Although the Supreme Court, in general, and conservative appellate courts, in particular, have bowed and granted President Trump permission to do pretty much anything he wants, they haven’t thoroughly capitulated to his endless grasping for ever more power. (The way invertebrate congressional Republicans have.)
And it’s not just the fears of a lot of shaggy-thinking liberals.
“The nation is strong as is its commitment to the rule of law,” said one appellate judge, a Republican appointee. “The current president presents the greatest threat in decades.”
The survey was conducted by Bright Line Watch, a nonpartisan academic group that monitors the health and resilience of American democracy, in conjunction with the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA’s School of Law.
Conducted between mid-February and early March, the poll anonymously surveyed 21 federal judges, 113 lawyers, 193 law professors, 652 political scientists and a nationally representative sample of 2,750 Americans.
What leapt out to UCLA’s Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project, was that “across the ideological spectrum and across judges, lawyers and law professors, there was considerable agreement that the rule of law in the U.S. is under tremendous stress.” That consensus, he said, suggests “a real risk to democracy.”
Most legal experts agreed that Trump is using executive power excessively, with a majority doubting the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would handle cases involving the Trump administration impartially. The experts also expressed concern about politicized law enforcement — Trump seeking to persecute his perceived enemies — executive branch overreach, and the failure of Congress or the Supreme Court to do more to rein in the rogue president.
Talk about contempt of court — not to mention our vital system of checks and balances.
There was, unsurprisingly, a split among conservatives and liberals who took part in the survey. (The study defined legal conservatives as those saying the Supreme Court should base rulings on its understanding of what the Constitution meant as originally written. Liberals, who made up most of the respondents, were defined as those saying the court should base its rulings on what the Constitution means in current times.)
There were also differences between legal experts — those most intimately involved in the judicial system — and the public at large. The experts were more concerned about Trump’s excesses and threats to the rule of law, which, Hasen said, stands to reason.
The legal system is not something most people encounter daily in the same way they do, say, gasoline prices or the cost of groceries. “Yet,” Hasen said, “it’s one of these background things that really matters.”
Why?
Hasen put it this way: “Imagine that a person had a dispute with their neighbor and it ended up in small claims court before a judge and the judge made the decision not based on the merits of the case but based on whether he was friends with one of the parties, or didn’t like people who were similar to one of the parties.”
If, for instance, “people know that the government can successfully seek retribution from people who criticize it, people will be less likely to criticize the government,” Hasen said, leaving the country worse off by muzzling those who would hold their elected leaders to account.
Happily — and who couldn’t use a bit of good cheer right about now — all is not lost.
People “can demand that their elected representatives take steps to assure that the rule of law will be followed,” Hasen said, and can insist “that the government [not] play favorites or seek retribution against perceived enemies.”
That’s the power people have, come election time. That’s why voting matters.
There are lots of things riding on the outcome in November, not least the sanctity and integrity of our legal system.
Anna Haugh and Grace Dent made their joint MasterChef debut on Tuesday
MasterChef has returned for series 22(Image: BBC)
A fresh series of MasterChef has landed on the BBC with a new hosting duo.
Series 22 sees celebrated chef Anna Haugh and restaurant critic Grace Dent take over from Gregg Wallace and John Torode as judges. The pair will test 48 of the country’s best amateur cooks with an array of spectacular challenges.
The first heat of this year’s competition aired on Tuesday (April 21), with six talented cooks from all walks of life heading into the kitchen to battle it out for a coveted MasterChef apron.
They include digital portfolio manager Rosdip, 33, construction project company director Brendan, 57, tech programme manager Jhané, 29, environmental consultant Sabina, 49, accounts assistant Samantha, 39, and IT manager Matt, 41.
Just moments into the episode, viewers were left divided as Anna and Grace made their joint debut. Some fans were frustrated with the pair’s facial expressions, with one person writing on X (formerly Twitter): “I’m assuming it must be in the contract that judges/presenters on MasterChef must express shocked/surprised faces at every opportunity possible! Gregg and John did it for years and it looks like it’s continuing!”
Another added: “Someone tell Anna that she doesn’t have to replicate Gregg’s surprised face every time a contestant tells her what they are going to be cooking,” while a third said: “I can’t watch #MasterChef any longer. [Anna] and her daft facial expressions.”
A fourth fan echoed the sentiment: “Why do those two presenters keep making such stupid faces?”
Meanwhile, other viewers were delighted with Anna and Grace’s debut, with one person writing: “Loving the two ladies, Grace and Anna running the MasterChef kitchen.”
Another added: “Love Anna and Grace in this series,” while a third said: “Absolutely love Anna.” A fourth fan commented: “Loving Grace and Anna on #MasterChef.”
During the episode, Anna and Grace put their trust in the amateur’s taste buds as they introduced the Signature Dish round, which saw the contestants make their favourite dish from home.
