panel

Brazil’s top court rejects Bolsonaro’s coup sentence appeal, affirming his 27-year penalty for post-election power grab.

A five-member panel of Brazil’s Supreme Court has formed a majority to reject former President Jair Bolsonaro’s appeal challenging his 27-year prison sentence for plotting a coup to remain in power after the 2022 presidential election.

The 70-year-old far-right firebrand was found guilty by the same court in September of attempting to prevent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from taking power. Prosecutors said the plan failed only because of a lack of support from the military’s top brass.

Justices Flavio Dino, Alexandre de Moraes and Cristiano Zanin voted to reject the appeal filed by Bolsonaro’s legal team. The remaining members of the panel have until November 14 to cast their votes in the Supreme Court’s system.

The former president will begin serving his sentence only after all appeals are exhausted.

Bolsonaro has been under house arrest since August for violating precautionary measures in a separate case. His lawyers are expected to request that he be allowed to serve his sentence under similar conditions due to health concerns.

Bolsonaro’s lawyers argued there had been “profound injustices” and “contradictions” in his conviction, and sought to have his prison sentence reduced.

Three of the Supreme Court judges weighing the appeal voted to reject it on Friday.

However, the result is not considered official until the court-imposed deadline at midnight on November 14.

Alexandre de Moraes, who presided over the trial, was the first to cast his vote electronically and wrote that arguments by Bolsonaro’s lawyers to have his sentence reduced were “without merit”.

Moraes, in a 141-page document seen by AFP, rejected defence claims they had been given an overwhelming amount of documents and digital files, preventing them from properly mounting their case.

He also rejected an argument that Bolsonaro had given up on the coup, saying it failed only because of external factors, not because the former president renounced it.

Moraes reaffirmed that there had been a deliberate coup attempt orchestrated under Bolsonaro’s leadership, with ample proof of his involvement.

He again underscored Bolsonaro’s role in instigating the January 8 assault on Brazil’s democratic institutions, when supporters demanded a military takeover to oust Lula.

‘Ruling justified’

Moraes ruled that the sentence of 27 years and 3 months was based on Bolsonaro’s high culpability as president and the severity and impact of the crimes. Moraes said Bolsonaro’s age had already been considered as a mitigating factor.

“The ruling justified all stages of the sentencing process,” Moraes wrote.

Two other judges voted in the same way shortly afterwards.

Because of health problems stemming from a stabbing attack in 2018, Bolsonaro could ask to serve his sentence under house arrest.

The trial against Bolsonaro angered his ally, US President Donald Trump, who imposed sanctions on Brazilian officials and punitive trade tariffs.

However, in recent months, tensions have thawed between Washington and Brasilia, with a meeting taking place between Trump and Lula and negotiations to reduce the tariffs.

An initiative from Bolsonaro supporters in Congress to push through an amnesty bill that could benefit him fizzled out after massive protests around the country.

Brazil’s large conservative electorate is currently without a champion heading into 2026 presidential elections, in which Lula, 80, has said he will seek a fourth term.

An Ohio panel adopted new U.S. House districts on Friday that could boost the GOP’s chances of winning two additional seats in next year’s elections and aid President Trump’s efforts to hold on to a slim congressional majority.

The action by the Ohio Redistricting Commission came as Virginia’s Democratic-led General Assembly advanced a proposed constitutional amendment that could pave the way for redistricting in the state ahead of the 2026 congressional elections. That measure still needs another round of legislative approval early next year before it can go to voters.

Trump has been urging Republican-led states to reshape their U.S. House districts in an attempt to win more seats. But unlike in other states, Ohio’s redistricting was required by the state constitution because the current districts were adopted after the 2020 census without bipartisan support.

Ohio joins Texas, Missouri and North Carolina, where Republican lawmakers already have revised their congressional districts.

Democrats have been pushing back. California voters are deciding Tuesday on a redistricting plan passed by the Democratic-led Legislature.

The political parties are in an intense battle, because Democrats need to gain just three seats in next year’s election to win control of the House and gain the power to impede Trump’s agenda.

In a rare bit of bipartisanship, Ohio’s new map won support from all five Republicans and both Democrats on the redistricting panel. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee praised the Ohio Democrats “for negotiating to prevent an even more egregious gerrymander” benefiting Republicans.

Republicans already hold 10 of Ohio’s 15 congressional seats. The new map could boost their chances in already competitive districts currently held by Democratic Reps. Greg Landsman in Cincinnati and Marcy Kaptur near Toledo. Kaptur won a 22nd term last year by about 2,400 votes, or less than 1 percentage point, in a district carried by Trump. Landsman was reelected with more than 54% of the vote.

National Democrats said they expect to hold both targeted seats and compete to flip three other districts where Republicans have won by narrow margins.

Ohio residents criticize new map

Ohio’s commission had faced a Friday deadline to adopt a new map, or else the task would have fallen to the GOP-led Legislature, which could have crafted districts even more favorable to Republicans. But any redistricting bill passed by the Legislature could have been subject to an initiative petition campaign from opponents seeking to force a public referendum on the new map.

The uncertainty of that legislative process provided commissioners of both parties with some incentive for compromise.

But Ohio residents who testified to commissioners Friday denounced the new districts. Julia Cattaneo, who wore a shirt saying “gerrymandering is cheating,” said the new map is gerrymandered more for Republicans than the one it is replacing and is not the sort of compromise needed.

“Yes, you are compromising — your integrity, honor, duty and to represent Ohioans,” she said.

Added resident Scott Sibley: “This map is an affront to democracy, and you should all — every one of you — be ashamed.”

Republican state Auditor Keith Farber, a member of the commission, defended the map during a testy exchange with one opponent. Because many Democrats live in cities and many Republicans in rural areas, he said there was no way to draw a map creating eight Republican and seven Democratic districts — as some had urged — without splitting cities, counties and townships.

Virginia Democrats point at Trump to defend redistricting

Virginia is represented in the U.S. House by six Democrats and five Republicans. Democratic lawmakers haven’t unveiled their planned new map, nor how many seats they are trying to gain, but said their moves are necessary to respond to the Trump-inspired gerrymandering in Republican-led states.

“Our voters are asking to have that voice. They’re asking that we protect democracy, that we not allow gerrymandering to happen throughout the country, and we sit back,” Democratic Sen. Barbara Favola said.

The proposed constitutional amendment would let lawmakers temporarily bypass a bipartisan commission and redraw congressional districts to their advantage. The Senate’s approval Friday followed House approval Wednesday.

The developments come as Virginia holds statewide elections Tuesday, where all 100 seats in the House of Delegates are on the ballot. Democrats would need to keep their slim majority in the lower chamber to advance the constitutional amendment again next year. It then would go to a statewide referendum.

Republican Sen. Mark Obenshain said Democrats were ignoring the will of voters who had overwhelmingly approved a bipartisan redistricting commission.

“Heaven forbid that we actually link arms and work together on something,” Obenshain said. “What the voters of Virginia said is, ‘We expect redistricting to be an issue that we work across the aisle on, that we link arms on.’”

But Democratic Sen. Schuyler VanValkenburg, who has long championed the bipartisan redistricting commission, noted the panel still would be in charge of redistricting after the 2030 census.

