judges

President Trump’s administration said Monday that it will partially fund SNAP after a pair of judges’ rulings required it to keep the food aid program running.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture had planned to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program starting Nov. 1 because it said it could no longer keep funding it due to the shutdown. The program serves about 1 in 8 Americans and is a major piece of the nation’s social safety net. It costs about $8 billion per month nationally.

It’s not clear how much beneficiaries will receive, nor how quickly beneficiaries will see value show up on the debit cards they use to buy groceries. The process of loading the SNAP cards, which involves steps by state and federal government agencies and vendors, can take up to two weeks in some states. The average monthly benefit is usually about $190 per person.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the nation’s largest food program, said last month that benefits for November wouldn’t be paid out due to the federal government shutdown. That set off a scramble by food banks, state governments and the nearly 42 million Americans who receive the aid to find ways to ensure access to groceries.

Most states have boosted aid to food banks, and some are setting up systems to reload benefit cards with state taxpayer dollars.

It also spurred lawsuits.

Federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ruled separately but similarly Friday, telling the government that it was required to use one fund with about $5 billion to pay for the program, at least in part. The benefits and administration cost over $8 billion per month.

The judges gave the government the option to use additional money to fully fund the program and a deadline of Monday to decide.

Judge John J. McConnell Jr., in Providence, Rhode Island, said if the government chose full funding, it would need to make payments Monday. With a partial version, which would require recalculating benefits, the payment deadline is Wednesday.

Trump said on social media Friday that he does “NOT want Americans to go hungry just because the Radical Democrats refuse to do the right thing and REOPEN THE GOVERNMENT.” He said he was telling government lawyers to prepare SNAP payments as soon as possible.

Benefits will be delayed in November because many beneficiaries have their cards recharged early in the month and the process of loading cards can take weeks in many states.

Democratic state attorneys general or governors from 25 states, as well as the District of Columbia, challenged the plan to pause the program, contending that the administration has a legal obligation to keep it running in their jurisdictions. Cities and nonprofits also filed a lawsuit.

The USDA has a $5 billion contingency fund for the program, but the Trump administration reversed an earlier plan to use that money to keep SNAP running. Democratic officials argue that the administration could also use a separate fund of about $23 billion.

U.S. District Judge John J. McConnell in Providence, Rhode Island, said SNAP must be funded using at least contingency funds, and he asked for an update on progress by Monday.

In an additional order Saturday, McConnell said if the government makes full payments, it must do so by the end of the day Monday. If it chooses partial ones — which involve recalculating how much recipients get — those would need to be issued by Wednesday.

That does not mean people would necessarily see the payments that quickly, because the process of loading cards can take up to two weeks in some circumstances.

McConnell also ruled that all previous work requirement waivers must continue to be honored. During the shutdown, the USDA has terminated existing waivers that exempted work requirements for older adults, veterans and others.

In Boston, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani ruled the suspension was unlawful and said USDA has to pay for SNAP. Talwani ordered the federal government to advise by Monday whether they will use emergency reserve funds to provide reduced SNAP benefits for November or fully fund the program using both contingency funds and additional available funds.

Advocates and beneficiaries say halting the food aid would force people to choose between buying groceries and paying other bills. The majority of states have announced more or expedited funding for food banks or novel ways to load at least some benefits onto the SNAP debit cards.

Rhode Island officials said Monday that under their program, SNAP beneficiaries who also receive benefits from another federal program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, received payments Saturday equal to one-fourth of what they typically get from SNAP. Officials in Delaware are telling recipients that benefits there won’t be available until at least Nov. 7.

To qualify for SNAP in 2025, a household’s net income after certain expenses can’t exceed the federal poverty line. For a family of four, that’s about $32,000 per year. Last year, SNAP assisted nearly 42 million people, about two-thirds of whom were families with children.

Mulvihill writes for the Associated Press. AP reporter Kimberlee Kruesi in Providence, R.I., contributed to this report.

Two federal judges told the U.S. Department of Agriculture in separate rulings Friday that it must begin using billions of dollars in contingency funding to provide federal food assistance to poor American families despite the federal shutdown, but gave the agency until Monday to decide how to do so.

Both Obama-appointed judges rejected Trump administration arguments that more than $5 billion in USDA contingency funds could not legally be tapped to continue Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits for nearly 42 million Americans while the federal government remains closed. But both also left unclear how exactly the relief should be provided, or when it will arrive for millions of families set to lose benefits starting Saturday.

The two rulings came almost simultaneously Friday.

In Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani stopped short of granting California and a coalition of 24 other Democrat-led states a temporary restraining order they had requested. But she ruled that the states were likely to succeed in their arguments that the USDA’s total shutoff of SNAP benefits — despite having billions in emergency contingency funds on hand — was unlawful.

Talwani gave USDA until Monday to tell her whether they would authorize “only reduced SNAP benefits” using the contingency funding — which would not cover the total $8.5 billion to $9 billion needed for all November benefits, according to the USDA — or would authorize “full SNAP benefits using both the Contingency Funds and additional available funds.”

Separately, in Rhode Island, U.S. District Judge John McConnell granted a temporary restraining order requested by nonprofit organizations, ruling from the bench that SNAP must be funded with at least the contingency funds, and requesting an update on progress by Monday.

The White House referred questions about the ruling to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. It was not immediately clear if the administration would appeal the rulings.

The Massachusetts order was a win for California and the other Democrat-led states, which sued over the interruption to SNAP benefits — which were previously known as food stamps — as Republicans and Democrats continue to squabble over reopening the government in Washington.

However, it will not mean that all of the nation’s SNAP recipients — including 5.5 million Californians — will be spared a lapse in their food aid, state officials stressed, as state and local food banks continued scrambling to prepare for a deluge of need starting Saturday.

Asked Thursday if a ruling in the states’ favor would mean SNAP funds would be immediately loaded onto CalFresh and other benefits cards, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta — whose office helped bring the states’ lawsuit — said “the answer is no, unfortunately.”

“Our best estimates are that [SNAP benefit] cards could be loaded and used in about a week,” he said, calling that lag “problematic.”

“There could be about a week where people are hungry and need food,” he said. For new applicants to the program, he said, it could take even longer.

The rulings came as the now monthlong shutdown continued Friday with no immediate end in sight. The Senate adjourned Thursday with no plans to meet again until Monday.

