judge

This runoff for a vacant seat on the bench features a longtime public defender running against a veteran alternate public defender. Both boast extensive trial experience.

Donna Tryfman, a deputy public defender, serves in the major cases unit, where she handles homicide and other high-profile defendants. She also has extensive experience in juvenile cases.

David Ross is an alternate in the Torrance branch of the public defenders office and also works in Bellflower and Long Beach. He claims to have represented more than 10,000 clients at hearings and in trials.

The Los Angeles County Bar Assn. rates both attorneys as “qualified” for office. Here’s more of what you need to know about the candidates.

Donna Tryfman, L.A. County deputy public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Tryfman began with the public defender’s office in 1998, logging more than 100 jury trials. Her experience includes supervising Eastlake Juvenile Court, where she ran a branch with 15 lawyers and represented clients in the collaborative drug court. She is stationed in the major cases unit, focusing on capital homicide litigation.

Tryfman has served as a Superior Court judge pro tem, handling traffic and small claims cases. She has proctored teen courts at Dorsey and Hamilton high schools and last year received the peer-bestowed Gideon felony attorney of the year award.

Conversations on the campaign trail have helped her understand what works and what doesn’t in the justice system.

“It has reinforced for me that experience and knowledge of the law matter enormously, but so does how people are treated when they walk into a courtroom,” she said.

Tryfman said the heavy caseload of a public defender has prepared her for the bench’s rigors. She also cited her life experience as the daughter of immigrants, a single mother and a widow who was faced with the decision of whether to discontinue life support for her husband.

“Experiences like that teach you something about responsibility, compassion and judgment that cannot be learned from a law book,” she said.

Outside the office, Tryfman spent five years as president of the California Public Defenders Assn. and chaired the Rent Stabilization Commission for the city of Beverly Hills. She has served as vice chair of the L.A. County Bar Assn.’s Conference of California Bar Assns., where she helps develop state legislative proposals.

David Ross, L.A. County deputy alternate public defender

Bar rating: Qualified

Ross has more than three decades in the legal field, but it was not his original calling. The Los Angeles native served as a legislative aide to the late U.S. Rep. Floyd Fithian (D-Ind.) on Capitol Hill, then worked as a television journalist and documentary producer in Washington, D.C., Tennessee and Kansas.

“I grew up wanting to be Peter Jennings, not Clarence Darrow,” he told The Times.

Ross passed the bar in 1994, joined the Riverside County public defender’s office the following year and began as a Los Angeles County deputy alternate public defender in 2000. He has litigated 113 jury trials, conducted more than 2,000 preliminary hearings and represented some 10,000 indigent clients. Assigned to the Torrance office since 2018, he also has worked in the Bellflower, Long Beach and Pomona branches, among others.

Ross, who lives in Long Beach, said he has spoken with more than 60 Democratic clubs, unions and other organizations on the campaign trail and frequently has heard a desire for qualified and independent judges who will listen to all sides.

A priority would be ensuring that even if a party loses, they walk out of the courthouse knowing the judge paid attention.

Ross said his mix of legal and life experience and his time as a journalist, in which he “listened to real people, gathered the facts and told objective stories,” provide a unique perspective.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Monday questioned the Trump administration’s claims surrounding its efforts to redevelop a historic Washington golf course, challenging its contention that a recent tree-cutting spree did not indicate work was moving forward on the project, which is temporarily blocked by a court order.

“There is no universe in which all of this coincidentally happened all at the same time,” U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes said during a hearing over the fate of a project that has emerged as the latest legal flashpoint in President Trump’s campaign to leave his personal imprint on the nation’s capital.

Reyes last week ordered a halt to the golf course’s redevelopment plans until at least Oct. 26 after scolding the government for starting a large-scale tree removal at the course over a holiday weekend while providing little notice to the court or the plaintiffs trying to stop the makeover.

Then, on Sunday, Trump announced plans on social media to close the golf course for 15 months, starting on Nov. 15, and redevelop the 106-year-old park and course despite a court challenge by the D.C. Preservation League and two golfers. In a post on Monday, Trump said the work would start immediately.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys challenging the golf course renovation work have asked Reyes to extend her order that temporarily paused the work. They say the work is inflicting irreversible damage and that the redevelopment would violate the congressional act that created the park where the course is located.

The hearings on the century-old golf course have grown increasingly tense and on the eve of Monday’s hearing, Reyes rejected the administration’s request for her to recuse herself from the case. The government questioned her impartiality and accused her of engaging in “egregious” behavior from the bench during last week’s emergency hearing for the case.

