fight

WASHINGTON – In the moments after the Supreme Court’s landmark healthcare ruling, Capitol Hill was unnervingly quiet as legislators took time to absorb the ruling. The silence did not last long.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) headed to the Senate floor to mark the milestone.

“Passing the Affordable Care Act was the greatest single step in generations toward ensuring access to affordable, quality healthcare for every person in America, regardless of where they live, how much money they make,” Reid said. “I’m happy and I’m pleased the Supreme Court put the rule of law ahead of partisanship.”

House Speaker John A. Boehner(R-Ohio) – and tea party groups — vowed to press forward on efforts to repeal the law.

“Today’s ruling underscores the urgency of repealing this harmful law in its entirety,” Boehner said. “Republicans stand ready to work with a president who will listen to the people and will not repeat the mistakes that gave our country Obamacare.”

Republicans and their allies in this battle said the court ruling underscores the urgency of electing more conservatives to Congress to repeal the law.

“We are focused on taking control of the Senate, reinforcing our 2010 gains in the House, and defeating President Obama,” said Amy Kremer, chairman of Tea Party Express. “These key objectives will open the door for a wave of new conservatives in Washington who are committed to repealing Obamacare.”

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.), the chairwoman of the Tea Party Caucus in the House, said: “Today’s Supreme Court decision raises the stakes for the coming months.”

House lawmakers from both parties had been meeting – separately – on Thursday morning behind closed doors before the decision became public. Boehner was expected to be reiterating to members not to “spike the ball” in the event of a favorable ruling. Both parties said they expect the fight to continue both in Congress and on the campaign trail.

“Our struggle isn’t over,’’ said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), expecting congressional Republicans to continue to try to dismantle the law “piece by piece.’’

As the court’s decision became known – and initial television reports gave confusing accounts of the outcome — one congressman, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-San Diego), was the among the first out with a statement: “In the wake of the Supreme Court declaring the ‘individual mandate’ portion of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, it is questionable as to whether the rest of the bill can stand,” he said.

Fifteen minutes later his office sent out an “updated” release: “Simply put, we cannot afford the president’s health care plan.”

Some Democrats, though, just savored the moment.

“We’re just ecstatic,’’ Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Lakewood) said. She was in a committee meeting, checking her iPad for word on the court ruling.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the minority leader – who had long predicted a 6-3 decision from the court – took her moment.

“This decision is a victory for the American people,” Pelosi said. “In passing health reform, we made history for our nation and progress for the American people.” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank) was also in a committee meeting when he got conflicting messages about the ruling.

“I rushed back to the office to watch the coverage with staff,’’ he said. “Along the way, I could hear hoots and hollers from various congressional offices as the staff of different members reacted with elation or upset. Needless-to-say, we were on the elated side.”

He said was pleased by the ruling but said he also was pleased for another reason: “The court was at risk of becoming yet another partisan institution if it threw out decades of precedent. The chief justice chose a different legacy, and this was not only the correct legal decision, it was also enormously important to maintaining the independence and reputation of the court.”

Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) called it a “sad day for liberty.’’

“The court’s misguided decision is an attack on freedom, an insult to our Constitution, and it will ultimately destroy the best healthcare system in the world,’’ he said. “Chief Justice Roberts once said that the Supreme Court’s job is to apply the law – ‘to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat.’ He couldn’t have been more right in saying so, and he couldn’t have been more wrong by choosing to circumvent the Constitution this morning. Even worse, I fear that the high court has opened Pandora’s box by blatantly disregarding the law, and there will no longer be any real limits to what the federal government will be able to force the American people to do.’’

Twitter.com/LisaMascaroinDC

Twitter.com/RichardSimon11

In defeating a measure to rescind the 310 area code overlay, telecommunications companies showed they won’t shrink from battle as the state moves to put tighter controls on area code changes, industry leaders said Friday.

The state Assembly early Friday approved a bill, AB 406, that sets additional hurdles in place before area code splits and overlays can be imposed.

But the bill, which had been approved late Thursday by the Senate, was passed only after a provision rescinding the 310 overlay on the Westside and South Bay was removed.

That change was credited to a fierce lobbying effort by telecom companies, and could serve as a preview of what’s to come as lawmakers and utilities regulators consider ways to slow the proliferation of overlays and splits statewide, including a split proposed for the San Fernando Valley.

“I was unable to get for 310 what I had my heart set on, which was the recision of the 310 overlay and 11-digit dialing,” said Assemblyman Wally Knox (D-Los Angeles), who wrote AB 406 (which became the vehicle for the legislation formerly known as AB 818).

Knox said a sustained lobbying effort by telephone industry representatives resulted in the removal of the 310 overlay and 11-digit dialing portion from the bill.

Representatives from Pacific Bell, GTE, AT&T;, MediaOne Telecommunications of California, the California Cable Television Assn. and the Cellular Carriers Assn. of California were among the 30 lobbyists arguing that the provision would diminish competition among carriers and consumer choice.

“The intensive lobbying effort should have been anticipated by everyone because the stakes were so high for the industry,” said Dennis H. Mangers, senior vice president of the California Cable Television Assn., a group whose members are seeking a foothold in the telephone business.

Even so, the arm-twisting in Sacramento stands in contrast to the role played by phone companies at public forums on the issue.