The cooks who made the best two dishes, Rosdip and Jhané, were immediately rewarded with a MasterChef apron, while the other four fought it out for the last two aprons in the Classic Recipe Test.
The amateurs were each given the same recipe for one of Anna’s favourite brunch dishes, which put core cookery skills to the test.
The successful group of cooks, along with their newly-earned aprons, had one more hurdle to jump to secure their quarter-final place.
Anna and Grace invited last year’s final three – champion Harry Maguire and finalists Claire Syrenne and Sophie Sugrue – to sample the food on offer.
They tasted two courses from each of the cooks, before Anna and Grace revealed the three contestants who would be going through to the quarter-finals.
MasterChef season 22 is available to stream on BBC iPlayer
Federal immigration officials had once again flouted his authority by keeping a man locked up in a California City detention center after Nunley ordered him released. When he was finally set free, the man was booted onto the street with no passport, driver’s license or other personal effects. The judge’s demand that the items be returned were met with silence.
And so on Tuesday, Nunley, the chief judge of the Eastern District of California, slapped Department of Justice attorney Jonathan Yu with an official sanction and a $250 fine.
In a scathing order, Nunley laid out why he was compelled to take such a rare step. The fine may have been less than some traffic tickets, but it’s nearly unheard for a judge to formally admonish a government lawyer.
By Yu’s own admission, he was drowning in work. In his order, Nunley recounted the attorney’s claim he’d been assigned more than 300 nearly identical cases in the last three months, all of immigrants in detention who argued they were being held without cause.
Court filings show many California cases involve longtime U.S. residents unexpectedly hauled off to jail after routine check-ins with immigration officials. One was an Afghan who’d helped the American war effort. Another a Cambodian grandmother of eight who fled Pol Pot’s killing fields as a girl nearly 50 years ago.
Until last year, most would have fought deportation on bond after a brief hearing with an immigration judge. Now, their only hope of release is to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus — a legal maneuver once typically reserved for death row inmates and suspected terrorists — inundating the country’s busiest federal courts with thousands of emergency suits.
The Trump administration attorney said he was trying to “triage” the situation, but Nunley found he repeatedly failed to comply, leaving people with the right to walk free stuck behind bars.
“The Court is not persuaded,” he wrote, issuing the sanctions.
The order came days after Nunley took the unusual step of announcing a “judicial emergency” in the district, which covers nearly half of California, stretching from the Oregon border to the Mojave Desert in the inland part of the state, including Fresno, Bakersfield and Sacramento.
In the last year, the Eastern District has received more petitions from immigration detainees than almost any other jurisdiction in the United States: More than 2,700 since January, compared to fewer than 500 last year and just 18 in 2024. Similar crises are playing out elsewhere, with federal courts in Minnesota briefly paralyzed amid the Trump administration’s enforcement blitz there last winter.
People detained are seen behind fences at an ICE detention facility in Adelanto, California on July 10, 2025.
(Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images)
In an interview with The Times, Nunley said dealing with the surge of activity since last summer has been “like being hit over the head with a bat.”
“We’re up all night doing these cases,” he said.
So far this year, the Eastern District’s six active judges have ordered almost people 2,000 freed.
“The majority of the cases that we see are cases where people should not be detained,” Nunley said. “They should be receiving hearings to determine whether or not they are to remain in this country, and until they receive those hearings, they should be free.”
Since last July, the Department of Homeland Security has ordered that all immigrants it arrests are subject to “mandatory detention” — a policy that had previously only applied to those caught at the border.
The change came four days after President Trump signed a spending bill that earmarked $45 billion to expand the federal network of immigrant lockups.
“This has been a sea change in the way the government has read the law,” said My Khanh Ngo, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Almost every judge who has looked at this has agreed these people should get bond, and yet thousands of people are still sitting in detention.”
Elizabeth Vega, 15, right, and Darlene Rumualdo, 15, from Torres High School join labor organizers, clergy leaders and immigrant rights groups to protest immigration raids nationwide at La Placita Olvera in downtown Los Angeles on January 23, 2026.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Longtime U.S. residents who might once have fought removal from home — where they can more easily gather evidence to support their case and confer with lawyers — are instead being held indefinitely.
Many have no criminal record. Some have been in the U.S. so long that the countries they came from no longer exist.
“People are locked up in the same facilities as people accused of crimes, people who’ve been convicted of crimes … and then you’re telling people, you have no shot of getting out,” Ngo said. “Detaining people and not giving them the chance to get out of detention is a way of coercing people to give up their claims.”
The habeas process can take weeks or months depending on the judge and the district.
“When the immigration cases dropped on our district, we got hit harder than any other outside West Texas,” Nunley said. “Initially we had more cases than anyone else.”
Today, data compiled by ProPublica and legal activist groups including the Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative show almost a quarter of the roughly 30,000 active habeas petitions in the United States are in California courts. Nunley’s own tabulations show half the California cases are in his district, where a perfect storm of stepped-up enforcement, a large population of immigrant workers and a concentration of detention centers produced a flash flood of habeas petitions.