“We’re not trying to end the practice of fair maps,” he said. “We are asking the voters if, in this one limited case, they want to ensure that a constitutional-norm-busting president can’t break the entire national election by twisting the arms of a few state legislatures.”

Indiana and Kansas could be next

Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called a special session to begin Monday to redraw congressional districts, currently held by seven Republicans and two Democrats. But lawmakers don’t plan to begin work on that day. Although it’s unclear exactly when lawmakers will convene, state law gives the Legislature 40 days to complete a special session.

In Kansas, Republican lawmakers are trying to collect enough signatures from colleagues to call themselves into a special session on redistricting to begin Nov. 7. Senate President Ty Masterson says he has the necessary two-thirds vote in the Senate, but House Republicans have at least a few holdouts. The petition drive is necessary because Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly isn’t likely to call a session to redraw the current map that has sent three Republicans and one Democrat to the House.

Lieb, Diaz and Scolforo write for the Associated Press. Lieb reported from Jefferson City, Mo.; Scolforo from Harrisburg, Pa.; and Diaz from Richmond, Va. John Hanna in Topeka, Kan., and Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Mich., contributed to this report.

Oct. 28 (UPI) — The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday asked the Justice Department to investigate former President Joe Biden‘s use of the autopen to sign executive orders and pardons.

The request came after the committee released a report on its investigation into Biden’s use of the autopen and whether it indicated an administration coverup of an alleged cognitive decline.

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the committee, accused Biden’s aides of coordinating “a cover-up of the president’s diminishing faculties.”

Over the summer, the oversight committee interviewed more than a dozen former aides and advisers to Biden. Among those who appeared before the committee were former chiefs of staff Ron Klein and Jeff Zients, and Biden’s former physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, who invoked the Fifth Amendment.

In addition to the letter to Bondi, Comer sent a letter to Andrea Anderson, chairwoman of the board of medicine at the District of Columbia Health calling on the board to investigate whether O’Connor was “derelict in his duty as a physician by, including but not limited to, issuing misleading medical reports, misrepresenting treatments, failing to conform to standards of practice, or other acts in violation of District of Columbia law regulating licensed physicians.”

The committee recommended that O’Connor’s medical license be revoked.

President Donald Trump has taken particular issue with Biden’s use of the autopen during his presidency, though he, himself, has used it. In a Presidential Walk of Fame exhibit installed at the White House in September, photos of each president were displayed outside the West Wing, except Biden’s. Instead, a photo of an autopen was put in Biden’s place.

There’s been a long history of presidents using an autopen to sign the many documents that come across their desks each day, beginning with the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. According to the Shapell Manuscript Foundation, which collects historical documents, Presidents Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama used the device, some to sign the many requests for autographs and letters, others to sign important documents and orders.

In 2005, then-President George W. Bush asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel whether it was constitutional for him to sign official documents using the autopen. The office concluded that “the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law.”

Trump said he has used the autopen but not for important documents. In June, he ordered an investigation into Biden’s cognitive state.

Biden has denied Trump’s claims about his mental faculties and autopen use.

“I made the decisions during my presidency,” Biden said in a statement.

“I made the decisions about the pardons, executive orders, legislation and proclamations.

“Any suggestion that I didn’t is ridiculous and false,” he added.

As a Los Angeles City Council aide, Jose Ugarte failed to disclose years worth of outside income he made from lobbying and consulting — and, as a result, was prepared to pay a fine.

But the city’s Ethics Commission has now rejected a $17,500 settlement agreement with the council candidate. Two commissioners said the fine was not quite large enough.

“We need to signal that this is a serious violation,” said Manjusha Kulkarni, the president of the commission, who voted against the settlement.

Ugarte is deputy chief of staff to Curren Price and is running to replace his longtime boss on the City Council. Price has endorsed him. But the council aide failed to report outside income from his consulting firm, Ugarte & Associates, for the years 2021, 2022 and 2023, according to Ethics Commission documents.

He said the failure to report the outside income was a “clerical reporting error.”

Although two of the commissioners want a steeper fine against Ugarte, the suggested bump isn’t that large.

Two commissioners voted in favor of the $17,500 settlement, but Kulkarni and another commissioner, Terry Kaufmann, agreed the settlement amount should be around $20,000.

It’s an amount that they believe could send a clearer message.

“There is great concern about what is happening in Los Angeles. … Individuals routinely violate the laws we put in place to ensure trust,” Kulkarni said.

Kaufmann added that she was concerned by the fact that Ugarte still worked for a council member and was running for office.

The proposed settlement with Ugarte included seven counts against him, and each comes with a potential $5,000 penalty. But since Ugarte was cooperative, the commission’s director of enforcement reduced the overall penalty by 50%, bringing it down from $35,000 to the $17,500 figure.

Ugarte told The Times that his work with Ugarte & Associates never overlapped with his time in Price’s office.

He started working for Price in 2013 but left the office in 2019. He returned in 2021. Ugarte & Associates was formed in 2018 and still conducts business. He co-owns the company with his sister.

A member of the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners who led a nationwide search to hire a new LAPD chief and sparked condemnation from activists for his previous counterterrorism research is stepping down.

Erroll Southers confirmed his plans to resign through a spokesperson on Friday, ending a stormy two-year tenure on the influential civilian panel that watches over the LAPD.

The spokesperson said that Southers, 68, wanted to spend more time with his family and pursue other professional opportunities — something that wasn’t always allowed by the demands of serving as a commissioner. The officials often spend time outside their weekly meetings attending community events.

According to the spokesperson, Southers was not asked to submit his resignation, but she declined to say more about the timing of his departure.

Southers has been a member of the panel since 2023, when Mayor Karen Bass picked him to serve out the term of a departing commissioner.

Southers remained after serving out that term because of a bureaucratic loophole that allows new members to join any city commission if the City Council fails to vote on their appointment within 45 days. When the council members took no action on Southers earlier this month after his re-nomination by the mayor, a seat on the commission remained his by default.

His last commission meeting is expected to be Oct. 21 and he will step down at the end of that week. A replacement has not been announced by the mayor.

Southers had a long career in law enforcement before switching to academia and earning his doctorate in public policy. He worked as police officer in Santa Monica and later joined the FBI. He is currently a top security official in the administration at USC.

During this time on the commission, Southers pushed for changes to the way that the department hires and recruits new officers.

But more than any other commissioner, Southers has accumulated a loud chorus of detractors who point to his work on counterterrorism in the mid-2000s in Israel — which has especially become a lightning rod because of the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

Southers’ abrupt departure underscores the increasing difficulty in filling out one of the city’s most influential commissions. The panel was down a member for months after a former commissioner, Maria “Lou” Calanche, resigned so she could run for a City Council seat on the Eastside.

One previous candidate dropped out of the running after a disastrous hearing before the council, and another would-be commissioner quietly withdrew from running earlier this year.

Next Wednesday, a council committee will consider the nomination of Jeff Skobin, a San Fernando Valley car dealership executive and son of a former commissioner. Skobin’s move to the commission would still need approval from the full council.

Reporting from Washington — Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn.

On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, approved him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.

Talley, 36, is part of what Trump has called the “untold story” of his success in filling the courts with young conservatives.