At a recent Van Nuys town hall meeting on splits and overlays, for example, no phone company representative spoke publicly–although at least one was in attendance, observing the proceedings.

Telephone company officials said Friday that they have sent representatives to numerous public hearings on the matter, but remained silent to give residents the chance to express their concerns.

*

Industry lobbyists said regulatory meetings and legislative sessions are the proper forums for them to state their positions.

In Sacramento, telecom lobbyists argued that rescinding the overlay in West Los Angeles and the South Bay would be unfair because phone companies had already spent millions to compete for local customers in the region, Mangers said. He also said numbers already had been assigned in the new 424 area code overlay.

“We reminded them that it was they who encouraged communications companies to do business in California,” Mangers said. “If they passed the bill containing that provision, they would be cutting off their own policy.”

Cable company MediaOne, for example, spent $600 million to upgrade its facilities to provide digital telephone service, high-speed Internet access and cable television to Los Angeles customers, particularly those in the 310 region, officials said.

“We have definitely been lobbying in Sacramento,” said Theresa L. Cabral, MediaOne’s senior corporate counsel. “Our concern is that we have made that investment and we can’t use it.”

Pac Bell protested the bill because rolling back the 310 area code overlay would hurt customers who need numbers, said Steve Getzug, a spokesman for the company.

Pac Bell and GTE, the two largest phone companies in Los Angeles, are pushing specifically for overlays when area code relief is needed.

With an overlay, new phone lines within a specific area code are given a new area code–even if it is in the same home or building. Additionally, all users in an overlay area must dial the area code–even to a number with the same area code.

*

Phone company officials say the overlay is less disruptive than actually creating a new area code through a geographic split, but critics say such splits and overlays would not be needed if regulators did a better job of allocating and conserving phone numbers.

Knox, who has emerged as the leading consumer advocate on the issue, said Friday that he will now take his fight to the PUC, which is scheduled to take up proposals for a 310 overlay and an 818 split on Wednesday.

“It is important for folks to know that the fight is not over,” he said. “The momentum we have built in the Legislature we will now take to the PUC.”

Gov. Gray Davis has not taken a position on AB 406, aides said. But if he does sign the bill, PUC officials will analyze it to determine its role in implementing new area codes and overlays, said Kyle DeVine, a PUC spokeswoman.

“Until we get direction from the commissioners,” she said, “we can’t say what we are going to do.”

The bill, which passed the Senate on a 35-0 vote, was approved in the Assembly on a vote of 79 to 1, with Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge), dissenting. He could not be reached for comment Friday.

Boss Arne Slot says Liverpool must “fight together” after Wednesday’s humiliating 4-1 defeat by PSV Eindhoven at Anfield was the Reds’ ninth loss in 12 games – their worst run in 71 years.

READ MORE: As Liverpool hit ‘new low’ – is Slot’s job at risk?

In a social media world where fights between players in the handshake line, fights among fans in the bleachers and fights in the locker room always seem to receive the most clicks and attention, let’s hope a simple act of sportsmanship and kindness from Saturday’s South Gate-Dorsey football playoff game goes viral.

After South Gate won the City Section Division I semifinal 28-20, several Dorsey players were distraught.

The winning quarterback, junior Michael Gonzalez, heard a strange sound while shaking hands.

“I heard someone crying,” he said. “I looked to my right and saw two players, one I knew and one I didn’t.”

He went over to console both. The player he didn’t know, William Smith of Dorsey, was resting on one knee, head down, helmet off.

Gonzalez said he told him, “There’s more to life than just football. You got college. Keep your head up. It was a good game.”

Losing a semifinal game is tough. But winning and acting with class and respect also can be tough.

Asked where he learned about sportsmanship, Gonzalez said, “It’s what I was taught by my mom and coaches. Be a good person no matter what.”

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email [email protected].

California is once again fighting in federal court for a Jewish family’s right to have a precious Impressionist painting returned to them by a Spanish museum nearly 90 years after it was looted by the Nazis.

The state is also defending its own authority to legally require art and other stolen treasures to be returned to other victims with ties to the state, even in disputes that stretch far beyond its borders.

The state has repeatedly weighed in on the case since the Cassirer family first filed it while living in San Diego in 2005. Last year, it passed a new law designed to bolster the legal rights of the Cassirers and other families in California to recover valuable property stolen from them in acts of genocide or political persecution.

On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office filed a motion to intervene in the Cassirer case directly in order to defend that law. The Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation — which is owned by Spain and holds the Camille Pissarro masterpiece — has claimed that the law is unconstitutional and should therefore be ignored.

Bonta, in a statement to The Times, said the law is “about fairness, moral — and legal — responsibility, and doing what’s right,” and the state will defend it in court.

“There is nothing that can undo the horrors and loss experienced by individuals during the Holocaust. But there is something we can do — that California has done — to return what was stolen back to survivors and their families and bring them some measure of justice and healing,” Bonta said. “As Attorney General, my job is to defend the laws of California, and I intend to do so here.”

Bonta said his office “has supported the Cassirers’ quest for justice for two decades,” and “will continue to fight with them for the rightful return of this invaluable family heirloom.”

