WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.
It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.
California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.
They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.
Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.
(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)
Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.
But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.
Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.
The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”
“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.
The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.
“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.
In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”
The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.
Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.
UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”
Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.
Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.
The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)
Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.
A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.
The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.
Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.
The justices may opt out of ruling, however.
When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.
Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.
And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.
A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.
In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.
Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.
In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.
But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.
Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.
The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”
The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.
The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.
The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.
Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.
In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.
California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.
Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”
Tens of thousands of civil servants, including teachers, firefighters and healthcare workers, have marched in cities across France to demand higher pay, as students clashed with the police in separate protests over conditions at their schools.
Unions said some 300,000 people took part in the one-day strike action nationwide, while police on Tuesday estimated a turnout of 30,000 in the capital, Paris. The workers also demanded better working conditions and expressed anger at the government’s planned budget cuts.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Protests also took place at more than 400 schools, about 40 of which were blockaded and 44 of which faced attempted blockades.
Ten people, both students and staff members, were wounded, and at least 440 were detained, officials said.
The strikes and the student unrest came two days before the government is to unveil its draft budget and seven months before the presidential election. According to unions, the government proposes freezing base salaries for state employees in 2027 to save 2 billion euros ($2.3bn).
It would be the fourth consecutive annual freeze and the eighth during President Emmanuel Macron’s tenure. Unions say the freezes have cost workers a double-digit share of their purchasing power, and they are demanding a 6 percent raise.
‘Red alert’
Sophie Binet, general secretary of the General Confederation of Labor, called the protests “a red alert”.
“This anger is not going away. The government must look again at the budget,” she told Al Jazeera. She gave the government 48 hours to reverse the planned cuts before her union decides on further strike action.
The Education Ministry said just more than 11 percent of teachers and other school staff went on strike. French teachers are paid less on average than their counterparts in other European countries.
Fewer than 1 in 10 other civil servants took part, and fewer still in hospitals, with the loss of a day’s pay a likely factor in the turnout. France’s civil aviation regulator had warned of flight disruptions at some airports.
Professional firefighters, who say this summer’s huge wildfires exposed a lack of resources, were among those marching.
The government has already unveiled measures to help households cope with a spike in energy prices driven by the United States and Israel’s war on Iran, but it has failed to quell the discontent with Macron and his administration.
Student unrest
Students, meanwhile, have been protesting outside hundreds of schools over timetables, class sizes, teacher shortages and overheated classrooms during this year’s heatwaves. The demonstrations began in the Ile-de-France region around Paris and spread to other cities.
In addition to the 10 students and staff members who were hurt, 48 law enforcement officials were injured, authorities said, as students in some places set fire to rubbish bins and hurled projectiles, and officers responded with batons and tear gas.
Interior Minister Laurent Nunez told BFMTV that 440 people had been detained.
“We don’t have the final tally yet, but I’m told two thirds led to police custody,” he said. “Violence is never legitimate. There is nothing that justifies violence.”
Education Minister Edouard Geffray condemned the clashes on social media.
“This violence is unspeakable,” he wrote, adding that legal proceedings had begun. “To legitimize it or… call for an expansion of the blockades is to endanger both our students and public officials. It is irresponsible.”
‘Fewer cops, more money’
In Seine-Saint-Denis, a low-income suburb of Paris, Bally Bagayoko, the district’s mayor and a member of the hard-left France Unbowed party, joined hundreds of students protesting at the Lycee Paul-Eluard.
He led them in singing the national anthem and called the protests “completely legitimate”, saying poorer areas received fewer resources than wealthier ones.
Outside the Arago school in Paris, students, some with their faces covered, sat on dumpsters to block the entrance beneath a placard reading “Macron explosion”. A banner at the Helene-Boucher school read “Fewer cops, more money”.
“We want fewer police because we think there is a huge amount of police repression, both against high school student movements and social movements more generally,” said Mael Breton, a final-year student there. “This is a real problem, especially when there is such a lack of funding… here at our school and in the national education system more broadly.”
Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu on Monday condemned the high school protests as irresponsible but acknowledged that the “difficulties of high schools must be heard and addressed”.
Jean-Luc Melenchon, a hard-left presidential contender, accused the government of steadily dismantling public services as he addressed protesters in Paris and urged his supporters to mobilise against the draft budget.
