it is not a fact-finding body, and the district court was never given a chance to develop a record of facts — including around the dueling and contradicting claims about the origins and reliability of the federal government’s list of “likely” noncitizen voters and the state’s claims that an order forcing them to segregate out the votes at this late stage in the election would cause catastrophic harm to the election process.

Carter is sure to pick those issues back up on Tuesday.

The halt to commercial shipments, including fruit and winter clothing, cuts off a key source of critical supplies.

Israeli authorities say no commercial goods have entered Gaza for two days, citing what they claim is a tax dispute between local merchants and Hamas.

COGAT, or the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories, the Israeli military body that “oversees humanitarian affairs” in Gaza, announced the halt on Wednesday.

COGAT claimed that local merchants “made the decision in response to a 10,000 shekel ($3,220) fee imposed by Hamas on each truck entering Gaza” as well as a demand for 30 percent of all sales in Gaza to be carried out in cash.

This decision is expected to impact a crucial source of food and goods for the 2.1 million people in the Strip, who are completely reliant on Israel’s border crossings in a territory that is still suffering from famine.

Gaza’s government media office refuted the claims on Thursday and condemned the “blatant disinformation campaign and false statement”.

The media office instead said it was an attempt “to hold the government apparatus in Gaza responsible for the disruption of truck entry” and that the fee was a voluntary payment to a fund providing aid for those in need, such as widows and orphans.

It also said that cash payments were encouraged due to what it described as an acute cash shortage in the war-torn territory, but were never a mandatory requirement.

An already dire humanitarian crisis

The halt to commercial shipments, including fruit and winter clothing, cuts off a key source of food and other critical supplies as fears mount ahead of the encroaching winter.

Aid groups generally bring in staples such as flour, while merchants import more perishable foods like fruits and meat, according to data released earlier this year by COGAT.

The suspension is raising fears about affordability, with humanitarian workers saying a combination of aid and a robust commercial market is needed to keep prices under control.

“The humanitarian sector on its own cannot meet the needs of all the people,” said Shaina Low, a spokesperson for the Norwegian Refugee Council. “The markets need to be functioning.”

Local merchants step in

The head of Gaza’s private truckers union, Nahed Sheheiber, denied the Israeli narrative, saying: “The Israeli coordinator is claiming that Gaza’s merchants are responsible, but the truth is that the Israelis are the ones who imposed the restrictions.”

Following COGAT’s announcement, Sheheiber’s union met with Gaza’s Ministry of Economy to express concern and say Israel was citing fees levied by the ministry as a pretext to cut off commercial goods.

A global hunger monitor in July warned that more than two-thirds of people in Gaza could face acute hunger by the year-end.

Israel is obliged under a US-mediated agreement to allow a minimum of 600 trucks carrying humanitarian aid to enter Gaza each day.

Diplomats say that far fewer than 600 trucks normally enter Gaza each day. Sheheiber said the figure was closer to 300, with two-thirds carrying commercial goods.

KATIE Price’s ex-husband Kieran Hayler yesterday told jurors he was attracted to older women as he denied child rape allegations.

The former stripper, 39, spoke about his affairs while married to the TV personality as he gave evidence at his trial.

He is accused of three rapes and one sexual assault against a 13-year-old girl.

But the judge yesterday added four alternative counts of sexual activity with a child to Hayler’s indictment, which means the jury could convict him of those lesser offences if they clear him of the original charges.

Hayler’s barrister, Arlette Piercy, asked him about cheating on Ms Price with three other women — including the family’s nanny, Nikki Brown — during their marriage.

He said Ms Brown was older than his then-wife. When Ms Piercy asked Hayler about his taste in women, he said: “I am attracted to older women. Michelle (Pentecost, his ex-fiancée) is also older.”

READ MORE ON KEIRAN HAYLER

KATIE FURY

Katie Price rants ‘I won’t be called a liar’ in fiery exchange at Hayler trial

KATIE’S PAIN

Katie Price tells Kieran ‘rape’ trial terminally ill mum has just ‘days’ left

Hayler mentioned the two other women only by their first names, saying: “Jane was 16 years older than me and Chrissy was two years older than Kate.”

Hayler has previously admitted affairs with two of Ms Price’s pals, Jane Pountney and Chrissy Thomas.

During his evidence, he went on to accuse former glamour model Ms Price of coaching the girl he was alleged to have raped at a West Sussex address in 2016.

Hayler said he used the mum of five’s fingerprint to unlock her phone, on which he found a May 2017 text exchange between her and the 13-year-old.

Asked why he accessed her phone, he said: “She was making allegations that I fancied maybe 15 or 20 different people. I wanted to see who she was talking to.”

Hayler admitted he was looking for dirt about an affair he believed Ms Price was having.

He denies all of the charges against him.

The alleged victim is not a member of his or Katie’s extended family.

The trial continues.