Thaddeus J. Stauber, an attorney for the museum, did not did not answer questions from The Times. Bonta’s office said Stauber did not oppose its intervening in the case.

Sam Dubbin, the Cassirers’ longtime attorney, thanked Bonta’s office for “intervening in this case again to defend California’s interests in protecting the integrity of the art market and the rights of stolen property victims.”

“California law has always provided strong protections for the victims of stolen property and stolen art in particular, which the Legislature has consistently reinforced,” Dubbin said.

The state bucked the powerful U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by passing the law last year. The appellate court found in a ruling in January 2024 that the painting was lawfully owned by the Spanish museum.

Bonta’s latest move ratchets up the intrigue surrounding the 20-year-old case, which is being watched around the globe for its potential implications in the high-stakes world of looted art litigation.

The painting in question — Pissarro’s “Rue Saint-Honoré in the Afternoon. Effect of Rain” — is estimated to be worth tens of millions of dollars. Both sides acknowledge it was stolen from Lilly Cassirer Neubauer by the Nazis in 1939, after she agreed in desperation to surrender it to a Nazi appraiser in exchange for a visa to flee Germany at the dawn of World War II.

The attention surrounding the case, and its potential to set new precedent in international law, likely makes the painting even more valuable.

After World War II, Lilly received compensation for the painting from the German government, but the family never relinquished its right to the masterpiece — which at the time was considered lost. What she was paid was a fraction of the current estimated worth.

In the decades that followed, Lilly’s grandson Claude Cassirer — who had also survived the Holocaust — moved with his family to San Diego.

In 2000, Claude made the shocking discovery that the painting was not lost to time after all, but part of a vast art collection that Spain had acquired from the late Baron Hans Heinrich von Thyssen-Bornemisza, the scion of a German industrialist family with ties to Hitler’s regime. Spain restored an early 19th-century palace near the Prado Museum in Madrid in order to house the collection as the Museo Nacional Thyssen-Bornemisza.

Claude asked the museum to return the painting to his family. It refused. He sued in U.S. federal court in 2005. The case has been moving through the courts ever since.

California passed its new law in response to the 9th Circuit ruling last year, which held that state law at the time required it to apply an archaic Spanish law. That measure dictates that the title to stolen goods passes legitimately to a new owner over time, if that owner wasn’t aware the goods were stolen when they acquired them — which the Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection has argued makes its ownership of the painting legally sound.

In September 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the new law during a small gathering with the families of Holocaust survivors at the Holocaust Museum LA. Lilly’s great-grandson and Claude’s son David Cassirer, who now lives in Colorado, was there, praising the state’s lawmakers for “taking a definitive stand in favor of the true owners of stolen art.”

In March, the Supreme Court in a brief order ruled that the 9th Circuit must reconsider its ruling in light of California’s new law.

In September, the Thyssen-Bournemisza Collection filed a motion asking the appellate court to rule in its favor once more. It put forward multiple arguments, but among them was that California’s new law was “constitutionally indefensible” and deprived the museum of its due process rights.

“Under binding Supreme Court precedent, a State may not, by legislative fiat, reopen time-barred claims and transfer property whose ownership is already vested,” the museum argued.

It said the U.S., under federal law, “does not seek to impose its property laws or the property laws of its own states on other foreign sovereigns, but rather expressly acknowledges that different legal traditions and systems must be taken into account to facilitate just and fair solutions with regard to Nazi-looted art cases.”

It said California’s law takes an “aggressive approach” that “disrupts the federal government’s efforts to maintain uniformity and amicable relations with foreign nations,” and “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of federal policy.”

David Cassirer, the lead plaintiff in the case since Claude’s death in 2010, argued the opposite in his own filing to the court.

Cassirer argued that California’s new law requires an outcome in his favor — which he said would also happen to be in line with “moral commitments made by the United States and governments worldwide, including Spain, to Nazi victims and their families.”

“It is undisputed that California substantive law mandates the award of title here to the Cassirer family, as Lilly’s heirs, of which Plaintiff David Cassirer is the last surviving member,” Cassirer’s attorneys wrote.

They wrote that California law holds that “a thief cannot convey good title to stolen works of art,” and therefore requires the return of the painting to Cassirer.

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel (D-Encino), who sponsored the bill in the legislature, praised Bonta for stepping in to defend the law — which he called “part of a decades long quest for justice and is rooted in the belief that California must stand on the right side of history.”

Islam Makhachev steps up to welterweight to face champion Jack della Maddalena at UFC 322 on Saturday in Madison Square Garden.

The Russian is aiming to becoming a two-weight UFC champion and has a record of 27 wins and just one loss.

Makhachev has not lost a fight since 2015, but faces the newly crowned champion Della Maddalena.

The Australian is on a similarly unbeaten streak since 2016 after losing his first two fights.

Can Makhachev join an elite club of two-weight UFC champions or will Della Maddalena continue his rapid rise with a victory over the UFC’s pound-for-pound number two?

Figures from the world of MMA have given their predictions below.

SEATTLE — First-term Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell conceded his reelection fight to progressive activist Katie Wilson on Thursday, handing another victory to leftist Democrats around the country frustrated with unaffordability, homelessness, public safety and the actions of President Trump’s administration.

