justice

George Retes Jr. grew up in Southern California, and when he turned 18, he decided to serve in the U.S. Army, he said, because he wanted to be part of something bigger than himself.

After a tour of duty in Iraq, Retes moved back to Ventura County this year to find a job and spend more time with his wife and two young children. In February, he began working as a contracted security guard for Glass House Farms at its cannabis greenhouses in Camarillo. Then, on July 10, everything changed as ICE raided Glass House — one of its largest immigration raids ever — while he was trying to get to work.

Federal officers surrounded Retes and pushed him to the ground. He could hardly breathe, he said, as officers knelt on his back and neck. He was arrested, jailed for three days and was not allowed to make a phone call or see an attorney, according to the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm that is representing him.

President Trump’s Department of Homeland Security never charged Retes with a crime. But after he wrote an op-ed about his experience this month, DHS started issuing new accusations against him — saying he was arrested for assault during the raid, which the 25-year-old veteran has denied. Retes said he never resisted, and now is being targeted for retaliation because he spoke out about an arrest he sees as unlawful.

“My whole point in sharing my story, I’m trying to warn as many people as possible,” he said in an interview this week. “It doesn’t matter if you’re [politically] left, right, if you voted for Trump, hate him, love him, it doesn’t matter. This affects all of us.”

On July 10, Retes was headed to work around 2 p.m., and the narrow road leading to the farm was logjammed, he said. He weaved his compact white Hyundai forward, past parked cars and protesters, determined to make it to his shift.

He stopped short when he came upon a line of federal officers who blocked his path to the farm. Retes, 25, wearing shorts and a hoodie, got out of his car and tried to tell the federal agents that he worked at the farm.

Agents ignored him, he said, and instead told him to get out of the way. So he got back in his car, and as he tried to back up, agents began lobbing tear gas canisters toward the crowd to disperse them. Retes began hacking and coughing as the gas seeped into his car and federal officers began pounding on his car door. He said they gave him instructions to move that were contradictory.

The agents smashed his car window, pepper sprayed him, pulled him out of the car and arrested him, he said. He was handcuffed, and after his three days in jail, he was released without any explanation.

In his Sept. 16 opinion piece for the San Francisco Chronicle — entitled “I’m a U.S. citizen who was wrongly arrested and held by ICE. Here’s why you could be next” — Retes detailed his ordeal. He has begun to take legal action to sue the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. More than 360 people were arrested in the raid, including numerous undocumented immigrants, and one person died.

“I served my country. I wore the uniform, I stood watch, and I believe in the values we say make us different. And yet here, on our own soil, I was wrongfully detained,” he wrote. “Stripped of my rights, treated like I didn’t belong and locked away — all as an American citizen and a veteran … if it can happen to me, it can happen to any one of us.”

Homeland Security officials did not respond to a request for comment or answer questions about their claim of assault.

Previously, an unnamed spokesperson for Homeland Security said he was released without a charge, and his case was being reviewed, along with others, “for potential federal charges related to the execution of the federal search warrant in Camarillo.”

A day after Retes’ opinion piece was published, the agency said Retes “became violent and refused to comply with law enforcement. He challenged agents and blocked their route by refusing to move his vehicle out of the road. CBP arrested Retes for assault.”

The agency denied that U.S. citizens were being wrongfully arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The post stated that operations were “highly targeted.”

“This kind of garbage has led to a more than 1000% increase in the assaults on enforcement officers,” the agency said.

Retes said he was astounded to learn the agency’s latest claims about July 10 — moments that were captured on video. He says DHS officials are lying.

“I was in shock,” he said. The agency had “an opportunity to say ‘OK, what we did was wrong, we’ll take responsibility.’ … It’s crazy that they’re willing to stand 10 toes down and die on a hill of lying and say I assaulted officers.”

Anya Bidwell, his attorney and senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, said it is significant that the government chose to respond only after his piece was published.

“When people in this country stand up to this government, this government responds with fury,” Bidwell said. “They’re trying to impose their own version of reality. It’s so important for people like George to say, ‘I know who I am and I know what happened to me, you can’t just frame it as something that it’s not.’”

In an aerial video that captured the initial confrontation, Retes is seen driving up to the line of agents. He steps outside of his car and remains by the driver side as he tries to reason with the agents. About 20 seconds later, he gets back in his car as the agents press forward. Within seconds they surround his car, at the same time pressing protesters back as they begin to lob tear gas canisters.

Inside his car, Retes starts to record on his phone. He’s backing up slowly, at an angle, until tear gas makes difficult to see where he’s going, he said.

“I’m trying to leave!” he says as agents bang on his car. There’s a loud crack as they break his car glass window. “OK I’m sorry!”

The agents pepper-spray him and detain him. One video posted online shows a group of agents surrounding Retes, who is face down on the road. Another agent hops in his car and drives it forward and off to the side of the road.

Retes said one agent knelt on his neck and another on his back. He was taken to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, and he was kept in a cell with a protester who was also arrested. While in jail, he said, he missed his daughter’s third birthday.

After he was released, Retes said he was suspended from his job without pay for two weeks because of the arrest, and when he came back, his regular shifts were no longer available. Staying on would make it difficult to see his family, so he had to leave, he said.

He also had to spend about $1,200 getting his car window fixed and detailed from the tear gas, he said.

Despite the Trump administration’s actions, Retes said his faith in the government and accountability for justice remains steady. Just like when he joined the Army, he said, he still hangs on to a sense of unity to stand up for the country’s values.

“I still believe justice can be restored — that’s why I’m standing up and speaking out,” he said. “I think it’s important now more than ever for us to be unified and standing up for our rights together. Especially when they have the audacity to try to lie, especially to the public.”

The U.S. Justice Department sued California Secretary of State Shirley Weber on Thursday for failing to hand over the state’s voter rolls, alleging she is unlawfully preventing federal authorities from ensuring state compliance with federal voting regulations and safeguarding federal elections against fraud.

The Justice Department also sued Weber’s counterparts in Michigan, Minnesota, New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, who have similarly declined its requests for their states’ voter rolls.

“Clean voter rolls are the foundation of free and fair elections,” Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement on the litigation. “Every state has a responsibility to ensure that voter registration records are accurate, accessible, and secure — states that don’t fulfill that obligation will see this Department of Justice in court.”

In its lawsuit against Weber, who is the state’s top elections official, the Justice Department argues that it is charged — including under the National Voter Registration Act — with ensuring that states have proper protocols for registering voters and maintaining accurate and up-to-date rolls, and therefore is due access to state voter rolls in order to ensure they are so maintained.

“The United States has now been forced to bring the instant action to seek legal remedy for Defendants’ refusal to comply with lawful requests pursuant to federal law,” the lawsuit states.

Weber, in a statement, called the lawsuit “a fishing expedition and pretext for partisan policy objectives,” a “blatant overreach” and “an unprecedented intrusion unsupported by law or any previous practice or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

“The U.S. Department of Justice is attempting to utilize the federal court system to erode the rights of the State of California and its citizens by trying to intimidate California officials into giving up the private and personal information of 23 million California voters,” Weber said.

She said California law requires that state officials “protect our voters’ sensitive private information,” and that the Justice Department not only “failed to provide sufficient legal authority to justify their intrusive demands,” but ignored invitations from the state for federal officials to come to Sacramento and view the data in person — a process Weber said was “contemplated by federal statutes” and would “protect California citizens’ private and personal data from misuse.”

The Justice Department has demanded a “current electronic copy of California’s computerized statewide voter registration list”; lists of “all duplicate registration records in Imperial, Los Angeles, Napa, Nevada, San Bernardino, Siskiyou, and Stanislaus counties”; a “list of all duplicate registrants who were removed from the statewide voter registration list” and the dates of their removals.

It has also demanded a list of all registrations that have been canceled because voters in the state died; an explanation for a recent decline in the recorded number of “inactive” voters in the state; and a list of “all registrations, including date of birth, driver’s license number, and last four digits of Social Security Number, that were cancelled due to non-citizenship of the registrant.”

The litigation is the latest move by the Trump administration to push its demands around voting policies onto individual states, which are broadly tasked under the constitution with managing their own elections.

The lawsuit follows an executive order by Trump in March that purported to radically reshape voting rules nationwide, including by requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship and requiring states to disregard mail ballots that are not received by election day.

The order built on years of unsubstantiated claims by Trump — and refuted by experts — that the U.S. voting system currently allows for rampant fraud and abuse, and that those failures compromised the results of elections, including his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

Various voting rights groups and 19 states, including California, have sued to block the order.

Advocacy groups say the order, and especially it’s requirements for proving citizenship, would disenfranchise legal U.S. citizen voters who lack ready access to identifying documents such as passports and REAL IDs. They have said barring the acceptance of mail ballots received after election day would also create barriers for voters, especially in large state such as California that need time to process large volumes of ballots.

