Illinois

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy — Pope Leo XIV said Tuesday he was “very disappointed” that his home state of Illinois had approved a law allowing for medically assisted suicide, and he called for greater respect for life.

Leo said he had spoken “explicitly” with Gov. JB Pritzker and urged him to not sign the bill into law. Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich did the same, Leo told reporters as he left his country house in Castel Gandolfo, south of Rome.

“We were very clear about the necessity to respect the sacredness of life from the very beginning to the very end, and unfortunately, for different reasons, he decided to sign that bill,” Leo said. “I am very disappointed about that.”

Pritzker signed the legislation Dec. 12. The measure is also known as “Deb’s Law,” honoring Deb Robertson, a resident of the state living with a rare terminal illness. She had pushed for the measure’s approval and testified to the suffering of people and their families wanting the chance to decide for themselves how and when their lives should end.

Pritzker, a Democrat, had said he had been moved by stories of patients suffering from terminal illnesses.

Leo, who grew up in Chicago, cited Catholic teaching, which calls for the defense and protection of life from conception until natural death, forbidding abortion and euthanasia.

“I would invite all people, especially in these Christmas days, to reflect upon the nature of human life, the goodness of human life,” Leo said. “God became human like us to show us what it means really to live human life, and I hope and pray that the respect for life will once again grow in all moments of human existence, from conception to natural death.”

The state’s six Catholic dioceses had criticized Pritzker’s signing, saying the law puts Illinois “on a dangerous and heartbreaking path.”

Eleven other states and the District of Columbia allow medically assisted suicide, according to the advocacy group, Death With Dignity. Delaware was the latest, and its provision takes effect Jan. 1, 2026. Seven other states are considering allowing it.

Santalucia writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Nicole Winfield contributed to this report from Rome.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court ruled against President Trump on Tuesday and said he did not have legal authority to deploy the National Guard in Chicago to protect federal immigration agents.

Acting on a 6-3 vote, the justices denied Trump’s appeal and upheld orders from a federal district judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that said the president had exaggerated the threat and overstepped his authority.

The decision is a major defeat for Trump and his broad claim that he had the power to deploy military forces in U.S. cities.

In an unsigned order, the court said the Militia Act allows the president to deploy the National Guard only if U.S. military forces were unable to quell violence.

“At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois. The President has not invoked a statute that provides an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act,” the court said.

Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had allowed the deployments in Los Angeles and Portland, Ore., after ruling that judges must defer to the president.

But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer ruled Dec. 10 that the federalized National Guard troops in Los Angeles must be returned to the control of California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Trump’s lawyers had not claimed in their appeal that the president had the authority to deploy the military for ordinary law enforcement in the city. Instead, they said the Guard troops would be deployed “to protect federal officers and federal property.”

The two sides in the Chicago case, like in Portland, told dramatically different stories about the circumstances leading to Trump’s order.

Democratic officials in Illinois said small groups of protesters objected to the aggressive enforcement tactics used by federal immigration agents. They said police were able to contain the protests, clear the entrances and prevent violence.

By contrast, administration officials described repeated instances of disruption, confrontation and violence in Chicago. They said immigration agents were harassed and blocked from doing their jobs, and they needed the protection the National Guard could supply.

Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the president had the authority to deploy the Guard if agents could not enforce the immigration laws.

“Confronted with intolerable risks of harm to federal agents and coordinated, violent opposition to the enforcement of federal law,” Trump called up the National Guard “to defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence,” he told the court in an emergency appeal filed in mid-October.

Illinois state lawyers disputed the administration’s account.

“The evidence shows that federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks,” state Solicitor Gen. Jane Elinor Notz said in response to the administration’s appeal.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

The Militia Act of 1903 says the president may call up and deploy the National Guard if he faces an invasion, a rebellion or is “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”

Trump’s lawyers said that referred to police and federal agents. But after taking a closer look, the court concluded it referred to the regular military forces. By that standard, the president’s authority to deploy the National Guard comes only after the military has failed to quell violence.