Harrell, a centrist Democrat who previously served three terms on the City Council, led in early results. But Washington conducts all-mail elections, with ballots postmarked by Election Day. Later-arriving votes, which historically trend more liberal, broke heavily in Wilson’s favor, adding to a progressive shift to the left nationally.

In a concession speech at City Hall on Thursday afternoon, Harrell said he had congratulated Wilson in a “delightful” call.

“I feel very good about the future of this country and this city still,” he said.

Wilson, 43, is a democratic socialist who has never held elected office. She told a news conference later Thursday that it was hard for her to believe she had been elected mayor, considering that at the beginning of this year she had no intention of running, and she acknowledged concerns about her lack of experience: “No one saw this coming.”

But she also spoke to the resonance of her volunteer-driven campaign among voters concerned about affordability and public safety in a city where the cost of living has soared as Amazon and other tech companies proliferated. Universal child care, better mass transit, better public safety and stable, affordable housing are among her priorities, and she said she would take office with a strong mandate to pursue them, though she acknowledged the city also faces a significant budget shortfall.

Wilson called herself a coalition builder and community organizer, and said she would also work with those who questioned her qualifications to lead a city with more than 13,000 employees and a budget of nearly $9 billion: “This is your city too.”

“When I say this is your city, that means you have a right to be here and to live a dignified life — whatever your background, whatever your income,” Wilson said. “But it also means that we all have a collective responsibility for this city and for each other. … We cannot tackle the major challenges facing our city unless we do it together.”

She will be working with a relatively new City Council: Only two of the seven council members have served more than one term.

Harrell was elected mayor in 2021 following the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice protests over George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police. With crime falling, more police being hired, less visible drug use and many homeless encampments removed from city parks, the business-backed Harrell once seemed likely to cruise to reelection.

But Trump’s return to office — and his efforts to send in federal agents or cut funding for blue cities — helped reawaken Seattle’s progressive voters. The lesser-known Wilson, a democratic socialist, ran a campaign that echoed some of the themes of progressive mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York. She trounced Harrell by nearly 10 percentage points in the August primary and quickly became favored to win the mayor’s office.

Wilson studied at an Oxford University college in England but did not graduate. She founded the small nonprofit Transit Riders Union in 2011 and has led campaigns for better public transportation, higher minimum wages, stronger renter protections and more affordable housing. She herself is a renter, living in a one-bedroom apartment in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, and says that has shaped her understanding of Seattle’s affordability crisis.

Wilson criticized Harrell as doing too little to provide more shelter and said his encampment sweeps have been cosmetic, merely pushing unhoused people around the city. Wilson also painted him as a City Hall fixture who bore responsibility for the status quo.

Harrell, 67, played on the Rose Bowl champion University of Washington football team in 1978 before going to law school. His father, who was Black, came to Seattle from the segregated Jim Crow South, and his mother, a Japanese American, was incarcerated at an internment camp in Minidoka, Idaho, during World War II after officials seized her family’s Seattle flower shop — experiences that fostered his understanding of the importance of civil rights and inclusivity.

Both candidates touted plans for affordable housing, combating crime and attempting to Trump-proof the city, which receives about $150 million a year in federal funding. Both want to protect Seattle’s sanctuary city status.

Wilson has proposed a city-level capital gains tax to help offset federal funding the city might lose and to pay for housing. Harrell says that idea is ineffective because a city capital gains tax could easily be avoided by those who would be required to pay it.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press.

Promoter Eddie Hearn says reports of a deal being agreed for a fight between Anthony Joshua and Jake Paul have “jumped the gun” but admits there is a chance the pair could meet in the ring before the end of the year.

READ MORE: Joshua v Paul? Hearn says ‘maybe’ with camps in talks

Nov. 13 (UPI) — California Republicans are challenging their state’s voter-approved redistricting plan, adding to the ongoing partisan court struggle over gerrymandering.

The lawsuit, filed a day after voters decisively approved Proposition 50 in a special election, claims the new congressional map was drawn in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments because race was unjustifiably a factor.

Proposition 50 amends the state constitution to allow state legislators to redraw California’s congressional map in an effort to counteract Texas’ new map. The map will remain until 2031 when the state’s Citizens Redistricting Commission draws a new congressional map.

The congressional map approved by Texas this year was drawn at the behest of President Donald Trump who called on state lawmakers to add five more likely-Republican congressional seats before the 2026 midterm election.

Richard Hasen, professor of political science and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, told UPI voters historically are opposed to partisan redistricting, making this a novel development.

More than 5.6 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 50 while about 3.2 million voted against it, according to the vote count by the California Secretary of State’s office.

“It is unusual to say the least for voters to approve a partisan gerrymander through a ballot measure,” Hasen said. “Instead we have typically seen voters approving measures that make redistricting less political. But this can be seen as the voters’ response to Donald Trump for pushing Texas to do a new Republican partisan gerrymander. It is a kind of tit-for-tat that may become the new normal in future redistricting wars.”

The California Republican Party is joined in the lawsuit by several residents, state lawmaker David Tangipa and former congressional candidate Eric Ching. Tangipa represents District 8 at the state assembly. Ching ran an unsuccessful campaign to represent District 38 in 2024.

The complaint by the California Republican Party and co-plaintiffs says the new congressional map was drawn to boost the voting power of Hispanic voters by creating two new districts to “empower Latino voters to elect their candidates of choice.”