It also came after President Trump called Thursday for the Senate to end the shutdown by first ending the filibuster, a longstanding rule that requires 60 votes to overcome objections to legislation. The rule has traditionally been favored by lawmakers as a means of blocking particularly partisan measures, and is currently being used by Democrats to resist the will of the current 53-seat Republican majority.

“It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Los Angeles Regional Food Bank Chief Executive Michael Flood, standing alongside Bonta as members of the California National Guard worked behind them stuffing food boxes, said his organization was preparing for massive lines come Saturday, the first of the month.

He said he expected long lines of families in need of food appearing outside food distribution locations throughout the region, just as they did during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“This is a disaster type of situation for us here in Los Angeles County, throughout the state of California and throughout the country,” Flood said.

“5.5 million Californians, 1.5 million children and adults in L.A. County alone, will be left high and dry — illegally so, unnecessarily so, in a way that is morally bankrupt,” Bonta said.

Bonta blamed the shutdown on Trump and his administration, and said the USDA has billions of dollars in contingency funds designed to ensure SNAP benefits continue during emergencies and broke the law by not tapping those funds in the current situation.

Bonta said SNAP benefits have never been disrupted during previous federal government shutdowns, and should never have been disrupted during this shutdown, either.

“That was avoidable,” he said. “Trump created this problem.”

The Trump administration has blamed the shutdown and the looming disruption to SNAP benefits entirely on Democrats in Congress, who have blocked short-term spending measures to restart the government and fund SNAP. Democrats are holding out to pressure Republicans into rescinding massive cuts to subsidies that help millions of Americans afford health insurance.

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told The Times that Democrats should be the ones getting asked “when the shutdown will end,” because “they are the ones who have decided to shut down the government so they can use working Americans and SNAP benefits as ‘leverage’ to pursue their radical left wing agenda.”

“Americans are suffering because of Democrats,” Jackson said.

In their opposition to the states’ request for a temporary restraining order requiring the disbursement of funds, attorneys for the USDA argued that using emergency funds to cover November SNAP benefits would deplete funds meant to provide “critical support in the event of natural disasters and other uncontrollable catastrophes,” and could actually cause more disruption to benefits down the line.

They wrote that SNAP requires between $8.5 billion and $9 billion each month, and the USDA’s contingency fund has only about $5.25 billion, meaning it could not fully fund November benefits even if it did release contingency funding. Meanwhile, “a partial payment has never been made — and for good reason,” because it would force every state to recalculate benefits for recipients and then recalibrate their systems to provide the new amounts, they wrote.

That “would take weeks, if it can be done at all,” and would then have to be undone in order to issue December benefits at normal levels, assuming the shutdown would have lifted by then, they wrote. “The disruption this would entail, with each State required to repeatedly reprogram its systems, would lead to chaos and uncertainty for the following months, even after a lapse concludes,” they wrote.

Simply pausing the benefits to immediately be reissued whenever the shutdown ends is the smarter and less disruptive course of action, they argued.

During a Thursday hearing in the states’ case, Talwani had suggested that existing rules required action by the government to prevent the sort of suffering that a total disruption to food assistance would cause, regardless of whatever political showdown is occurring between the parties in Washington.

“If you don’t have money, you tighten your belt,” she said in court. “You are not going to make everyone drop dead because it’s a political game someplace.”

In addition to suing the administration, California and its leaders have been rushing to ensure that hungry families have something to eat in coming days. Gov. Gavin Newsom directed $80 million to food banks to stock up on provisions, and activated the National Guard to help package food for those who need it.

Counties have also been working to offset the need, including by directing additional funding to food banks and other resource centers and asking partners in the private sector to assist.

Dozens of organizations in California have written to Newsom calling on him to use state funds to fully cover the missing federal benefits, in order to prevent “a crisis of unthinkable magnitude,” but Newsom has suggested that is not possible given the scale of funding withheld.

According to the USDA, about 41.7 million Americans were served through SNAP per month in fiscal 2024, at an annual cost of nearly $100 billion. Of the 5.5 million Californian recipients, children and older people account for more than 63%.

This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.

Oct. 31 (UPI) — Those who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program shoudl continue to do so in November and possibly beyond after two federal court rulings ordered program funding.

Federal judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts on Friday ordered the Trump administration to continue providing SNAP benefits amid the ongoing federal government shutdown.

U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Indira Talwani told the Trump administration to access available funds to continue providing SNAP benefits while the federal government shutdown continues on its 31st day, according to CNN.

Talwani cited a contingency fund containing $5.2 billion that Congress had appropriated to help fund SNAP benefits when needed, but acknowledged the program’s monthly cost is $9 billion.

“This court has now clarified that defendants are required to use those contingency funds as necessary for the SNAP program,” Talwani said in her 15-page ruling.

“While these contingency funds reportedly are insufficient to cover the entire cost of SNAP for November, defendants also may supplement the contingency funds by authorizing a transfer of additional funds,” she said.

Talwani on Thursday heard oral arguments from the Justice Department and attorneys representing 25 states that sued the Trump administration to continue SNAP benefits.

Shortly after Talwani submitted her ruling on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell Jr. in Rhode Island issued an oral ruling blocking the Trump administration from not funding SNAP benefits that provide food support for 42 million recipients across the United States, CNBC reported.

The benefits lack funding as Senate Democrats, during 13 votes, overwhelmingly have voted against a funding resolution that would keep the federal government funded and open, including the SNAP benefits, through Nov. 21.

Because there is no funding available for the SNAP program, Justice Department attorney Tyler Becker said the program does not exist.

“There is no SNAP program and, as a result, the government cannot just provide SNAP benefits,” Becker argued.

McConnell rejected the argument and, like Talwani, said the Trump administration must use congressionally appropriated contingency funds to continue providing at least some of the benefits that are due starting on Saturday.

While the Trump administration has been ordered to fund SNAP benefits via the U.S. Department of Agriculture, many will experience delays in getting them due as the USDA and respective states need time to access and distribute the benefits.

President Donald Trump on Friday told reporters the government could fund SNAP benefits past Saturday.

He said it would be easier if Senate Democrats voted in favor of the continuing resolution to fund the government while negotiating policy differences in the eventual 2026 fiscal year budget.

The fiscal year started Oct. 1, but so did the shutdown after the Senate failed to muster the 60 votes needed to approve it and keep the government open.

The shutdown will last at least through Monday after the Senate adjourned for the weekend Thursday.