Trump, a Republican, referred to Reyes as a “crazed lunatic” in his social media post on Monday.

“The United States Department of Interior wants to take a terrible and very unsafe golf course, and make it into a great, safe, and prestigious golf course. They have an absolute right to do so. It’s as simple as that!” Trump wrote.

Reyes, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden, said the government has failed “by any objective measure” to demonstrate the need for her recusal from the case.

“It is easy to weaponize selective quotations to bring a baseless recusal motion. But it is much harder to meet the demanding legal standard against a full record,” she wrote.

Trump has pledged to turn the course into a world-class golf venue — part of his grand vision for Washington, D.C., where he has torn down storied structures, remade or renamed others and deployed the National Guard for more than a year.

While it has been open to Washingtonians of all income levels, opponents of Trump’s plans for the golf course have argued it will alter the character of the space and make it less affordable to people.

Monday’s hearing started with a tense confrontation between Reyes and Justice Department official Stanley Woodward, when the judge asked if other any government attorneys in the room “as officers of the court” were willing to certify that everything within a Sunday filing was truthful and legally sound under federal rules of civil procedures.

In that filing Woodward argued that there were no final plans for the park.

“First, the plan is not final because the Park Service has not completed its review and the details of the proposal are subject to change during the review process,” the filing said.

Much of the hearing revolved around Trump’s social media posts over the weekend and his appearance last June at the golf course, accompanied by golf course architects and members of the administration and why there was such a sense of urgency for the cutting of the trees.

The witnesses at the hearing, Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff at the Interior Department, and acting National Park Service director Jessica Bowron both acknowledged that they had only learned of the National Park Service Cultural Landscape Report in September that led to the tree cutting. That NPS report was from 2019.

Fields writes for the Associated Press.

A New Mexico judge on Friday ruled in favor of Emmy winner Timothy Busfield, tossing out multiple child sex abuse charges against the actor.

During a hearing, Judge Joseph A. Montano granted Busfield’s motion to dismiss his indictment, citing prosecutorial misconduct and errors that undermined the grand jury process. According to the order, “the prosecuting attorney failed to act in a fair and impartial manner” and proceedings thus far “were conducted in a manner that violated grand jury statutes designed to protect the structural integrity of our grand jury system.”

State prosecutors had indicted Busfield in February and charged him with four counts of criminal sexual contact of a child. The since-dismissed charges stemmed from his alleged behavior with two actors, who are brothers, on the set of the Fox crime drama “The Cleaning Lady.” The actor, known for “The West Wing” and “Thirtysomething,” has pleaded not guilty to those charges.

While a legal representative for Busfield did not immediately respond Friday to The Times’ request for comment, a spokesperson for the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office said prosecutors are “evaluating our options to determine how we will proceed.”

A New Mexico judge issued a warrant for Busfield’s arrest in January, citing two counts of criminal sexual contact with a minor and a single count of child abuse. Busfield was accused of inappropriately touching the child actors during his time as an actor, director and producer on “The Cleaning Lady,” according to an affidavit filed by New Mexico officials.

One child actor alleged Busfield first touched his “private areas” multiple times on set when he was 7 years old, according to the complaint. He said that Busfield touched him inappropriately again several times when he was 8. The affidavit also detailed a police interview with Busfield in which he suggested that the boys’ mother might have sought “revenge” on the director for “not bringing her kids back for the final season.”

Busfield filed his motion to quash the indictment in June, alleging the court refused to provide members of the grand jury with additional information and that prosecutors refused to allow jury members to hear from other witnesses, among other claims, according to court documents.

“The State treated the grand jury not as an independent body, but as the arm of the prosecution our courts have forbidden,” the motion says. “The resulting indictment must be dismissed.” Prosecutors rebutted Busfield’s allegations in a response to the dismissal and asked the court to deny his motion.

Before Friday’s order, a jury trial was scheduled to begin May 10, 2027.

Lawyers for Janie and Joey Buss, two of the co-trustees of the Buss Family Trust that owns part of the Lakers, filed a response to Jeanie Buss’ petition Friday with intention to move forward with the proposed sale of the family’s remaining shares of the team.