MICHAEL Douglas has denied he’s a sex addict and said he was a “healthy product of the Sixties” after his affair revelation with Kathleen Turner.

The actor, 82, confessed to having a relationship with Kathleen as they filmed their 1984 action flick Romancing The Stone.

At the time, Michael was married to his first wife Diandra Luker.

The Basic Instinct star opened up about his colourful love life and insisted he was not a “sex addict” despite his multiple flings.

Speaking to The Times, he was asked if he ever wondered why he had slept with so many women.

Michael replied: “I don’t know if I slept with so many women, I don’t see it that way. No, not me, no. I was a healthy product of the Sixties.”

He added: “My curiosity is why, of all countries, of all the press that I do, why are the Brits so consumed with the issues of sex?”

In the nineties, it was reported that Michael had entered rehab for a sex addiction.

But Michael has said in an excerpt from his upcoming memoir One Helluva Ride: “I was never a ***ing sex addict.”

Shared by People, Michael dished about his extramarital romance with Kathleen.

Michael penned: “Kathleen was smart, funny, and sexy with a deep, sultry voice that became her signature.

“I instantly liked her, and we were immediately attracted to each other.”

Michael then claimed that his marriage to Diandra “was in a bad place” and that he had been having an affair with Romancing The Stone screenwriter Diane Thomas prior to meeting Kathleen.

In the book, he described himself as “technically married, but separated” as he had an affair with Kathleen.

He noted that audiences spotted their chemistry, and they were forced to deny everything and put it down to them both being “terrible flirts” due to him being married.

“It was a lie meant to protect my wife and son, a lie we told the world for 40 years.”

In his book, Michael confessed: “The truth is that during the production of Romancing the Stone, Kathleen and I fell hard for each other and began a relationship.”

He said that their relationship “grew naturally” and noted how much they respected and cared for one another, “and how attracted we were to each other”.

Michael added: “Like every other guy in the world at the time, I was knocked sideways by Kathleen….”

They continued their romance until it fizzled out when his wife visited on set and made it clear to Kathleen they were still married.

Diandra warned her off and Kathleen “didn’t want to interfere”.

Although their romantic relationship was over, they continued to star in movies together until 1989.

His first marriage to film producer Diandra Luker lasted from 1977 to 2000.

After 18 years together, Diandra filed for divorce in 1995, leading to a protracted legal separation which was finalised in 2000.

Michael is now smitten and happily married to Catherine Zeta Jones.

Catherine and Michael first met in August 1998 at the Deauville American Film Festival in France.

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Arizona’s eleventh-hour bid to block the upcoming start of a court-ordered takeover of healthcare operations in its prisons after the state was found to have provided constitutionally inadequate care to incarcerated people and dragged its feet for over a decade in making required improvements. Justice Elena Kagan denied the state’s request Thursday, leaving an outside corrections professional set to take over healthcare management for 25,000 incarcerated people on Oct. 19.

Arizona had asked the courts to delay the takeover while it appealed that decision and the appointment of former Ohio corrections director Annette Chambers-Smith to lead the effort. The state sought the delay from the Supreme Court after lower courts rejected by the request.

Over the past 14 years, Arizona has been dogged by complaints that its prison healthcare system was run shoddily and callously and that it repeatedly failed to improve a system found to have exposed prisoners to harm and preventable deaths.

Under a 2014 settlement, the state pledged to overhaul medical and healthcare services for prisoners but was soon accused of failing to make promised improvements. That led to more than $2 million in contempt-of-court fines and the eventual revocation of the agreement by U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, who said corrections officials had shown little interest in making required changes.

After a 2021 trial, Silver ruled against the state, issuing an injunction that required corrections authorities to address the constitutional violations. Earlier this year, she ordered the takeover after concluding the state hadn’t gotten a semblance of compliance with court-ordered changes and the U.S. Constitution after more than a decade of litigation. Silver found that prisoners remained exposed to grave threats of harm and suffering because of systematic deficiencies in their health care.

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Re-entry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s decision.

In a statement, Corene Kendrick, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents prisoners in the lawsuit, applauded the court’s refusal to delay the takeover, also known as a receivership. She said Arizona fought accountability at every turn while prisoners suffered. “Today’s decision clears the way for a receiver to do what the state has failed to do for more than a decade,” Kendrick said.

In seeking a delay, Arizona’s attorneys said Silver adopted a drastic takeover remedy without first trying intermediate fixes to speed compliance. They also said the judge hadn’t given the corrections department enough time to continue making progress and argued that the official appointed to run healthcare operations wouldn’t be politically accountable. They said the agency is committed to improving health care in prisons, has made significant progress since 2023 and that the prisoners won’t suffer harm if the start of the takeover were delayed by a few months.

Lawyers for prisoners said the state was minimizing its noncompliance, disputed its claim it had not been given enough time to comply after 14 years of litigation and said Silver had already tried less-intrusive remedies. They also said the state’s proposal of a months-long delay in the takeover “grievously minimizes” the harm prisoners face from the state’s inability to provide adequate care.