“However, California’s Hispanic voters have successfully elected their preferred candidates to both state and federal office, without being thwarted by a racial majority voting as a bloc,” the lawsuit reads. “This is unsurprising because Latinos are the most numerous demographic in the state and California voters nearly always vote based on their party affiliation, not their race.”

State legislatures are not prohibited from considering race when drawing district lines, Justin Levitt, constitutional law professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, told UPI.

The issue for the complainants is whether they can prove race was considered too much. If that can be proven to a court, they must also prove that there was no justification for considering race.

“The complaint seems to lower the standard or wants to wishcast a far lower standard where the simple act of drawing the district to be compliant with the Voting Rights Act is racial predominance,” Levitt said. “They want to skip past the racial predominance subordinating all others line and suggest that because some of the districts pay attention to race that means they’ve got to be super closely justified. But that is not where the line is currently.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Alexander vs. the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP raised the standard for proving racial gerrymandering. A lower court ruled that South Carolina lawmakers diluted the voting power of Black voters by drawing one majority-Black congressional district, violating the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court overturned the decision. Justice Samuel Alito, writing the opinion for the majority, said that state legislatures must be presumed to be working “in good faith” when submitting redistricting plans.

Alito added another requirement, ordering that plaintiffs must submit an alternative congressional map proving that districts could be drawn in a way to meet “greater racial balance.”

The questions at hand in the Proposition 50 complaint are at the heart of a case in the U.S. Supreme Court: Louisiana vs. Callais. The court heard rearguments over the case, which weighed whether the Voting Rights Act is in conflict with the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment, in October.

Levitt expects an opinion on Louisiana vs. Callais may be months away, as late as June, but it could have a bearing on the California GOP’s lawsuit and other redistricting cases.

“Only nine people know what the court’s going to do and I’m not one of them,” Levitt said. “And if the Supreme Court sets off an earthquake then that earthquake will also reach California.”

The California GOP lawsuit already faces challenges set out by the Supreme Court. The court has agreed that partisan gerrymandering does not fit the principles of the democratic process but it also has also ruled that the courts are not the place to resolve these issues.

In the 2019 ruling on the case Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion said partisan gerrymandering presents a “political question beyond the competence of the federal courts.”

Because of this limitation, lawsuits alleging gerrymandering must demonstrate that race was a predominant but unjustifiable factor in redistricting.

“The Supreme Court said that it’s really hard to prove that race predominated, particularly when there are political reasons for drawing the lines as a jurisdiction has,” Levitt said. “That standard in the South Carolina case made it really difficult for plaintiffs to win these types of cases. And in a context like Prop. 50, where it’s pretty apparent to everybody that the overriding reason to draw the districts was to try to pick up Democratic seats, that makes it super hard to prove.”

HER face is her fortune, but Sydney Sweeney told co-stars not to hold back from punching it during her new boxing biopic.

The scenes for her role as US fighter Christy Martin may have been carefully choreographed, but they were so ferocious she suffered a bloodied nose and concussion.

The 28-year-old actress said: “The girls and all the fights you see are real. When I walked in and I met with everyone, I said, ‘I want you to hit me. And I want you to hit me hard. And can I hit you?’.

“So when you watch all those fights, we’re actually hitting each other. We were knocking each other out, we were getting bloody noses. I got concussion. We were actually fighting.”

Sydney added of co-star Katy O’Brian, who plays ring rival Lisa Holewyne: “Katy is a badass. I mean, she is strong.

“Katy’s only request was, ‘Please don’t break my nose’.”

Sydney’s childhood in Idaho saw her “kickboxing and grappling” from the age of nine to 19, which helped with the fight scenes.

But her astonishing physical transformation — putting on more than 2st of muscle over three months — was hard-earned, with up to five hours of training a day and countless protein shakes chugged.

She said: “I built my own ‘Rocky’ gym in my grandma’s shed and I trained back home in Idaho.

“I worked with my weight trainer in the morning and night, and then I had a boxing coach I worked with every day for two to three hours.

“I put on 35 pounds during that time.”

The movie, called Christy, which opens in cinemas on November 28, tells the story of WBC female super welterweight champion Christy, now 57, who was a trailblazer in the 1990s and put women’s boxing on the map.

But her biggest battle was behind closed doors, as her marriage to her older manager Jim Martin descended into violence.

When she tried to leave him in 2010, he shot and stabbed her. He was found guilty of attempted murder and died in prison last year.

But for Sydney, it was the strained scenes between Christy and her mum that she found the hardest to film.

She said: “Everything that happens within the house towards the end of the story of her life in the film weighed on me emotionally. But the one I had the hardest time doing and just ­processing was when she asked for her mum’s help.

“I have such amazing parents and I can go to them for anything. And I couldn’t imagine how hard it was for Christy and for others that deal with that as well.

“And it broke my heart while I was making that scene.”

As soon as Sydney heard Christy’s story, she told her team she had to have a part.

She said: “When I first read the script, I was completely blown away that I didn’t know who this woman was. She is one of the most inspiring women I’ve met in my life.”

For her part, Sydney’s grit and ­determination to succeed began at the age of ten, when she made a “five-year business plan presentation” to persuade her parents to let her try to become a movie star.