UPDATE: Brett J. Talley withdraws nomination »

“The judge story is an untold story. Nobody wants to talk about it,” Trump said last month, standing alongside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the White House Rose Garden. “But when you think of it, Mitch and I were saying, that has consequences 40 years out, depending on the age of the judge — but 40 years out.”

Civil rights groups and liberal advocates see the matter differently. They denounced Thursday’s vote, calling it “laughable” that none of the committee Republicans objected to confirming a lawyer with as little experience as Talley to preside over federal trials.

“He’s practiced law for less than three years and never argued a motion, let alone brought a case. This is the least amount of experience I’ve seen in a judicial nominee,” said Kristine Lucius, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The group was one of several on the left that urged the Judiciary Committee to reject Talley because of his lack of qualifications and because of doubts over whether he had the “temperament and ability to approach cases with the fairness and open-mindedness necessary to serve as a federal judge.”

Some conservatives discount the ABA’s rating. “The ABA is a liberal interest group. They have a long history of giving lower ratings to Republican nominees,” said Carrie Severino, counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, which supports Trump’s nominees. She said past liberal nominees have been rated as qualified even if they had little or no courtroom experience.

Talley does have some other qualifications, some traditional, others less so. He grew up in Alabama and earned degrees from the University of Alabama and Harvard Law School. He clerked for two federal judges and worked as a speech writer on the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. And, like many people who eventually became federal judges, he became the protege of someone who became a senator.

In Talley’s case, the mentor was Republican Sen. Luther Strange, the former Alabama state attorney general who was appointed to the Senate in February to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become U.S. attorney general. Talley worked for Strange as a deputy.

Typically, senators play the lead role in recommending nominees for the federal district judgeships in their state. Talley also had something of an inside track. This year, when Sessions moved to the attorney general’s post, Talley took a job in the Justice Department’s office that selects judicial nominees.

Trump and McConnell have succeeded in pushing judicial nominees through the Senate because the Republicans have voted in lockstep since taking control of the chamber in 2014.

When Trump took office in January, there were more than 100 vacant seats on the federal courts, thanks to an unprecedented slowdown engineered by McConnell during the final two years of President Obama’s term. The Senate under GOP control approved only 22 judges in that two-year period, the lowest total since 1951-52 in the last year of President Truman’s term. By contrast, the Senate under Democratic control approved 68 judges in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency.

The best-known vacancy was on the Supreme Court. After Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, McConnell refused to permit a hearing for Judge Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee. Trump filled the seat this year with Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.

The Alliance for Justice, which tracks judicial nominees, said Trump’s team is off to a fast start, particularly when compared with Obama’s first year. By November 2009, Obama had made 27 judicial nominations, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Trump has nominated 59 people to the federal courts, including Justice Gorsuch. That’s also a contrast with Trump’s pace in filling executive branch jobs, where he has lagged far behind the pace of previous administrations.

Liberal advocates are dismayed that Republicans have voted in unison on Trump’s judges.

“So far, no one from his party has been willing to stand up against him on the agenda of packing the courts,” said Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way.

Last month, when the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on several other nominations, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Talley about his fervent advocacy of gun rights. In a blog post titled “A Call to Arms,” he wrote that “the President and his democratic allies in Congress are about to launch the greatest attack on our constitutional freedoms in our lifetime,” referring to Obama’s proposal for background checks and limits on rapid-fire weapons following the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

“The object of that war is to make guns illegal, in all forms,” Talley wrote. The NRA “stands for all of us now, and I pray that in the coming battle for our rights, they will be victorious,” he added.

A month later, he reprinted a “thoughtful response” from a reader who wrote: “We will have to resort to arms when our other rights — of speech, press, assembly, representative government — fail to yield the desired results.” To that, he wrote: “I agree completely with this.”

When pressed, he told the senators he was “trying to generate discussion. I wanted people to be able to use my blog to discuss issues, to come together and find common ground.”

In a follow-up written question, Feinstein asked him how many times he had appeared in a federal district court.

“To my recollection, during my time as Alabama’s deputy solicitor general, I participated as part of the legal team in one hearing in federal district court in the Middle District of Alabama,” he replied.

On Thursday, the Judiciary Committee approved White House lawyer Greg Katsas on a 11-9 vote to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, then approved Talley on another 11-9 vote. The nominations now move to the Senate floor, where a similar party-line result is expected.

Major questions before the Supreme Court this fall »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

UPDATES:

9:50 a.m.: This article was updated with comments from the Judicial Crisis Network.

This article was originally published at 8:10 a.m.

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.

Reporting from Sacramento — An Assembly panel on Tuesday recommended the confirmation of Los Angeles Rep. Xavier Becerra as state attorney general after the nominee pledged to aggressively defend state policies on immigration, civil rights and the environment against potential attacks by President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

Before the panel’s 6-3 vote in favor of confirmation, with all Republicans opposed, Co-Chairman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) told Becerra that he expects the state will become involved in a “long and ferocious and hard-fought legal war” with the federal government.

“Now more than ever we need an attorney general who will defend our values and stand up to the next administration’s backward vision for America,” Jones-Sawyer said during the hearing, denouncing Trump’s campaign rhetoric as “xenophobic.”

Gov. Jerry Brown introduced Becerra at the two-hour hearing, warning that “there are big battles ahead” and calling his nominee an “outstanding candidate that can certainly champion the causes we believe in.”

The nomination still must be acted on by the full Assembly, which is scheduled to vote Friday, as well as the Senate. The Senate Rules Committee will hold a confirmation hearing Jan. 18.

Becerra was questioned for more than an hour by members of the Assembly Special Committee on the Office of the Attorney General. He told them he is ready to fight for the state’s values. He told the panel that as the son of hardworking immigrants, he is committed to fighting any federal policy that takes away the rights of Californians who are playing by the rules.

“As California’s chief law enforcement officer and legal advocate, I am going to be ready to deploy those values and life lessons to advance and defend the rights — big and small — of all Californians,” Becerra told the panel. “Everyone who plays by California’s rules deserves to know, ‘We’ve got your back.’ ”

The 12-term congressman said he supports the state’s policies protecting the environment and civil rights. He said he opposes racial profiling by police and the stop-and-frisk policies of other cities.

With Trump proposing mass deportations and registration of immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries, Becerra said, “the head winds from outside of California could threaten the basic rights of so many families like the one I grew up in.”

“At risk is the notion that anyone who, like my parents and yours, works hard and builds this country can dream to own their own home, send their kids to college, earn a dignified retirement,” he said.

Asked about threats of cuts in federal funding to sanctuary cities, Becerra said cities will not protect violent criminals.

“‘Sanctuary’ is simply saying we are not going to go out there and do the bidding of an aggressive immigration enforcement agency.”

Updates from Sacramento »

Becerra noted that federal law, on occasion, preempts state law, but he said he will be vigilant in ensuring that the state’s laws are preserved to the extent possible.

“If we have laws in place, we have every right to protect those laws,” Becerra said. “And while the federal government has preemption authority in most cases against the state for matters that are federal in nature, the federal government would have to prove that what it’s doing is federal in nature and that it isn’t violating the state’s rights to enact laws that improve the welfare of its people.

