judge

A state judge Thursday rejected a challenge to how California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office summarized a strict new voter ID measure on November ballots — ruling that the summary language accurately describes the measure’s effects were it to pass.

Another judge dealt the backers of the measure a second loss by tentatively finding that their description of the measure, submitted for the official state voter’s guide, was misleading. They had claimed that Proposition 39 would make voting easier.

In the first case, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Jennifer K. Rockwell ruled that the label, title and summary of the certified ballot measure accurately describe Proposition 39 as a measure that “prohibits citizens from voting” — language the measure’s backers specifically objected to — unless they provide a government-issued ID.

According to minutes from a Thursday hearing on the matter, Rockwell concluded that, to the extent the measure’s backers object to that language, they are objecting to “the provisions of the measure itself.”

Rockwell rejected the argument put forth by the measure’s backers that it would not prevent people without ID from voting, only their votes from being counted — a distinction the judge found lacking.

Both parties had asked the court to move quickly ahead of printing deadlines for November ballots.

The attorney general’s office is responsible for preparing titles and summaries for ballot measures, and is not required by law to use the same language as a measure’s proponents when gathering the necessary voter signatures to place the measure on the ballot.

Bonta’s office had argued in court that his office applied the same standard of review to the voter ID measure as every other ballot measure that has come before his office.

Bonta praised Rockwell’s decision on social media Thursday, writing that it “confirms what we have said from the start: the ballot materials at issue — the ballot title and summary and ballot label — give a true and impartial statement of Proposition 39’s chief purpose and points.”

“My office followed the law and fulfilled its duty to provide California voters with clear, accessible, and accurate information,” he wrote. “We’re pleased that the court agreed with us.”

California Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), the chief backer of the court challenge and chairman of the group Reform California, responded to the ruling with a video post to social media, writing that it was “expected” but nonetheless “disappointing.”

DeMaio accused Bonta of trying to “manipulate the vote” with “rigged” language, and Rockwell of being a “liberal judge” who had unsurprisingly decided that Bonta “gets to do corruptly what he wants to do.”

“It’s pissing me off,” DeMaio said in his video post.

DeMaio predicted that Proposition 39 will still pass, but that it will take “all of us spreading the word that the attorney general has tried to manipulate the title on the ballot measure.”

Voter ID requirements are being pushed by Republicans across the country — from President Trump down — as necessary to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens, despite elections experts saying that such fraud is exceedingly rare and that there is no evidence that it exists in volumes large enough to swing elections.

Democrats, including in California, have argued that states already have robust measures to ensure that only eligible voters cast ballots, including through existing security measures such as signature verification. They said stricter voter ID requirements would lead to eligible voters without ready access to documents being denied access to voting — including poorer, elderly and rural voters and married women who have changed their names.

A majority of California voters back stricter voter ID requirements, according to recent polls.

The Trump administration has been pressing for new voter ID requirements nationwide, including in Congress, without success.

Passage of Proposition 39 in liberal California would represent a massive win for the administration and a setback for California’s Democratic leaders. It would require substantial reforms to how the state accepts ballots both in person and through the mail — the latter being the preferred option for the vast majority of voters in recent California elections.

Backers of Proposition 39 also took a hit in a separate court proceeding Thursday, where another judge — siding with top Democratic lawmakers — issued a tentative finding that the measure’s backers were misleading voters by claiming in voter guide language that the measure would make voting easier in the state were it to pass.

“It is hard to conceive how it would be ‘easy’ or ‘easier’ to vote if a voter has to take the extra step of either bringing government-issued identification when voting in person or search for their government-issued identification and supply the last four digits if they vote by mail,” wrote Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang.

The voter guide language will need to change as a result.

California leaders who brought the challenge — including State Senate President Pro Tempore Monique Limón (D-Goleta) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) — praised the decision.

“Prop 39 is a MAGA-backed power grab by Donald Trump’s closest allies,” Rivas said in a statement. “As today’s ruling underscores, Prop 39 isn’t about election security or fair elections — the real goal of the MAGA activists who wrote Prop 39 is to make it harder for Californians to vote.”

DeMaio denounced the decision, accusing Chang of having “sided with the politicians” in California to “strike legitimate arguments on why Voter ID is needed to improve election integrity.”

Aug. 6 (UPI) — A D.C. judge has dismissed the Lincoln Reflecting Pool vandalism case against U.S. Olympian David Hearn, according to court documents filed Thursday afternoon.

A grand jury charged Hearn with one felony count of destruction of property early last month, alleging that the 67-year-old willfully ripped up a piece of recently installed blue pool sealant from the Lincoln Reflecting Pool, which President Donald Trump had recently ordered renovated.

The alleged incident involving Hearn occurred June 19 as videos were posted online showing its surface green with algae and blue paint seemingly peeling from the bottom of the pool. Trump claimed vandalism and vowed those responsible would be held to account.

In his order filed Thursday afternoon, Associate Judge Todd Edelman dismissed the case but allowed litigation to continue over whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice.

On July 31, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro for the District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, stating that the Department of Interior had provided “less than fulsome information at the outset of this case” that led prosecutors to charge Hearn. After he was charged, the DOI provided documents that “strongly suggest that a rushed and botched installation by AIC, the primary contractor, led to the damage to the lining of the reflecting pool.”

On Aug. 5, Hearn’s lawyers agreed the case should be dismissed but argued that the dismissal should be with prejudice.

“David Hearn is innocent and today’s dismissal reflects that simple fact,” Hearn’s counsel Norm Eisen of Democracy Defenders Fund, Mary Dohrmann of Washington Litigation Group and Steve Levin of Steptoe LLP said in a joint statement Thursday.

“The Department of Justice’s decision to seek an indictment was a miscarriage of justice.”

They said they intend to “vigorously advocate” for the case to be dismissed with prejudice to prevent the government from bringing the case again.

“All other legal options also remain on the table,” they said.

Trump maintains that vandalism was the cause of damage to the reflecting pool, despite the admission by his own Department of Interior. After Pirro filed for dismissal, Trump criticized her online, leading to speculation that the former Fox News host may be the next woman he fires.

“I disagree 100% with Jeanine Pirro,” he said online.

“I don’t know what she was thinking? To me, it was a pure case of VANDALISM,” he said, before referring to alleged vandalism to grass near the reflecting pool. “There may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by VANDALS!”

Trump had ordered the Reflecting Pool be painted “American flag blue” ahead of celebrations marking the United States’ 250th birthday. But within days of the $15 million work being completed on June 6, the pool began experiencing issues, from algae blooms to blue coating peeling off the bottom.

Hearn is a three-time Olympia, having competed in the Barcelona games of 1992, the Atlanta games of 1996 and the Sydney games of 2000. He is a former canoe slalom athlete.

A federal judge blasted KTLA-TV Channel 5’s owner, the Texas-based Nexstar Media Group, on Thursday for violating a court order and for failing to disclose key information.

U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley found that Nexstar’s actions violated terms of an April preliminary injunction that was designed to prevent the media company from moving forward with its $6.2-billion takeover of rival TV station group Tegna Inc. and meddling with its management.

The judge called Nexstar’s actions “brazen.” He demanded the company begin submitting monthly reports and said a special master would be appointed to help manage the antitrust case and monitor Nexstar for compliance.