California currently accepts ballots if they are postmarked by election day and received within a certain number of days after.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has called Trump’s executive order an “illegal power grab” that California and other states will “fight like hell” to stop. His office referred questions about the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Weber to Weber’s office.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Assistant U.S. Atty. Gen. Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, defended the need for the lawsuit, saying in a statement that clean voter rolls “protect American citizens from voting fraud and abuse, and restore their confidence that their states’ elections are conducted properly, with integrity, and in compliance with the law.”

Weber, who in April called Trump’s executive order “an illegal attempt to trample on the states and Congress’s constitutional authority over elections,” said Thursday that she would not be bowed by the lawsuit.

“The sensitive data of California citizens should not be used as a political tool to undermine the public trust and integrity of elections,” she said. “I will always stand with Californians to protect states’ rights against federal overreach and our voters’ sensitive personal information. Californians deserve better. America deserves better.”

WASHINGTON — President Trump has harnessed the weight of his office in recent days to accelerate a campaign of retribution against his perceived political enemies and attacks on 1st Amendment protections.

In the last week alone, Trump replaced a U.S. attorney investigating two of his political adversaries with a loyalist and openly directed the attorney general to find charges to file against them.

His Federal Communications Commission chairman hinted at punitive actions against networks whose journalists and comedians run afoul of the president.

Trump filed a $15-billion lawsuit against the New York Times, only to have it thrown out by a judge.

The acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles asked the Secret Service to investigate a social media post by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s press office.

The Pentagon announced it was imposing new restrictions on reporters who cover the U.S. military.

The White House officially labeled “antifa,” a loose affiliation of far-left extremists, as “domestic terrorists” — a designation with no basis in U.S. law — posing a direct challenge to free speech protections. And it said lawmakers concerned with the legal predicate for strikes on boats in the Caribbean should simply get over it.

An active investigation into the president’s border advisor over an alleged bribery scheme involving a $50,000 payout was quashed by the White House itself.

Trump emphasized his partisan-fueled dislike of his political opponents during a Sunday memorial service for conservative activist Charlie Kirk, who he said “did not hate his opponents.”

“That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” Trump said. “I hate my opponents and I don’t want the best for them.”

It has been an extraordinary run of attacks using levers of power that have been seen as sacred arbiters of the public trust for decades, scholars and historians say.

The assault is exclusively targeting Democrats, liberal groups and establishment institutions, just as the administration moves to shield its allies.

Erik Siebert, the U.S. attorney in Virginia, resigned Friday after facing pressure from the Trump administration to bring criminal charges against New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James over alleged mortgage fraud. In a social media post later that day, Trump claimed he had “fired” Siebert.

A few hours later, on Saturday, Trump said he nominated White House aide Lindsey Halligan to take over Siebert’s top prosecutorial role in Virginia, saying she was “tough” and “loyal.”

Later that day, Trump demanded in a social media post addressed to “Pam” — in reference to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi — that she prosecute James, former FBI Director James Comey and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” Trump wrote. “They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump’s remarks, saying Monday that the president is “rightfully frustrated” and that he “wants accountability for these corrupt fraudsters who abuse their power, who abuse their oath of office, to target the former president and then candidate for the highest office in the land.”

“It is not weaponizing the Department of Justice to demand accountability for those who weaponize the Department of Justice, and nobody knows what that looks like more than President Trump,” Leavitt told reporters.

As the president called for prosecution of his political opponents, it was reported that Tom Homan, the White House border advisor, was the subject of an undercover FBI case that was later shut down by Trump administration officials. Homan, according to MSNBC, accepted $50,000 in cash from undercover agents after he indicated to them he could get them government contracts.

At Monday’s news briefing, Leavitt said that Homan did not take the money and that the investigation was “another example of the weaponization of the Biden Department of Justice against one of President Trump’s strongest and most vocal supporters.”

“The White House and the president stand by Tom Homan 100% because he did absolutely nothing wrong,” she said.

Some see the recent actions as an erosion of an expected firewall between the Department of Justice and the White House, as well as a shift in the idea of how criminal investigation should be launched.

“If the Department of Justice and any prosecution entity is functioning properly, then that entity is investigating crimes and not people,” said John Hasnas, a law professor at Georgetown University.

The Trump administration has also begun a military campaign against vessels crossing the Caribbean Sea departing from Venezuela that it says are carrying narcotics and drug traffickers. But the targeted killing of individuals at sea is raising concern among legal scholars that the administration’s operation is extrajudicial, and Democratic lawmakers, including Schiff, have introduced a bill in recent days asserting the ongoing campaign violates the War Powers Resolution.

Political influence has long played a role with federal prosecutors who are political appointees, Hasnas said, but under “the current situation it’s magnified greatly.”

“The interesting thing about the current situation is that the Trump administration is not even trying to hide it,” he said.

Schiff said he sees it as an effort to “try to silence and intimidate.” In July, Trump accused Schiff — who led the first impeachment inquiry into Trump — of committing mortgage fraud, which Schiff has denied.

“What he wants to try to do is not just go after me and Letitia James or Lisa Cook, but rather send a message that anyone who stands up to him on anything, anyone who has the audacity to call out his corruption will be a target, and they will go after you,” Schiff said in an interview Sunday.

Trump campaigned in part on protecting free speech, especially that of conservatives, who he claimed had been broadly censored by the Biden administration and “woke” leftist culture in the U.S. Many of his most ardent supporters — including billionaire Elon Musk and now-Vice President JD Vance — praised Trump as a champion of free speech.

However, since Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly sought to silence his critics, including in the media, and crack down on speech that does not align with his politics.

And in the wake of Kirk’s killing on Sept. 10, those efforts have escalated into an unprecedented attack on free speech and expression, according to constitutional scholars and media experts.

“The administration is showing a stunning ignorance and disregard of the 1st Amendment,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School.

“We are at an unprecedented place in American history in terms of the targeting of free press and the exercise of free speech,” said Ken Paulson, former editor in chief of USA Today and now director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University.

“We’ve had periods in American history like the Red Scare, in which Americans were to turn in neighbors who they thought leaned left, but this is a nonstop, multifaceted, multiplatform attack on all of our free speech rights,” Paulson said. “I’m actually quite stunned at the velocity of this and the boldness of it.”

Bondi recently railed against “hate speech” — which the Supreme Court has previously defended — in an online post, suggesting the Justice Department will investigate those who speak out against conservatives.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr threatened ABC and its parent company, Disney, with repercussions if they did not yank Jimmy Kimmel off the air after Kimmel made comments about Kirk’s alleged killer that Carr found distasteful. ABC swiftly suspended Kimmel’s show, though Disney announced Monday that it would return Tuesday.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, said it will require news organizations to agree not to disclose any information the government has not approved for release and revoke the press credentials of those who publish sensitive material without approval.

Critics of the administration, free speech organizations and even some conservative pundits who have long criticized the “cancel culture” of the progressive left have spoken out against some of those policies. Scholars have too, saying the amalgam of actions by the administration represent a dangerous departure from U.S. law and tradition.

“What unites all of this is how blatantly inconsistent it is with the 1st Amendment,” Chemerinsky said.

Chemerinsky said lower courts have consistently pushed back against the administration’s overreaches when it comes to protected speech, and he expects they will continue to do so.

He also said that, although the Supreme Court has frequently sided with the president in disputes over his policy decisions, it has also consistently defended freedom of speech, and he hopes it will continue to do so if some of the free speech policies above reach the high court.

“If there’s anything this court has said repeatedly, it’s that the government can’t prevent or stop speech based on the viewpoint expressed,” Chemerinsky said.

Paulson said that American media companies must refuse to obey and continue to cover the Trump administration and the Pentagon as aggressively as ever, and that average Americans must recognize the severity of the threat posed by such censorship and speak out against it, no matter their political persuasion.

“This is real — a full-throttle assault on free speech in America,” Paulson said. “And it’s going to be up to the citizenry to do something about it.”

Chemerinsky said defending free speech should be an issue that unites all Americans, not least because political power changes hands.

“It’s understandable that those in power want to silence the speech that they don’t like, but the whole point of the 1st Amendment is to protect speech we don’t like,” he said. “We don’t need the 1st Amendment to protect the speech we like.”

Eight months into his second term, President Trump’s long-standing pledge to take on those he perceives as his political enemies has prompted debates over free speech, media censorship and political prosecutions.

Trump has escalated moves to consolidate power in his second administration and target those who have spoken out against him, including the suspension of late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s show, Pentagon restrictions on reporters and an apparent public appeal to Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to pursue legal cases against his adversaries.

In a post on social media over the weekend addressed to Bondi, Trump said that “nothing is being done” on investigations into some of his foes.

“We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility,” he said. Referencing his impeachment and criminal indictments, he said, “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!”

Criticizing investigations into Trump’s dealings under Democratic President Biden’s Justice Department, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Sunday that “it is not right for the Trump administration to do the same thing.”

Directive to Bondi

Trump has ratcheted up his discussion of pursuing legal cases against some of his political opponents, part of a vow for retribution that has been a theme of his return to the White House. He publicly pressed Bondi over the weekend to move forward with such investigations.

Trump posted somewhat of an open letter on social media Saturday to his top prosecutor to advance such inquiries, including a mortgage fraud investigation of New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James and a possible case against former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump accuses of threatening him.