Complaints about health care in Arizona’s prisons have spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 during Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration and continued under Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, when both contempt fines against the state were issued. Under Ryan Thornell, the corrections director in Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs administration, the department has complained that its progress in overhauling health care operations in recent years hasn’t been acknowledged.

The lawsuit over healthcare for incarcerated people covers Arizona’s nine state-run prisons but not the nearly 10,000 Arizona inmates held in private prisons.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

England striker Ivan Toney has pleaded not guilty to assaulting a man at a central London nightclub.

The 30-year-old footballer, from Northampton, is accused of headbutting and punching Saber Da Silva at a nightclub in Wardour Street, Soho, on 6 December.

At Westminster Magistrates’ Court, Toney confirmed his name and age, and pleaded not guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

District Judge Briony Clarke said the case could be tried in the magistrates court, but Toney elected for a Crown Court trial in front of a judge and jury.

He was freed on unconditional bail until a hearing at Southwark Crown Court on 29 October.

Toney won 10 caps for England and was part of the squad that reached the Euro 2024 final.

He started his football career with Northampton Town and played for teams including Wigan Athletic and Peterborough United before signing for Brentford in 2020.

He currently plays for Saudi Pro League side Al-Ahli.

Listen to the best of BBC Radio London on Sounds and follow BBC London on Facebook, external, X, external and Instagram, external. Send your story ideas to hello.bbclondon@bbc.co.uk, external

Portugal head coach Jorge Jesus has said there is no rift with captain Cristiano Ronaldo following claims the five-time Ballon d’Or winner had refused to train.

The Al-Nassr forward did not feature in Portugal’s 2-1 win over Norway in Olso on Sunday and did not join his team-mates in going over to the visiting fans at the final whistle.

Instead, the former Real Madrid and Manchester United player headed to the changing rooms – prompting reports he was unhappy with the manager.

Speaking to media before Portugal’s Nations League match against Denmark on Thursday, Jesus said: “There was no incident whatsoever.

“Any player – and I was a player myself – when you spend 20 or 30 minutes warming up and then don’t get on, no-one is happy about that.”

Jesus said he had told Ronaldo before the match he would not be starting, but might be brought on later in the game.

“Afterwards, as coach, I decided not to bring him on. It’s nothing to make a fuss about,” he added.

Former Benfica manager Jesus also dismissed suggestions Ronaldo had refused to train on Tuesday, saying the 41-year-old instead had to do individual exercises for “mobility” and “strengthening” but would train as normal on Wednesday.

However, Ronaldo did not join his team-mates on the pitch in Denmark with Portuguese media sharing a video of him leaving Parken stadium alongside two members of the backroom staff.

They also said Ronaldo’s private jet was heading to Copenhagen.

Goncalo Ramos scored the winner against Norway and Jesus confirmed the AC Milan striker would again be preferred to Ronaldo against Denmark.

“If everything goes according to plan, it will be Goncalo who plays,” Jesus said.

“If I need [Ronaldo], he’ll come on. If I don’t need him, he won’t.”

South Korea calls for a formal apology from North Korea over the DMZ explosion that injured three soldiers.

South Korea’s military has demanded an apology from North Korea over landmine explosions earlier this month in the border zone between the two countries that wounded three soldiers.

Three South Korean soldiers were injured in two explosions on September 21 near the military demarcation line in the western section of the Demilitarized Zone, a heavily fortified border buffer zone between the Koreas that is commonly known as the DMZ.

Kang Hyunwoo, the South Korean joint chiefs of staff’s director of operations, said the military “strongly urges” North Korea to apologise for the blasts and take “responsible measures” to prevent a recurrence.

“This is a clear violation of the Armistice Agreement and undermines the spirit of existing inter-Korean agreements; it must be stopped immediately,” he said on Wednesday, adding “we strongly urge an apology and responsible measures”.

Defence Minister Kang Shin-chul said South Korea would consider unspecified “corresponding measures” if a complete investigation confirms the North was responsible.

Kim Yo Jong, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, said the South Korean assessment is a “conspiratorial farce” and accused Seoul of making groundless claims to create a pretext for provocation against Pyongyang.

She also criticised the South for broadcasting warnings and firing warning shots at North Korean troops conducting front-line fortification work, adding “our soldiers have never crossed the border”.

“If the [South Korean] military gangsters fire at our soldiers carrying on the permanent project for the southern border, not warning shots, our border units will take immediate and merciless retaliatory action,” she said.

The United Nations Command said on Wednesday it had “identified an active Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea’s) anti-personnel mine on the ROK side of the Military Demarcation Line”, in a joint investigation with Seoul’s military.

“Based on the findings of the investigation, UNC determined that an Armistice Agreement violation occurred,” it added.

The UN Command is a US-led multinational military force charged with overseeing the armistice agreement that halted fighting in the Korean War and administers the southern side of the DMZ.