And Tegna’s recently constituted board — filled with high-level Nexstar officials — must be dissolved.

A Nexstar spokesman wasn’t immediately available for comment.

Nexstar unveiled its Tegna takeover a year ago. At the time, TV stations were lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to relax station ownership rules, a move that occurred Thursday in a split decision.

Last spring, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and seven other state attorneys general challenged Nexstar’s proposed acquisition, alleging the roll-up of more than 250 local TV stations would violate a U.S. antitrust law intended to protect consumers and competitive markets.

Bonta and other plaintiff states argued the consolidation would lead to local newsrooms shuttering, particularly in smaller markets, such as Sacramento and Indianapolis, where Nexstar would own multiple network affiliates.

Despite Bonta’s lawsuit, Nexstar hurried the next day to finalize its purchase of Virginia-based Tegna and swallow the operation. Tegna disbanded, its shareholders were paid and top Tegna executives exited.

Nunley, who is based in Sacramento, is overseeing the case. He initially issued a restraining order, followed by a more lengthy preliminary injunction that ordered Nexstar to halt its integration while the court case was pending.

Tegna should continue to operate as a separate business unit — free from the influence of Nexstar, the judge ruled.

But on the day that Nunley issued the restraining order, Nexstar formed a new Tegna board filled with Nexstar officers, including Chief Executive Perry Sook, Chief Financial Officer Lee Ann Gliha, and later Mike Biard, a former Fox executive who joined Nexstar in 2023 as chief operating officer.

Nexstar countered that while Nunley’s order said Nexstar employees were restricted from serving as “officers,” it didn’t expressly say they couldn’t serve on Tegna‘s board as “directors.”

“Defendants cannot convincingly argue that having Nexstar executives serve on TEGNA’s Board complies with the preliminary injunction,” Nunley wrote in Thursday’s order, adding that Nexstar’s position was “entirely disingenuous.”

Nexstar now must dissolve the board.

“It is shocking that Defendants think installing a Board of Directors comprised primarily of Nexstar executives would not create influence over Tegna management,” Nunley wrote.

He also admonished Nexstar for not providing that information in any of the hearings or in its filings with the court. “Defendants have a duty of candor to the Court under California Rule of Professional Conduct,” Nunley wrote.

His order was designed “to preserve Tegna as a separate and distinct, independently managed business unit from Nexstar,” Nunley wrote. “Nexstar’s control of the Tegna Board will undoubtedly allow it to influence Tegna’s management and obtain access to Tegna’s confidential information.”

Bonta, in a statement, said: “We thank the court for its attention to this matter and look forward to arguing our case and blocking this merger.”

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

Chris Young grew up in Clarksville, Tenn., in the direst imaginable circumstances — unimaginable, in fact, to many of us.

He never knew his father. His mother was a crack addict with a habit of stabbing her romantic partners. While his mom was in prison, Young and his older brother, Robert, mostly fended for themselves, often in a home that lacked electricity and running water. Young, tormented by sickle-cell disease, saw many of those closest to him die by homicide or suicide.

The two boys weren’t totally bereft. They had a grandfather, cousins, friends and a stepfather. A neighbor provided showers, until his water bill got too high; another supplied hot meals. A woman known as Big Mama offered shelter and tough love. But it wasn’t nearly enough. Desperate for money, the teenage Young — smart, entrepreneurial, dreaming of a rap career — became a gun-toting drug dealer.

Young’s searing memoir, “The Wound Is Where the Light Enters,” chronicles this bitter childhood and its devastating consequences. The evocative title is a quotation from the 13th century Persian poet Rumi.

Unlike some prison memoirs, this isn’t an innocence story. But it is no less an indictment of the U.S. justice system — its laws, its courts and its brutal prisons. “The constant state of heightened agitation and awareness that it takes to survive a single day in a federal penitentiary is enough to drive a man insane,” Young writes. “At every turn, the system is designed to crush your humanity. You’re an animal in there and are expected to act like one.”

But not everyone does. “The Wound Is Where the Light Enters” not only reveals the system’s horrors, but also celebrates the redemptive power of hope, intellect and community.

By the time Young was swept up in a federal drug investigation, he already had two felony drug convictions. His involvement in the federal conspiracy case, as he tells it, was marginal. He was no kingpin and had never met most of the people being charged.

But he faced a zealous prosecutor, with only court-appointed attorneys at his side. Worse yet, he was up against a harsh “three-strikes” law that replaced judicial discretion with mandatory minimum sentences.

Young’s own pride and sense of justice also came into play. He could have pleaded guilty, perhaps even cooperated, and received a finite (though still hefty) prison sentence. Instead, determined to argue his case, he opted for a trial at which conviction was all but certain. Then, against advice, he presented a meticulously crafted and rehearsed speech at his sentencing hearing.

The 26-year-old Young, who’d already spent four years behind bars, had used that time productively. A former straight-A student who had dropped out of high school, he had embarked on a program of self-education, reading deeply in African American history, Greek philosophy, finance and other subjects. “Every day,” he writes, “I left the library with new language to put to my thoughts.”

Young told the court about his chaotic upbringing and his recent scholarly pursuits. “He spoke of the things he could do if he did not have to die in prison. He told me of the possibilities that would never be,” the trial judge, Kevin H. Sharp, writes in the book’s foreword. “It was impossible to listen to someone so full of compassion, intelligence, and, above all, promise, and not question the system that had not just allowed this to happen but required it.”

Sharp sentenced Young to life without the possibility of parole, as the law mandated. But two years later, he stepped down from the bench and joined Young’s defense team.

Young describes his childhood mostly from the perspective of a boy — alternately bewildered, hurting, depressed and “mad all the time.” His account of his incarceration, with its mind-numbing routines, gang hegemony and intermittent violence, is equally gripping.

At McCreary, the tense high-security federal prison in Kentucky known as Misery Mountain, Young meditated, adhered to a workout routine, read prodigiously, taught GED classes to fellow inmates and maintained ties to his few surviving loved ones. And he kept hoping. “The system’s control over my body was absolute,” Young writes. “Its control over my mind was not.”

In 2015, the sickle cell-related disintegration of his hips prompted Young’s transfer to a low-security prison, Federal Medical Center Lexington. Here the surroundings are less bleak, the library better, the prisoners friendlier. Young teaches himself to code and envisions an app that will focus on mental health and suicide prevention. Yet he still must fight to obtain the hip replacement surgery he so desperately needs.

By now, his case has attracted sympathetic press attention and more effective lawyers. Even so, his story takes a dark turn. From Lexington, he is sent to his most terrifying prison yet, known as Bloody Beaumont, where COVID-19 adds another layer of threat. A judge reduces his sentence, but, for reasons never entirely clear, he is suddenly thrown into the prison’s “hole,” its barbarous solitary confinement cells.

It is from that hell that Young, more than a decade after his arrest, emerges to freedom — earning a degree in economics and public policy from Southern Methodist University, pursuing a consulting career and writing this indelible book. For his 2021 grant of executive clemency, he has his lawyers and reality-TV star Kim Kardashian to thank — as well as President Trump.

Klein, a cultural reporter and critic in Philadelphia, has been a three-time finalist for the National Book Critics Circle’s Nona Balakian Citation for Excellence in Reviewing.