While Jeanie is trying to block her five siblings from selling the team, the new response filed in L.A. Superior Court states that Janie and Joey, the two other co-trustees of the family trust, were authorized and required to implement the vote after a majority of the living siblings opted to terminate the trust in August. The vote of five siblings to sell the shares triggered the termination clause in the trust, and the filing argues that the trust doesn’t grant trustees discretion to disregard a valid vote to terminate.

The filing, which follows formal opposition filed on behalf of five Buss siblings last week that defended their right to vote to sell the team, asks the court to dismiss Jeanie’s petition or deny it in its entirety.

Jeanie argued that her siblings could not terminate the family trust and sell the remaining 17.82% of the team without her approval, citing a 2017 court order that instructed trustees to “take reasonably available steps” to support Jeanie’s annual election as Lakers controlling governor. The court order, obtained after Jeanie’s older brothers Jimmy and Johnny Buss tried to oust her from the organization, installed Janie and Joey as co-trustees.

But the court order did not prohibit a sale or termination of the trust, lawyers for Janie and Joey argue. While the order named “voting the trust’s shares” as a reasonable action, it did not require the trust to hold a 15% stake in the team to reach the NBA’s eligibility threshold for minority owners to serve on the league’s board of governors, the filing states.

Jeanie was selected by her father Jerry Buss to serve as the team’s controlling governor after his death in 2013.

Since the family patriarch bought the team, the Forum and the Kings for $67.5 million in 1979, the Lakers have become one of the most valuable brands in sports. Mark Walter, who purchased controlling ownership from the Buss siblings in 2025, sold his shares to venture capitalist Joshua Kushner and former Disney chief executive Bob Iger 14 months later at a record $12.5 billion valuation.

Using a tag-along provision secured during the sale to Walter, the five Buss siblings hope to maximize value for all six beneficiaries, including Jeanie, the new filing reports. Selling the 17.82% stake in the team would be worth about $2.2 billion.

A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 8. The Lakers open the regular season on Oct. 21 against the Golden State Warriors at Crypto.com Arena. Jeanie was seen at the Lakers’ home preseason opener on Oct. 8, sitting courtside on the baseline.

NEW YORK — Lawyers for the BBC say President Trump is trying to delay sitting for a deposition in the defamation case he brought against the British broadcaster until January 2027.

In a filing this week, they asked a Florida court to compel the president to appear in the $10 billion case after they say he canceled an agreed-upon date this week, citing “matters of national importance.”

“Two months of discovery remaining, the BBC still has not been able to depose, and does not even have a schedule to depose, the most central figure in this case: Plaintiff himself,” attorney Charles D. Tobin wrote in the filing. “Those delays have flouted the cooperative spirit of discovery and precluded the BBC from obtaining the evidence necessary to robustly litigate its defense.”

Trump, who has a history of avoiding depositions, filed the lawsuit against the BBC last December, seeking $10 billion in damages as he accused the British broadcaster of defamation as well as deceptive and unfair trade practices related to a documentary, “Trump: A Second Chance.”

Britain’s publicly funded national broadcaster admitted filmmakers spliced together quotes from different sections of the speech Trump delivered to his supporters on Jan. 6, 2021, before the storming of the U.S. Capitol, to make it seem like he was directly urging violence.

The 33-page lawsuit accused the BBC of broadcasting a “false, defamatory, deceptive, disparaging, inflammatory, and malicious depiction of President Trump,” calling it “a brazen attempt to interfere in and influence” the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

The broadcaster apologized to Trump over the edit and the head of the BBC and the British broadcaster’s top news executive both resigned. But the broadcaster has denied Trump’s claims that it defamed him.

In the filing this week, BBC lawyers said that they first requested dates for the deposition in July, and followed up repeatedly. Both sides, they said, eventually agreed on Oct. 16.

However, after weeks of silence, they wrote, “Plaintiff’s counsel responded on September 28, 2026, indicating that ‘the President is no longer available for his deposition on October 16 due to other matters of national importance’ and that counsel would ‘endeavor to provide you with a replacement date by the end of this week.’ He did not.”

Instead, they said, they were told last week that Trump “has no availability whatsoever for a deposition” before discovery is set to close on Dec. 18. and were told that Trump would instead make himself available the second or third week of January.

In a statement in response to the filing, a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team did not address the reasons for Trump’s delay, but repeated its allegations against the BBC and said the president was holding the broadcaster “accountable for its defamation and reckless election interference just as he has held other fake news mainstream media responsible for their wrongdoing.”

Trump voluntarily dropped a $500 million lawsuit he filed against his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen in 2023, days before he was set to give a deposition in that suit.