“You will find me being as aggressive as possible working with all of you to figure out ways that we can make sure there is no federal intrusion in areas that are really left to the state in the U.S. Constitution.”

Republican members called on Becerra to make fighting crime his top priority and said they had concerns about the attorney general failing to defend the rights of gun owners and religious institutions facing interference by the state government.

Assemblyman James Gallagher (R-Plumas Lake) complained about religious nonprofits being told by the state they must inform clients of the availability of abortion services even if it is against their beliefs.

Becerra tried to lighten the mood in the face of deeply philosophical questions.

“You’re getting into some subjects that probably require a few beers,” Becerra said, offering to buy Gallagher a round so they could talk about weighty issues.

Some 50 people testified, with support coming from groups such as the Sierra Club, Los Angeles Police Protective League, Equality California and several labor unions. Only two people objected to the nomination, including an American Independent Party member who questioned whether Becerra had enough years serving as an attorney to be qualified.

Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition said his group wants a state attorney general who can protect the constitutional rights of gun owners.

“Unfortunately, based on the record, we simply do not believe that this nominee is capable of doing that,” DeLuz told the panel.

The National Rifle Assn. also opposed Becerra in a letter.

[email protected]

Follow @mcgreevy99 on Twitter

ALSO

Four former attorneys general and 38 members of Congress write to support Rep. Xavier Becerra for state AG

Political Road Map: The only thing ‘special’ about California special elections is the cost to taxpayers

Who’s in and who’s out in the race to replace Rep. Xavier Becerra in Congress

SO far, everything she’s touched has been TV gold – but one of Alison Hammond’s shows is now heading to the TV scrapyard.

Over the past few years the This Morning presenter has landed a string of big programmes including ITV’s For The Love Of Dogs, Channel 4’s Great British Bake Off and her Big Weekend chat show for the BBC.

6

But I can reveal that after just two series, the axe is falling on Rob Beckett’s Smart TV, the Sky panel show which featured her as a team captain alongside host Rob and fellow captain Josh Widdicombe.

A TV insider said: “It’s a surprise, given the show was well received.

“But Sky are increasingly turning their focus towards talent-led shows.

“They’ve already announced they’re bringing to an end another hugely popular stablemate, the sports panel contest, A League of Their Own.

“It’s part of a pivot towards shows which don’t just feature talent but are fronted by them on a personal level — for example Danny and Danni Dyer‘s upcoming show where they operate a caravan park, as well as the new Gemma Collins documentary following her getting married and having IVF.”

Alison was being talked about as a major signing for Sky in 2022, which was before details of Smart TV had even been confirmed.

Bosses heralded her as “a brilliant addition”, saying they hoped to give her more projects, adding: “We don’t really golden handcuff any of our entertainment talent, but we do keep them busy so they sort of feel ‘a bit Sky’.”

A spokeswoman for Sky said yesterday: “After two brilliant series testing the telly knowledge of the nation, it is time for us to roll the credits on Rob Beckett’s Smart TV.

“Our huge thanks to the TV quizzing trio, Rob Beckett, Alison Hammond, and Josh Widdicombe who brought all the laughs to screen.

“We look forward to working together again.”

STEEL IN TEST OF METTLE

STEEL the Gladiator’s heart is as big as his biceps.

The BBC muscle man – real name Zack George – heads into the final stages of his 13 Days Fighting challenge for a baby-loss charity.

6

He has so far raised more than £25,000 for Leo & Friends, to honour his son Leo who died at 13 days old.

Since August 18, Zack has completed a mile of burpees every day, with a stage in Cambridge today, followed by Loughborough later this week.

Pals including Gladiator Legend and fitness guru Joe Wicks have joined him along the way.

Zack said yesterday: “Extremely tired, body is sore and can hardly walk with the calf – but we’re getting it done.

“I wanted a challenge where I had to fight, like Leo did for 13 days.”

For more details and to support, see Zack’s Instagram page @zackgeorge.

SHERIDAN SHOCK AT KATE JOB

MANY will recall the bizarre moment on This Morning when Gyles Brandreth wrongly claimed Sheridan Smith was going to play Kate Middleton in a new drama.

But not Sheridan, who was blissfully unaware of the clanger 17 months ago.

6

She was shown the clip during an interview on Capital Radio yesterday and seemed as stunned as the rest of us.

The actress said: “How have I missed that?

“They actually announced that like it was real?

“Oh stop it, this is getting out of hand.

“That’s hysterical.”

Strangely, Sheridan’s pals often send her clips and memes, but didn’t pass on the one from This Morning.

A BLUE PETER BADGE? THAT’S F.A.B., ANTHEA

HERE’S one that Anthea Turner wishes she made earlier.

The veteran TV presenter has finally been awarded the top Blue Peter badge, more than three decades after her two-year stint on the children’s TV show ended in 1994.

6

6

She picked up a highly-coveted Gold badge to mark the BBC series’ new era as HACKER T DOG joins cast members Abby Cook, Joel Mawhinney and Shini Muthukrishnan.

Anthea said: “I have coveted the golden Blue Peter badge for so many years and never got one – and now they’ve put this right.

“All these years I’ve been without one, and at every Blue Peter event I’ve hoped I would get one.

“It’s now even become a standing joke. So this is my proudest moment and I won’t forget it.”

Meanwhile, I’ll always remember her as the brains behind Blue Peter’s most famous “make” – a loo roll Tracy Island from The Thunderbirds.

Totally F.A.B.

DANNY’S RIVALS LIFELINE

DANNY DYER was “thrown a lifeline” when Rivals show boss Dominic Treadwell-Collins gave him the role of Freddie Jones in the Disney+ bonkbuster.

The actor and director had worked together on EastEnders.

6

But after Danny left in 2022, it’s fair to say his career was a bit patchy.

Talking at the Edinburgh TV Festival, Angellica Bell recalled speaking to him behind the scenes when he was a guest on The One Show and she was hosting.

She said: “I took him to one side and I said, ‘Oh my gosh you are insane in Rivals, and he was almost brought to tears.

“I saw him again and he sat down and he said to me, ‘Dominic gave me a lifeline, he saw something in me and it is like a renaissance.’

“He said not many people have given him an opportunity where he can grow in his art.

“It was really moving.”

NEW YORK — For the first time in 30 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics is substantially diverging from U.S. government vaccine recommendations.

The group’s new COVID-19 recommendations — released Tuesday — come amid a tumultuous year for public health, as vaccine skeptics have come into power in the new Trump administration and government guidance has become increasingly confusing.

This isn’t going to help, acknowledged Dr. James Campbell, vice chair of the AAP infectious diseases committee.

“It is going to be somewhat confusing. But our opinion is we need to make the right choices for children to protect them,” he added.

The AAP is strongly recommending COVID-19 shots for children ages 6 months to 2 years. Shots also are advised for older children if parents want their kids vaccinated, the AAP said.

That differs from guidance established under U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which doesn’t recommend the shots for healthy children of any age but says kids may get the shots in consultation with physicians.

Children ages 6 months to 2 years are at high risk for severe illness from COVID-19, and it was important that recommendations continue to emphasize the need for them to get vaccinated, said Campbell, a University of Maryland infectious diseases expert.