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that his $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund is “dead” while also continuing to defend it, further complicating his administration’s negotiations with two Republican senators who are blocking his attorney general nominee in protest.

Trump told reporters at Camp David on Friday morning that administration officials had “agreed not to have a fund” that compensates his political allies, yet made clear that he disagrees with that decision.

The comments came hours after an early morning social media post in which Trump said people who had been prosecuted by the Justice Department — many of them for their involvement in the violent Jan. 6, 2001, attack on the Capitol — “are suffering still, many ruined, and I felt that they should be given compensation for what has been done to them.”

Trump’s reluctant declaration that the fund won’t be created came as Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, say they won’t support Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general until they see that promise in writing. They have been working for weeks with the White House and Blanche, who is now the acting attorney general, to produce a document to that effect, but both senators have said they aren’t satisfied so far.

“The President made it clear today that the so-called Anti Weaponization Fund is still alive, which is exactly why we are attempting to formally end it,” Tillis said after Trump’s initial social media post.

Trump said in his post that Blanche should be immediately confirmed and is a “pawn in this whole thing.”

Cornyn, Tillis want promises in writing

Blanche said at a hearing two months ago that the anti-weaponization fund would not move forward after Republican senators revolted and held up an immigration funding bill.

But Tillis, who is retiring when his term ends in January, and Cornyn, who lost reelection this year after Trump endorsed his primary opponent, said they want to ensure that the White House doesn’t reverse course, especially as Trump continues to argue that a fund is needed.

The Justice Department has provided the senators with language that says Blanche’s May 18 order establishing the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” is “rescinded and shall have no force or effect,” according to a document reviewed by The Associated Press.

Cornyn and Tillis have said they also want some clarifications on a separate piece of the settlement that would grant Trump and members of his family immunity from tax audits. Cornyn said this week that it was his understanding that the audits could extend to more than 100 different Trump organization subsidiaries into the future.

“Todd Blanche said it was limited to the parties to the litigation — and it was retrospective, not prospective,” Cornyn said. “And all we’re doing is asking them to put that in writing.”

Blanche nomination is delayed in the Senate

The Judiciary Committee postponed a vote on Blanche’s nomination that had been scheduled for Thursday morning after Tillis and Cornyn said they needed more from the administration before they could provide the necessary votes.

After the meeting was delayed, Trump said in a social media post that he might pull Blanche’s nomination and resubmit it after Cornyn and Tillis leave office next year. But the two sides continued to negotiate through Thursday afternoon, when Blanche, Cornyn and Tillis met on Capitol Hill.

On Friday, a person familiar with the negotiations said talks had been positive, but the senators were still awaiting a new offer from the Justice Department. The person requested anonymity to discuss the private negotiations.

The two senators have repeatedly said the Justice Department seemed interested in reaching an agreement, but the White House wouldn’t budge even to aid the confirmation of Trump’s loyal former personal attorney, who has aggressively pursued the administration’s priorities as acting attorney general.

“I think as far as Blanche and the Department of Justice, we were pretty much on the same page,” Cornyn said Thursday. “But then when the president got wind of it, he wasn’t willing to go along with it.”

Tillis said Blanche “has been forthright, thoughtful and patient” but attributed the holdup to an “incompetent personal advisor” to the president, even as Trump himself continued to advocate for the fund.

Behind the scenes, Trump legal adviser Boris Epshteyn is being blamed as an obstacle to an agreement that would let Blanche move forward, according to three people who have direct knowledge of the discussions and requested anonymity to discuss them.

Saying the AP’s “sources are wrong,” White House communications director Steven Cheung said “anyone trying to assign blame to the President or his team has no earthly idea of what is going on and clearly is trying to deflect from the issue at hand — Todd Blanche will be an exceptional Attorney General and he should be confirmed immediately.”

Also on Friday, Trump’s attorneys notified a court it would appeal a judge’s scathing ruling that characterized the settlement of the president’s lawsuit against the IRS as an improper exercise in self-dealing. The judge in her order earlier this month referred one of Trump’s attorneys for potential disciplinary action and criticized Blanche’s involvement in the settlement, given his prior representation of Trump.

Blanche has said he disagrees “with the judge’s insinuations” about him.

Settlement fund could have benefited Jan. 6 rioters

Even as they are usually deferential to Trump, a number of Republican senators have expressed strong objections to the settlement.

“The criminals who assaulted police officers and defiled our nation’s Capitol are not ‘great American patriots’ who are ‘victims of government abuse,’” Tillis said, echoing Trump’s comments about the rioters who could potentially have received payouts. On his first day back in office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 people who had been charged in the attack.

Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana said Thursday that the majority of Senate Republicans aren’t comfortable with the settlement fund.

“Blanche said it’s dead, and he testified that it’s not coming back,” Kennedy said. “But for whatever reason, somebody didn’t want to put it in writing.”

Jalonick, Kim and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

July 31 (UPI) — A federal judge on Friday turned down a request by Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company, xAI, to block a Minnesota law banning nudification technology.

Minnesota in May became the first state in the nation to pass legislation banning the practice of using AI to digitally remove clothing from a pictured individual.

xAI, which develops the chatbot and image generator Grok, filed the suit over the ban Tuesday.

“The court respectfully denies the request for a temporary restraining order before tomorrow,” U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank ruled on Friday. “xAI filed the motion on July 29, 2026, nearly three months after the law was signed, and only three days before the law is set to take effect.

“Such a delay in bringing the action and the motion suggests that harm is not immediate.”

The federal judge set a hearing on Aug. 19 to evaluate the lawsuit.

“See you in court, creep,” Gov. Tim Walz said in a statement on X, referring to Musk.

In its lawsuit, xAI argues that the Minnesota law “imposes an overbroad, content-based ban on free speech and the tools of visual expression in a clumsy attempt to prohibit ‘nudification.'”

“xAI accordingly does not contest Minnesota’s interest in prohibiting the dissemination of artificially generated nude images of real people without their consent,” the company wrote in court documents. “But the statute Minnesota enacted extends far beyond that goal, exposing a wide array of protected speech to civil liability and government sanctions.”

Minnesota’s law would apply fines of $500,000 to websites and apps providing nudification technology.

Musk’s company has faced intense scrutiny since a version of Grok, released in December, began generating thousands of sexualized images, including some that appeared to be of minors.

The company in January changed its policies, but Grok continued to generate sexualized images as late as April.

Comedian Alan Carr has announced that he will be joining Davina McCall, Maya Jama, Jonathan Ross and Mo Gilligan as a judge on the next series of The Masked Singer

Alan Carr is joining The Masked Singer as a judge. Bosses of the hit ITV competition, which sees celebrities dress up in elaborate costumes in an attempt to conceal their identity as they perform pop songs, had teased that a famous face was set to join the panel for the next series.

Since its inception in 2020, Jonathan Ross and Davina McCall have been part of the programme, whilst Mo Gilligan joined in the second series and Love Island host Maya Jama replaced Maya Jama just under two years ago. Joel Dommett has served as the presenter since the beginning as well and now, Celebrity Traitors winner Alan, 50, has announced that he is joining the panel.