Colvin writes for the Associated Press.

Mary Berry has had her say on Nigella Lawson, who has taken over Prue Leith’s role as judge on The Great British Bake Off. Mary originally held the role alongside Paul Hollywood

TV cook and former Great British Bake Off judge Mary Berry has backed Nigella Lawson – saying she is a “glamorous” addition to the show who has brought “new life” to the format.

Mary, 91, had clearly been watching the current run of Bake Off and was full of praise for Nigella on the new series, whilst also urging her to take fellow judge Paul Hollywood to task.

Dame Mary said: “Bake Off is a wonderful format. We started it off not knowing what we were doing and then Prue has been doing it and it is a format and you fit into it.

‘I am delighted Nigella is there. She has got to keep control of a certain person. Paul needs handling and he has this handshake which keeps appearing.

To see more of the stories you love from The Mirror and to find them easily in Google then make us your preferred source. Free and easy-to-do, just click on the link here to find more from The Mirror at the top of your feed.

“Nigella has brought some glamour to it, and she really likes tasting doesn’t she? And I know how she feels, I always took a proper mouthful because if you just take a little bit, the person whose food you are tasting, their auntie will say ‘well she didn’t even taste it’. So I was aware of that.

“Nigella is a joy and I think she has brought new life and I think it will do really well. A touch of glamour.”

Speaking on stage at Cheltenham with comedian and former host of Bake Off Mel Giedroyc, the pair recalled how Mary would sometimes arrive for day two of filming in the tent with the same hair and make up, having slept without taking it off to minimise the amount of time she needed to be styled.

Laughing, Dame Mary said: “Why not? I used to put a towel over the pillow, I didn’t want them to think I was grotty. It does take such a long time for someone to do your make up.”

She also said she found the tent cold and would hide hot water bottles under her jackets.

Dame Mary was appearing at Cheltenham to promote her first gardening book, My Gardening Life and a new cook book All In One.

Arguably she was a gardener before she could cook, as she recalled how her father grew practical crops such as potatoes, sweet peas and celery during wartime to feed the family.

“My dad had to take to gardening because he had to dig for Britain and he gave me a little patch and I grew radishes,” she recalled.

Nowadays she has six raised beds in her garden raised to above knee height so she can easily reach them and even perch on the edge if she wants to take a rest.

She said one of her greatest pleasures now in life was ‘deadheading’ in the garden, the process by which you removed faded or spent flowers to tidy up plants.

She explained: “Deadheading is one of my favourite things, you don’t have to dress up for it. I can do it when I get in tonight if its not dark. I can deadhead the roses which are still flowering and it so encourages more things to come on.”

She added: “Gardening is similar to cooking, you follow a formula. But cooking you can follow a recipe and produce it by tonight. Gardening you have got to be much more patient.

“Which do I prefer, gardening or cooking? I think the two go together. We grow vegetables that we eat, things that I like, so there is no kale, lots of herbs and I think they go together.

“I am a fair weather gardener, I would walk a dog in any weather but I don’t garden in any weather. I wait until the sun comes out.”

Dame Mary is of course better known for her baking and cooking. Having studied in France and the UK, she worked for a number of food industry bodies and wrote recipe pages of Housewife magazine.

Her first cookbook, The Hamlyn All Colour Cookbook, was published in 1970 and since then she has gone on to write more than 50 others, which have sold millions of copies around the world.

Already a big name in food, Dame Mary became a household name to a new generation of cake lovers when she landed the role as a judge on The Great British Bake Off, alongside Paul Hollywood, Mel Giedroyc and Sue Perkins in 2010.

She quit the show in 2016, along with the hosts Mel and Sue, when it moved to Channel 4, staying loyal to the BBC and continuing to make shows there.

* My Gardening Life by Mary Berry is out now, published by DK.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads.

WASHINGTON — U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes on Monday ordered a 24-hour halt to tree-cutting at the East Potomac Golf Course, a historic D.C. golf course that has been part of President Donald Trump’s plans to remake the city.

Reyes issued the order following a tense three-hour hearing in which she blistered the government for having deceived her with its actions over the holiday weekend.

Reyes said the 24-hour temporary order could be extended to 14 days if necessary. It was limited to one day while the government tries to find a key Trump administration official to discuss why a massive tree-cutting at the park needed to occur over the holiday weekend, with little notification to plaintiffs in a lawsuit trying to halt renovation plans or the judge.