Karen Hauer has hit back at the judges after her Argentine tango split the panel on last week’s heat of Strictly Come Dancing where she set an Argentine tango to an Usher track

Karen Hauer has hit back at the judges after her Argentine tango split the panel on last week’s Strictly Come Dancing. The professional dancer, 43, crafted a routine set to Usher track Caught Up and it received a mixed reaction from Shirley Ballas, Craig Revel Horwood, Motsi Mabuse and Anton Du Beke.

During an appearance with celebrity partner Harry Aikines-Aryeetey, who is known for starring on BBC’s Gladiators, on Friday’s Halloween edition of It Takes Two, Karen was asked if she will be avoiding the dance from now on. She joked: “”Probably! That’s fine.”

The star then insisted that she really enjoyed doing it and she ‘got the assignment‘ and did what she was asked to do even though it is ‘a shame’ how it all turned out.

READ MORE: Claudia Winkleman’s horrific Halloween as daughter’s dress caught fireREAD MORE: Amber Davies faces major blow as family set to miss rest of Strictly journey

She added: “No, do you know what? I absolutely loved that and it’s just a shame sometimes. If you want me to do an Argentine classical, then give me the music and I’ll do it. I got the assignment!”

“That was the assignment! Literally. I was just a bit like…we had a really beautiful balance. The judges have a really hard job to do, I just wish they liked it!”

During the live show, Craig claimed that the couple, who eventually received a combined score of 30 for their efforts. seemed to simply be ‘walking’ the routine. He said: “I felt like you were walking through it, standing, placing, standing, placing and not actually dancing step to step.

“And I wasn’t entirely fond of throwing all the groove stuff in there.”

But Harry was not afraid to hit back at the comments as they happened. He said: “I was given a task to do an Argentine tango to Usher. I took it on, I done it to the best of my ability and that’s all I can do.” The dance was all done as part of Icons week, and big music names like Dolly Parton, Spice Girls and Johnny Cash were also honoured, amongst a whole host of others.

Fans at home rushed to social media to defend Harry and Karen amid the negative feedback. One said: “Why have an Icons week, make the celebs dance to music that’s not really suited to the dance then criticise them for bringing a bit of the icon’s style into the dance? Bal and Harry especially.”

Another said: “what are they even talking about obviously an argentine tango to USHER is gna be a little different #Strictly” and a third added: “I dont get the “whyd you add groove/ bump n grind” comments… you gave the guy Usher to mimic?? with an argentine tango?? so like what was he supposed to do.”

Harry has already had a taste of Strictly before making his debut as a contestant on this year’s series. He appeared on last year’s Christmas special where he was partnered with professional dancer Nancy Xu.

The sports star bagged one of the highest scores in the episode but lost to RuPaul’s Drag Race UK star Tayce, who had danced with Kai Widdrington.

Announcing his return for the new series, Harry Aikines-Aryeetey said: “After the Christmas Special, it was so nice I just had to do it twice! I’m so excited to be part of the Strictly family this series and I’m ready to give it all I’ve got.

“I’ll be bringing tons of energy to light up the dance floor. Let’s hope I’m as quick picking up the routines as I am on the track.”

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

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A pair of court rulings declaring some of Florida’s gun restrictions unconstitutional are creating some confusion in the notoriously firearm-friendly state — and fueling activists’ calls for Republican legislators to take action to update state statutes so they abide by the new legal landscape.

Despite Florida’s history of being a gun-supporting climate, Florida’s GOP-dominated state Legislature took steps to restrict gun laws in the wake of the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Since the day the measure was signed into law, gun rights advocates have been pushing to unravel it.

Now, activists say recent court rulings are fueling their push to expand gun rights in the state, emboldened by U.S. Supreme Court’s updated standards for evaluating gun laws based on the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“Leaving unconstitutional laws on the books creates nothing but confusion,” said Sean Caranna, executive director of the advocacy group Florida Carry.

Here’s what to know.

Judge finds age restriction on concealed carry unconstitutional

A ruling by a circuit court judge in Broward County, home to Fort Lauderdale, found that Florida’s prohibition against people under the age of 21 from carrying a concealed firearm is unconstitutional, at least as it relates to the case in question.

Last week, Judge Frank Ledee tossed out the conviction of 19-year-old Joel Walkes, who was charged with a third-degree felony for carrying a concealed handgun. Florida statutes currently allow people between the age of 18 and 20 to possess a firearm, if they legally receive it as a gift or an inheritance, but they are barred from purchasing guns or carrying them concealed.

Ledee found the state’s prohibition is incompatible with the Supreme Court’s historical test, and inconsistent with a recent appeals court ruling that found a state law banning the open carrying of firearms is unconstitutional. In his decision, the judge pointed to the Legislature’s role in codifying and clarifying the changes.

“Distilling these inconsistencies into a framework of firearm regulations compatible with the guarantee to bear arms pursuant to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is best left to the wisdom of legislative debate,” Ledee wrote.

Open carry ruling sparks questions

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal issued its ruling last month in a case stemming from the July 4, 2022, arrest of a man who stood at a major intersection in downtown Pensacola carrying a visible, holstered pistol and a copy of the U.S. Constitution.

The decision legalizes open carry, though there are preexisting limitations against carrying in a threatening manner or in certain restricted spaces like government meetings, schools and bars. The ruling has prompted some Florida sheriffs to urge caution among gun owners and seek clarity from lawmakers.

Legalizing open carry has long been a major focus of gun rights activists in the state, who oppose the slate of restrictions that Florida lawmakers implemented in the wake of the Parkland school shooting, which killed 17 people and injured 17 others. Among the law’s provisions was raising the legal gun-buying age to 21.

Bob Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University, said the recent court decisions put more onus on lawmakers to enact state statutes that line up with recent judicial rulings.

“I would not be surprised if in the next session the Florida Legislature doesn’t just take care of this by amending the statute to say, ‘clean it up.’ And then that’ll end all these lawsuits and possible lawsuits,” Jarvis said of the age-related prohibition. “And that’s really now what should happen.”

Advocates push for expanding gun laws

In the years since the 2018 Parkland shooting, lawmakers’ efforts to lower the gun-buying age to 18 have advanced in the Florida House but ultimately failed in the state Senate.

Now some advocates say the recent court rulings should force the hand of legislators who have opposed expanding gun rights in the past.

“We’ve been telling the Legislature since 2010 that this was going to be a problem for them if they didn’t act. And they chose not to act,” Caranna said.

“I hope that given some of the recent decisions from the United States Supreme Court and the Florida courts, that they will finally see that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” he added.