The cases rely on the Constitution’s guarantee of due process before being deprived of life, liberty or property. But according to court filings, in some instances the government has argued “the Fifth Amendment does not apply” to detained immigrants.
DOJ lawyers responding to the bids for freedom now regularly complain they’re being crushed under paperwork.
Judges accustomed to having government lawyers comply with their orders have been left fuming.
In California’s Central District, which includes L.A. and surrounding areas, Judge Sunshine Sykes wrote a fiery decision earlier this year that said the Trump administration is inflicting “terror against noncitizens.”
Sykes is one of several federal judges across the country that have tried to compel the government to resume bond hearings. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that decision in March, leaving the habeas system in place for now. But with challenges or recent decisions across multiple circuits, experts say the fight is fated for the Supreme Court.
“ICE has the law and the facts on its side, and it adheres to all court decisions until it ultimately gets them shot down by the highest court in the land,” a Homeland Security spokesperson said in an email to The Times.
A woman holds a “ICE not welcome here!” sign at a vigil in San Pedro in January.
(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
The lawyers fighting to free those jailed under the Trump administration’s mandatory detention policy say they were not initially equipped for these legal battles because they used to be exceedingly rare.
Most federal judges had only seen a handful of habeas petitions before last summer — then suddenly they had hundreds of requests for urgent relief, according to Jean Reisz, co-director of the USC Immigration Clinic.
Reisz said there are efforts to get pro bono law groups trained on how to effectively argue habeas cases, “but it takes a while to get up to speed.”
A federal agent asks residents to move back after a shooting during an immigration enforcement operation in Willowbrook on January 21, 2026.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
At the same time, Reisz said, lawyers are pushing judges who oversee the cases to act swiftly, since interminable procedural delays ensure people remain incarcerated.
“Most of the habeas petitions include a motion for temporary restraining orders, and that requires emergency decisions from the courts, which requires the courts to act very fast,” Reisz said.
In California’s federal district courts, the backlog remains thousands deep. Nunley said the system is struggling to keep up with the crush of cases.
“There’s nothing that says that noncitizens should not be entitled to due process,” Nunley said. “These are our people, they reside in our district. They’re entitled to the same due process that you and I are entitled to.”
Professional pickpocket Lee Thompson left Amanda Holden open-mouthed when he admitted his real age on stage
Samantha King Content Editor
22:15, 18 Apr 2026
The judging panel couldn’t believe how old he actually was(Image: ITV)
A skilled pickpocket who appeared on Britain’s Got Talent tonight (April 18) left the judging panel gobsmacked within moments of stepping onto the stage.
Lee Thompson, from Birmingham, delivered a slick routine in which he repeatedly lifted Ant and Dec’s phones, glasses and room keys without them having the faintest idea.
He was also shown secretly planting wristwatches in the bags and pockets of audience members after posing as a security guard in a pre-recorded segment — and even managed to pull one over on the judging panel backstage, Simon Cowell included.
Yet it wasn’t his nimble fingers that first left the panel speechless — it was his age. Within moments of stepping out on stage, he had Amanda Holden in particular utterly open-mouthed.
“You look very dapper,” Amanda began as the performer first walked out. He swiftly fired back: “Oh! Do I look my age?”, reports Wales Online.
“I don’t know, how old are you babes?” the judge quipped, prompting Lee to reveal: “I’m touching 60.”
The admission left Amanda visibly stunned as she shot back with a “You’re not! Are you?” in sheer disbelief. Simon, clearly equally impressed, then weighed in with: “You look good.”
Following that exchange, he went on to wow the entire panel with his act, earning himself the title of the “modern-day Artful Dodger” from Amanda.
Remarkably, Lee was actually employed as a Pickpocket Consultant on Guy Ritchie’s Young Sherlock series on Prime Video, which follows a young Sherlock Holmes as he finds himself trying his hand at pickpocketing after being inspired by the story of Oliver Twist.
Viewers at home were equally taken with the performer, with one writing: “This is genuinely amazing. Even if he might be incriminating himself.” A second enthused: “That was clever, funny and amazing….good job.”
While Lee breezed through to the next round with four yes votes from the judging panel, some viewers questioned why he wasn’t awarded the prized Golden Buzzer, which grants an act a direct pass through to the live final.
Fans were outraged this evening after KSI awarded his Golden Buzzer to a contentious act. Comedy performer Mr Cherry, 44, kicked off his routine by opening a jar of pickles before subsequently uncorking wine bottles with his buttocks.
“Ladies and Gentlemen, I don’t know about you but that was the greatest thing I have ever seen,” KSI declared, as disgruntled viewers swiftly branded his choice the “worst Golden Buzzer” act ever put through on the programme.
Britain’s Got Talent airs Saturday nights from 7pm on ITV1 and ITVX. All episodes can be streamed on ITVX after broadcast.