The president posted that he had “reviewed over 30 statements and posts” that he characterized as criticizing his administration for a lack of action on investigations.

“We have to act fast — one way or the other,” Trump told reporters later that night at the White House. “They’re guilty, they’re not guilty — we have to act fast. If they’re not guilty, that’s fine. If they are guilty or if they should be charged, they should be charged. And we have to do it now.”

Trump later wrote in a follow-up post that Bondi was “doing a GREAT job.”

Paul, a frequent Trump foil from the right, was asked during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” about the propriety of a president directing his attorney general to investigate political opponents. The senator decried “lawfare in all forms.”

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said it was “unconstitutional and deeply immoral for the president to jail or to silence his political enemies.” He warned that it could set a worrisome precedent for both parties.

“It will come back and boomerang on conservatives and Republicans at some point if this becomes the norm,” Murphy said on ABC’s “This Week.”

The Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Trump is turning the Justice Department “into an instrument that goes after his enemies, whether they’re guilty or not, and most of them are not guilty at all, and that helps his friends. This is the path to a dictatorship. That’s what dictatorships do.”

The Justice Department did not respond Sunday to a message seeking comment.

Letitia James investigation

Each new president nominates his own U.S. attorneys in jurisdictions across the country. Trump has already worked to install people close to him in some of those jobs, including former Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in the District of Columbia and Alina Habba, his former attorney, in New Jersey.

Trump has largely stocked his second administration with loyalists, continuing Saturday with the nomination of a White House aide as top federal prosecutor for the office investigating James, a longtime foe of Trump.

The president announced Lindsey Halligan to be the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia on Saturday, just a day after Erik Siebert resigned from the post and Trump said he wanted him “out.”

Trump said he was bothered that Siebert had been supported by the state’s two Democratic senators.

“There are just two standards of justice now in this country. If you are a friend of the president, a loyalist of the president, you can get away with nearly anything, including beating the hell out of police officers,” Murphy said, mentioning those convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot and insurrection at the U.S. Capitol pardoned by Trump as he returned to office. “But if you are an opponent of the president, you may find yourself in jail.”

New restrictions on Pentagon reporters

Trump has styled himself as an opponent of censorship, pledging in his January inaugural address to “bring free speech back to America” and signing an executive order that no federal officer, employee or agent may unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.

Under a 17-page memo distributed Friday, the Pentagon stepped up restrictions on the media, saying it will require credentialed journalists to sign a pledge to refrain from reporting information that has not been authorized for release, including unclassified information. Journalists who don’t abide by the policy risk losing credentials that provide access to the Pentagon.

Asked Sunday whether the Pentagon should play a role in determining what journalists can report, Trump said, “No, I don’t think so.”

“Nothing stops reporters. You know that,” Trump told reporters as he left the White House for slain activist Charlie Kirk’s memorial service.

Trump has sued numerous media organizations over negative coverage, with several settling with the president for millions of dollars. A federal judge in Florida tossed out Trump’s $15-billion defamation lawsuit against the New York Times on Friday.

Jimmy Kimmel ouster and FCC warning

Perhaps the most headline-grabbing situation involves ABC’s indefinite suspension Wednesday of veteran comic Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show. What Kimmel said about Kirk’s killing had led a group of ABC-affiliated stations to say it would not air the show and provoked some ominous comments from a top federal regulator.

Trump celebrated on his social media site: “Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done.”

Earlier in the day, the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, who has launched investigations of outlets that have angered Trump, said Kimmel’s comments were “truly sick” and that his agency has a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading misinformation.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said. “These companies can find ways to take action on Kimmel or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that Kimmel’s ouster wasn’t a chilling of free speech but a corporate decision.

“I really don’t believe ABC would have decided to fire Jimmy Kimmel over a threat,” he said Sunday on CNN. “ABC has been a long-standing critic of President Trump. They did it because they felt like it didn’t meet their brand anymore.”

Not all Republicans have applauded the move. On his podcast Friday, GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a former Trump foe turned staunch ally, called it “unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.”

Trump called Carr “a great American patriot” and said Friday that he disagreed with Cruz.

Kinnard writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily kept in place the Trump administration’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid.

Roberts acted on the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in a case involving billions of dollars in congressionally approved aid. President Trump said last month that he would not spend the money, invoking disputed authority that was last used by a president roughly 50 years ago.

The high court order is temporary, though it suggests the justices will reverse a lower court ruling that withholding the funding was probably illegal. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled last week that Congress would have to approve the decision to withhold the funding.

Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) in a letter Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without going through the legislative branch.

He used what’s known as a pocket rescission. That’s when a president submits a request to Congress toward the end of a current budget year to not spend the approved money. The late notice means Congress cannot act on the request in the required 45-day window and the money goes unspent.

The Trump administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid one of its hallmark policies, despite the relatively meager savings relative to the deficit and the possible damage to America’s reputation abroad as foreign populations lose access to food supplies and development programs. The administration turned to the high court after a panel of federal appellate judges declined to block Ali’s ruling.

Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge last month that an additional $6.5 billion in aid that had been subject to the freeze would be spent before the end of the fiscal year Sept. 30.

The case has been winding its way through the courts for months, and Ali said he understood that his ruling would not be the last word on the matter.

“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.

In August, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out an earlier injunction Ali had issued to require that the money be spent. But the three-judge panel did not shut down the lawsuit.

After Trump issued his rescission notice, the plaintiffs returned to Ali’s court and the judge issued the order that’s now being challenged.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Three days after President Trump publicly accused Sen. Adam Schiff of committing mortgage fraud, an attorney for Schiff wrote privately to the Department of Justice that there was “no factual basis” for the claims — but “ample basis” to launch an investigation into Bill Pulte, the Trump administration official digging into the mortgage records of the president’s most prominent political opponents.

“We are disturbed by the highly irregular, partisan process that led to these baseless accusations; the purposeful, coordinated public disclosure of these materials containing confidential personal information, without regard to the security risks posed to the Senator and his family; and Mr. Pulte’s role in this sordid effort,” attorney Preet Bharara wrote in the July 18 letter reviewed by The Times.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, where Pulte serves as director, did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

A Justice Department spokesperson said Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi has directed Ed Martin — a Trump loyalist and director of the department’s “Weaponization Working Group” — to “commence a probe” into criminal referrals from the housing agency, and Martin “will make public statements regarding the matter when appropriate.”

Trump previously nominated Martin — a Missouri lawyer and conservative activist with no prosecutorial experience — to serve as the U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C. However, Schiff, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placed a hold on Martin’s nomination, and it was ultimately withdrawn amid a lack of support from Republican senators.

Bharara outlined several reasons why he believed the president’s allegations against Schiff are without merit, and attached a copy of a letter from Schiff to the mortgage lender on his home near Washington, D.C, that Bharara said proved Schiff had been “completely transparent” about listing both that home and a unit in his home district in Burbank as primary residences in mortgage documents.

Schiff’s simultaneous designation of two different homes as primary residences was the basis for Trump’s allegations and for Pulte’s referral of the matter to the Justice Department for criminal review.

Bharara blasted Pulte as “a Presidential appointee who seems to have made it his mission to misuse the power of his office to manufacture allegations of criminal conduct against the President’s perceived political adversaries,” and advised top Justice Department officials to not become complicit in such a politically motivated campaign.

“You should decline Mr. Pulte’s invitation to join his retaliatory harassment of Senator Schiff,” Bharara wrote to Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Instead, Mr. Pulte’s misuse of his position should be investigated by a nonpartisan Inspector General to determine whether Mr. Pulte’s conduct should be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal investigation.”

Democrats have questioned the legality of Pulte’s probes into several of Trump’s political opponents, including Schiff, who led a House impeachment of Trump; New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James, who has led investigations into and lawsuits against the president; and Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve governor who has voted to maintain federal interest rates rather than reduce them as Trump has demanded.

Pulte has lodged different allegations against each, but at their core is the claim that they all misrepresented facts in mortgage documents to secure favorable tax or loan terms, including by listing more than one home as their primary residence at the same time.

Trump cited the claims against Cook as reason to remove her from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, which she is challenging in court. Critics have condemned the move as a partisan attack designed to allow Trump to wrest control of the economy away from the independent Federal Reserve.

Pulte has downplayed or ignored reporting by ProPublica that several of Trump’s own Cabinet members have made similar housing claims in mortgage and other financial paperwork, and reporting by Reuters that Pulte’s father and stepmother have done so as well. Additional Reuters reporting on eight years of court data found that the federal government has only rarely brought criminal charges over misstatements about primary residence in mortgage records.

With Schiff, who is a former prosecutor, Trump alleged that he intentionally misled lenders about his primary residence being in Potomac, Md., rather than in California, in order to “get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America.” Trump cited an investigation by the Fannie Mae “Financial Crimes Division” as his source.

California Sen. Adam Schiff’s lawyer wrote a letter to the Department of Justice saying there was “no factual basis” for President Trump’s accusations that Schiff had committed mortgage fraud.

(Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

A memorandum from Fannie Mae investigators to Pulte, previously reported by The Times, noted that investigators had been asked by the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general’s office for loan files and “any related investigative or quality control documentation” for Schiff’s homes.

Investigators said they had concluded that Schiff and his wife “engaged in a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on their home loans between 2009 and 2020 by simultaneously identifying both the Potomac home and the Burbank unit as their primary residence. The investigators didn’t say they had concluded a crime had been committed.

Schiff has publicly dismissed Trump’s allegations as baseless, accusing the president of making mortgage fraud claims “his weapon of choice to attack people standing in his way and people standing up to him, like me.” Bharara’s letter outlined his defense in more detail.

Part of that defense was the letter Bharara said Schiff sent to his lender on his Maryland home, Quicken Loans, a copy of which was provided to the Justice Department and reviewed by The Times.

In that letter, which he sent during a 2010 refinancing, Schiff wrote that while California was his “principal legal residence” and where he paid taxes, he had been informed both by counsel for the lender and for the House Administration Committee that the Maryland home “may be considered a primary residence for insurance underwriting purposes” because members of his family lived in it for most of the year.

Bharara called the letter a “transparent disclosure” and “the antithesis of ‘mortgage misrepresentation.’”

Schiff has previously said that neither of the homes were vacation or investment properties and were classified correctly, both in accordance with how they were used by his family and in consultation with House attorneys and his lenders.

Another part of Schiff’s defense, Bharara wrote, was that even if he had committed fraud by making false statements in his mortgage filings — which Bharara said he did not — the 10-year statute of limitations for charging him has lapsed, as the “most recent mortgage application that Mr. Pulte even accuses of inaccuracy is more than twelve years old.”

Bharara also laid out several reasons why he felt that Pulte’s actions deserve to be investigated.

Bharara asserted that the Federal Housing Finance Agency inspector general appeared to have asked the Fannie Mae Financial Crimes Investigation Unit to delve into Schiff’s mortgage records “at Mr. Pulte’s behest,” and that Pulte personally referred the matter to the Justice Department in May, before the Fannie Mae unit had even provided him with its findings.

He also wrote that the criminal referral was made public “as the President sought to distract from criticism related to [convicted sex offender] Jeffery Epstein.”

Schiff’s address was published as a result, which Bharara said presented a threat to the senator and forced him to take “extra security precautions.” Schiff also has launched a legal defense fund to help him defend himself against the president’s accusations.

Bharara, a former U.S. attorney in New York, described Pulte’s actions as “highly irregular,” and part of a “pattern” of him “misusing his office” to go after Trump’s political opponents.

“Opening an investigation on these deficient facts, after this much time has passed, after such an irregular and suspect process, and when the President has repeatedly expressed his longtime desire to investigate and imprison Senator Schiff, would be a deeply partisan and unjust act, unworthy of the Department of Justice,” Bharara wrote. “Instead, it is Mr. Pulte’s conduct that should be investigated.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court granted an unusually quick hearing on President Trump’s sweeping tariffs on Tuesday, putting a policy at the center of his economic agenda squarely before the nation’s highest court.

The tariffs will remain in place in the lead-up to arguments set for November, a lightning-fast timetable by the Supreme Court’s typical standards.

The court agreed to take up an appeal from the Trump administration after lower courts found most of his tariffs illegal.

The small businesses and states that challenged them also agreed to the accelerated timetable. They say Trump’s import taxes on goods from nearly every country in the world have nearly driven their businesses to bankruptcy.

Two lower courts have agreed that Trump didn’t have the power to impose tariffs on nearly every country on earth under an emergency powers law, though a 7-4 appeals court has left them in place for now.

The Trump administration asked the justices to intervene quickly, arguing the law gives him the power to regulate imports and striking down the tariffs would put the country on “the brink of economic catastrophe.”

The case will come before a court that has been reluctant to check Trump’s extraordinary flex of executive power. One big question is whether the justices’ own expansive view of presidential authority allows for Trump’s tariffs without the explicit approval of Congress, which the Constitution endows with the power to levy tariffs. Three of the justices on the conservative-majority court were nominated by Trump in his first term.

While the tariffs and their erratic rollout have raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth, Trump has also used them to pressure other countries into accepting new trade deals. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by late August, more than double what it was at the same point a year earlier.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer has argued that the lower court rulings are already affecting those trade negotiations. If the tariffs are struck down, the U.S. Treasury might take a hit by having to refund some of the import taxes it’s collected, Trump administration officials have said. A ruling against them could even the nation’s ability to reduce the flow of fentanyl and efforts to end Russia’s war against Ukraine, Sauer argued.

The administration did win over four appeals court judges who found the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act lets the president regulate importation during emergencies without explicit limitations. In recent decades, Congress has ceded some tariff authority to the president and Trump has made the most of the power vacuum.

The case involves two sets of import taxes, both of which Trump justified by declaring a national emergency: the tariffs first announced in April and the ones from February on imports from Canada, China and Mexico.

It doesn’t include his levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos, or the tariffs Trump imposed on China in his first term that were kept by Democratic President Biden.

Trump can impose tariffs under other laws, but those have more limitations on the speed and severity with which he could act.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday for the Trump administration and agreed U.S. immigration agents may stop and detain anyone they suspect is in the U.S. illegally based on little more than their working at a car wash, speaking Spanish or having brown skin.

In a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal and lifted a Los Angeles judge’s order that barred “roving patrols” from snatching people off Southern California streets based on how they look, what language they speak, what work they do or where they happen to be.

The decision is a significant victory for President Trump, clearing the way for his oft-promised “largest Mass Deportation Operation” in American history.

The court’s conservatives issued a brief, unsigned order that freezes the district judge’s restraining order indefinitely and frees immigration agents from it. As a practical matter, it gives immigration agents broad authority to stop people who they think may be here illegally.

Although Monday’s order is not a final ruling, it strongly signals the Supreme Court will not uphold strict limits on the authority of immigration agents to stop people for questioning.

The Supreme Court has been sharply criticized in recent weeks for handing down orders with no explanation. Perhaps for that reason, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote a 10-page opinion to explain the decision.

He said federal law says “immigration officers ‘may briefly detain’ an individual ‘for questioning’ if they have ‘a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts, that the person being questioned … is an alien illegally in the United States.’”

He said such stops are reasonable and legal based on the “totality of the circumstances. Here, those circumstances include: that there is an extremely high number and percentage of illegal immigrants in the Los Angeles area; that those individuals tend to gather in certain locations to seek daily work; that those individuals often work in certain kinds of jobs, such as day labor, landscaping, agriculture, and construction, that do not require paperwork and are therefore especially attractive to illegal immigrants; and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English.”

Those were exactly the factors that the district judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said agents may not use as a basis for stopping someone for questioning.

The three liberal justices dissented.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.”

“The Government … has all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction,” she wrote.

Sotomayor also disagreed with Kavanaugh’s assertions.

“Immigration agents are not conducting ‘brief stops for questioning,’ as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” she wrote. “Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.”

In response, Kavanaugh said he agreed agents may not use “excessive force” in making stops or arrests. But the judge’s order dealt only with the legal grounds for making stops, he said.

Kavanaugh stressed the court has a limited role when it comes to immigration enforcement.

“The Judiciary does not set immigration policy or decide enforcement priorities. It should come as no surprise that some Administrations may be more laissez-faire in enforcing immigration law, and other Administrations more strict,” he wrote.

He noted the court had ruled for the Biden administration and against Texas, which had sought stricter enforcement against those who crossed the border or had a criminal record.

The case decided Monday began in early June when Trump appointees targeted Los Angeles with aggressive street sweeps that ensnared longtime residents, legal immigrants and even U.S. citizens.

A coalition of civil rights groups and local attorneys challenged the cases of three immigrants and two U.S. citizens caught up in the chaotic arrests, claiming they had been grabbed without reasonable suspicion — a violation of the 4th Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lead plaintiffs — Pedro Vasquez Perdomo and two other Pasadena residents — were arrested at a bus stop when they were waiting to be picked up for a job.

On July 11, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order barring stops based solely on race or ethnicity, language, location or employment, either alone or in combination.

On July 28, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed.

The case remains in its early phases, with hearings set for a preliminary injunction this month. But the Department of Justice argued even a brief limit on mass arrests constituted a “irreparable injury” to the government.

A few days later, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to set aside Frimpong’s order. They said agents should be allowed to act on the assumption that Spanish-speaking Latinos who work as day laborers, at car washes or in landscaping and agriculture are likely to lack legal status.

“Reasonable suspicion is a low bar — well below probable cause,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal. Agents can consider “the totality of the circumstances” when making stops, he said, including that “illegal presence is widespread in the Central District [of California], where 1 in every 10 people is an illegal alien.”

Both sides said the region’s diverse demographics support their view of the law. In an application to join the suit, Los Angeles and 20 other Southern California municipalities argued that “half the population of the Central District” now meet the government’s criteria for reasonable suspicion.

Roughly 10 million Latinos live in the seven counties covered by the order, and almost as many speak a language other than English at home.