Representatives for Florida’s House speaker and Senate president did not immediately respond to inquiries Wednesday.

Payne writes for the Associated Press.

In a major blow to LGBTQIA+ rights, Texas’ Supreme Court has ruled that judges can refuse to marry same-sex couples.

On 24 October, the state’s highest court issued an order adopting comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which focuses on the “judge’s extra-judicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.”

According to the newly implemented comment, effective immediately, judges who “publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon sincerely held religious belief” will not be in violation of the state’s judicial impartiality rules.

According to KERA News, the rule change comes after years of pushback by state legal officials against same-sex marriage and a 2020 lawsuit filed by Jack County judge Brian Umphress.

In the suit, he challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s now-withdrawn 2019 sanction of a Waco, Texas judge who refused to marry gay couples, despite still marrying heterosexual couples.

Umphress’ decision to sue stemmed from his alleged fear that he could face the same sanction.

Shortly after the amendment was announced, Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said the court would not comment on the change in a statement to the aforementioned news outlet.

“The order speaks for itself, and the Court cannot comment on its connection to pending litigation,” he said.

As of this writing, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct have not commented on the aforementioned change.

The recent development in Texas comes a few weeks before the US Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear a case challenging same-sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis — who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will meet in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog noted that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following its meeting on 7 November, an announcement could be released as soon as 10 November.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appears poised to recognize President Trump’s authority to send soldiers to Portland, Ore., with members of the court signaling receptiveness to an expansive new read of the president’s power to put boots on the ground in American cities.

A three-judge panel from the appellate court — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — heard oral arguments Thursday after Oregon challenged the legality of the president’s order to deploy hundreds of soldiers to Portland. The administration claims the city has become lawless; Oregon officials argue Trump is manufacturing a crisis to justify calling in the National Guard.

While the court has not issued a decision, a ruling in Trump’s favor would mark a sharp rightward turn for the once-liberal circuit — and probably set up a Supreme Court showdown over why and how the U.S. military can be used domestically.

“I’m sort of trying to figure out how a district court of any nature is supposed to get in and question whether the president’s assessment of ‘executing the laws’ is right or wrong,” said Judge Ryan D. Nelson of Idaho Falls, Idaho, one of the two Trump appointees hearing the arguments.

“That’s an internal decision making, and whether there’s a ton of protests or low protests, they can still have an impact on his ability to execute the laws,” he said.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland, another Trump appointee, previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her temporary restraining on Oct. 4.

The facts about the situation on the ground in Portland were not in dispute at the hearing on Thursday. The city has remained mostly calm in recent months, with protesters occasionally engaging in brief skirmishes with authorities stationed outside a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building.

Instead, Nelson and Judge Bridget S. Bade of Phoenix, whom Trump once floated as a possible Supreme Court nominee, questioned how much the facts mattered.

“The president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit, and it seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come and say, ‘No you need to do it differently,’” Nelson said.

He also appeared to endorse the Department of Justice’s claim that “penalizing” the president for waiting until protests had calmed to deploy soldiers to quell them created a perverse incentive to act first and ask questions later.

“It just seems like such a tortured reading of the statute,” the judge said. He then referenced the first battle of the U.S. Civil War in 1861, saying, “I’m not sure even President Lincoln would be able to bring in forces when he did, because if he didn’t do it immediately after Fort Sumter, [Oregon’s] argument would be, ‘Oh, things are OK now.’”

Trump’s efforts to use troops to quell protests and support federal immigration operations have led to a growing tangle of legal challenges. The Portland deployment was halted by Immergut, who blocked Trump from federalizing Oregon troops. (A ruling from the same case issued the next day prevents already federalized troops from being deployed.)

In June, a different 9th Circuit panel also made up of two Trump appointees ruled that the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — discretion to determine whether facts on the ground met the threshold for military response in Los Angeles. Thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines were deployed over the summer amid widespread protests over immigration enforcement.

The June decision set precedent for how any future deployment in the circuit’s vast territory can be reviewed. It also sparked outrage, both among those who oppose armed soldiers patrolling American streets and those who support them.

Opponents argue repeated domestic deployments shred America’s social fabric and trample protest rights protected by the 1st Amendment. With soldiers called into action so far in Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago, many charge the administration is using the military for political purposes.

“The military should not be acting as a domestic police force in this country except in the most extreme circumstances,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. “That set of circumstances is not present right now anywhere in the country, so this is an abuse of power — and a very dangerous one because of the precedent it sets.”

Supporters say the president has sole authority to determine the facts on the ground and if they warrant military intervention. They argue any check by the judicial branch is an illegal power grab, aimed at thwarting response to a legitimate and growing “invasion from within.”

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one by one,” Trump said in an address to military top brass last week. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

The 9th Circuit agreed to rehear the Los Angeles case with an 11-member “en banc” panel in Pasadena on Oct. 22, signaling a schism among Trump’s own judges over the boundaries of the president’s power.

Still, Trump’s authority to call soldiers into American cities is only the first piece in a larger legal puzzle spread before the 9th Circuit, experts said.

What federalized troops are allowed to do once deployed is the subject of another court decision now under review. That case could determine whether soldiers are barred from assisting immigration raids, controlling crowds of protesters or any other form of civilian law enforcement.

Trump officials have maintained the president can wield the military as he sees fit — and that cities such as Portland and L.A. would be in danger if soldiers can’t come to the rescue.

“These are violent people, and if at any point we let down our guard, there is a serious risk of ongoing violence,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said. “The president is entitled to say enough is enough and bring in the National Guard.”

WASHINGTON — The majority of America’s federal judges have six-figure investment portfolios and many make more money off the bench than on, according to a comprehensive study of their government financial reports.

The judges, whose current salaries range from $89,500 to $115,000 a year, are now pressing Congress for a 30% salary increase.

“I think judges are entitled to a pay raise,” said Robert McWilliams of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court in Colorado. “They are worth it. Judges’ salaries, rather than being geared to the income of the average taxpayer, should be geared to the average of practicing lawyers.”

An Associated Press survey of 935 financial disclosure reports found that few federal jurists depend solely on their salaries. All but 15 of the judges had outside income–with more than half the judges reporting extra earnings in a range from $16,624 to $39,500.

Most Recent Year

For its study, AP examined reports for 1987, the most recent year for which a complete set was available. Most material in these reports is listed within wide numerical ranges rather than in exact dollar amounts.