It’s the latest example of the erosion of trust between the government and the independent judiciary, as the Trump administration tries to steamroll scrutiny of its actions, from the White House ballroom to immigration enforcement.

The hearing started with a blistering 15-minute statement from Reyes, who has declined repeated motions from the plaintiffs to halt work by the administration out of concern that its strategy has seemed to be move ahead on projects despite court actions.

“I am thoroughly unamused right now,” Reyes said. “I do not know how I could have made it any plainer that I did not want what was to happen, to happen.” The judge added: “I have given the government every single benefit of the doubt that it would not do precisely what it has done.”

She told the government’s lawyers sharply: “I wanted you all to be better than you have been.”

The emergency hearing on a holiday expanded as the judge ordered the government to get various participants in the decision-making process into the hearing remotely.

Reyes plans to hold another hearing Tuesday and wants to hear from Greg Wischer, deputy chief of staff at the Interior Department. Wischer pushed for the work to be done urgently, according to testimony from Frank Lands, deputy director of operations for the National Park Service.

Fields writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Matthew Daly contributed to this report.

President Trump must cancel any remaining television commercials paid for with millions of dollars in taxpayer money to promote his political message, a federal judge ordered Sunday night, even as the administration said the ad campaign was coming to an end.

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Rochon in New York sided with a coalition, including the nonpartisan watchdog Common Cause, that challenged the ads and called them an illegal misuse of funds. She told the administration to cancel any remaining ads, including any set to air Sunday night, in granting a temporary restraining order.

“Defendants shall not enter into, renew, or expand any agreement authorizing the development, creation, dissemination, placement, or airing of the challenged advertisements” during the two-week duration of her order, the judge said.

The White House did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment Sunday night. In a court filing late Saturday, the Justice Department argued that the temporary restraining order was unnecessary because “the alleged offending conduct will end tomorrow.”

The Department of Homeland Security tapped $20 million in taxpayer money for the ads. Legal experts have suggested that violated a federal statute against congressionally appropriated money being used for “publicity or propaganda” and potentially other laws.

“We are pleased the court acted swiftly to prevent more taxpayer dollars from being used for such blatantly unlawful political propaganda,” the plaintiffs said in a statement issued by Democracy Forward, the nonprofit legal organization that represents them. “There is no legal justification — and no precedent — for the president to use the machinery of the government and funds set aside by Congress for other uses to influence electoral outcomes that further his own agenda.”

In a court declaration Saturday, senior Homeland Security official Holly Mehringer wrote that the money came from funds appropriated by Congress that are “available for, among other things, ‘commemorating efforts and events related to border security.’”

The White House has defended the ads as public service announcements akin to what past administrations have done to promote various policies. But the recent ads differ from many past public service announcements in that they aren’t aimed at helping members of the public benefit from specific government programs.

The ads, which began airing in late September, glorify Trump and echo his political messaging going into the midterms. One features a clip of the president talking about the threat of communism and another is a replay of an ad from his last presidential campaign. The fifth ad in the campaign began airing Tuesday, focusing on his administration’s capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro.

The use of public funds to pay for the ads drew heavy criticism — including from some in the GOP.

“It shouldn’t be paid for with taxpayer dollars,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters.

The Democratic National Committee has separately sued the Republican administration over the ads.

Amid the backlash, Trump said he would start paying for the ads with a campaign account. A White House official said there were no immediate plans to reimburse the government for money already spent.

Johnson writes for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP reporters Collin Binkley in Washington and Ali Swenson contributed to this report.

A federal judge ruled against the Justice Department’s use of voter data to cross-reference an immigration database.

A United States judge has ruled that the Justice Department unlawfully sought state voter rolls to cross-check against a federal immigration database and identify voters it considered ineligible.

US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan’s decision on Friday marks another setback for President Donald Trump’s efforts to expand federal oversight of elections ahead of the midterms, as Republicans seek to retain control of Congress.

In a 78-page ruling siding with watchdog group Common Cause, Sooknanan said the administration had understated the risk of wrongly removing eligible citizens from voter rolls because of inaccuracies in the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database.

“The challenged policy represents the federal government’s attempt to decide who gets to vote,” Sooknanan wrote, adding that Congress had left that authority to the states.

The Justice Department said it was reviewing the ruling.

Ming Cheung, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project, said the ruling made clear that the administration could not use the federal government to disrupt elections or put voters’ rights at risk.