A Toluna Harris poll on Monday suggested that Melenchon and Marine Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Rally, would advance to next year’s presidential run-off, with Le Pen best placed to win.
California jury finds Apple infringed two Taction patents but did not willfully violate them; Apple plans to appeal.
Published On 28 Sep 202628 Sep 2026
Apple has been ordered to pay more than $5.7bn for using patented technology from Taction Technology to power haptic feedback, the vibrations users feel when they receive a notification or press a button.
A jury in federal court in the Southern district of California found that the iPhone maker infringed two patents owned by the San Diego-based company.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
“We’re happy the jury found for Taction and vindicated its patent rights,” said Taction attorney Lance Yang following the verdict on Friday.
The verdict is the culmination of a legal battle that began in 2021, when Taction first filed its lawsuit against Apple. In 2023, a federal judge ruled that Apple had not infringed Taction’s patents, but an appeals court revived the case last year.
“Apple is capitalising on Taction’s innovation and success by selling devices that infringe Taction’s patents. Apple is utilising Taction’s patented inventions without license or authority from Taction. Taction has brought this action to remedy Apple’s infringement,” Taction said in the original 31-page complaint.
It also claimed that Apple “at a minimum believed there was a high probability that the accused products were covered by Taction’s patents, but willfully blinded itself to Taction’s patents and the infringing nature of the Accused Products”.
The jury, however, found that Apple did not wilfully infringe the patents.
Apple said it plans to appeal the verdict.
“Apple’s Taptic Engine is fundamentally different from Taction’s technology, which Taction’s own testing of Apple’s products confirmed during trial,” Apple said in response.
The verdict comes at a pivotal moment for the company, amid transitions in its C-suite. In September, John Ternus took over as CEO from Tim Cook, who led Apple for 15 years. The leadership change comes as the Cupertino, California-based tech giant lags behind other major technology companies in rolling out its artificial intelligence products.
Apple shares fell on Monday, declining about two percent as trading got underway.
Not everyone has to pay – and there’s a simple and legal way to avoid paying this £180 annual fee
Not everyone will need a TV Licence(Image: Getty)
People with a Netflix subscription – regardless of their tier – may need to pay a fee of £180, depending on what they watch.
UK households currently pay £180 a year for a colour TV Licence, or £60.50 for a black-and-white set, after the fee increased on April 1, 2026. Failure to pay when needed could land people in hot water, and a fine of £1,000.
Although many people assume a TV Licence only applies to watching the BBC, that is not true. A TV Licence covers far more than BBC content, including:
All TV channels like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, U&Dave and international channels
Pay TV services like Sky, Virgin Media and EE TV
Live TV on streaming services – like YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video
Everything on BBC iPlayer
Watching, recording and downloading on any device
Do I need a TV Licence to watch Netflix?
It depends. Officials note: “If you are watching a TV programme that is being broadcast live on Netflix, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence to watch on-demand programmes on Netflix.”
If you want to keep watching Netflix and avoid paying the Licence fee, simply do not watch any live TV or events on the platform and watch your usual on-demand content. This means you can watch classics like Gilmore Girls, Manifest, Breaking Bad, and the latest competition series, Wonka’s The Golden Ticket – without the need for a TV Licence.
If you live in a shared household, the UK Government confirms: “You need your own TV Licence if you have separate tenancy agreements and you watch TV in your own room.”
You can have one TV Licence for the whole household if you either:
watch TV in a single shared area
have a joint tenancy agreement
I have a Netflix subscription – so why do I need a TV Licence?
TV Licensing explains: “Paying for a Netflix subscription grants you access to a large and varied catalogue of movies, series, documentaries and more. Paying for a TV Licence lets you legally watch and record TV on any channel via a range of TV services, including Sky, Freeview, Virgin and Freesat.
“With a TV Licence, you can also watch live on streaming services (e.g. Amazon Prime and Channel 4) and access the full suite of award-winning movies, series and documentaries on BBC iPlayer.
“Some households enjoy having access to Netflix as well as being covered by a licence. Other households prefer to only pay for a TV Licence to watch live on TV and streaming services, including iPlayer, on any device.”