Like other Americans with personal assets, the judges receive investment income through interest, dividends, rent on real estate and capital gains on land or securities. Four hundred judges reported extra earned income–some through teaching law, speaking fees or book royalties, but mostly through pensions from earlier jobs or settlements from their former law firms.

Here are other details from the judicial disclosures:

–Only five judges reported no household income other than salaries.

–At least 555 judges, perhaps as many as 723, have investment assets worth more than $100,000 after their debts have been subtracted. The typical judge reported net investments worth between $140,000 and $350,000. These assets generally reflect family funds or substantial incomes before and after appointment to the bench.

–At least 62, and as many as 176, of the judges are millionaires. They include Gerhard A. Gesell, who presided over the trial of Oliver L. North and whose holdings include stock and a 358-acre Virginia farm. Sandra Day O’Connor appears to be the only millionaire on the Supreme Court.

–Many of the judges (at least 93 and perhaps as many as 258) have more money coming in from outside sources than they get from their government salaries.

Corporate Attorneys

Judicial leaders, right up to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, say that judges are underpaid, and their salaries indeed lag behind America’s top corporate attorneys.

Overall, the financial reports do not give a complete look at the judges’ wealth because they do not include their homes and holdings not held for investment purposes. Also, judges can value property at the purchase price, sometimes decades out of date.

Earlier this year, Congress balked at a 50% raise proposed for judges, Congress and some executives. Rehnquist then held a rare news conference to appeal for raises to avert what he called “the most serious threat to the future of the judiciary.”

President Bush responded by proposing 25% increases for the judges with some limits on outside income. The judges are asking for 30% with annual cost-of-living adjustments and no limits.

Head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association says plan similar to having ‘a cardiologist do a hip replacement’.

Hundreds of military and civilian lawyers working for the United States Department of Defense (DOD) will serve as immigration judges temporarily, officials have said, in the latest move by President Donald Trump’s administration to involve the military in US domestic affairs.

“These DOD attorneys will augment existing resources to help further combat a backlog of cases by presiding over immigration hearings,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement on Tuesday.

Military lawyers are not trained to serve as immigration judges, and one US official told the Reuters news agency that even with additional training, it would be difficult for military lawyers to act as judges.

US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department as part of the plan, according to a memo reviewed by The Associated Press news agency.

The military will begin sending groups of 150 lawyers “as soon as practicable”, according to the memo, with the lawyers expected to serve as immigration judges for 179 days initially, Reuters reported.

The head of the American Immigration Lawyers Association described the plan as similar to having “a cardiologist do a hip replacement”.

“Expecting fair decisions from judges unfamiliar with the law is absurd. This reckless move guts due process and further undermines the integrity of our immigration court system,” said Ben Johnson, the organisation ‘s executive director.

In his 2024 book The War on Warriors, Defense Secretary Hegseth was highly critical of military lawyers, saying that most “spend more time prosecuting our troops than putting away bad guys”.

The move to deploy the military lawyers comes as the Trump administration turns to military support for its crackdown on undocumented immigration, including the growing role of troops patrolling the US-Mexico border, National Guard members being sent into US cities to support immigration enforcement efforts, detaining people at military bases in advance of deportation, and using military aircraft to carry out deportations.

On Tuesday, a court ruled that the Trump administration had “wilfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has approved sending up to 600 military lawyers to the Justice Department to serve as temporary immigration judges, according to a memo reviewed by the Associated Press.

The military will begin sending groups of 150 attorneys — both military and civilians — to the Justice Department “as soon as practicable,” and the armed services should have the first round of people identified by next week, according to the Aug. 27 memo.

The effort comes as the Trump administration is cracking down on illegal immigration by ramping up arrests and deportations. And immigration courts already are dealing with a massive backlog of roughly 3.5 million cases that has ballooned in recent years.

At the same time, more than 100 immigration judges have been fired or left voluntarily after taking deferred resignations offered by the Trump administration, their union says. In the most recent round of terminations, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers said in July that at least 17 immigration judges had been fired “without cause” in courts across the country.

That has left about 600 immigration judges, union figures show, meaning the Pentagon move would double their ranks.

The Justice Department, which oversees the immigration courts, requested the assistance from the Defense Department, according to the memo sent by the Pentagon’s executive secretary to his Justice Department counterpart. The military lawyers’ duties as immigration judges will initially last no more than 179 days but can be renewed, it said.

A Justice Department spokesperson referred questions about the plan to the Defense Department, where officials directed questions to the White House.

A White House official said Tuesday that the administration is looking at a variety of options to help resolve the significant backlog of immigration cases, including hiring additional immigration judges. The official said the matter should be “a priority that everyone — including those waiting for adjudication — can rally around.”

The memo stressed that sending the additional attorneys is contingent on availability and that mobilizing reserve officers may be necessary. Plus, the document said the Justice Department would be responsible for ensuring that anyone sent from the Pentagon does not violate the federal prohibition on using the military as domestic law enforcement, known as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The administration faced a setback on its efforts to use the military in unique ways to combat illegal immigration and crime, with a court ruling Tuesday that it “willfully” violated federal law by sending National Guard troops to Los Angeles in early June.

Cases in immigration court can take years to weave their way to a final determination, with judges and lawyers frequently scheduling final hearings on the merits of a case more than a year out.

Toropin writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Will Weissert, Rebecca Santana and Eric Tucker contributed to this report.

BALTIMORE — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland’s entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn’t issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration’s extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented.

Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland’s 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration’s aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies.

At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed.

The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Trump’s authority to enforce immigration laws.

But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda.

“The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,” said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush’s solicitor general. “There really is no precursor for this suit.”

Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case.

Cullen also asked the government’s lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court.

“I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,” Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration’s case.

Hedges denied that the case would “open the floodgates” to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement.

“The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,” she said.

Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge’s order.

The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government “fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,” according to the order.

Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that “resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.” Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government.

The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that “a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.”

Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump’s immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured.

The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he’s released from jail pending trial.

Skene writes for the Associated Press.

AN ENTREPRENEUR whose restaurant idea was rejected as “a disaster” on Dragons’ Den is set to open 100 new outlets of his popular chain.

Alessandro Savelli, who co-founded Pasta Evangelists and currently serves as its CEO, says the chain is aiming to become the UK’s “fastest-growing, casual dining hot spot”.

5

5

5

Now worth around £40 million, Pasta Evangelists was rejected on Dragons’ Den by business experts in 2018 when Savelli and co-founder Finn Lagun asked for a £75,000 investment for a 2.5 per cent cut of the company.