When they realised she was serious at 13, they made 38-hour round trips for auditions before relocating to Los Angeles to give her a ­better shot at stardom.

Sydney said: “It’s not easy. I didn’t get a project that helped open more doors until I was, like, 19, 20. And you get told ‘no’ endlessly by everyone.”

Sadly, her parents’ decision to relocate was a catalyst for them going bankrupt and they divorced in 2016.

But that setback only served to fuel Sydney’s drive.

She worked as a cleaner and babysitter before her break came in 2018, with roles in three big TV shows — The Handmaid’s Tale, Sharp Objects and Everything Sucks!.

A year later, she was cast as Cassie Howard in global hit Euphoria, and The White Lotus followed in 2021.

‘Really scary’

Movie hits also came with 2019’s Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, 2023’s Anyone But You and last year’s Madame Web and Immaculate.

In her love life, she has been linked to 44-year-old US record executive Scooter Braun, who she met at Amazon boss Jeff Bezos’ wedding to Lauren Sanchez in the summer.

But she has insisted: “I’m single.”

She was previously engaged to movie producer Jonathan Davino, but they split in March.

For now, she’s firmly focused on her career as it goes stratospheric.

Speculation has also been rife that, with Amazon now owning the James Bond franchise, Bezos wanted her to be a Bond Girl in the next movie.

She responded that it would depend on the script and that she would have “more fun” playing 007.

She said of her upcoming roles: “Of course I have projects that I’m working on and I’m developing and I can’t wait to do. It’s kind of like this crazy rollercoaster.

“You’re never sure if it’s going to go up or down or upside down.”

Her path to success, Sydney admits, has been a battle at times.

I was so nervous. It’s so weird when you’re playing somebody and then you meet them.

Sydney Sweeney

She said: “I know what it feels like to be underestimated, to have people define you before you have a chance to define yourself.

“I know what it feels like to have to prove that you deserve to be here, to be seen, to be taken seriously.”

During filming of the boxing biopic, Christy herself turned up every day on set with her Pomeranian emotional support dog Champ.

And Sydney has since formed a friendship with her, with the pair going to a Nascar event in Phoenix together last week.

It is a leap forward from their first meeting.

Sydney recalled: “I was so nervous. It’s so weird when you’re playing somebody and then you meet them.

“You’re like, ‘Do you like me? Are you going to like what I do?’. It’s really scary.”

And the star admits the role has made her see life differently.

She said: “I think Christy has changed me. I’m a huge believer in separating yourself as much as possible from your character.

JUNGLE READY

I’m A Celeb full line-up revealed with soap legends and TV pin up

JAB TRICK

I lost 13st on Mounjaro and needed a new passport – you must check your ‘TDEE’

“So that the moment they call ‘action’ and ‘cut’, you’re in and you’re out. And I go home and I’m Syd.

“But with Christy, I felt like I became the most free and powerful version of myself afterwards.”

YouTube TV customers are bracing for another frustrating weekend.

For the last week, YouTube TV’s 10 million subscribers have been denied access to ESPN, ABC and other Walt Disney Co. channels in a dispute that has swelled into one of the largest TV blackouts in a decade. Instead of turning on “College GameDay,” “Monday Night Football” or “Dancing With the Stars,” customers have been greeted with a grim message: “Disney channels are unavailable.”

The standoff began Oct. 30 when the two behemoths hit an impasse in their negotiations over a new distribution contract covering Disney’s channels and ABC stations.

Google, which owns YouTube, has rebuffed Disney’s demands for fee increases for ESPN, ABC and other channels. The Burbank entertainment giant has been seeking a revenue boost to support its content production and streaming ambitions, and help pay for ESPN’s gargantuan sports rights deals.

Talks are ongoing, but the two sides remain apart on major issues — prolonging the stalemate.

“Everyone is kind of sick of these big-time companies trying to get the best of one another,” said Nick Newton, 30, who lives near San Francisco and subscribes to YouTube TV. “The people who are suffering are the middle-class and lower-class people that just love sports … because it’s our escape from the real world.”

Both companies declined to comment for this article.

The skirmish is just the latest between YouTube and programming companies. Since August, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corp., Comcast’s NBCUniversal and Spanish-language broadcaster TelevisaUnivision have all complained that YouTube TV was trying to use its market muscle to squeeze them for concessions.

Here’s a look at what’s driving the escalating tensions:

Google’s growing clout in television

The struggle between Disney and YouTube reflects television’s fast-shifting dynamics.

Disney has long entered carriage negotiations with tremendous leverage, in large part because it owns ESPN, which is a must-have channel for legions of sports fans.

Programmers, including Disney, structured their distribution contracts to expire near a pivotal programming event, such as a new season of NFL football. The timing motivated both sides to quickly reach a deal rather than risk alienating customers.

But for Google’s parent, Alphabet, YouTube TV is just a sliver of their business. The tech company generated $350 billion in revenue last year, the vast majority coming from Google search and advertising. That gives YouTube a longer leash to hold out for contract terms it finds acceptable.

“This dispute is not that painful for Google,” said analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners, noting that YouTube TV could probably withstand “two weekends without college football, and two weeks without ‘Monday Night Football’ — as long as their consumers stay with them.”