Vaccinations also are recommended for older children who have chronic lung diseases or other conditions that put them at higher risk for severe disease, the AAP said.

In a statement, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said “the AAP is undermining national immunization policymaking with baseless political attacks.”

He accused the group of putting commercial interests ahead of public health, noting that vaccine manufacturers have been donors to the AAP’s Friends of Children Fund. The fund is currently paying for projects on a range of topics, including health equity and prevention of injuries and deaths from firearms.

The 95-year-old Itasca, Illinois-based organization has issued vaccination recommendations for children since the 1930s. In 1995, it synced its advice with recommendations made by the federal government’s Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There have been a few small differences between AAP and CDC recommendations since then. For example, the AAP has advised that children get HPV vaccinations starting at age 9; the CDC says that’s OK but has emphasized vaccinations at ages 11 and 12.

But in 30 years, this is the first time the recommendations have differed “in a significant or substantial way,” Campbell said.

Until recently, the CDC — following recommendations by infectious disease experts — has been urging annual COVID-19 boosters for all Americans ages 6 months and older.

But in May, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that COVID-19 vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. A few days later, the CDC issued language that healthy children may get the shots, but that there was no longer a “should” recommendation.

The idea that healthy older kids may be able to skip COVID-19 boosters has been brewing for some time among public health experts. As the COVID-19 pandemic has waned, experts have increasingly discussed the possibility of focusing vaccination efforts on people 65 and older — who are among those most as risk for death and hospitalization.

A CDC expert panel in June was set to make recommendations about the fall shots. Among the options the panel was considering was whether suggest shots for high-risk groups but still giving lower-risk people the choice to get vaccinated.

But Kennedy bypassed the group, and also decided to dismiss the 17-member panel and appoint his own, smaller panel, that included vaccine skeptics. Kennedy also later excluded the AAP, the American Medical Association and other top medical organizations from working with the advisers to establish vaccination recommendations.

Kennedy’s new vaccine panel has yet to vote on COVID-19 shot recommendations.

The panel did endorse continuing to recommend fall flu vaccinations, but also made a decision that led to another notable difference with the AAP.

The new advisory panel voted that people should only get flu vaccines that are packaged as single doses and do not contain the preservative thimerosal.

The AAP said there is no evidence of harm from the preservative, and recommended doctors use any licensed flu vaccine product that’s appropriate for the patient.

Stobbe writes for the Associated Press.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Aug. 19 (UPI) — Some of the Jeffrey Epstein files will be made public after the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform receives them from the Justice Department.

The committee subpoenaed the Justice Department to obtain some of the files and will redact some information to protect alleged victims and other sensitive information, a committee spokesperson told CNN on Tuesday.

The panel anticipates receiving the first batch of Epstein files on Friday, but its members do not know when they might be made public.

“The committee intends to make the records public after a thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted,” the unnamed committee spokesperson said.

“The committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations.”

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Tenn., on Monday said the DOJ is cooperating with the committee’s subpoena, which came with an Aug. 19 deadline to comply, CBS News reported.

“There are many records in the DOJ’s custody,” Comer said in a prepared statement.

“It will take the department time to produce all of the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted,” he added.

The Trump administration is committed to providing transparency regarding the Epstein files to inform the public, Comer said.

The committee also subpoenaed former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and several former attorneys general and FBI directors to obtain their testimonies.

Former Attorney General William Barr testified before the committee in a closed session on Monday.

Barr was the attorney general from 2018 to 2020 during Trump’s first term and from 1991 to 1993 during former President George H.W. Bush‘s administration.

The California Supreme Court sided with environmental groups in a Thursday ruling, saying that state lawyers were wrong in their claim that the Public Utilities Commission’s decision to slash rooftop solar incentives could not be challenged.

The unanimous decision sends the case brought by the three groups back to the appeals court.

The groups argue the utilities commission violated state law in 2022 when it cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending their unused power to the electric grid by as much as 80%. The rules apply to Californians installing the panels after April 14, 2023.

The Supreme Court justices said the appeals court erred in January 2024 when it ruled against the environmental groups. In that decision, the appeals court said that courts must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.

“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court had concluded then in its opinion.

The environmental groups argued the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.

“The California Supreme Court has ruled in our favor that the CPUC is not above the law,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group, after Thursday’s decision was published. The other groups filing the case are the Center for Biological Diversity and The Protect Our Communities Foundation.

The utilities commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the ruling.

More than 2 million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal, set by a 2018 law, of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.

The utilities commission has said that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This has raised electric bills, especially hurting low-income electric customers, the commission says.

The credits for energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid had been valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commission has voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.

The state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — have sided with commission in the case.

The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.

For decades, the utilities have worked to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.

State lawmakers are considering a bill meant to protect access to HIV prevention drugs for insured Californians as threats from the federal government continue.

Assembly Bill 554 would require health plans and insurers to cover all antiretroviral drugs used for PrEP and PEP regimens. The drugs just have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and would not require prior authorization. The bill would also prevent health plans from forcing patients to first try a less expensive drug before choosing a more expensive, specialty option.

The bill requires insurance providers to cover these drugs without cost-sharing with patients, and it limits the ability of insurers and employers to review treatments to determine medical necessity. To streamline reimbursements and expand the range of PrEP medications doctors can pick for their patients, the legislation allows providers to directly bill insured patients’ pharmaceutical benefit plans.

LGBTQ+ public health advocates worry that the Trump administration’s recent attempt to slash $1.5 billion in HIV prevention funding from the federal budget — along with its decisions to stop offering suicide-prevention counseling for LGBTQ+ individuals through the national 988 lifeline and to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender Americans — amounts to an assault on the queer community.

The state bill would act “as a shield against this administration’s cruelty,” said California Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) who co-sponsored AB 554 with Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco).

A recent cause for alarm among LGBTQ+ health advocates, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, is news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to replace the entire U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because its 16 appointed members are too “woke,” according to unnamed individuals cited by the Journal.

At a news conference Monday, Kennedy confirmed that he is reviewing the makeup of the panel, adding that he hasn’t made a final decision.

The bill was introduced earlier in the year out of fear that Kennedy’s skepticism about vaccines might spill over into HIV/PrEP drug coverage and because of worries that President Trump would dismantle the task force, González said.

The task force wields immense influence, making recommendations about which cancer screenings, tests for chronic diseases and preventive medications are beneficial for Americans and therefore should be covered by insurers — including drugs for HIV/AIDS prevention.

Drugs prescribed in a PrEP regimen — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — block the virus that causes AIDS from multiplying in a person’s body. They can be taken in either pill or injection form on an ongoing basis. PEP refers to post-exposure prophylaxis and involves taking medication within 72 hours of potential exposure and for a short period of time, in order to prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Both regimens are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS when used correctly.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 by congressional authorization to issue evidence-based advice to physicians on which screenings and preventive medicines are worth considering for their healthy patients. The panel’s recommendations are closely watched by professional societies when adopting guidelines for their clinician members. In many cases, when insurers are on the fence about whether to cover a given screening or diagnostic test, they’ll turn to the panel’s recommendations.