Dragon Jenny Campbell even called Finn “delusional” and “a disaster” during their pitch.

However, the entrepreneurs have no doubt had the last laugh as their business is now set for major expansion.

Pasta Evangelists says it will invest £30 million into new restaurants, creating up to 1,500 jobs.

It hopes to open 100 new restaurants across the UK in the next five years, including in the south of England, the Midlands, and Scotland.

The company is also aiming to develop a “Pasta Apprenticeship” scheme to attract new staff and help the current workforce develop new skills and knowledge, reports The Grocer.

Savelli said: “The demand for our fresh, beautifully cooked artisan pasta is growing.

“Our intention is to become the UK’s fastest-growing, casual dining hot spot and the hottest place to eat for pasta lovers of all ages.

“Sustainable growth has always been our plan.

“The hospitality industry is going through tough times at the moment, but we are confident that our business model is robust and dynamic, and the proof of this is we have already bucked the trend with the confirmed opening of five more restaurants in the space of three months, and more to come.”

The chain opened a restaurant in Farringdon, central London, this summer as well as its first outside of the capital in Guildford in July.

Three new London locations are set to open in the coming weeks, helping carry the total number of outlets to 11 as we head into autumn.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said the plans were “great news” and highlighted the “dynamism and resilience of British businesses”.

The restaurant has had a remarkable success story since its Dragons’ Den miss.

Recalling their appearance on the BBC show, Finn said he was “shaking life a leaf” before walking out to pitch his business.

He added that he was left devastated by the business experts’ “vicious” comments.

Speaking to The Sun in 2023, he said: “I never would have expected to be called a ‘disaster’ or ‘delusional‘ on national TV – they were vicious things to say to a young entrepreneur.

“To use that kind of language against a young, passionate person was dismaying. I would never talk to any young entrepreneur like that.”

Despite their lack of faith in the business, the Dragons are no doubt feeling red in the face now as Pasta Evangelists is one of the UK’s biggest fresh pasta companies.

It has also earned the highest praise from many voices, including chef Gordon Ramsay.

SCARRED BY EXPERIENCE ON DRAGONS’ DEN

While Pasta Evangelists has gone on to huge success, Finn says he’s still scarred by his experience in the Den.

“We received an extremely strong, negative, visceral reaction,” he says.

“I was 24 years old when I went on Dragons’ Den, so for a seasoned entrepreneur like Jenny Campbell to call me ‘delusional’ and a ‘disaster’ was so vicious… Jenny was savage.

“At one point she said, ‘I like it’ and I replied, ‘Thank you’, only for her to say, ‘I like it because it’s a brilliant business lesson in how not to set up and run a business’.

“I was mortified, I felt like an idiot having grinned at her and thanked her. She was deliberately trying to take me for a ride for entertainment.”

Finn adds: “I don’t want to sound like the Virgin Mary but if the tables were turned and I was Jenny Campbell, I would have apologised.

“If I saw the business had turned into the UK’s biggest pasta company in a few years I’d say, ‘Well done, you defied expectations’ and maybe even offer a little contrition or an apology.”

5

5

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The Department of Justice asked New York judges to unseal more evidence in the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell criminal cases, but it still wants to shield “personal identifying information.”

This is an expansion of Attorney General Pam Bondi‘s earlier request to courts to unseal five days of grand jury testimony in relation to the cases.

In July, a Florida judge refused to unseal transcripts related to a criminal case brought against Epstein for sex charges in the early 2000s. That case was resolved in a controversial plea deal that saw the billionaire financier serve about a year in prison.

The latest request is about Epstein’s 2019 criminal case in New York, which was dropped after he died by suicide in his jail cell. It also asks to unseal grand jury evidence in Maxwell’s case, which ended in her conviction and sentence of 20 years in prison.

The request to shield personal identifying information could protect others from being tied to the case.

“Any effort to redact third party names smacks of a cover up,” victim Annie Farmer said through her lawyer in an Aug. 5 letter to the court. Farmer testified for the prosecution in Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial.

“To the extent any of Epstein’s and Maxwell’s enablers and co-conspirators who have thus far evaded accountability are implicated by the grand jury transcripts, their identities should not be shielded from the public,” Farmer’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley, added. She added that victims’ identifications should be redacted.

The new request comes after the judges handling the requests — Richard Berman for the Epstein case and Paul Engelmayer for the Maxwell case — told the department to specify their positions.

The department requested to have until Aug. 14 to notify everyone who’s name appears on the evidence and update the judges.

Usually, grand jury proceedings and evidence are kept secret.

Meanwhile, advocacy group Democracy Forward filed suit Fridy against the Justice Department and the FBI for records on their handling of the Epstein investigation. It wants records about senior administration officials’ communication about Epstein documents and any correspondence between Epstein and President Donald Trump.

The group says it submitted requests under the Freedom of Information Act for the records related to communications about the case in late July that have not yet been fulfilled.

“The court should intervene urgently to ensure the public has access to the information they need about this extraordinary situation,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of the group, said in a statement. The federal government often shields records on criminal investigations from public view.

Maxwell earlier this week opposed the Justice Department effort to unseal the grand jury testimony. She said it would compromise her privacy and her potential to appeal.

Also earlier this week, the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed the Department of Justice, former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and several others for documents and testimony about Epstein.

Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making “improper public comments” about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

What is Boasberg alleged to have said?

No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi’s complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed “a belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of the federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ ”

The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as “public comments.”

“The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It’s an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,” explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law.

Bondi’s complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting to “transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.”

You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World?

A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge’s ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. “Oopsie,” tweeted El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele after it landed. “Too late!”

Thus began the administration’s ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It’s not as if the signs were not there. “He who saves his Country does not violate any law,” Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France.

In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump’s one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg’s order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, “F— you.”

Bove denied it. And last week, even though other Justice Department whistleblowers corroborated Reuveni’s complaint, Bove was narrowly confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge.

“The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable.

A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.”

Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting “vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.”

It’s no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country’s independent media. “It’s like we’re twins,” Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda.

On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is “a radical left lunatic,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Some of Trump’s lapdogs in the House immediately introduced articles of impeachment (which are likely to go nowhere).

Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Some described his words as “stern.” I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump’s rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges.

“It’s part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ” Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet.

“Our Constitution has safeguards in it,” Fogel said. “Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don’t think it’s unlimited.”