Speaking on ITV’s This Morning on Friday, he said: “Yes, it’s me, Alan. I’m sick and tired of watching that panel make terrible guesses. I’ve been Red Panda, I’ve been Teeth. Dunno why they thought of me!

“So yes, I’m bringing the panel something they desperately need – intelligence. Watch out, Jonathan, Maya, Davina and Mo because I’m bringing my own detectives to rival yours! Oh yes, and we’re not here to play, we are here to win!”

Hosts Alison Hammond and Dermot O’Leary were thrilled with the news, and Alison said: “Oh my gosh, that has made my day. It’s gonna be brilliant! It’s gonna be great, well done, Alan, we can’t wait to see you joining the panel.”

Alan has previously served as a judge on Britain’s Got Talent and was also part of the panel for ITV’s Mamma Mia! I Have A Dream, which sought to find two unknown performers to play the leads in the ABBA jukebox musical.

In the build-up to the reveal, the social media account for The Masked Singer had teased that someone new was on the way and laid out a series of clues in the video. Fans instantly started to speculate as to who the mystery celeb could be as the video claimed that “something big” was about to happen.

Initially, followers thought that a singer was joining the panel, with one writing: “We do need a singer panellist ngl,” and another said: “we need someone on the panel that knows singing like the back of their hand that does singing full time like [former panellist] Rita [Ora]”

One fan thought that, if a singer was indeed joining the panel, it could be West End star Mazz Murray. They wrote: “Mazz Murray because of the Greece postcard and it says missing you and Mazz left Mamma Mia! and Donna Sheridan is one of her most well known roles.”

Another thought it could be McFly stars Danny Jones and Tom Fletcher, but another simply said: “Whatever it is, if it’s being teased early it’ll be big.”

The Masked Singer normally airs in January, and earlier this year, Sugababes singer Keisha Buchanan won the series after no one managed to guess that she had been secretly performing as Moth.

Other winners over the years include pop stars Nicola Roberts and Natalie Imbruglia as well as West End actress Samantha Barks, who is best known for her roles in Les Miserables and Frozen.

Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

MADISON, Wis. — Wisconsin voters who have already returned their absentee ballots for the state’s primary are not allowed to void those and request a new one, a judge ruled Wednesday.

The ruling deals a blow to Democrats, who filed a lawsuit seeking to give voters a do-over because of a chaotic party primary in the governor’s race.

The ruling is almost certain to be appealed with voting already underway in the state’s primary for governor. It creates another level of uncertainty in the waning days of a primary season that saw Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez, who had been seen as a Democratic front-runner, drop out on July 17. A day later, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, who had bowed out on July 8, reentered the race.

Rodriguez’s name remains on the ballot, along with former state economic development director Missy Hughes, who dropped out in June.

More than 117,000 absentee ballots had been returned by Wednesday. Democrats were concerned that many of those might have been cast for Rodriguez.

The attorney for voters who filed the lawsuit with support from the Wisconsin Democratic Party argued in a Tuesday hearing that state law allows voters who have submitted absentee ballots to change their mind before those ballots are counted on election day.

“Voters across Wisconsin will be disenfranchised” if not allowed to do that, attorney Eduardo Castro argued before Dane County Circuit Judge David Conway.

The bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission had voted on July 9 to distribute guidance to clerks saying absentee voters cannot change their ballot after it has been returned. The rarely used process is known as ballot spoiling.

But Conway on Wednesday ruled that “the unambiguous language of the statute does not allow a voter to spoil an absentee ballot after it is returned.” He said the guidance issued by the elections commission to the roughly 2,000 clerks who run elections at the local level was consistent with the law.

The judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order sought by Democrats. They had wanted the judge to order the state elections commission to rescind its guidance.

Spokespeople for the Wisconsin Democratic Party and the state elections commission did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the ruling.

Ballot spoiling was the subject of a 2022 lawsuit brought by a Republican group. In that case, a Waukesha County judge agreed that the elections commission must rescind its guidance that allowed voters to cast a second ballot. But the state appeals court earlier this year vacated that ruling on technical grounds and did not rule on the merits.

The winner of the Democratic primary will advance to November’s general election, most likely against Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany, who has only token opposition in his party’s primary. Democratic Gov. Tony Evers is not seeking a third term.

Democrats hope to keep the governor’s office and flip both chambers of the Legislature to gain full control of state government for the first time since 2010.

Bauer writes for the Associated Press.

LONDON — Booker Prize winners Marlon James and Douglas Stuart are in the running again for the prestigious fiction award, alongside Dublin gangs, dystopian science fiction and the New England characters of Pulitzer Prize laureate Elizabeth Strout.

Judges read 163 novels to come up with the 13 semifinalists announced Tuesday for the $66,000 Booker Prize, a list described by historian Mary Beard, head of the judging panel, as literary “dynamite.”

The list includes James’ “The Disappearers,” about a group of gay men in a hostile 1980s Jamaica; Stuart’s “ John of John,” a story of father-son secrets on a remote Scottish island; and Strout’s heartfelt small-town tale “The Things We Never Say.”

Marlon James is semifinalist for the 2026 Booker Prize for fiction. In 2015, he became the first Jamaican writer to win the prestigious literary award.

(Neil Hall / Associated Press)

James won the Booker in 2015 for “A Brief History of Seven Killings,” and Stuart won in 2020 for “Shuggie Bain.” Strout’s “Oh William!” was a finalist in 2022. She won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 2009 for “Olive Kitteridge.”

They sit alongside lesser-known names on a Booker longlist that includes authors with roots in Britain, Ireland, Jamaica, Mexico, Turkey and the United States.

Three of those on the list are debut authors: Turkish American writer Kenan Orhan for the family history saga “The Renovation,” British author Rebecca Perry for the Medieval-to-modern tale “May We Feed the King” and Ireland’s Djamel White for “All Them Dogs,” a thriller set in the Dublin underworld.

White, at 28, is the youngest author in the running. The oldest is 81-year-old M. John Harrison, whose postapocalyptic tale “The End of Everything” is a rare science fiction novel to make the Booker list.

The other contenders are “The Shadow of the Object” by Chloe Aridjis, “Black Bag” by Luke Kennard, “The Vivisectors” by Missouri Williams, “Switzy” by Emma Cline, “Helen of Nowhere” by Makenna Goodman and Gwendoline Riley’s “The Palm House.”

Beard said the five jurors, who include Pulp frontman Jarvis Cocker and American novelist Patricia Lockwood, tried to look beyond the idea of a typical Booker winner — “slightly serious, about to be classic.” Instead, they chose novels that are “trying to expand the boundaries of how we can think about ourselves in completely different ways,”

“Sometimes they’re using humor, sometimes it’s pathos, sometimes there’s shock value,” Beard said. “They’re risk-takers. They are dynamite. They say, ‘Come on, try seeing it a different way.’ ”

Pulitzer Prize winner Elizabeth Strout is a semifinalist for the Booker Prize for fiction for her novel, “The Things We Never Say.”

(Leonardo Cendamo)

Founded in 1969, the Booker Prize has a reputation for transforming writers’ careers and is open to novels from any country published in the U.K. and Ireland. Last year’s winner was “Flesh” by Hungarian-British writer David Szalay.

The judges will announce six finalists on Sept. 22, and the winner will be revealed Nov. 9 at a ceremony in London.