Sauer also questioned whether the plaintiffs who sued had standing because they were unlikely to be arrested again. That argument was the subject of sharp and extended questioning in the 9th Circuit, where a three-judge panel ultimately rejected it.

“Agents have conducted many stops in the Los Angeles area within a matter of weeks, not years, some repeatedly in the same location,” the panel wrote in its July 28 opinion denying the stay.

One plaintiff was stopped twice in the span of 10 days, evidence of a “real and immediate threat” that he or any of the others could be stopped again, the 9th Circuit said.

Days after that decision, heavily armed Border Patrol agents sprang from the back of a Penske movers truck, snatching workers from the parking lot of a Westlake Home Depot in apparent defiance of the courts.

Immigrants rights advocates had urged the justices to not intervene.

“The raids have followed an unconstitutional pattern that officials have vowed to continue,” they said. Ruling for Trump would authorize “an extraordinarily expansive dragnet, placing millions of law-abiding people at imminent risk of detention by federal agents.”

The judge’s order had applied in an area that included Los Angeles and Orange counties as well as Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

“Every Latino should be concerned, every immigrant should be concerned, every person should be concerned,” Alfonso Barragan, a 62-year-old U.S. citizen, said Monday on his way into one of the L.A. Home Depots repeatedly hit by the controversial sweeps. “They’re allowing the [federal immigration agents] to break the law.”

Savage reported from Washington and Sharp from Los Angeles. Times staff writer Ruben Vives in Los Angeles contributed to this report.

California’s top law enforcement official has weighed in on Monday‘s controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling on immigration enforcement.

Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta condemned the decision, which clears the way for immigration agents to stop and question people they suspect of being in the U.S. illegally based solely on information such as their perceived race or place of employment.

Speaking at a news conference Monday in downtown L.A., Bonta said he agreed with claims the ACLU made in its lawsuit against the Trump administration. He called indiscriminate tactics used to make immigration arrests a violation of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Bonta said he thinks it is unconstitutional “for ICE agents, federal immigration officers, to use race, the inability to speak English, location or perceived occupation to … stop and detain, search, seize Californians.”

He also decried what he described as the Supreme Court’s increasing reliance on its emergency docket, which he said often obscures the justices’ decision-making.

“It’s disappointing,” he said. “And the emergency docket has been used more and more. You often don’t know who has voted and how. There’s no argument. There’s no written opinion.”

Bonta called Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s opinion “very disturbing.”

The Trump-appointed justice argued that because many people who do day labor in fields such as construction or farming, engagement in such work could be useful in helping immigrant agents determine which people to stop.

Bonta said the practice enables “the use of race to potentially discriminate,” saying “it is disturbing and it is troubling.”

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday let President Trump remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission, the latest in a string of high-profile firings allowed for now by Supreme Court.

Trump first moved to fire Rebecca Slaughter in the spring, but she sued and lower courts ordered her reinstated because the law allows commissioners to be removed only for problems like misconduct or neglect of duty.

Roberts halted those decisions in a brief order, responding to an appeal from the Trump administration on the court’s emergency docket.

The Justice Department has argued that the FTC and other executive branch agencies are under Trump’s control and the Republican president is free to remove commissioners without cause.

Slaughter’s lawsuit over her firing will keep playing out, as Roberts asked her lawyers to respond to the Trump administration’s arguments by next week.

The court has previously allowed the firings of several other board members of independent agencies. It has suggested, however, that his power to fire has limitations at the Federal Reserve, a prospect that could soon be tested with the case of Fed Gov. Lisa Cook.

Monday’s order is the latest sign that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has effectively abandoned a 90-year-old high court precedent that protected some federal agencies from arbitrary presidential action.

In the 1935 decision known as Humphrey’s Executor, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause.

The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president.

The agency at the center of the case was also the FTC, a point cited by lower-court judges in the lawsuit filed by Slaughter. She has ping-ponged in and out of the job as the case worked its way through the courts.

The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats are typically comprised of three members of the president’s party and two from the opposing party.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

A new mural by elusive street artist Banksy has appeared on the side of the Royal Courts of Justice building in central London.

It depicts a judge in a traditional wig and black robe hitting a protester lying on the ground, with blood splattering their placard.

While the mural does not reference a particular cause or incident, its appearance comes two days after almost 900 people were arrested at a London protest against the ban on Palestine Action.

The artwork was quickly covered up by large sheets of plastic and metal barriers. Court officials told the BBC the work would be removed.

The Metropolitan police said it had received a report of criminal damage and that enquiries would continue.

A spokesperson for HM Courts and Tribunals said that the Royal Courts of Justice was a listed building and that it was “obliged to maintain its original character”.

The spot Banksy chose was on an external wall of the Queen’s Building, part of the Royal Courts of Justice complex, on the usually quiet Carey Street. On Monday it was busy with onlookers taking pictures of the recently hidden patch of wall.

One of two security officers outside the building said they did not know how much longer they would be required to stand guard, adding, “At least it’s not raining.”

The Bristol-based street artist shared a photo of the wall art on Instagram, which is Banksy’s usual method of claiming a work as authentic. The artist captioned the picture: “Royal Courts Of Justice. London.”

Labour peer Baroness Harriet Harman said she believed the work was a “protest about the law” without specifying which legislation she meant.

“Parliament makes the law, and the judges simply interpret the law,” she added. “I don’t think there’s any evidence, in terms of the right to protest, that judges have been clamping down on protests beyond what Parliament intended.”

Banksy’s stencilled graffiti is often critical of government policy, war and capitalism.

Last summer, the artist began an animal-themed campaign in the capital of nine works, which concluded with a gorilla appearing to lift up a shutter on the entrance to London Zoo.

Other notable works included piranhas swimming on a police sentry box in the City of London, and a howling wolf on a satellite dish, which was taken off the roof of a shop in Peckham, south London, less than an hour after it was unveiled.

Banksy has in the past also been known for his work in the West Bank.

In December 2019 he created a “modified Nativity” at a hotel in Bethlehem which showed Jesus’ manger in front of Israel’s separation barrier, which appeared to have been pierced by a blast, creating the shape of a star.

Israel says the barrier is needed to prevent infiltrations from the West Bank but Palestinians say it is a tool to grab land.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to allow President Donald Trump to fire a member of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, a direct challenge to a 90-year-old precedent that limits political influence on such agencies.

Trump attempted to fire to Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March. Both challenged the move, but Bedoya later dropped out of the case.

Solicitor General John D. Sauer said in the most recent court filing that the commission has more power now than it did at its inception, implying support for Trump’s ability to fire Slaughter by exercising his presidential authority under Article 2 of the Constitution.

“In this case, the lower courts have once again ordered the reinstatement of a high-level officer wielding substantial executive authority whom the President has determined should not exercise any executive power, let alone significant rulemaking and enforcement powers,” Sauer wrote.

Sauer asked the high court to expedite the case, sidestepping any more action by lower courts.

Slaughter remains listed as an active commissioner on the FTC’s website.

This move is the latest in a series of efforts by Trump to remove members of other independent federal agencies, which the Supreme Court has approved.

A 1914 law that established the agency said members of independent commission can only be removed from “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Slaughter was appointed to the commission in 2018. Bedoya was originally appointed by Trump the same year. President Joe Biden re-appointed her in 2024.

WASHINGTON — The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday publicly posted the files it had received from the Justice Department on the sex trafficking investigations into Jeffrey Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, responding to mounting pressure in Congress to force more disclosure in the case.

Still, the files mostly contain information that was already publicly known or available. The folders — posted on Google Drive — contained hundreds of image files of years-old court filings related to Epstein, who died in a New York jail cell in 2019 as he faced charges for sexually abusing teenage girls, and Maxwell, who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for assisting him.

The files also included video appearing to be body cam footage from police searches as well as recordings and summaries of law enforcement interviews with victims detailing the abuse they said they suffered.

The committee’s release of the files showed how lawmakers are eager to act on the issue as they return to Washington after a monthlong break. They quickly revived a political clash that has flummoxed House Republican leadership and roiled President Trump’s administration.

House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quell an effort by Democrats and some Republicans to force a vote on a bill that would require the Justice Department to release all the information in the so-called Epstein files, with the exception of the victims’ personal information.

What’s in the released files

If the purpose of the release was to provide answers to a public still curious over the long concluded cases, the raw mechanics of the clunky rollout made that a challenge.

The committee at 6 p.m. released thousands of pages and videos via the cumbersome Google Drive, leaving it to readers and viewers to decipher new and interesting tidbits on their own.

The files released Tuesday included audio of an Epstein employee describing to a law enforcement official how “there were a lot of girls that were very, very young” visiting the home but couldn’t say for sure if they were minors.

Over the course of Epstein’s visits to the home, the man said, more than a dozen girls might visit, and he was charged with cleaning the room where Epstein had massages, twice daily.

Some pages were almost entirely redacted. Other documents related to Epstein’s Florida prosecution that led to a plea deal that has long been criticized as too lenient, including emails between the defense and prosecutors over the conditions of his probation after his conviction. Barbara Burns, a Palm Beach County prosecutor, expressed frustration as the defense pushed for fewer restrictions on their client: “I don’t know how to convey to him anymore than I already have that his client is a registered sex offender that was fortunate to get the deal of the century.”