I wish I shared his confidence.

Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian

Welcome to Screen Gab, the newsletter for everyone who likes a dramatic comeback.

Remember when Heidi Klum drilled into our reality TV heads that, in fashion, one day you’re in, and the next day you’re out? Well, even she knows the past can come back in style. After a 16-season run on “Project Runway” as host and judge, Klum departed the fashion competition series in 2018 and, along with the show’s original mentor Tim Gunn, went on to create “Making the Cut,” their version of a fashion tournament for Prime Video that ran for three seasons. (Model Karlie Kloss assumed Klum’s “Project Runway” duties in subsequent seasons.) Now, as “Project Runway” launches its 21st season, moving homes yet again (to Freeform from Bravo), Klum brings the nostalgia factor to the show’s revamping, which includes the addition of super stylist Law Roach to the judges panel. Roach stopped by Guest Spot to discuss joining the ranks of the long-running reality competition.

Also in this week’s Screen Gab, our streaming recommendations include an illuminating documentary that explains how “The Ed Sullivan Show” amplified Black music and culture, and a collection of ‘90s films that defined an era through their soundtracks.

ICYMI

Must-read stories you might have missed

Luis Guzmán, Jenna Ortega and Catherine Zeta-Jones, photographed in London this month, return for the second season of Netflix’s “Wednesday.”

(Jennifer McCord / For The Times)

For Jenna Ortega, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Luis Guzmán, ‘Wednesday’ proves ‘weird is beautiful’: The actors return for Season 2 of Netflix’s hit YA series, which brings Gomez and Morticia Addams into focus.

‘Chief of War’ centers Hawaiian history and a warrior’s story: Co-creator Jason Momoa stars as the late 18th century warrior Ka’iana in a story set at the intersection of the Hawaiian island kingdoms and the arrival of European colonists.

Go behind the scenes with the ‘Alien: Earth’ cast at Comic-Con 2025: Watch our exclusive follow-along with the cast of FX’s “Alien: Earth” cast at San Diego Comic-Con as they sign autographs, visit the show’s immersive activation and more.

As AI changes how movies are made, Hollywood crews ask: What’s left for us?: AI is supplying powerful new tools at a fraction of the cost, forcing below-the-line artists to wonder if the future of filmmaking has a place for them.

Turn on

Recommendations from the film and TV experts at The Times

Ed Sullivan with the Jackson 5 and Diana Ross.

(Netflix)

“Sunday Best: The Untold Story of Ed Sullivan” (Netflix)

Ed Sullivan was so famous, such an institution in his time, that his name became the text of a number in the musical “Bye Bye, Birdie.” It’s been half a century since “The Ed Sullivan Show” ended its 24-season run, but Sullivan, who gave Elvis Presley a platform and introduced the Beatles to America, will be seen as long as they continue to matter, which is to say, forever. The “Untold” in Sacha Jenkins’ affecting documentary is the show’s history with the many Black artists it presented to an audience of many millions, through years in which television networks bowed to the bigotry of what it called the Southern audience. Yet even had you taken Black acts on “Sullivan” for granted, the extent of the host’s progressivism might come as surprise. Those sharing memories include the late Harry Belafonte, Smokey Robinson and the Temptations’ Otis Williams; seen in performance are Stevie Wonder, Jackie Wilson, Bo Diddley, James Brown, Nina Simone, Mahalia Jackson and the Jackson 5, in all their youthful glory. — Robert Lloyd

Guided by the words of an ancient samurai text, Ghost Dog (Forest Whitaker) is a professional killer able to dissolve into the night and move through the city unnoticed in “Ghost Dog: The Way Of The Samurai.”

(Ghost Dog / Artisan Entertainment)

’90s Soundtrack Movies (Criterion Channel)

Now they exist as relics: banged-up soundtrack cassettes that slid around in the passenger side of everyone’s cars. But we all listened to them and in many cases, they ended up being more memorable than the films themselves. A lot of good was done when acts like U2, Talking Heads, Depeche Mode and Nick Cave lent their drawing power to director Wim Wenders’ mystifying 1991 sci-fi art thinker “Until the End of the World.” The songs were an adventure (though I couldn’t quote you a single line from the script). More substantially, Jim Jarmusch introduced his fan base to Wu-Tang Clan’s RZA, who contributed a superb head-bobbing soundtrack to 1999’s “Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai,” proving there was plenty of crossover between Soho and Shaolin. David Lynch, always plugged in musically, drew from David Bowie’s underrated “Outside” album for the white-line opening credits of 1997’s “Lost Highway.” And even when Bowie wasn’t game — as with the bio-in-all-but-name “Velvet Goldmine” — an inventive glam-saturated soundtrack could carry the day. Criterion’s new series is programming you can play in the background and still enjoy. — Joshua Rothkopf

Guest spot

A weekly chat with actors, writers, directors and more about what they’re working on — and what they’re watching

“Project Runway” adds Hollywood stylist Law Roach to its judges panel.

(Rankin / Disney)

As one of Hollywood’s biggest stylists and image architects, Law Roach has bolstered the fashion profile of stars like Zendaya, Hunter Schafer and Anya Taylor-Joy and set the tone for every red carpet he’s touched with his viral styling choices. Now, he’s bringing his unparalleled fashion sense to the judge’s panel of “Project Runway.” The new season premiered Thursday on Freeform with two episodes; it will air weekly and also stream on Hulu and Disney+. Roach stopped by Screen Gab to discuss his feelings on constructive criticism, the fictional character he’d like to style and what he’s watching. — Yvonne Villarreal

As a creative in the fashion world, is “Project Runway” a show you watched at any point over its run? What value did you see in it and how do you hope your involvement elevates the show?

Yes, I watched it religiously, of course. The season that Christian won is hands down still my favorite. I think it gave me an inside look at an industry that I was craving to be a part of. I think my real-world experience and passion will come through not only to the viewers but also to the contestants.

You bring a bold and direct feedback style to the judges panel from the start. How do you prefer to receive feedback on your work and when do you trust it?

Criticism is a part of every job. I think it is important to hear it and if it fits you or can help you grow, take it in, and learn from it, but if it doesn’t, ignore it.

As a stylist and image architect, which fictional character of TV or film — past or present — would you most like to create a fashion profile for?

Jessica Rabbit because we only got to see her in one look!

What’s your go-to “comfort watch,” the film or TV show you return to again and again?