Disney, however, depends on TV advertising and pay-TV distribution fees. The week-long blackout has already dampened TV ratings, which means less revenue for the company.

Consumers like YouTube TV

For decades, throngs of consumers loathed their cable company — a sentiment that Disney and other programmers were able to use in their favor in past battles. Customer defections prompted several pay-TV companies to find a compromise to restore the darkened TV channels and stanch the subscriber bleeding.

But YouTube is banking on a more loyal user base, including millions of customers who switched to the service from higher-priced legacy providers.

“I’ll stick this thing out with YouTube TV,” Newton said, adding that he hoped the dispute didn’t drag on for weeks.

“This is one of the problems facing Disney,” Greenfield said. “It’s been a noticeable change in tone from past carriage fee battles. If customer losses stay at a minimum, then Disney is going to be in a tough place.”

It boils down to power and money

YouTube TV is the fastest-growing television service in the U.S. Analysts expect that, within a couple of years, YouTube TV will have more pay-TV customers than industry leaders Spectrum and Comcast.

In the current negotiations, Google has asked Disney to agree to lower its rates when YouTube TV surpasses Comcast’s and Spectrum’s subscriber counts. Disney maintains that YouTube already pays preferred rates, in recognition of its competitive standing, and that Google is trying to drive down the value of Disney’s networks.

“YouTube TV and its owner, Google … want to use their power and extraordinary resources to eliminate competition and devalue the very content that helped them build their service,” top Disney executives wrote last Friday in an email to their staff.

People close to YouTube TV reject the characterization, saying the service has been a valuable partner by providing a strong service that brings Disney billions of dollars a year in distribution revenue.

“The bottom line is that our channels are extremely valuable, and we can only continue to program them with the sports and entertainment viewers love most if we stand our ground,” the Disney executives wrote in last week’s email. “We are asking nothing more of YouTube TV than what we have gotten from every other distributor — fair rates for our channels.”

Higher sports rights fees

A major reason Disney is asking for higher fees is because it’s grappling with a huge escalation in sports costs.

Disney is on the hook to pay $2.6 billion a year to the NBA, another $2.7 billion annually to the NFL, and $325 million a year for the rights to stream World Wrestling Entertainment. Such sports rights contracts have nearly doubled in the last decade, leading to the strain on TV broadcasters.

In addition, deep-pocketed streaming services, including Amazon, Apple and Netflix, have jumped into sports broadcasting, driving up the cost for the legacy broadcasters.

The crowded field also strains the wallets of sports fans, and appears to be adding to the fatigue over the YouTube TV-Disney fight.

Newton wrote in a recent Twitter post that he was spending $400 a month for his various internet, phone and TV services, including Disney+ and NFL Sunday Ticket, which is distributed by YouTube TV.

“I’m already on all the major subscriptions to watch football these days,” Newton, a third-generation San Francisco 49ers fan, said. “You need Netflix. You need Peacock, you need Amazon Prime and the list goes on and on. I’m at the point where I’m not paying for anything else.”

“We called the fighter and his lawyer and said, what’s going on? There’s some weird betting action going on in your fight,” White said.

“Are you injured? Do you owe anybody money? Has anybody approached you? The kid said, ‘No, absolutely not. I’m going to kill this guy’. So we said OK.

“The fight plays out – and first-round finish by rear-naked choke. Literally, the first thing we did was call the FBI.”

Betting company Caesars Sportsbook announced it would refund bets on the fight shortly after it ended.

Earlier this week, the UFC issued a statement saying it was “conducting a thorough review of the facts surrounding the Dulgarian vs del Valle bout on Saturday”.

“We take these allegations very seriously and along with the health and safety of our fighters, nothing is more important than the integrity of our sport,” the statement added.

Dulgarian’s coach Marc Montoya has denied any knowledge of foul play around the fight.

“We have nothing to do with any of the allegations being brought upon us,” he told the The Ariel Helwani Show.

“I’ve actually never even placed a sports bet in my entire life – I couldn’t tell you how to do it.

“This is my life’s work. I would never, for any amount of money, sell my integrity or my word – because in life, that’s all you have.”

YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul will seek another fight later in 2025 after his opponent Gervonta Davis was issued with a civil lawsuit.

Jake Paul’s exhibition boxing match against lightweight champion Gervonta “Tank” Davis was scrapped on Monday, with Paul planning a different bout before the end of 2025.

Their highly anticipated fight was scheduled for November 14 in Miami, Florida, though Most Valuable Promotions (MVP), Paul’s promotional organisation, said on Saturday that it was looking into the matter after a civil lawsuit was filed against Davis in Miami-Dade County last week.

Nakisa Bidarian, MVP’s CEO, said in a statement that Paul would headline another event to be streamed on Netflix later this year, with details on an opponent, a date and a location to be provided when finalised.

The bout was originally slated for Atlanta, but was moved to Florida, where it was sanctioned despite the huge weight difference between the boxers. Paul usually fights at cruiserweight, about 50 pounds (23kg) above the 135-pound (61kg) limit, where Davis holds a title belt.