Some of the interviews with officers from the Palm Beach Police Department date to 2005, according to timestamps read out by officials at the beginning of the files.

Most, if not all, of the text documents posted Tuesday had already been public. Notably, the probable cause affidavit and other records from the 2005 investigation into Epstein contained a notation indicating that they’d been previously released in a 2017 public records request. An internet search showed those files were posted to the website of the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office in July 2017.

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, chided Republicans on the panel for releasing material that he said consisted almost entirely of already available information.

“The 33,000 pages of Epstein documents James Comer has decided to ‘release’ were already mostly public information. To the American people — don’t let this fool you,” Garcia said in a statement.

The disclosure also left open the question of why the Justice Department did not release the material directly to the public instead of operating through Capitol Hill.

Survivors meet with lawmakers

On Capitol Hill onTuesday, the House speaker and a bipartisan group of lawmakers met with survivors of abuse by Epstein and Maxwell.

“The objective here is not just to uncover, investigate the Epstein evils, but also to ensure that this never happens again and ultimately to find out why justice has been delayed for these ladies for so very long,” said Johnson, R-La., after he emerged from a two-hour meeting with six of the survivors.

“It is inexcusable. And it will stop now because the Congress is dialed in on this,” he added.

But there are still intense disagreements on how lawmakers should proceed. Johnson is pressing for the inquiry to be handled by the House Oversight Committee and supporting the committee as it releases its findings.

Push for disclosure continues

Meanwhile, Democrats and some Republicans were still trying to maneuver around Johnson’s control of the House floor to hold a vote on their bill to require the Justice Department to publicly release files. Democrats lined up in the House chamber Tuesday evening to sign a petition from Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, to force a vote. Three other Republicans also supported the maneuver, but Massie would need two more GOP lawmakers and every Democrat to be successful.

If Massie, who is pressing for the bill alongside Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), is able to force a vote — which could take weeks — the legislation would still need to pass the Senate and be signed into law by Trump.

The clash suggests little has changed in Congress since late July, when Johnson sent lawmakers home early in hopes of cooling the political battle over the Epstein case. Members of both parties remain dissatisfied and are demanding more details on the years-old investigation into Epstein, the wealthy and well-connected financier whose 2019 death has sparked wide-ranging conspiracy theories and speculation.

“We continue to bring the pressure. We’re not going to stop until we get justice for all of the survivors and the victims,” Garcia told reporters.

Groves writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Eric Tucker, Kevin Freking and Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, Mike Sisak in New York and Meg Kinnard in Chapin, S.C., contributed.

FORMER Prem stars who lost tens of millions in failed investments are demanding justice.

TV pundit Danny Murphy, 48, said he was a victim of “financial abuse” — turning to booze, drugs and gambling after losing about £5million.

2

2

He was among up to 200 players who invested with Kingsbridge Asset Management in the 1990s and 2000s.

It attracted up to £417million before failed ventures led to loss of homes and bankruptcy.

Investors were deemed to be “victims of crime” in a police investigation but are still being chased for millions in tax.

Murphy is one of 11 stars, including ex-Arsenal ace Michael Thomas, calling for more protection from tax charges.

David McKee and Kevin McMenamin, who ran Kingsbridge, denied wrongdoing on BBC’s Panorama last night.

Murphy said he feels “shame” over his involvement.

“It’s the shame, embarrassment and guilt of getting yourself in a position that you think you’re better than,” he said.

“I’ve lost four – maybe five – million, roughly.

“The financial abuse I’ve suffered has caused me monumental problems in my life.”

He added: “The financial abuse in football and the dark side of football, is something that has gone under the radar for too long.”

Syria is marking its first International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances since the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad, as the country grapples with lingering questions over the fate of the many thousands who disappeared during the country’s civil war.

In a report released on Saturday to coincide with the annual commemoration, the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) said this year holds “particular significance” as it received a major increase in the number of cases since al-Assad was toppled in December.

Desperate families flocked to former detention centres, prisons, morgues, and mass grave sites to try to find their missing relatives after al-Assad’s removal, and investigators gained unprecedented access to government documents, witness accounts and human remains.

“A limited number of detainees were released alive, while the fate of tens of thousands remained unknown, rendering them forcibly disappeared,” SNHR said on Saturday. “This revealed a major tragedy that affected Syrian society as a whole.”

The rights group said in its report that at least 177,057 people, including 4,536 children and 8,984 women, were forcibly disappeared in Syria between March 2011 and August 2025.

It estimated that the former government was responsible for more than 90 percent of those cases.

“Al-Assad’s regime has systematically adopted a policy of enforced disappearance to terrorize and collectively punish society, targeting dissidents and civilians from various regions and affiliations,” SNHR said.

This year’s International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances comes just months after a new Syrian government was established under the leadership of interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa.

Al-Sharaa has pledged to address the enforced disappearances, issuing a presidential decree in May that established a National Commission for Transitional Justice and a National Commission for Missing Persons (NCMP).

The bodies are tasked with investigating questions of accountability, reparations and national reconciliation, among other issues. Al-Sharaa has also pledged to punish those responsible for mass killings and other violations.

On Saturday, Syria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said enforced disappearances would remain a “national priority” for the country. “It can only be resolved by providing justice to the victims, revealing the truth, and restoring dignity to their families,” the ministry said.

The head of the NCMP, Mohammad Reda Jalkhi, also said that while “Syria faces a daunting task … [the] families of the missing have the right to full and effective investigations”.

Independence and resources

Rights advocates have welcomed the Syrian government’s early steps on enforced disappearances, including the establishment of the NCMP. But they stress that the commission must be independent and get all the resources it needs to be effective.

“Truth, justice and reparations for Syria’s disappeared must be treated as an urgent state priority,” Kristine Beckerle, deputy regional director for the Middle East and North Africa at Amnesty International, said in a statement this week.

The NCMP must have “adequate resources and the highest levels of cooperation across all state institutions”, Beckerle said. “With each day that passes, the torment of families waiting for answers about the fate and whereabouts of their loved ones grows.”

The Syrian Network for Human Rights also said the new commissions’ effectiveness “depends on their actual independence and full access to information and documents”.

“The legal frameworks regulating their work must be formulated to ensure the representation of victims and civil society, and to consolidate the comprehensiveness of justice, from truth-telling to accountability, reparations, and prevention of recurrence,” the group said.

On Saturday, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said the disappearance of a family member was “not just a personal tragedy, but one of the deepest and most prolonged human wounds of the Syrian conflict”.

“The families of the missing deserve unwavering support and compassion to help them search for answers about the fate of their loved ones and put an end to their suffering,” Stephane Sakalian, head of the ICRC delegation in Syria, said in a statement.

“Their right to know is a fundamental humanitarian principle.”

Meanwhile, Syria’s state-run news agency SANA reported that an interactive website titled “Syria’s Prison Museum” was launched on Saturday to collect witness accounts of those detained in al-Assad’s detention centres, including the infamous Sednaya prison.

The platform, put together by journalists and activists, aims to be both a memorial and forensic archive to facilitate the push for accountability.

The United Nations estimates that al-Assad’s government ran more than 100 detention facilities and an unknown number of secret sites.

Under al-Assad, Syrian state officials used several techniques to punish real and perceived opponents, including whipping, sleep deprivation and electrocution.

Merrick Bobb, one of the godfathers of the modern police oversight movement in Los Angeles and beyond, has died. He was 79.

Bobb, whose health had deteriorated in recent years, died Thursday night at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in L.A., his two children, Matthew and Jonathan, confirmed Friday.

A Los Feliz resident for more than 40 years, Bobb had four grandchildren, was fluent in several languages and was respected as one of the earliest champions of civilian oversight of law enforcement.

He had a long career, shining a light on problems within major law enforcement agencies from L.A. to Seattle. And he accomplished his most significant work without the use of his hands or legs, which became effectively paralyzed after he contracted a rare and debilitating autoimmune condition called Guillain-Barré syndrome in 2003.

“He was always a person who was really engaged in the world,” Jonathan said in an interview with him and his brother. “I think that growing up in the 1950s and 1960s with the civil rights movement and other associated movements was very seminal for him in terms of instilling belief in justice [and] understanding the voices of traditionally underrepresented groups.”

For two decades beginning in 1993, Bobb served as special counsel to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. In that position, he delivered semiannual reports that detailed pervasive issues within the department, from widespread violence in the county’s jails to excessive force, driving a number of reforms in the department.

In 2014, the board created the Office of Inspector General and dismissed Bobb from his role with the county. That decision came in the wake of criticism that he and Michael Gennaco, the then-head of the Office of Independent Review, had not done enough to stop the problems in the jails, which had become a major scandal.

Two years earlier, a federal judge had appointed Bobb to serve as independent monitor of the Seattle Police Department’s consent decree with the U.S. Department of Justice. He held that position until 2020, when he resigned in protest of the department’s use of force and “powerful and injurious” crowd control weapons against protesters in the months following George Floyd’s killing by a white Minneapolis police officer.

