hear

A group of parents claims local admission policy boosts Black and Latino students while constraining Asian applicants.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the role of race in admissions to selective Maryland middle schools after a group of parents claimed policies discriminated against Asian students in favour of Black and Latino students.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the parents’ plea on four academically rigorous “magnet” schools in Montgomery County, a suburb on the outskirts of Washington, DC, in the neighbouring state of Maryland.

The high court said it would weigh whether the parent group has enough evidence of discrimination for the case to move forward.

Lower courts previously dismissed the case because Asian-American students were not underrepresented at the specialised-curriculum schools compared with the pool of students that applied.

If the Supreme Court rules for the parent group, the Association for Education Fairness, it could revive the lawsuit.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months and rule by June.

‘The Pandemic Plan’

The Montgomery County school district’s selection process was introduced in the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It screens all students for academic potential, and then implements a lottery to randomly assign students from that pool to receive enriched instruction at either a magnet school or a local school.

The suit alleged that the screening process makes it harder for Asian-American students, who the challengers said are clustered in “high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools”, to enter the lottery pool.

Part of the process ranks a student’s performance by comparing the student’s test scores against those of other students whose family incomes are at a similar level.

“Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent,” so long as it has not explicitly called out race in its process, they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Previously thrown out

The case was thrown out in 2022 by US District Judge Paula Xinis. She noted that the percentage of admitted Asian-American students exceeded the percentage of Asian Americans among all applicants to the magnet schools.

Xinis also found no evidence that the lottery policy was implemented with discriminatory intent.

The school system has consistently argued the new admissions policy, called the “Pandemic Plan” due to the timing of its release, is race-neutral.

“The Pandemic Plan is a colorblind lottery,” lawyers wrote in a brief asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case. “Nothing about the Pandemic Plan, its history, or its purpose is offensive to the Constitution.”

Supreme Court justices will now consider whether a group claiming to be targeted by a race-neutral policy must show it was disproportionately harmed to prove intentional discrimination.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from freedom of information requirements.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The high court is intervening on Tuesday for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of US President Donald Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favour and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” US Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorised the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” CREW lawyers wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus said the lower courts have uniformly ruled that it is entitled to records that could help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government,” Sus said in the statement.

DOGE said it had slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, but its claims were difficult for outside financial experts to verify.

Federal auditors found that some of DOGE’s reported savings across contract, grant and ⁠lease terminations were incorrect, lacked supporting evidence or included terminations that were already under way when DOGE was established, according to ⁠a report by the Government Accountability Office.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The high court is intervening for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of President Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favor and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorized the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” its attorneys wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

San ​Antonio Spurs player Victor Wembanyama offers solidarity to students protesting conditions at schools in France.

France’s ‌basketball star Victor Wembanyama voiced his support on Thursday ⁠for French ⁠teenagers protesting conditions in the country’s schools.

The Ministry of the Interior said 71,500 people took part in Thursday’s demonstrations, ⁠including 24,500 in the main Paris march centred on Place de la Bastille.

“These are systemic inequalities – problems so deep-rooted ⁠that, in fact, I’m glad that high-school students and young people in general are speaking up,” Wembanyama told a news conference on Thursday night.

“I hear them, and I support them, and ‌I hope the people all over there will do the same.”

The San Antonio Spurs player had previously replied “I would love to” when a fan asked him in an Instagram post to join the protest with the French teenagers.

“I have a lot of interest. I meant it,” Wembanyama ⁠added at the news conference. “I was in ⁠that position not so long ago.

“I’ve had the chance to escape this system, to escape these problems. But it’s chance, it’s luck. So I ⁠want to show my support.

“It’s not something that’s completely unfamiliar to me. I went ⁠to high school in Nanterre, which was ⁠already a stronghold of ‘blocages’ back then,” he said, referring to student-led school blockades.

Concerns about state schools have helped prompt a number of France’s most significant protests ‌in decades.

They began last month at high schools in the poor northern suburbs of Paris, where anger over teacher absences ‌and ‌shabby facilities quickly evolved into a nationwide movement against inequality, weak public spending and falling standards.

Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing set to begin after Senegal stripped of Africa Cup of Nations title by CAF.

The long-running saga over the winner of this year’s Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) title will move closer to resolution on Thursday when Senegal’s appeal, ⁠after being stripped of the title, is heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

Senegal are contesting the Confederation of African Football’s decision to declare Morocco champions, despite Senegal beating the hosts 1-0 after extra time ⁠in January’s final in Rabat.

Senegal walked off the pitch for 14 minutes after a penalty was awarded against them late in regulation time, with several players returning to the dressing room in protest before they resumed play.

Morocco failed to convert the spot kick, sending the match into extra time, where Senegal scored the winner to secure victory.

However, they were stripped ‌of the title two months later after CAF’s Appeal Board ruled that Senegal had forfeited the match by walking off the pitch, overturning the result and awarding a 3-0 victory to Morocco.

Senegal quickly followed with an appeal to CAS, which was lodged on March 25 but is only being heard on Thursday. Senegal want to be reinstated as winners, and a panel will listen to arguments from Senegal, Morocco and CAF.

“After the hearing, the panel will start its deliberations. At this stage, CAS cannot state when a final decision will ⁠be rendered but it will not be on the date of the hearing,” CAS ⁠said in a statement.

Three-man CAS panel to hear Senegal and CAF arguments

The panel will be presided over by French civil rights expert Gerald Simon, with assistance from Italian international law professor Luigi Fumagalli and Hamburg-based lawyer and professor of law at the University of Zurich, Ulrich Haas.

They are ⁠likely to hear arguments from Senegal that the Laws of the Game determine the referee’s decisions on incidents of play are final and cannot be challenged after the ⁠fact.

Also important is an interpretation of the articles of the tournament regulations on ⁠which CAF’s Appeals Board ruled in Morocco’s favour, which state that “if, for any reason whatsoever, a team refuses to play or leaves the ground before the regular end of the match without the authorisation of the referee, it shall be considered the loser and shall be eliminated for ‌good from the current competition.”

Senegal’s lawyers are expected to argue that the articles must be interpreted strictly and that a temporary departure from the field cannot be equated with abandoning the match, while Morocco are expected to ‌argue ‌for an opposing interpretation, according to which a team that leaves the field without the referee’s authorisation must be considered the loser and definitively eliminated from the competition, even if its departure was not permanent.

The hearing takes place behind closed doors.

Qualification for AFCON 2027 has already begun, with Senegal drawing the opening game of Patrick Vieira’s tenure as coach with Mozambique on September 25, before winning 1-0 in Ethiopia on September 29.

Morocco have won both of their opening games, beating Gabon and Lesotho.