But on Oct. 29, the justices asked both sides to explain what the law meant when it referred to the “regular forces.”

Until then, both sides had assumed it referred to federal agents and police, not the military.

Trump’s lawyers stuck to their position. They said the law referred to the “civilian forces that regularly execute the laws,” not the military.

If those civilians cannot enforce the law, “there is a strong tradition in this country of favoring the use of the military rather than the standing military to quell domestic disturbances,” they said.

State attorneys for Illinois said the “regular forces” are the “full-time, professional military.” And they said the president could not “even plausibly argue” that the U.S. soldiers were required to enforce the law in Chicago.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case that warned of the danger of the president using the military in American cities.

“On June 7, for the first time in our Nation’s history, the President invoked [U.S. law] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor,” they said.

“President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth transferred 4,000 members of California’s National Guard — one in three of the Guard’s total active members — to federal control to serve in a civilian law enforcement role on the streets of Los Angeles and other communities in Southern California.”

That has proved to be “the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” they said. “At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate.

“What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time,” they said.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — To tax tips or not? That is a question that will confront lawmakers in states across the U.S. as they convene for work next year.

The Trump administration is urging states to follow its lead by enacting a slew of new tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including deductions for tips and overtime wages, automobile loans and business equipment.

In some states, the new federal tax breaks will automatically apply to state income taxes unless legislatures opt out. But in many other states, where tax laws are written differently, the new tax breaks won’t appear on state tax forms unless legislatures opt in.

In states that don’t conform to the federal tax changes, workers who receive tips or overtime, for example, will pay no federal tax on those earnings but could still owe state taxes on them.

States that adopt all of Trump’s tax cuts could provide hundreds of millions of dollars in annual savings to certain residents and businesses. But that could financially strain states, which are being hit with higher costs because of new Medicaid and SNAP food aid requirements that also are included in the GOP’s big bill that Trump signed this summer.

Most states begin their annual legislative sessions in January. To retroactively change tax breaks for 2025, lawmakers would need to act quickly so tax forms could be updated before people begin filing. States also could apply the changes to their 2026 taxes, a decision requiring less haste.

So far, only a few states have taken votes on whether to adopt the tax breaks.

“States in general are approaching this skeptically,” said Carl Davis, research director at the nonprofit Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Treasury presses states to act

The bill Trump signed July 4 contains about $4.5 trillion of federal tax cuts over 10 years.

It creates temporary tax deductions for tips, overtime and loan interest on new vehicles assembled in the U.S. It boosts a tax deduction for older adults. And it temporarily raises the cap on state and local tax deductions from $10,000 to $40,000, among other things. The law also provides numerous tax breaks to businesses, including the ability to immediately write off 100% of the cost of equipment and research.

Forty-one states levy individual income taxes on wages and salaries. Forty-four states charge corporate income taxes.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this month called on those states “to immediately conform” to the federal tax cuts and accused some Democratic-led states that haven’t done so of engaging in “political obstructionism.” Though Bessent didn’t mention it, many Republican-led states also have not decided whether to implement the tax deductions.

“By denying their residents access to these important tax cuts, these governors and legislators are forcing hardworking Americans to shoulder higher state tax burdens, robbing them of the relief they deserve and exacerbating the financial squeeze on low- and middle-income households,” Bessent said.

Some tax analysts contend that there’s more for states to consider. The tax break on tips, for example, could apply to nearly 70 occupational fields under a proposed rule from the Internal Revenue Service. But that would still exclude numerous low-wage workers, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the nonprofit Tax Foundation.

“Lawmakers need to consider whether these are worth the cost,” Walczak said.

Tips and overtime tax breaks

Because of the way state tax laws are written, the federal tax breaks for tips and overtime wages would have carried over to just seven states: Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and South Carolina. But Colorado opted out of the state tax break for overtime shortly before the federal law was enacted.