The fight had drawn significant global interest due to the novelty of the matchup. The contest pitted the much larger Paul (12-1, 7 KOs) – who first became famous for his YouTube boxing exploits and then became a household name after fighting former heavyweight world champion Mike Tyson in 2024 – against Davis (30-0-1, 28 KOs), a current WBA champion and one of the most famous boxers in North America.

Spectators who bought tickets to the event via Ticketmaster will be refunded, MVP said.

Nigeria’s presidential spokesperson welcomes US assistance ‘as long as it recognises our territorial integrity’.

Nigeria says it would welcome assistance from the United States in fighting armed groups as long as its territorial integrity is respected after US President Donald Trump threatened military action in the West African country over what he claimed was persecution of Christians there.

In a social media post on Saturday, Trump said  he had asked the Department of Defense to prepare for possible “fast” military action in Nigeria if Africa’s most populous country fails to crack down on the “killing of Christians”.

A spokesperson for Nigeria’s presidency, Daniel Bwala, told the Reuters news agency on Sunday that the country would “welcome US assistance as long as it recognises our territorial integrity”.

“I am sure by the time these two leaders meet and sit, there would be better outcomes in our joint resolve to fight terrorism,” Bwala added.

In his post, Trump said the US would immediately cut off all assistance to the country “if the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians”.

Earlier, Nigerian President Bola Tinubu pushed back against claims of religious intolerance and defended his country’s efforts to protect religious freedom.

“Since 2023, our administration has maintained an open and active engagement with Christian and Muslim leaders alike and continues to address security challenges which affect citizens across faiths and regions,” Tinubu said in a statement.

“The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians.”

Nigeria, a country of more than 200 million people, is divided between the largely Muslim north and mostly Christian south.

Armed groups have been engaged in a conflict that has been largely confined to the northeast of the country and has dragged on for more than 15 years. Analysts said that while Christians have been killed, most of the victims have been Muslims.

‘No Christian genocide’

While human rights groups have urged the government to do more to address unrest in the country, which has experienced deadly attacks by Boko Haram and other armed groups, experts say claims of a “Christian genocide” are false and simplistic.

“All the data reveals is that there is no Christian genocide going on in Nigeria,” Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian humanitarian lawyer and analyst on conflict and development, told Al Jazeera. This is “a dangerous far-right narrative that has been simmering for a long time that President Trump is amplifying today”.

“It is divisive, and it is only going to further increase instability in Nigeria,” Bukarti added, explaining that armed groups in Nigeria have been targeting both Muslims and Christians.

“They bomb markets. They bomb churches. They bomb mosques, and they attack every civilian location they find. They do not discriminate between Muslims and Christians.”

Ebenezer Obadare, a senior fellow of Africa studies at the Washington, DC-based Council on Foreign Relations, agreed and said the Trump administration should work with Nigerian authorities to address the “common enemy”.

“This is precisely the moment when Nigeria needs assistance, especially military assistance,” Obadare said. “The wrong thing to do is to invade Nigeria and override the authorities or the authority of the Nigerian government. Doing that will be counterproductive.”

Suzanne Rogers, who has spent more than five decades as a cast member on the soap opera “Days of Our Lives,” has enviable endurance. This past summer, she learned she was even stronger than she’d thought.

For six weeks between June and July, Rogers, 82, underwent treatment for Stage II colorectal cancer, she told TV Insider in an interview published Thursday. The actor said she was diagnosed with the disease earlier this year after consulting a doctor about a nagging feeling that something “wasn’t quite right” with her body.

Colorectal cancer is a term for cancer originating in the colon or rectum. Chances of occurrence increase with age, and experts recommend regular screenings for those age 45 and above, continuing until at least age 75.

Rogers suspected her health issues might be serious when her doctor told her he would like to do a slew of tests, including a colonoscopy, MRI and PET scan. Still, when he confirmed the bad news, the Daytime Emmy winner — who already did routine colonoscopies — couldn’t believe it.

“I think I was in shock for several days because I take pretty good care of myself,” she told TV Insider. Fortunately, her doctor said, “It’s a good thing you caught it in time.”

After wrapping on “Days” in June, Rogers began daily radiation and chemotherapy treatments. She said the intense regimen made her treasure her weekends “because I didn’t have to go to and see a doctor. I was so tired of seeing doctors.”

Luckily, the Peacock soap happened to be on hiatus at the time, so Rogers had no trouble making her appointments. On top of that, her onscreen daughter Linsey Godfrey, who herself battled Hodgkin‘s lymphoma as a teenager, was able to accompany her on treatment visits, which made the ordeal less daunting.

“We really feel like a family,” Rogers said, adding that other cast and crew members regularly called to check in on her, and the “Days” producers never rushed her recovery.

“They all said, ‘Don’t worry about a thing, take care of yourself, get yourself well. That’s the most important thing. We are here,’ ” Rogers said. As the actor heads back to the “Days” set next week, she said she is “feeling really good,” albeit nervous that lingering fatigue might hold her back.

“That’s the only anxiousness I feel. It’s not because of my illness, let’s put it that way,” she said. When she does return to the screen, Rogers will still be sporting her famous ginger mane, as she didn’t lose her hair during chemo.

“Days of Our Lives” premiered on NBC in 1965 and is currently airing Season 61 on Peacock. In July, the classic daytime drama announced it had been renewed for a 62nd and 63rd season on the streaming service.