Lawless writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Monday to lift a judge’s order and clear the way for state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote by mail.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer filed an emergency appeal and said judges in Boston had wrongly intervened too soon.

In March, Trump ordered the U.S. Postal Service to direct states to compile a list of citizens who are eligible to vote. This list would limit who may receive a mail ballot.

He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to “compile and transmit state-specific lists of individuals who are citizens and will be 18 years of age or older at the time of an upcoming election,” Sauer said.

Lawyers for California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued, arguing the states, not the federal government, have the constitutional authority to set the rules for voting and elections.

In June, they won before a federal judge in Boston who blocked Trump’s order from going forward, at least in the 23 states which had sued. Her decision was upheld over the weekend by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

In his appeal, Trump’s solicitor general focused on a procedural question, not the issue of whether the president has the legal authority to impose national rules on state-run elections.

Sauer said the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security had not issued final specific plans to comply with Trump’s directive.

“Courts cannot enjoin implementation of Executive Orders that leave open material issues that still need to be resolved by agencies,” he wrote.

He asked the court to lift or stay the “premature injunctions.”

Time is running short, he said.

“Absent a stay … there will not be sufficient time to obtain appellate relief before the November election,” Sauer said. “That is especially true because implementation efforts for any USPS rule or DHS policy will need to begin well before November … particularly given that absentee and mail-in voting begin (in some States) several weeks prior to Election Day.”

The justices asked for a response from the 23 Democratic states by Aug. 3.

“Top Chef” alum and popular Food Network host Eric Adjepong has been ordered to stay away from his 7-year-old daughter following an investigation into abuse claims.

According to the Washington Post, a Maryland judge found that “there is a preponderance” of evidence to believe Adjepong physically abused his daughter, leading to a protective order that bars the celebrity chef from contacting or being alone with his daughter until he completes parenting courses and reunification therapy with the child.

Adjepong’s former wife, Janell Davis-Mack, posted a screenshot of the case information on Instagram last week, writing that she and her daughter had been quiet long enough.

“My daughter has watched me rebuild our life focused on our safety after I divorced her father four years ago,” she wrote. “I’ve also taught her about body autonomy, consent, boundaries, and to tell the trusted adults around her when she feels unsafe.

“My daughter was just granted a protective order against her father because she was brave enough to speak up against who should have been one of the most trusted adults in her life.

“Unfortunately for him — I’ll never stop believing her, protecting her, or reminding her that her voice matters.”

Judge Maurice C. Frazier issued the protective order against Adjepong on July 10; it will remain in place until July 10, 2027. The James Beard-nominated chef is mandated not to contact, harass, abuse or threaten to abuse his daughter or former wife. While the order is in place, Adjepong can have supervised visits with his daughter.

In May, Davis-Mack filed a petition in Howard County, Maryland, seeking protection for her daughter from Adjepong, citing alleged child abuse. Per the Washington Post, Davis-Mack claimed that a nurse who examined their daughter filed a report with the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency, which launched an investigation by D.C. police.

A spokesman for D.C. police told the Washington Post that its Youth Investigations Branch was prompted to investigate claims of “sexual abuse” but that detectives found no probable cause that sexual abuse had taken place and referred the case back to Child and Family Services. On Wednesday, Adjepong posted what appeared to be a screenshot of email correspondence from the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency stating that, on April 29, they received a report of potential neglect or abuse, investigated the claims and found sexual abuse claims “unfounded.”

“I am aware of recent media inquiries concerning a protective order entered on July 10, 2026,” the chef wrote alongside the screenshot. “Because this matter involves my young daughter, whom I love deeply, I intend to protect her privacy and will not discuss the underlying allegations or other sensitive family matters publicly other than to say that these allegations arose in the context of a long running divorce and custody proceeding, which finally concluded on June 2, 2026.

“The Court’s protective order followed careful reviews by law enforcement and the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (‘CFSA’). The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department closed its investigation without filing charges. CFSA concluded its investigation with an ‘unfounded’ disposition, which its report defines as not true.

“I have the utmost respect for the Circuit Court that issued the protective order and am strictly complying with every facet of the order, which is designed to ensure that my daughter is safe and treated respectfully, and to ensure her reunification with her father. The Judge eloquently described the nature of my relationship with her at the hearing. My foremost concern is my daughter’s well-being. It is my fervent hope that in the future my ex-wife and I can resolve these matters privately and through the proper legal channels, rather than in the press, if only for the well-being of our daughter.”

The order prevents thousands from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine from losing work authorisation while lawsuit proceeds.

A United States federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration of US President Donald Trump from revoking work permits for tens of thousands of asylum seekers and immigrants with Temporary Protected Status (TPS), preventing a policy that was set to take effect as early as Wednesday.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Nathaniel Gorton sided with immigrant rights groups and labour unions challenging a series of new US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) policies that implement immigration restrictions passed by Congress last year.

In the five-page order, he wrote, “The consequences faced by plaintiffs are potentially severe.” The order will stay in place while he considers whether to issue a longer-term injunction, with a decision expected by August 5.

The lawsuit, filed earlier this month by a coalition of organisations represented by the legal group Democracy Forward, challenged a number of recent USCIS policy changes. Those include a new policy allowing the agency to reject pending asylum applications and revoke work permits if applicants don’t pay a newly created annual asylum fee, as well as its decision to scrap a decades-old rule requiring initial asylum work permit applications to be processed within 30 days. The lawsuit argued USCIS made the changes without public input, as required by law.

It also challenged the retroactive application of the new rules to people from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine, who are still protected by TPS, which allows people from countries affected by war, natural disasters or other major crises to live and work legally in the US until it is considered safe for them to return home.

“This decision protects thousands of asylum seekers and TPS holders from immediate and irreparable harm while this case moves forward,” said Democracy Forward president, Skye Perryman, in a statement. “Without this relief, families who have followed the law and relied on longstanding humanitarian protections faced the sudden loss of their employment authorisation and ability to support themselves through no fault of their own.”

The ruling means thousands of TPS holders from El Salvador, Sudan and Ukraine will be able to keep working while the legal challenge moves forward.

While the judge didn’t block the collection of the asylum fee on Tuesday, he did temporarily block the consequences of not paying it, including having an individual’s application rejected or work permit terminated.

The controversial provisions were introduced as part of Trump’s signature tax and spending law, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in July 2025.

The Trump administration has made ending TPS protections a central part of its immigration agenda, moving to take the status away from people from more than a dozen countries. Last month, the US Supreme Court allowed the administration to end protections for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants.

USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Reuters news agency.

Hollywood’s biggest deal in decades is on hold.

On Monday, a federal judge temporarily blocked Paramount Skydance’s efforts to complete its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, ruling that the proposed $111-billion merger “raises serious questions” about whether the combination violates U.S. antitrust law.

District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, based in Oakland, granted a request for a temporary restraining order from a coalition of 12 state attorneys general, led by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, to freeze the deal while the court delves more closely into its impact on markets.

The order pauses the deal for 14 days. Martínez-Olguín’s ruling sets up a showdown for Aug. 3, when she considers a motion for a preliminary injunction — which, if granted, could tie up the deal for months in advance of a trial.