In 2001, he founded the Police Assessment Resource Center, a nonprofit that provides “independent, evidence-based counsel on effective, respectful, and publicly accountable policing,” the center’s then-vice president Matthew Barge wrote in 2015.

Before that, Bobb served as deputy general counsel for the Christopher Commission, which examined use of force within the Los Angeles Police Department in the wake of the 1991 beating of Rodney King. The commission published a sweeping report that year that called on then-LAPD Chief Daryl Gates to step down and found the department had a persistent and pervasive problem with excessive use of force.

Bobb graduated from Dartmouth College in 1968, then received his law degree three years later from UC Berkeley, according to his curriculum vitae. He worked for private law firms between 1973 and 1996. Bobb was named one of the top 50 lawyers in L.A. by the Los Angeles Business Journal that year, when he left a major law firm to focus on his law enforcement oversight work.

But for many people he met, according to his sons, it was Bobb’s kindness that made the strongest impression.

“No matter who it was in his life he was engaging with at that point, he focused in on them and developed a personal connection,” Matthew said. “You never knew if he was going to be having lunch with the former chief of police or his former handyman who came by once a week, and everyone in between.”

Bobb is survived by his children and grandchildren, his ex-wife Aviva Koenigsberg Bobb — a former judge with whom he remained close — his sister Gloria Kern and his longtime assistant and caretaker, Jeffrey Yanson.

Bobb’s funeral will take place at 10 a.m. Sept. 5 at Mount Sinai Hollywood Hills, 5950 Forest Lawn Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90068.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Former Puerto Rico Gov. Wanda Vázquez pleaded guilty Wednesday to a campaign finance violation in a federal case that authorities say also involved a former FBI agent and a Venezuelan banker.

Vázquez, an attorney, became the U.S. territory’s first former governor to plead guilty to a crime, specifically accepting a donation from a foreigner for her 2020 political campaign. She is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 15.

As she left the courthouse, Vázquez told reporters that she had confided “in people around her … who didn’t do their job” and accepted a donation pledge on behalf of the banker.

“They forgot to ask him for his green card,” she said, without identifying who exactly was responsible. “These are situations that happen.”

Vázquez noted that a pledge was made but no donation received. “There was no bribery here,” she said. “I didn’t take a single cent.”

She was arrested in August 2022 and initially accused of participating in a bribery scheme between December 2019 and June 2020 while governor.

The U. S. Department of Justice said Vázquez agreed to dismiss the head of Puerto Rico’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions in exchange for financial support toward her 2020 campaign for governor. During that time, the office was investigating a bank owned by Venezuelan Julio Herrera Velutini after suspicious transactions, according to authorities.

Justice officials allege that Herrera Velutini and Mark Rossini, a former FBI agent who provided consulting services to him, paid more than $300,000 to political consultants to support Vázquez’s campaign after she demanded the commissioner’s resignation and appointed a former consultant from Herrera Velutini’s bank to that position.

In August 2020, Vázquez lost in the primary of the New Progressive Party to Pedro Pierluisi, who was later elected as governor.

Federal authorities initially charged Vázquez and the other two suspects with conspiracy, federal programs bribery and honest services wire fraud. If found guilty, they could have faced up to 20 years in prison.

The charges were reduced this year to a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which calls for up to a year in prison.

Herrera Velutini and Rossini also pleaded guilty Wednesday to the charge.

As she prepared to enter the federal courthouse in the Puerto Rican capital of San Juan, Vázquez told reporters that the last three years have been “terrible,” adding that the accusations against her were untrue.

She was accompanied by her attorney, Ignacio Fernández, who said Vázquez “feels vindicated” with the new charge.

The guilty plea entered Wednesday avoided a trial scheduled to start in late August.

Judge Silvia L. Carreño Coll previously criticized the deal, describing the new charge as a slap on the hand compared with the original charges.

Two other suspects have already pleaded guilty in the case.

The parade of Trump terribles is a long one, starting in Washington and stretching clear across this beleaguered nation.

A bumbling Defense secretary who lacks the competence to organize a two-car military procession.

A screw-loose Health secretary who seems not to care if measles and other plagues descend on America.

A director of national intelligence who’s shown no great abundance of that quality but, rather, an eagerness to twist and bend facts like a coat hanger, serving whatever cockamamie claim the president burps up.

Because, after all, obeisance and lay-down-your-life loyalty are the main prerequisites for service in the Trump administration, along with the all-important consideration of how one comes across on television.

How else to explain the chief federal prosecutor he’s imposed on Nevada, Sigal Chattah?

Chattah, 50, devoted years to a not-particularly-noteworthy legal career, practicing domestic and international law at her Las Vegas firm and teaching political science for a time at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In 2022, Chattah was the Republican nominee for state attorney general, losing rather handily to incumbent Democrat Aaron Ford.

But not before distinguishing herself as a notably reprehensible candidate.

Among other things, Chattah compared Ford to the leader of Hamas and said that her opponent, who happens to be Black, “should be hanging from a f— crane.” (The Israeli-born Chattah told the Las Vegas Review Journal the “smart-ass comment” was a tongue-in-cheek expression derived from her Middle East background.)

A pugnacious poster on social media — another perceived asset in Trump World — Chattah called a Black member of Congress a “hood rat,” a Black female prosecutor “ghetto” and a Black “Saturday Night Live” cast member a “monkey.”

She suggested immigrants — make that “invaders” — and college protesters should be shot and transgenderism should be treated with “meds or commitment to an in-patient facility.”

But what might have particularly endeared her to Trump is her embrace of his ego-salving Big Lie about the 2020 election being stolen from under him. Chattah even served as legal counsel to one of the fake electors who tried to overturn Joe Biden’s clear-cut victory and swipe Nevada for Trump.

It’s hardly unusual for a president to pick a member of his party to serve as U.S. attorney, replacing the choice of a previous administration. In fact, even though justice is supposed to be blind and thus, theoretically above political considerations, that’s how the selection process usually works.

But Trump has broken new and treacherous ground by installing not just partisans as federal prosecutors but lackeys — starting with Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi — who’ve shown their allegiance not to fair-minded application of the law but rather delivering on the feral impulses of their White House patron.

Trump’s pick for top prosecutor in the Los Angeles area is Bill Essayli, a former state assemblyman from Riverside County whose main qualification seemed to be his loud, performative approach to serving in Sacramento’s GOP minority.

Bondi appointed Essayli on an interim basis in early April. His appointment was limited to 120 days; normally within that time he would have been formally nominated and faced confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Knowing the latter was unlikely, the Trump administration executed an end run and named Essayli “acting U.S. attorney,” which gives him an additional 210 days in the job before he faces formal confirmation.

As it happened, the very same day that maneuvering took place, prosecutors moved to dismiss charges in a criminal case involving one of Trump’s political donors.

Coincidence?

The same sleight-of-hand — interim appointment, designation as “acting U.S. attorney” — was used to extend the tenure of Trump sycophants as chief federal prosecutors in New Jersey, New Mexico, upstate New York and, in Chattah’s case, Nevada.

(In a setback for Trump, a federal judge ruled last week that his former personal attorney, Alina Habba, was unlawfully serving as New Jersey’s top prosecutor, though the order was put on hold pending appeal.)

Chattah’s partisanship is plain as a desert squall. In a remarkable breach of protocol and ethics — not to mention the federal law forbidding employees from mixing work and politics — she kept her position as Nevada’s representative on the Republican National Committee even as she served as interim U.S. attorney.

Chattah abandoned the post only after the Nevada Independent reported on the obvious conflict of interest.

Last month, in the final days before Chattah’s interim appointment ended, more than 100 retired state and federal judges wrote Nevada’s chief federal district judge to object to her continued service. The group said Chattah’s history of “racially charged, violence-tinged, and inflammatory public statements” was disqualifying.

The Trump administration extended her tenure nonetheless.

As part of their unavailing effort, the judges quoted a 1940 speech then-U.S. Atty. Gen. Robert H. Jackson delivered, citing the immense power and responsibility that rests with a U.S. attorney.

“The prosecutor has more control over life, liberty, and reputation than any other person in America. His discretion is tremendous,” said Jackson, who went on to serve as one of the Supreme Court’s most distinguished justices. “… The prosecutor can order arrests, present cases to the grand jury in secret session, and on the basis of his one-sided presentation of the facts, can cause the citizen to be indicted and held for trial.

“While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst.”

Obviously, Jackson never knew Chattah or other Trump appointees besmirching the halls of justice. But the late justice, buried at Maple Grove Cemetery in Frewsburg, N.Y., is doubtless turning somersaults in his grave.

WASHINGTON — Retired Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., the soft-spoken, courtly Virginian whose decisions set the nation on a middle-road course on the issue of race and affirmative action, died Tuesday at age 90.

Increasingly frail and weak in recent years, Powell had retreated to his Richmond, Va., home, where he died in his sleep, the court announced.

Powell–the crucial swing vote on the nine-member court–was often referred to as the most powerful lawyer in America. He had never served as a lower court judge.