“The Trump administration has repeatedly taken extreme measures to interfere with how elections are run, undermine confidence in the results, and create confusion,” Cheung said in a statement.

Last year, Trump directed the department to crack down on voting by ineligible people, despite research showing voter fraud is rare. The department subsequently demanded unredacted voter rolls from nearly all 50 states, including sensitive personal information.

Eighteen states, mostly Republican-led, complied. The department cross-checked their data against SAVE and flagged people identified as noncitizens for potential removal from voter rolls.

Sooknanan said the database could contain outdated citizenship records, potentially misidentifying naturalised US citizens.

The department has also sued 30 states and Washington, DC, over their refusal to provide voter data. Twenty-six cases have been dismissed.

In a separate case in June, Sooknanan blocked the expanded use of the SAVE database for voter roll checks, an order the US Supreme Court temporarily paused last month.

Federal law bars systematic voter roll purges in the 90 days before a federal election, which could limit the ruling’s practical effect before the November 3 vote.

Sass Jordan, the Canadian rock star known for hits such as “Make You a Believer” and “Tell Somebody” who served as a judge on all six season of “Canadian Idol,” has died. She was 65.

Jordan died Friday surrounded by her family, according to an announcement posted to Instagram Saturday. No cause of death was provided, but she had reportedly canceled a number of performances in Ontario, Canada, in September “due to a serious medical condition.”

“She remains in our hearts, an inimitable force of nature,” her family wrote in the statement accompanying a photo of Jordan cuddling a cat. “An irreplaceable being of light and joy!”

Jordan made her solo debut with her 1988 album, “Tell Somebody,” which led to her winning the Juno Award — the Canadian equivalent of a Grammy — for most promising female vocalist the following year. She moved to Los Angeles in 1990 before releasing her follow-up album, “Racine,” in 1992.

“Racine” remained one of Jordan’s biggest solo albums, with tracks including “Make You a Believer,” “I Want to Believe,” “You Don’t Have to Remind Me” and “Goin’ Back Again.” She also recorded a duet with Joe Cocker, “Trust in Me,” for the 1992 film “The Bodyguard” that year.

“I always think of music as medicine and as healing for myself and for anyone else who wants to join in,” Jordan said in a 2023 interview with the CBC about audiences still responding to her earlier hits when she performed. “[S]o it’s an extremely uplifting thing. … It’s amazing and it’s incredible to see that. It’s incredible to see people responding to something that is genuinely, like you said, 20 years old.”

Born on Dec. 23, 1960, in Birmingham, England, Sarah “Sass” Jordan moved from France to Montreal with her family at age 3 when her father, a French literature professor, took a job at Concordia University, according to a statement shared by her publicist Eric Alper after her death. Seeing David Bowie in concert as a young teenager inspired Jordan to dream of a career in music. She began singing and playing guitar with friends in Westmount Park and by age 16 she was performing with bands in downtown Montreal nightclubs.

“I’m an expert on rebellion,” Jordan told The Times in 1992, reflecting on why she ran away from home at 14. “I didn’t want that clean, wholesome life … It felt so fake. I identified with real people, oppressed people who were outside that life. I wanted to taste real life — street life.”

Throughout her career, Jordan would tour alongside acts including Aerosmith, the Rolling Stones, AC/DC and Van Halen. Her touring band in 1994 included Taylor Hawkins, who would go on to become the drummer for the Foo Fighters. Jordan’s most recent release is the live album from that tour, titled “Live in New York Ninety-Four.” Hawkins died in 2022 at age 50.

For six seasons, Jordan served as one of the judges on the reality competition series “Canadian Idol.” The show aired from 2003 to 2008 and mirrored the format of shows like “Pop Idol” and “American Idol.”

“Over four decades, she gave Canadian rock one of its most recognizable voices, carved out space for women in a genre long dominated by men, and opened doors for the young musicians who came through her band,” Alper said in his statement. “Sass Jordan leaves a catalogue that shaped Canadian rock through the late ’80s and ’90s, a blues renaissance in which her voice grew richer with each record, and a generation of artists, from Idol hopefuls to a future Foo Fighter, who learned from her what it means to give a song everything.”

Jordan is survived by her husband Derek Sharp, daughter Stella Jordan-Sharp, stepdaughter Brianne Sharp and brother Daniel Jordan.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.

Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.

At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.

California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.

For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.

They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.

The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.

They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.

So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.

But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.

If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.