“This is a critical first win in our case to ensure this megamerger never sees the light of day,” Bonta said in a statement. “History tells the tale of what happens when a few people have great power over markets that are central to Americans’ lives: fewer opportunities for more people, worse products and services for all people.”

Two century-old film studios — with rights to Harry Potter, Batman, Scooby-Doo, “Top Gun,” “Ted Lasso” and “Game of Thrones” — would be combined, and HBO, CNN and HGTV would come under new ownership.

“The judge basically said, ‘Look, let’s not race to the finish line here,’” Eric Talley, a Columbia Law School professor, said in an interview. “At the end of the day, maybe this thing gets signed off on, but I think the AGs are going to be given a fair chance to bring their claims forward.”

The ruling dealt a blow to tech scion David Ellison’s efforts to quickly finalize his massive merger, which has the support of President Trump. Ellison wants to complete the deal by September to avoid a higher payout to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders.

Paramount, in a statement, said the restraining order simply preserves the status quo, which Paramount had already pledged to do in court papers last week that offered to hold off on finalizing the transaction.

“We are confident the evidence will demonstrate that the State AGs’ antitrust arguments are without merit as their alleged markets and claims of anticompetitive effects are without any basis in modern market realities,” Paramount said in the statement.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of software giant Oracle, is bankrolling his son’s ambitions to acquire a second major entertainment company in less than a year. The Ellison family acquired the smaller Paramount in August.

The Democratic state attorneys general, including from New York, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, filed their lawsuit a week ago.

The 37-page lawsuit alleges that Paramount’s proposed takeover — the largest Hollywood deal in decades — would violate the U.S. Clayton Antitrust Act, a century-old law to prevent mergers that weaken competition and raise costs for consumers.

The lawsuit represents the stiffest challenge to a deal that had been swiftly clearing its various regulatory hurdles. Nearly two dozen regulators from around the globe, including Australia, Austria and Saudi Arabia, have already signed off.

The U.S. Justice Department last month approved the merger, saying the combination would probably bolster competition — not harm it. That decision wasn’t a surprise because Trump has been rooting for a CNN shakeup. The president told the network’s Jake Tapper earlier this month: “We’re trying to have CNN go on a normal path.”

“This merger is lawful, pro-competitive, and will benefit consumers, creators, workers, and the entertainment industry,” Paramount said. “We will continue to vigorously defend the transaction and will look forward to the hearings on the substance of the State AGs’ action.”

Paramount shares slid 2% to $8.57 on Monday. Warner shares tumbled nearly 4% to $25.86 — the stock’s lowest mark this year.

Martínez-Olguín’s order came after a hearing in Oakland on Friday that represented an opening salvo between the two sides in the fight over a merger that would dramatically reshape the entertainment industry.

“In many ways this case is a poster child for a much larger set of questions — some of which are specific to the entertainment industry but many are more specific to our regulatory state in general,” Talley said.

Because of the case’s expedited status, the judge said she looked closely at only one of the three markets where the plaintiff states allege the merger could bring anticompetitive harms — wide-release Hollywood films.

“Plaintiffs present compelling evidence that the combined firm resulting from the transaction will possess substantial market share in the wide-release theatrical distribution market,” Martínez-Olguín wrote in her 10-page order.

If allowed to merge, Paramount-Warner Bros. would control about 27% of the market of films that are initially released into more than 3,000 theaters.

“On this combined firm market share alone, the Court is persuaded that it can presume the proposed merger is likely to violate antitrust laws,” the judge wrote.

The ruling doesn’t signal that the states will win but, Talley said: “This is an important mark in the road that suggests that, in the eyes of the judge, at least one of their allegations has the seeds of a valid case.”

Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery are “temporarily enjoined and restrained from closing or consummating the transaction or taking any steps, directly or indirectly, to integrate or consolidate their operations pursuant to the transaction,” the judge wrote.

The order extends to all officers, attorneys, and “other persons who are in active concert or participation with Defendants,” Martínez-Olguín wrote.

The merger is far from dead, Emarketer senior analyst Ross Benes said in a statement after the ruling.

“The order is likely to be a speed bump,” Benes wrote. “Thanks to the company’s symbiotic relationship with Trump, most challenges ahead that could stop the deal will be steamrolled.”

Paramount Skydance has prevailed in its first court move to defend its Warner Bros. Discovery merger — prompting the departure of a judge who initially had been assigned the high-profile antitrust case.

Late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín took over the case brought by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and 11 other Democratic state attorneys general. The states’ coalition is attempting to derail Paramount’s proposed $111-billion purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, alleging it violates a century-old antitrust law.

Court records show U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, based in San Jose, had initially been assigned. Early Wednesday, Paramount filed a motion requesting that Pitts step aside, citing his previous role as a labor lawyer, including for the Writers Guild of America.

The WGA joined the legal fray Tuesday by bringing its own antitrust complaint against Paramount, alleging the proposed union of two of Hollywood’s biggest studios would lead to fewer jobs and lower pay for writers.

In its motion, Paramount argued that Pitts’ past association with the Hollywood union was problematic.

“A reasonable person would question Judge Pitts’ impartiality in this case based on his prior work,” Paramount’s attorneys, led by Jeffrey Kessler, wrote in their eight-page motion.

Martínez-Olguín has been overseeing a separate lawsuit that also challenges Paramount’s merger with Warner Bros.

Five Paramount+ subscribers sued in late April to unravel the merger, claiming Paramount’s proposed consolidation of streaming services, film studios and national news networks — CBS News and CNN — would lead to higher prices and harm to consumers.

Paramount, in its motion, had requested that Martínez-Olguín preside over the state attorneys general lawsuit.

Martínez-Olguín, in an order, said she would now conduct a hearing that Pitts had scheduled for Friday to evaluate Bonta’s request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Paramount from finalizing the blockbuster transaction while the litigation is pending.

The Oakland-based judge joined the federal bench three years ago after being nominated by former President Biden. She was confirmed by the Senate in 2023 when former Vice President Kamala Harris cast a deciding vote to break a Senate deadlock.

The judge is a former immigration attorney.

Pitts, who is based in San José, also has served as a judge for three years. In December, he decided a significant case against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that barred ICE agents from making courthouse arrests.

Both sides went along with the judge switch, following a long-standing legal practice of having one judge oversee related cases.

The three lawsuits, all filed in the Northern California district, may eventually be combined. On Wednesday, Martínez-Olguín said the cases could travel together but she stopped short of consolidating them.

A federal judge has halted California’s groundbreaking “Truth in Recycling” law, which aims to reduce consumer confusion about which packaging can be recycled.

California’s recyclable packaging law prohibits manufacturers from using a “chasing arrows” recycling symbol on products or materials unless they are actually being recycled in a meaningful way, which the law quantifies. The bill was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021 and was to go into effect on Oct. 4.

A coalition of farming, forestry, restaurant and packaging organizations sued the state in March, arguing the law violates their right to free speech. They argued that Senate Bill 343 operates as “government-imposed censorship.”

Judge William Hayes agreed that their challenge has merit, and on Tuesday ordered California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, the defendant in the case, to pause enforcement of the law “until further order of the Court.”

The industry trade groups, which include the Dairy Institute of California, the Flexible Packaging Assn. and the Western Growers Assn., applauded the decision.