Michigan this fall became the first — and so far only — state to opt into the tax breaks for tips and overtime wages, effective in 2026. The overtime tax exemption is projected to cost the state nearly $113 million and the tips tax break about $45 million during its current budget year, according to the state treasury department.

Michigan lawmakers offset that by decoupling from five federal corporate tax changes the state’s treasury estimated would have reduced state tax revenues by $540 million this budget year.

Republican state Rep. Ann Bollin, chair of the Michigan House Appropriations Committee, said the state could not afford to embrace all the tax cuts while still investing in better roads, public safety and education.

“The best path forward is to have more money in people’s pockets and have less regulation — and this kind of moved in that direction,” she said.

Arizona could be among the next states to act. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has called upon lawmakers to adopt the tax breaks for tips, overtime, seniors and vehicle loans, and follow the federal government by also increasing the state’s standard deduction for individual income taxpayers. Republican state House leaders said they stand ready to pass the tax cuts when their session begins Jan. 12.

Corporate tax breaks

In addition to Michigan, lawmakers in Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island have passed measures to block some or all of the corporate tax cuts from taking effect in their states.

A new Illinois law decoupling from a portion of the corporate tax changes could save the state nearly $250 million, said Democratic state Sen. Elgie Sims, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He said that could help ensure continued funding for schools, healthcare and other vital services.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, an outspoken Democratic opponent of Trump, also cited budget concerns for rejecting the corporate tax cut provision. He said states already stand to lose money because of other provisions in Trump’s big bill, such as a requirement to cover more of the costs of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP.

“The decoupling is an effort to try to hold back the onslaught from the federal government to make sure that we can support programs like the one we’re announcing today,” Pritzker told reporters at a December event publicizing a grant to address homelessness in central Illinois.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill., contributed to this report.

BERKELEY, Calif. — Mike White, who had a successful career as a college coach with California and Illinois and later coached the NFL’s Oakland Raiders, has died. He was 89.

Cal said White’s family confirmed that he died Sunday in Newport Beach.

White helped the Golden Bears win a share of the Pac-8 title in 1975, led the Illini to their first Rose Bowl in 20 years in the 1983 season and coached the Raiders in their first two seasons back in Oakland in 1995-96 after leaving Los Angeles.

He also worked as an assistant for the San Francisco 49ers and was on Dick Vermeil’s staff with the St. Louis Rams when they won the Super Bowl following the 1999 season.

“Mike was special,” said Burl Toler Jr., a linebacker who played at Cal under White from 1974-77. “He treated us like men and with a lot of respect. Mike was a very gifted and smart coach who loved Cal and loved being a coach, and he surrounded himself with a lot of like minds who instilled in us a will to succeed.”

White was a four-sport student-athlete at Cal in the 1950s and spent time as an assistant with the Bears and at rival Stanford before getting the head coaching job at his alma mater in 1972.

White had a 35-30-1 record in six seasons at Cal, with his biggest success coming in 1975 when he was named coach of the year after the Bears finished tied with UCLA for first place in the conference. Cal finished 14th in the nation with an offense that featured Chuck Muncie and quarterback Joe Roth.

White also coached quarterback Steve Bartkowski earlier at Cal and helped develop him into the No. 1 overall pick in the 1975 NFL draft.

He then left for the NFL, spending two seasons as an offensive line coach for the 49ers, before returning to college in 1980 with Illinois. He led the Illini to a 47-41-3 record with three bowl trips, including a loss in the 1984 Rose Bowl to UCLA.

That 1983 Illinois team went 9-0 in the Big Ten and is the only team in conference history to beat every other conference opponent in the same season.

White then returned to the NFL in 1990, spending five seasons as an assistant with the Raiders before taking over as head coach. He had a 15-17 record before getting fired after the 1996 season.

Dubow writes for the Associated Press.