The panel, made up of doctors, nurses, health psychologists, epidemiologists and statisticians who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine and who serve four-year terms on a voluntary basis, is meant to be free from conflicts of interest and outside influences.

Some of its past recommendations, however, such as its advice on prostate cancer screenings, have been met with criticism.

When it comes to HIV prevention, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to back up the task force with its July 11 ruling in Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which upheld a key mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover preventive care, including for HIV.

However, in the same ruling, the court also declared that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to review decisions made by the task force, and to remove members at his or her discretion.

Kennedy abruptly postponed the task force’s July meeting, sparking concern among public health advocates and Democratic leaders.

“The task force has done very little over the past five years,” Kennedy said at Monday’s news conference. “We want to make sure that it is performing, that it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public.”

González said he worries that the Supreme Court gave the administration a new way to meddle in the healthcare decisions of LGBTQ+ people.

“The Braidwood decision was both a relief and a wake-up call,” González said. “While it upheld the Preventive Services Task Force’s existing recommendations — keeping protections for PrEP, cancer screenings, and vaccines intact — it handed unprecedented authority to RFK Jr. to reshape that very task force and place existing protections under direct threat once again.”

González described AB 554 as “a measure to protect LGBTQ+ Californians and ensure we never return to the neglect and devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis.” The state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the bill on Aug. 29.

“These attacks aren’t isolated,” the lawmaker said. “They are coordinated, deliberate, and aimed squarely at our most vulnerable communities.”

Loose Women has had one off specials before and this week there will be another change to their panel amid ITV cost cutting exercises

Loose Women will change up their panel for the first-ever Loose Doctors special on Wednesday.

Dr Amir Khan, Dr Zoe Williams, Dr Hilary Jones and Dr Nighat Arif will examine the health issues that matter most to viewers and explain how we can all improve our own wellbeing.

During the lunchtime show, the four ITV Daytime doctors will tackle the taboo topics that people are often afraid to ask about and share their top tips for living a longer and happier life. And it comes after ITV fans accuse Alan Titchmarsh of ‘ruining’ garden as foster parents were left sobbing

READ MORE: Why the new Bonnie Blue documentary may be the worst thing I’ve ever seen on Channel 4READ MORE: John Torode’s businesses collapsed after racking up eye-watering debts

Ahead of the episode, Dr Amir, who often works on Good Morning Britain, said: “This is the first time four of ITV’s Daytime doctors will be on the panel together to look at the health issues that affect us all.

“We’ll be sharing our expert medical advice and having some very candid conversations about the things that our patients are often too embarrassed to talk about, but shouldn’t be, and hopefully giving them the confidence to make the most of their appointments. I’m really looking forward to the episode and hope that viewers will enjoy it, as well as learning some important and potentially life saving tips too.”

This Morning star Dr Nighat added: “I couldn’t be happier sharing a panel with some dear colleagues and friends for this special episode. We will be opening up on some of our own heartfelt health stories and having a number of important conversations about how viewers can look after themselves, as well as sharing our top self-examination tips.

“As doctors, we are also humans and hope that by sharing a little part of our own lives, our patients and viewers know that they’re not alone and sometimes, we’re going through similar things to them.”

The special follows on from other one-off versions of the programme including Loose Men panels on International Men’s Day.

Dr Zoe said: “I’m so excited for this episode of Loose Doctors. While the four of us know each other well, we’ll be sharing some of our own stories and experiences, just as our patients bravely share theirs with us. We hope this offers viewers the chance to get to know us better and helps people feel more comfortable opening up. We’re going to be tackling some of the taboo topics people might not always want to discuss, to empower you to feel confident in understanding and checking your own body, and knowing when to seek help.”

And Dr Hilary, well known for working with Lorraine Kelly on screen, said: “I think viewers are going to love the first-ever Loose Doctors episode.

“You’ll see four of ITV’s Daytime doctors open up about their personal journeys whilst offering some of our tips to look after you and your family. I hope that viewers will learn a lot and be entertained at the same time as we open the Loose Doctors doors for the first time.”

Loose Women has been on ITV since 1999 and normally sees a rotating panel comprised of women discussing issues from a their perspectives, from politics and current affairs to all the latest gossip.

It is one of a number of daytime shows at ITV facing cuts and the daytime panel show will be down to 30 weeks a year in 2026.

It means some of the panelists are likely to lose their jobs.

* Loose Doctors airs on Wednesday 6th August, from 12:30pm on ITV1, ITVX, STV and STV Player.

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

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

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

ICYMI

Must-read stories you might have missed

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

(Jennifer McCord / For The Times)

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

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

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

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

Turn on

Recommendations from the film and TV experts at The Times

Ed Sullivan with the Jackson 5 and Diana Ross.

(Netflix)

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

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

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

(Ghost Dog / Artisan Entertainment)

’90s Soundtrack Movies (Criterion Channel)

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

Guest spot

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

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

(Rankin / Disney)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refers to it as the “ribbon of shame,” a congressional district that stretches in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line. Voters there refer to it as “the district that disappears at high tide.”

Democratic lawmakers drew it that way to make sure one of their own won every election. The party has held the seat throughout the decade — since the last redistricting gave it a big edge in voter registration there.

Critics of that 2001 remapping have cited the coastal ribbon as Exhibit A — the reason, they say, that Californians were right to strip elected officials of the power to choose their voters and give the task of determining political boundaries to more ordinary citizens.

As the new Citizens Redistricting Commission begins its work next month, members say, the 23rd Congressional District will be a good reminder of what not to do.

“It’s been used as an example of how absurd the process is,” said Peter Yao, the commission’s chairman. “It does not allow people to choose the candidate. They are forced to go with the party’s choice.”

Republicans have protected themselves too. Using a spaghetti strip of land along the shore of heavily Democratic Long Beach, for example, they connected a GOP-leaning area of Orange County with a pouch of like-minded voters on the Palos Verdes Peninsula to create the 46th Congressional District.

The whole country, in fact, is marked with districts so distorted by gerrymandering that they are referred to by such names as “Rabbit on a Skateboard” (in Illinois) and “Upside-Down Chinese Dragon” (in Pennsylvania).

California, which voted two years ago to take the job of redrawing state districts from lawmakers, is one of 10 states that have given the job to a citizens group. But most of them are appointed by elected officials and are less independent than the Golden State’s panel.

In the districts drawn by the Legislature the old way, every incumbent member of Congress and the state Legislature on the California ballot was reelected Nov. 2 — even as a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that only 21% of voters approve of the job being done by Congress and 12% like what state lawmakers do.

Now the bipartisan citizen commission, appointed through a process overseen by the state auditor, will draw both the Legislature’s districts and California’s congressional boundaries. Last month, voters added the federal districts to the panel’s job.

Proponents of the change said it could alter campaigns and improve government. The new districts would be more competitive, forcing candidates to appeal to a broader range of voters, according to Tony Quinn, co-editor of the nonpartisan Target Book, which analyzes California legislative races, and a former Republican redistricting consultant.

“They would be more worried about getting elected, so their behavior would change,” Quinn said. “They would reflect their districts much more.”

Under the new rules, boundaries can no longer be drawn according to where an incumbent lives or how the lines would benefit him or her, said advisors to the commission.