The coalition “will continue to press the case that California can strengthen recycling without censoring truthful information on packaging and without adding unnecessary and significant costs for California families and businesses,” Californians for Affordable Packaging said in a statement.

The “ruling is a significant win, not just for our members, but for every business that wants to give consumers accurate information about the products they buy,” said Julie Landry, vice president of government affairs at the American Forest & Paper Assn. “The Court recognized what we’ve said from the beginning: California cannot fix consumer confusion by restricting truthful speech.”

Advocates of reducing the use of plastic disagreed.

“The court got it wrong, and I’m confident that the state will ultimately prevail,” said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste. “SB 343 does not violate the First Amendment; it requires companies to tell the truth when they make recyclability claims. Suggesting that the First Amendment protects misleading environmental marketing is inconsistent with the basic principles of consumer protection that states like California have implemented for decades.”

In January, CalRecycle, the state’s waste agency, issued a report showing that less than 10% of most single-use plastic materials in the state were being recycled.

Even yogurt containers and margarine tubs — made of ubiquitous polypropylene, or #5 plastic — are being recycled at a rate of only 2% in the state, the report said. Only 5% of colored shampoo and detergent bottles, made from polyethylene, or #1 plastic, are getting recycled.

Reports on abysmally low rates of recycling for milk cartons and polystyrene had been widely shared even before that.

Plastic materials that can’t be recycled are typically sent to landfills or sometimes illegally shipped overseas, where they are burned or end up in landfills, rivers and waterways.

A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council shows that nationwide, taxpayers, governments and businesses are spending between $9.8 billion and $13.3 billion per year cleaning up plastic litter, and almost $3 billion is spent by local governments on landfilling plastic.

According to one state analysis, 2.9 million tons of single-use plastic and 171.4 billion single-use plastic components were sold, offered for sale or distributed in California in 2023.

Single-use plastics, and plastic waste more broadly, are considered a growing environmental and health problem. In recent decades, plastic waste has overwhelmed waterways and oceans, sickening marine life and threatening human health.

“It is a terrible decision which denies consumers basic information needed to make informed choices,” said Judith Enck, former Environmental Protection Agency regional administrator and president of the nonprofit Beyond Plastics. “Given the long history of the plastics industry deceiving the public about plastics recycling, this is an especially bad outcome. It is a reminder that the plastics industry has enough money to fight even the most modest policy designed to protect people and the planet.”

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told lawmakers Tuesday that a sharp increase in threats targeting her and other justices is increasingly encroaching on their personal and family lives.

During a rare appearance by justices before Congress, Barrett said she had to wear a bulletproof vest home a few years ago, something she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son.

“I didn’t expect that performing this service would put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was, why I had to wear one,” she said.

She and Justice Elena Kagan testified before a House appropriations panel in support of a request to increase security funding for members of the nation’s highest court.

Judges around the country have seen a rise in threats of violence and intimidation. Barrett’s home was also targeted by a swatting call to police in May.

The hearing comes two weeks after the conservative-majority court finished handing down a series of major opinions, including a decision that increased President Trump’s power over federal regulatory agencies and another that rejected his wide-ranging tariffs, sparking harsh personal criticism.

It’s the first time justices have testified before Congress since 2019, and the two justices are facing wide-ranging questions about the court’s work.

Security is central to the Supreme Court’s budget request

The Supreme Court requested a total of $228 million for next fiscal year, a roughly 10% increase over the year before. About $18 million of that is for maintaining the building and grounds.

Much of the requested increase, $14.6 million, would go to expanding personal protection for justices, with six more agents for each.

An additional $2 million would fund an off-site residential security post aimed at making emergency responses faster, as well as increasing the number of Supreme Court police officers.

The U.S. Marshals Service, responsible for protecting judges, reported 564 threats in the government fiscal year that ended in September, an increase from the year before.

That total includes threats to the hundreds of federal judges around the country, though the nine-member Supreme Court has not been immune.

In May, Barrett’s security detail worked with police to quickly deal with the swatting incident, a fake 911 call designed to provoke a police response. Last year, her sister was the victim of a bomb threat in Charleston, S.C., police said. No bomb was found.

In 2022, shortly after the leak of a draft opinion overturning the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, a would-be assassin was arrested near the home of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh with weapons and zip ties. Threats to the Supreme Court increased after that leak and have continued to grow, Kagan said.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has condemned the threats to all U.S. judges, saying during a speech in March that criticism of judicial opinions is understandable, but personally directed hostility is “dangerous, and it’s got to stop.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over his leaked tax returns was filed for an “improper purpose,” a judge said Monday in a scathing decision that referred one of his lawyers for discipline and characterized the $10-billion complaint as an exercise in self-dealing.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams accused Trump of having manipulated the court system when he sued a federal agency under his control, bypassing a requirement that parties in a lawsuit must have adverse interests and laying the groundwork for a settlement last spring that granted him immunity from tax audits and created a fund to compensate allies of the president who say they were unjustly persecuted.

Though the practical impacts of the ruling may be limited given the administration’s public pronouncements that the so-called $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund has been abandoned, the judge’s ruling nonetheless amounts to a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration and resurfaces a politically damaging storyline for acting Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche just as he prepares to face the Senate Judiciary Committee for his confirmation hearing Wednesday.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote in her ruling.

She added: “The President may be the functional ‘dominus litus’ of the Executive Branch, but as a party to a civil suit, he, as well as all the parties and lawyers before a court, are bound by the rules. Ensuring that our courts are used only for the express purpose created by the Constitution is the obligation of every judge and an obligation that this Court must discharge in light of the matter before it. ”

The judge pointed to Blanche’s congressional testimony in early June in which he revealed that the “anti-weaponization” fund was no longer moving forward amid intense bipartisan backlash. Though nothing had been filed in court, Blanche appeared confident in his testimony that he “could speak for, and bind, both sides of this matter,” the judge wrote.

“Acting Attorney General Blanche’s apparent capacity to speak for both Plaintiffs and Defendants, sign a ‘settlement’ document on behalf of all Parties to this action, and then repudiate part of that agreement, demonstrates that there was only one party whose interests were being represented throughout this case,” the judge wrote.

Tucker and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writers Fatima Hussein and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

July 13 (UPI) — A federal judge in Florida said Monday that President Donald Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service for an “improper purpose” to reach a settlement with the Justice Department earlier this year.

U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in the Southern District of Florida added that the settlement Trump reached with the Justice Department protecting him and his family from tax audits is no longer valid.

Williams said Trump’s settlement with a Cabinet-level agency that he presides over is an attempt to “manipulate the judicial process.”

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the Parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the Court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the President and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” Williams wrote.

“In abdicating its responsibility to zealously defend the interests of the United States, the Government entered into a ‘settlement’ that deviated from its litigation posture in similar actions, disregarded DOJ policies, and accomplished objectives beyond those authorized, as well as those specifically prohibited, by law.”

Trump reached a settlement with the government after suing the IRS for $10 billion over a contractor leaking his tax information. Trump is the first president or nominee from the two major political parties in more than 40 years to not disclose his tax information.