“Top Chef” [Peacock] or any cooking competition show. I love food and witnessing the thought that goes into making the food.

WASHINGTON — Appellate court judges expressed broad skepticism Thursday over President Trump’s legal rationale for his most expansive round of tariffs.

Members of the 11-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington appeared unconvinced by the Trump administration’s insistence that the president could impose tariffs without congressional approval, and it hammered its invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to do so.

“IEEPA doesn’t even mention the word ‘tariffs’ anywhere,” Circuit Judge Jimmie Reyna said in a sign of the panel’s incredulity at a government attorney’s arguments.

Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing “no president has ever read IEEPA this way” but contended it was nonetheless lawful.

The 1977 law, signed by President Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war.

Trump says the country’s trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law’s protection.

In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified.

“If the president says there’s a problem with our military readiness,” Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, “and he puts a 20% tax on coffee, that doesn’t seem to necessarily deal with [it].”

Schumate said Congress’ passage of IEEPA gave the president “broad and flexible” power to respond to an emergency, but that “the president is not asking for unbounded authority.”

But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump’s maneuver as a “breathtaking” power grab that amounted to saying “the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.”

No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges’ deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: “To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America’s big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE “DEAD,” WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’’

In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that “a national emergency exists” necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade, a specialized federal court in New York, was unconvinced, ruling in May that Trump exceeded his powers.

The issue now rests with the appeals judges.

The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday.

The case centers on Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn’t cover other tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, nor ones imposed on China during Trump’s first term and continued by President Biden.

The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 U.S. states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear.

The U.S. Constitution gives the Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House.

Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average U.S. tariff to more than 18%, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University.

Wiseman and Sedensky write for the Associated Press. Sedensky reported from New York.

CHICAGO — Federal immigration judges fired by the Trump administration are filing appeals, pursuing legal action and speaking out in an unusually public campaign to fight back.

More than 50 immigration judges — from senior leaders to new appointees — have been fired since President Trump assumed office in January. Normally bound by courtroom decorum, many are now unrestrained in describing terminations they consider unlawful and why they believe they were targeted.

The reasons, they believe, include gender discrimination, decisions on immigration cases played up by the Trump administration, and a courthouse tour with the Senate’s No. 2 Democrat.

“I cared about my job and was really good at it,” Jennifer Peyton, a former supervising judge, told the Associated Press last week. “That letter that I received, the three sentences, explained no reason why I was fired.”

Peyton, who received the notice while on a Fourth of July family vacation, was appointed judge in 2016. She considered it her dream job. Peyton was later named assistant chief immigration judge in Chicago, helping to train, mentor and oversee judges. She was a visible presence in the busy downtown court, greeting outside observers.

She cited top-notch performance reviews and said she faced no disciplinary action. Peyton said she’ll appeal through the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent government agency Trump has also targeted.

Peyton’s theories about why she was fired include appearing on a “bureaucrat watchdog list” of people accused by a right-wing organization of working against the Trump agenda. She also wonders about a courthouse tour she gave Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the minority whip, in June.

Durbin blasted Peyton’s termination as an “abuse of power,” saying he’s visited before as part of his duties as a publicly elected official.

The nation’s immigration courts — with a backlog of about 3.5 million cases — have become a key focus of Trump’s anti-immigration crackdown. The firings are on top of resignations, early retirements and transfers, adding up to 106 judges gone since January, according to the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, which represents judges. There are currently about 600 immigration judges.

Several of those fired, including Peyton, have recently done a slew of interviews on local Chicago television stations and with national outlets, saying they now have a platform for their colleagues who remain on the bench.

“The ones that are left are feeling threatened and very uncertain about their future,” said Matt Biggs, the union’s president.

Carla Espinoza, a Chicago immigration judge since 2023, was fired as she was delivering a verdict this month. Her notice said she’d be dismissed at the end of her two-year probationary period with the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

“I am personally committed to my career. We’re not political appointees,” she told AP. “I’m entitled to a reason.”

She believes the firings have disproportionately affected women and ethnic minorities, including people with Latino-sounding surnames like hers. She plans to take legal action before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has also shifted focus under Trump.

“There’s a very strong pattern of discriminatory factors,” she said.

Espinoza thinks another reason could be her decision to release a Mexican immigrant falsely accused of threatening to assassinate Trump. Ramón Morales Reyes was accused by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem of writing a threatening letter. But the claims fell apart as Wisconsin authorities determined that Morales Reyes was framed by a man who had previously attacked him.

Espinoza said she felt pressure given the public scrutiny, media coverage and Noem’s statements about Morales Reyes, which weren’t corrected or removed from social media.

“It’s hard to silence the noise and just do your job fairly when there’s so much distraction,” she said. “I think I did. And I stand by my decision as having been a fair one to release an individual who I believe was twice victimized.”

The Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department that oversees the immigration courts, declined to comment on the firings through an agency spokesperson.

Peyton said she isn’t sure that working as an immigration judge is still her dream job.

“It’s important that everyone in our country knows what’s happening in our immigration courts,” she said. “The Department of Justice that I joined in 2016 is not the same one now.”

Tareen writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has limited the power of federal district judges to hand down orders that apply nationwide.

By 6-3 vote, the justices said Friday that judges may not issue orders that apply to people beyond those who sued.

“Federal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And while judges can give full relief to plaintiffs, including groups of people, their injunctions should not be “broader than necessary” to shield those people.

The court’s three liberals dissented.

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Trump administration is trying to defend a blatantly unconstitutional order repealing birthright citizenship.

“The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along,” she said.

The procedural ruling is a victory for President Trump and a setback for advocates who seek to block his executive orders.

It prevents a single district judge in Boston or San Francisco from blocking Trump’s policies from taking effect nationwide.

However, it does not decide on the constitutionality of Trump’s plan to limit birthright citizenship.

Three federal district judges—in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington—issued nationwide orders declaring Trump’s plan unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order disagreeing with the traditional understanding and asserting the Constitution does not “extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

He said it would be U.S. policy to not recognize citizenship for newborns if the child’s mother or father was “not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth.”

But in quick succession, judges declared Trump’s order may not be enforced across the nation. They said his proposed restrictions violated the federal law and Supreme Court precedent as well as the plain words of the 14th Amendment.

Rather than challenge those rulings directly, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court with “a modest request.”

Rather than rule on birthright citizenship, they urged the justices to rein in the practice of district judges handing down nationwide orders.

They have “reached epidemic proportions since the start of the current administration,” they said.