On matters ranging from civil rights and affirmative action to the death penalty and abortion, his decision often became the court’s decision. He was a moderate-liberal on civil rights and civil liberties and a conservative on crime. As a result, so was the court during his 15 years on the bench.

President Clinton praised him as “one of our most conscientious and thoughtful justices [who] approached each case without an ideological agenda. His opinions were a model of balance and judiciousness.”

His retirement in 1987 set up a contentious battle over the nomination of Robert H. Bork, a conservative who was rejected in the Senate as too ideological.

A white Southerner who grew up in the era of rigid segregation, Powell nonetheless played the key role in preserving affirmative action as an open door of opportunity for a generation of minority students.

In the celebrated Bakke case of 1978, Powell stood alone but forged a compromise position that has remained as the law ever since.

A white 38-year old civil engineer from Los Altos, Calif., Allan Bakke had charged the medical school at UC Davis with discrimination because he had been rejected for admission despite high grades and test scores. The school reserved 16 of its 100 slots for minority students.

Joining four conservative colleagues, Powell rejected the use of such quotas or fixed formulas that reserved positions for black, Latino or Asian students. However, he wrote separately to say that race can be taken into account as “a plus factor” when evaluating individual minority applicants.

Despite two decades of debate and dispute since, Powell’s formula has remained the federal constitutional standard governing affirmative action in colleges and universities. California voters amended the state’s Constitution in 1996 to prohibit preferential treatment by race in the state’s colleges.

Uncommonly Gentle and Courteous Man

Among his Supreme Court colleagues, Powell is remembered best not for particular decisions but as an uncommonly sweet, gentle and courteous man.

“I have known no one in my lifetime who is kinder or more courteous than he,” said Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who formed an especially close bond with Powell when she joined the formerly all-male court in 1981. “He graced the lives of all who had the privilege of his company and counsel.”

“All of us admire your extraordinary capacity to forcefully participate in our private and public debates without ever allowing advocacy to degenerate into contentiousness,” the justices said in a letter to Powell upon his retirement.

His biographer, University of Virginia law professor John C. Jeffries, said Powell “came from an older and grander tradition where the lawyer was a public citizen. He had a sense [that] he owed a lot to his country and to his community and he spent years serving in a variety of thankless tasks. He was a member of the school board, served on the state education board and raised money for legal aid for the poor.”

He did not aspire to serve on the nation’s highest court, however.

The Nixon White House, eager to appoint a Southerner to the court, had twice approached Powell but he rejected those overtures. Finally, in 1971, he reluctantly accepted Nixon’s nomination. He believed he was too old at age 64 to start a judicial career and relented only after the president called personally to say it was his duty to serve.

“Ten years of Lewis Powell on the court was worth 20 years of anyone else,” Nixon said at the time.

The nomination drew wide praise and Powell won Senate confirmation on an 89-1 vote. He officially joined the court in January 1972, at the same time as Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist, later to become chief justice.

Along with two other Nixon appointees–Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Justice Harry Blackmun–the new quartet was supposed to end the liberal activism of the court under the late Chief Justice Earl Warren and usher in a law-and-order era.

But it did not work out just that way. In 1972, the court struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional, with Powell and the other Nixon appointees in dissent.

The following year, the court struck down all of the nation’s abortion laws in the case of Roe vs. Wade. Powell joined Blackmun’s opinion that spoke for a 7-2 majority.

Powell never wavered from his view that a woman had the right to end an unwanted pregnancy. However, he later joined his more conservative colleagues to rule that the government need not fund abortions for poor women. This compromise approach also has remained the law.

Crucial Votes for Death Penalty

Though no fan of the death penalty, Powell provided a crucial vote in 1976 to restore capital punishment as an option for the states. He also wrote the court opinion for a 5-4 majority in 1987 that rejected a challenge to the death penalty as racially biased.

Dismissing data showing that murderers of whites in Georgia were more likely to receive death sentences than murderers of blacks, Powell focused narrowly on the cop killer whose case came before the court. Having shot a police officer at close range during a robbery, Warren McCleskey deserved the punishment he received, Powell concluded, and the statistics did not prove otherwise.

After retiring from the court, the justice said he regretted one decision.

In June 1986, after weeks of indecision, Powell cast the crucial fifth vote to uphold Georgia’s anti-sodomy law in the case of Bowers vs. Hardwick. At the time, he said, he might have voted differently had the gay man who brought the case actually been prosecuted. But years later, Powell said in an interview that he “probably made a mistake” and should have voted to strike down such laws as flatly unconstitutional.

“The truth is he was never of one mind on Bowers. He remained in doubt,” said Jeffries, who was clerk to Powell. “On the one hand, he thought the sodomy laws were barbaric. On the other hand, he didn’t think the Supreme Court was the right place to lead a revolution on gay rights.”

Powell’s resignation at the end of the court term in June 1987 set off one of the momentous court struggles of the 20th century.

President Reagan, seeking to cement a conservative majority, nominated U.S. appeals court Judge Bork to succeed him. But after a summerlong battle between liberal and conservative interests and a week of televised confirmation hearings, the Senate rejected Bork.

Reagan’s second nomination, of Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, also failed when the former Harvard Law School professor admitted that he had regularly smoked marijuana. Finally, Reagan found a replacement for Powell in Judge Anthony M. Kennedy of Sacramento.

Senate Democrats hoped that the new justice would be “another Lewis Powell,” and his nomination was approved unanimously. And to a considerable extent, Kennedy has followed the middle-road course set by his predecessor.

Powell was born Sept. 19, 1907, in Suffolk, Va., near Norfolk, and was the son of a furniture maker. He attended Washington & Lee University, where he was a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honorary society and president of the student body. His legal education came at Washington & Lee, where he graduated first in his class in 1931, and at Harvard University, where he spent a year as a graduate law student before returning to Richmond to practice law.

He married Josephine M. Rucker in 1936 and was the father of three daughters and one son. His wife died two years ago.

In World War II, Powell served as a member of a supersecret Allied Unit in Bletchley, England, engaged in cracking German war codes.

After the war, he went into private law practice in Richmond and generally represented corporations. He served as president of the American Bar Assn. in 1965 and the American College of Trial Lawyers in 1969.

He Was ‘Exceptionally Wise,’ Stevens Says

Nixon elevated him to the Supreme Court upon the death of Justice Hugo Black.

He joined a court that had powerful liberals, such as Justices William J. Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, and staunch conservatives, such as Rehnquist, but he joined neither faction. He won unstinting praise, however, as a model Supreme Court justice.

“I prized my association and friendship with him throughout his 15 years of service on the court and after his retirement in 1987,” Rehnquist said in a statement issued by the court. “He was the very embodiment of ‘judicial temperament’: receptive to the ideas of his colleagues, fair to the parties to the case but ultimately relying on his own seasoned judgment.”

“Lewis Powell was a true gentleman, a loyal and exceptionally wise man,” added Justice John Paul Stevens. “He served the country that he loved faithfully and as well as anyone I have ever known.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

His Influence on the Court

President Richard M. Nixon nominated Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. to the Supreme Court on Oct. 21, 1971. His confirmation by the Senate was quick and overwhelming, with an 8-1 vote. Much of his 16 years on the Supreme Court was spent establishing compromise between a court evenly split along ideological lines. He retired on June 26, 1987.

His influence is seen in the following rulings:

FIRST AMENDMENT

June 1972: He wrote the majority opinion upholding the right of the owner of a shopping plaza to limit the distribution of anti-war pamphlets on his property.

June 1974: Powell ruled that a non-public figure could recover damages from the media for “negligence” instead of the previous and more exacting standard of “actual malice.”

April 1978: In First National Bank vs. Bellotti, writing for the majority, Powell maintained that the right of a corporation to donate to a political campaign is protected political speech.

****

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

July 1974: In Milliken vs. Bradley, he voted against achieving integration by busing students across school district lines.

April 1977: In Village of Arlington Heights vs. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation, Powell wrote that zoning boards could restrict low-income housing as long as their motive was not racial.

June 1978: Powell developed a compromise position between two groups of judges in University of California Regents vs. Bakke. He asserted that colleges were entitled to pursue diversity as a goal, but they were not allowed to use quota systems based on race to achieve that goal.

****

PRESIDENTIAL POWER

June 1972: Powell wrote that the president could not use electronic surveillance domestically without a warrant.

June 1982: Powell wrote the majority opinion in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald that incumbent presidents are immune from civil damage suits for actions they take while in office.

****

ON ABORTION

January 1973: In Roe vs. Wade Powell sided with the majority opinion that the decision of a woman whether to perform an abortion during her first trimester of pregnancy was protected under the 14th Amendment.

June 1983: Powell wrote in Planned Parenthood Assn. of Kansas City, Missouri vs. Ashcroft, Ashcroft that a Missouri law requiring a minor to obtain parental or judicial consent before obtaining an abortion was constitutional.

****

ON SELF-INCRIMINATION

May 1972: Powell wrote in Kastigar vs. United States the majority opinion that any evidence obtained under a grant of immunity cannot be used in any subsequent prosecution of that person.

Researched by TRICIA FORD / Los Angeles Times