Williams has referred Trump’s attorney in the lawsuit, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar. The bar will consider whether Brito should be disciplined based on Williams’ finding in her order. She is also sending a copy of her order to the State Bar of New York, where Acting Attorney Todd Blanche is a member.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has dismissed the remnants of the government’s landmark case against far-right Proud Boys members who were convicted of seditious conspiracy for plotting to attack the Capitol to keep President Trump in the White House after he lost his reelection bid more than five years ago.

The case’s dismissal late Friday became a foregone conclusion when Trump last year used his pardon powers to erase every case that the government prosecuted after a mob of his supporters stormed the building on Jan. 6, 2021. The judge who presided over the Proud Boys leaders’ trial saw no basis to preserve the convictions after Trump’s sweeping act of clemency last year.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated during his first term, said there is “little mystery” about why the second Trump administration decided to abandon this case and every other Jan. 6 riot case.

“President Trump’s views about the prosecution of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6 — whether those views are based on fact or fiction — are well known, as is his intention to extend clemency to them,” Kelly wrote.

The judge stressed that his order should not be mistaken as an endorsement of the Department of Justice’s decision to abandon the case. He referred to the Capitol riot as “a perilous event” and an assault on the constitutional imperative for a peaceful transfer of power between presidents.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.

Juries in the nation’s capital separately convicted leaders of the Proud Boys and another extremist group, the antigovernment Oath Keepers, of orchestrating violent plots to keep Trump in power after he lost the 2020 presidential election to Democrat Joe Biden.

A different judge has not ruled yet on the Justice Department’s related request to throw out Oath Keepers’ seditious conspiracy convictions.

Friday’s ruling applied to four of five Proud Boys members who were convicted after a jury trial: Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola. Trump commuted their prison sentences, but they were not covered by the president’s mass pardons.

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio was convicted at the same trial but received a pardon from Trump. Kelly had sentenced Tarrio to 22 years, the longest prison term in any Capitol riot case.

Kunzelman and Durkin Richer write for the Associated Press.

July 11 (UPI) — Top members of the far-right group Proud Boys had their convictions dismissed on Friday, ending the federal case against the men accused of leading the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted a request by the Department of Justice to wipe out the seditious conspiracy charges against Ethan Nordean, Zachary Rehl, Dominic Pezzola and Joseph Biggs.

President Trump pardoned more than 1,500 of the rioters who stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn his loss to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

But he had only commuted the sentence of the four Proud Boys leaders, leaving them out of jail but still convicted.

Trump’s DOJ in April asked a federal court to fully dismiss the charges against the four men.

Kelly, a Trump appointee, granted the request but added, “No one should mistake the court’s granting of the government’s motion for its agreement with those decisions.”

“In light of fundamental separation of powers principles … the proper course here is for the court simply to grant the motion in full,” Kelly said, according to Politico.

The attack on the Capitol resulted in injuries to more than 140 police officers and caused $3 million in damage.

“As the court has said many times, the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a perilous event,” Kelly wrote in his decision, as reported by The Washington Post.

“It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured,” he added. “It was an attack on a coordinate branch of government — Congress — that the founders saw fit to give a place of primacy in Article I of the Constitution. And it was an attack on the Constitution’s mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next.”

Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio saw the dismissal as vindication.

“We took the worst they threw at us — the raids, the solitary, the lies, and we stood tall,” he wrote on X after the ruling. “Trump dropped the pardons and now the rest is crumbling. Justice is SERVED!”

“Proud Boys don’t lose,” Tarrio added. “We WIN. This is OUR victory.”

A United States federal court has dismissed the seditious conspiracy cases against four members of the Proud Boys, the far-right group involved in the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

On Friday, Judge Timothy J Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, meaning it cannot be revived in future.

But Kelly made it clear that the defendants — Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola — had been “convicted of serious offences”.

He wrote in his seven-page ruling that his decision was ultimately rooted in the separation of government powers, not in the merits of the case.

“As the Court has said many times, the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a perilous event. It was an attack on people, including police officers, many of whom were injured,” Kelly wrote.

“It was an attack on the Constitution’s mechanism to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power from one president to the next,” he added.

Inside the January 6 riot

Friday’s ruling was yet another milestone in Trump’s efforts to end the prosecution of January 6 rioters.

The attack on the Capitol came shortly after Trump lost his bid for re-election in 2020 to Democrat Joe Biden. But in the aftermath of his loss, Trump spread false claims that the election had been rigged.

January 6, 2021, was the day Congress was scheduled to certify the Electoral College votes, confirming Trump’s defeat.

His vice president at the time, Mike Pence, held a ceremonial role overseeing the certification that day. But behind the scenes, Trump reportedly pressured Pence to reject the results of the election.

At midday, Trump held a “Save America” rally in front of the White House, repeating to his supporters that he had won “by a landslide”.

“If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election,” Trump said at one point. At another, he said, “If you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

Afterwards, some of his supporters marched to the Capitol and broke into the building, attacking police officers and causing millions of dollars worth of damage. Participants signalled their aim was to stop the vote certification, with some chanting, “Hang Mike Pence.”

The attack proved to be deadly. One rioter was shot by police as she climbed through a broken window to enter the House Speaker’s Lobby. An officer died from a stroke the following day after being beaten. Others died by suicide after the attack. Members of Congress had to be led to safety.

Under the Biden administration, the Department of Justice opened criminal cases against nearly 1,600 people involved.

But Trump has long defended the rioters and called their prosecution a “national injustice”.

Trump himself faced two criminal indictments — one at state level, the other federal — over his alleged attempts to subvert the election results, though the charges were dropped upon his re-election in 2024.

Unravelling the prosecutions

Calling the January 6 prosecutions an example of government “weaponisation”, Trump had campaigned during the 2024 race on a promise to pardon the rioters.

He followed through with that pledge on the first day of his second term. On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order granting “a full, complete and unconditional pardon” to most of the defendants involved in the Capitol attack.

Trump also commuted the sentences of 14 people, including Nordean, Biggs, Rehl and Pezzola. Under his authority, the Department of Justice also proceeded to seek the dismissal of ongoing January 6 cases.

Judge Kelly cited that series of events in Friday’s ruling, though he appeared to express a measure of scepticism.

“No one should mistake the Court’s granting of the Government’s motion for its agreement with those decisions,” Kelly wrote.

In May 2023, a jury in Washington, DC, found Nordean, Biggs and Rehl guilty of charges including seditious conspiracy, alongside Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio.

Pezzola, meanwhile, was found not guilty of seditious conspiracy, but he was convicted of several felonies, including assaulting a police officer. At sentencing, the four men received prison terms ranging from 10 to 18 years, with Pezzola receiving the lightest sentence of the group.

But in weighing the future of the case against the four men, Judge Kelly explained that it was “hard to see” any other course forward other than dismissal.

The court system, Kelly explained, cannot “compel” the executive branch to pursue prosecutions. Trump’s executive order had also required the Department of Justice to seek the case’s dismissal.

“The Court will grant the motion because there are no grounds for it to withhold leave for the Government to dismiss the case with prejudice,” Kelly concluded.

But he ended his decision with a word of warning about protecting the future of American democracy from further attacks.

“Moving forward, if this Nation’s experiment in self-government is to last another 250 years, the American people — no matter their partisan preferences — will have to act together to preserve, protect and defend that miracle through our constitutional framework,” Kelly wrote.