Lines must be drawn “for publicly minded good rather than reflecting what gives a particular legislator an advantage,” said Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School who advises the commission.

The new rules emphasize compactness, contiguity and the need to keep counties, cities, neighborhoods and other communities of interest together. The aim is to prevent redrawings such as the one that left San Luis Obispo County and some cities scattered among multiple districts.

Rep. Lois Capps (D- Santa Barbara) has easily won reelection every two years since the latest boundaries were drawn to create a district 44.3% Democratic and 32.9% Republican. Previously, she represented a district that was 39.1% Democratic and 39.4% Republican.

The map makers kept heavily Republican precincts out and connected heavily Democratic precincts along the coast, using areas that are just a few blocks wide.

“You can drive a golf ball across [the district] in a couple of places,” said Tom Watson, a Republican businessman who unsuccessfully challenged Capps last month.

The boundaries also split the city of Ventura between Capps, who has about a fourth of it, and Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Simi Valley). In 2000, before the last remapping, Gallegly’s district was 40.6% Democratic and 39.8% Republican. Afterward, it was 45.9% Republican and 34.6% Democrat.

Redistricting expert Alan Clayton is concerned that black and Latino voters could lose ground under the new criteria, which he said are too vague about how much weight should be given to which factors and what constitutes “communities of interest.” And, he said, a citizens panel need not be responsive to constituent groups the way lawmakers would be.

Clayton cites the example of congressional districts that divide the city of Long Beach. Part of that city is split into a district shared with Compton, making it easier, at least theoretically, for an African American to be elected. If Long Beach is kept in one congressional district without Compton, it could mean the loss of an African American seat, Clayton said.

Bob Hertzberg, who was Assembly speaker during the 2001 redistricting, said he doubts the new method will produce significant change in the numbers of Democratic- and Republican-held seats, because that is largely a function of voter registration.

“I don’t think it makes a hill of beans’ difference,” he said. Still, he supported the ballot measure that took the job from the Legislature. “It’s about restoring public confidence in government. You can’t have people thinking that politicians are self-dealing.”

After last month’s election, Schwarzenegger said the old method polarized government and contributed to its dysfunction.

“To win those districts, you had to be far to the left or far to the right,” he said, “and of course that is why it is very tough here in Sacramento to get things done.”

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO — Over the years, Hall H at San Diego Comic-Con has built a reputation — and an expectation — as the room where Hollywood juggernauts in attendance at the annual pop culture extravaganza unveil exclusive footage, break news and share behind-the-scenes stories with devoted fans, who often spend hours in line just for a chance to make it through the doors.

It’s not surprising, then, that headlines going into this year’s Comic-Con, which concludes Sunday, carried an air of disappointment about the absence of Marvel and other major film studios from Hall H’s programming schedule — even if 2025 is not the first time Marvel and others have sat out Comic-Con for one reason or another.

But for many fans in attendance, the news merited little more than a shrug.

Hector Guzman, who along with his friend Joaquin Horas made the trip from Los Angeles, acknowledged that the Hall H slate “felt a little bit different this year” with no Marvel Studios panel.

But “there’s still a wide presence of Marvel,” he added. “The ‘Fantastic Four’ movie that just came out — we’ve been seeing a heavy push on that this year.”

Guzman and Horas had spent a little over an hour in the Hall H line Friday afternoon trying to make it to the “Tron: Ares” panel before bailing, but they said that in their three years of attending the event, Hall H usually isn’t on their itinerary.

“If it’s interesting to us, we’ll give it a shot, and if it’s not, then there’s always plenty of other events and stuff going around [the convention],” said Horas. He and Guzman explained that they are generally more interested in exclusive merchandise, custom works by artists and getting together with their friends in cosplay.

Other attendees like Jennifer Moore and Sam Moore of British Columbia, Canada, took advantage of the absence of popular Hall H mainstays to get into Friday presentations they were excited about, including for “Alien: Earth” and “The Long Walk.”

“Last year was my first time [in Hall H],” said Jennifer Moore, who said they’d been attending the event for 10 years.

“Now [that] there’s no Marvel thing or DC thing, it’s pretty easy to get in,” said Sam Moore. “We’ve just been doing walk-ins [for Hall H] this year.”

That’s not to say Hall H was entirely without spectacle: Highlights included an ensemble of bagpipers performing “Scotland the Brave,” a dazzling laser light show, the world premiere of the “Alien” franchise’s first ever television series and an appearance by “Star Wars” filmmaker George Lucas to promote the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art.

A look inside the “Tron: Ares” Hall H panel at Comic-Con.

(Richard Shotwell / Invision / AP)

And although the Comic-Con experience has grown beyond the walls of the San Diego Convention Center, with immersive experiences and pop-ups spilling into the city’s Gaslamp Quarter and the Embarcadero, Hall H remains a venerated programming space for panelists and attendees alike.

“I want to give people the experience that they bought their tickets for to come here,” said Noah Hawley, the creator of “Alien: Earth” before the upcoming FX series’ Hall H presentation on Friday. “I was surprised the first time I came to Comic-Con, how emotional it is for the people who attend. There’s a lot of people for whom [361] days a year, they have to pretend to be somebody else. These [four] days of the year, they get to be who they really feel like they are on the inside.”

The Moores were among those who were able to make it into Hall H without much of a wait on Friday morning. But by Friday afternoon, the line had grown much longer in anticipation for later panels, which included capacity crowds. Other big draws included anime franchise entry “Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba Infinity Castle” and DC Studios co-chief James Gunn, who received an ovation for the success of his recent “Superman” reboot while presenting the second season of the John Cena series “Peacemaker.”

Even those who were attending Comic-Con to promote their own projects couldn’t hold in their excitement for anime juggernaut “Demon Slayer.” Besides the Hall H, panel ads promoting the upcoming movie — which has already broken attendance records in Japan — adorned a nearby hotel and the trains of the Trolley.

“There is a part of me that just wants to be out with the fans in my Tanjiro outfit with the earrings with my daughter,” said actor Babou Ceesay of “Alien: Earth,” referencing the young warrior with a gentle heart at the center of “Demon Slayer.”

The growth of anime and animation programming at Comic-Con and inside Hall H is a reminder that the convention is best understood as a reflection of ongoing shifts in nerd culture and fandom. Having evolved from a gathering primarily for comic book collectors to a broader celebration of pop culture where blockbuster movies once had a stranglehold, Comic-Con may now be witnessing the loosening of comic book superhero films’ grip on the zeitgeist as a whole. Indeed, television has steadily increased its Comic-Con footprint for years. Studios and streamers have also been organizing their own promotional events, such as Disney’s D23 and Netflix’s Tudum, to build up buzz on their terms, too.

Plus, as fan Robbie Weber of Los Angeles reiterated, Comic-Con is more than just what happens in Hall H. When he first attended the event 11 years ago he was among those that camped out overnight in order to get into the hall, but this time around he skipped it, opting to explore activations and other panels instead.

“We saw [comic book writer] Jonathan Hickman [on Thursday],” said Weber. “We saw a friend on the “Primitive War” panel [on Friday], which was really cool. It was the first time I’ve been able to see a friend do something like that.”

For many, Comic-Con’s main draw remains how fans can freely celebrate their passions.

“Alien: Earth” actor Alex Lawther said it was nice to hear the excitement of the people around him on his San Diego-bound train as they reminisced about their past experiences and shared photos of their cosplay.

“I really get that intense enjoyment of something to the point where you want to walk down the street wearing the costumes,” he said.

The nation’s highest court has frequently ruled in favour of Trump’s expansive interpretation of presidential powers.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump can remove three Democratic members of a consumer safety watchdog, handing him a win in his efforts to concentrate more power in the hands of the executive.

The court’s decision allows Trump to boot three members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission appointed by his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden.

That ruling reverses a lower court decision barring Trump from doing so, on the basis that he had overstepped his authority by seeking their removals.

Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr had sued the Trump administration in May after being terminated from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an independent body created by Congress.

Their seven-year terms were set to expire in 2025, 2027 and 2028, respectively.

In their lawsuit, they argued that Trump had exceeded his powers as president by firing them without cause. A 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent known as Humphrey’s Executor holds that the president cannot fire members of an independent board without providing a legitimate justification.

The commission members also said that their firing would deprive the public of vital expertise and oversight.

The Department of Justice, however, has maintained that preventing the president from firing members of the executive branch undercuts his constitutional authority.

Even independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission fall under the executive branch, the Justice Department pointed out.

The Trump administration’s argument was dealt a defeat on July 2, when US District Judge Matthew Maddox issued an order blocking the dismissal of the three Democratic appointees while their case proceeded.

But Trump’s Justice Department made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, whose conservative majority sided with the president in a brief, unsigned order.

The majority wrote that the government risked greater harm by allowing fired employees to remain in the executive branch than by removing them, even wrongfully, while their court cases proceeded.

The court’s three left-leaning justices, however, issued a dissent that denounced the ruling as an erosion of the separation of powers. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the Consumer Product Safety Commission was created by an act of Congress and answers both to the legislature and the president.

“By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence,” Kagan wrote.

She added that the court’s decision on Wednesday was part of a series of rulings that amounted to “an increase of executive power at the expense of legislative authority”.

The Trump administration has sought to exercise greater control over federal agencies created and funded by Congress, often using a maximalist interpretation of presidential powers to do so. The Supreme Court, which has six conservative members, has mostly ruled in favour of such efforts.

In a similar case in May, the court allowed Trump to remove Democratic members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board as their cases moved forward.

The Supreme Court also ruled earlier this month that the Trump administration’s efforts to hollow out the Department of Education through a campaign of mass firings could move forward.

Oti Mabuse was seen getting emotional on the Loose Women panel earlier today, as she reminisced on her time on the TV show DNA journey with her sister Motsi

Oti Mabuse broke down in tears on today’s episode of Loose Women as she spoke about her emotional journey on the show, DNA Journey.

During the episode of the ITV show, which aired in 2023, Oti and Motsi Mabuse explored their family history in South Africa, in which they discovered a WWII connection.

Their grandfather, Paulus Mabuse, fought for the British in the Native Military Corps during the war. During the ITV daytime show, Oti revisited a clip of herself and her sister Motsi when they found out, which moved her to tears.

In the clip, Oti and Motsi were seen breaking down in tears when they were given medals their grandfather received for his work in the armed forces.

‘It’s a good thing, it’s an amazing thing. Please don’t think we’re sad. One of the missing pieces that we’ve missed and needed to hear for so long, it’s a beautiful thing. We’re so grateful. These are tears of, “Oh my God!”‘

The pair said they had “no idea” that there were war medals in their family, as they learnt their grandfather fought for the British in World War II. Oti revealed that her grandfather, along with many others were promised land. However, they were relocated and left in the middle of nowhere.

Oti said it made her feel “horrendous” as she said both her and Motsi cried their make-up off. However, she said they felt liberated knowing where they come from. “Now I know that I’m a granddaughter of a soldier,” she told the panel, before the clip was played.

As they cut back to the studio after the clip was played, Oti wiped away he tears as she said: “It’s moving.

“Also, I think that we tried to look for something, we didn’t wait for the show to come to us. We also asked our parents, and you can see the generational trauma that it causes.

“My dad didn’t speak to his dad and so he didn’t know. All that they knew is maybe they drank, they went to the mine, and then they died. He didn’t know that his life served a purpose and he helped save the world.

“We’re here because of people like our grandad, and it means the world to us.”

Speaking on her experience on Loose Women, Oti said it was the “best show” she’d ever done. “It gave me something personally back. Our history in South Africa is really rough. Specifically with my family it was wiped out, so we had no way of getting any information.”

Tonight, Sam Thompson and Marvin Humes will be taking part in the ITV show to discover their family history. In the episode, the duo start off in Jamaica. There, JLS star Marvin finds out that his Great Grandma Blanche was not actually married to his Great Grandfather David James.

They had four children, but immediately after the fourth, Marvin’s Grandma Ruby, was born in 1930, David James left.

Meanwhile, Sam flies into a panic when he is told he has an ancestor who spent time in Jamaica. “It doesn’t sounds good, don’t say it..” he says. However, he is relieved to learn there is no slavery connection.

It comes after Sam admits to Marvin that he knew “nothing” about his family history before taking part in the show.

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

June 21 (UPI) — Louisiana can not compel officials to display the Ten Commandments in public school and college classrooms, a federal appeals court has ruled.

“Parents and students challenge a statute requiring public schools to permanently display the Ten Commandments in every classroom in Louisiana. The district court found the statute facially unconstitutional and preliminarily enjoined its enforcement. We affirm,” the appeals court panel said in its 50-page ruling issued this week.

The court ruled Louisiana’s House Bill 71 violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, calling the requirement to display the Ten Commandments “plainly unconstitutional” while affirming a lower court ruling.

“The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Plaintiffs satisfied the preliminary injunction elements,” the appeals court wrote, citing a similar law and subsequent ruling in Kentucky in the 1980s.

Last June, Gov. Jeff Landry, R-La., signed the bill, requiring that “each public school governing authority shall display the Ten Commandments in each classroom in each school under its jurisdiction.”

The law went into effect on Jan. 1 of this year but was challenged by a group that included parents and the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana.

The appeals court panel agreed the law subjected students to “a state-preferred version of Christianity.”

All but five of the state’s school districts are required to follow the law while the legal process plays out. The five districts where the parent plaintiffs live have a temporary exemption.

“We believe that our children should receive their religious education a thome and within our communities, not from government officials,” Rev. Darcy Roake, one of the plaintiffs in the case said in a statement following the ruling.

“We are grateful for this decision, which honors the religious diversity and religious-freedom rights of public school families across Louisiana,” said Roake, who is a Unitarian Universalist Minister.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has indicated she will now seek appeal from the appeals court’s full judge panel and could attempt to have the case heard in front of the Supreme Court of the United State.

“We strongly disagree with the Fifth Circuit’s affirmance of an injunction preventing five Louisiana parishes from implementing HB71. We will immediately seek relief from the full Fifth Circuit and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court,” Murrill said in a statement.

“We will immediately seek relief from the full FIfth CIrcuit and, if necessary the United States Supreme Court.”