Netflix isn’t the only streaming service you may need to buy a TV Licence for, on top of the subscription fee. TV Licensing further states: “If you’re watching TV showing live on Amazon Prime, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence if you’re only watching on-demand programmes on Amazon Prime.”
You could be fined £1,000
You can be fined up to £1,000 if you watch or record live TV without a Licence. TV Licensing warns: “You could be prosecuted if we find that you have been watching, recording or downloading programmes illegally.
“The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine plus any legal costs and/or compensation you may be ordered to pay. The maximum fine is £2,000 in Guernsey.”
World leaders arrive in New York for UNGA 81 as wars multiply and trust in international institutions erodes. Al Jazeera’s @EmmaWithrow explains the real question is whether global rules still matter when powerful countries choose to ignore them.
Basketball superstar Kyrie Irving has offered to pay a fine for American football player Azeez Al-Shaair, who was penalised for wearing the name of Hind Rajab, a Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Al-Shaair was handed a fine of $11,941 by the National Football League (NFL) on Wednesday as he was found to be in breach of the NFL’s rules on players’ equipment and clothing during his team Houston Texans’ game against the Buffalo Bills last weekend.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Shortly after the fine was announced by an NFL reporter on X, the pro-Palestine basketball player responded to the tweet by saying he would “take care” of it.
Al-Shaair, 29, is a linebacker for the Houston-based NFL team and a vocal advocate for Palestinian rights.
During his team’s last NFL game, Al-Shaair wrote Rajab’s name on his eye black, a sticker or paint frequently used by NFL players to reduce glare.
Five-year-old Rajab was killed in Gaza after Israeli soldiers opened fire on her family’s stranded car. A phone call by the Palestinian Red Crescent documented her final moments and was the subject of an Oscar-nominated docudrama.
Al-Shaair, a Black American Muslim player, has frequently spoken about the plight of Palestinians and has paid the price for it.
He was also fined in January, during the NFL’s last season, when he displayed the message “Stop The Genocide” on his nose tape. While it did not specifically refer to a particular conflict, it was widely understood to be about Gaza and Sudan.
NFL criticised for ‘inhumane’ fine on Al-Shaair
The NFL’s fine on Al-Shaair comes at a time when Robert Kraft, the owner of the Boston-based team New England Patriots, confirmed that he pressured pop star Ed Sheeran to drop rapper Macklemore from his tour of the United States.
The billionaire is the owner of Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, one of the venues where Macklemore was due to appear on stage as the opening act for Sheeran’s US tour in late September.
Letting Macklemore perform in Gillette Stadium would, Kraft said, cross a line, as he described the rapper’s recent performances as including a “broader history of anti-Semitic rhetoric and imagery”.
Kraft is known for launching a so-called “anti-Semitic campaign” during Israel’s genocide in Gaza in 2023, when players, coaches and executives from his Patriots team wore blue pins.
On October 15, 2023, the NFL observed a moment of silence for Israel during a game between the Baltimore Ravens and the Tennessee Titans in London, United Kingdom, while the league has sanctioned its player for raising awareness for Palestinians.
The NFL was criticised on social media for slapping a fine on Al-Shaair, with one user calling the move “inhumane”.
“He is advocating for the murder of this innocent child Hind Rajab in Palestine and they fine him?! Nah, that is so inhumane. You should be ashamed of yourself,” the user wrote.
Prominent American Muslim scholar Omar Suleiman questioned whether Al-Shaair would have faced a similar punishment if his tape carried the name of Holocaust victim Anne Frank instead.
“Why is honoring murdered Palestinian children ‘an unauthorized message’?” he asked in a post on X.
Meanwhile, the Texas chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations backed Al-Shaair over his continued advocacy for Palestinians.
“We commend Al-Shaair for using his platform to highlight the memory of Hind Rajab, one of the many children murdered by the Israeli government during its genocide in Gaza,” the rights group said in a statement on its website.
“The NFL has no problem with coaches wearing pins developed for genocide supporter Robert Kraft’s “Stand Up to Jewish Hate” campaign, and it should have no problem with an NFL player mentioning the name of a girl killed in that genocide,” the statement went on to add.
“Al-Shaair’s message was rooted in basic human decency and concern for innocent lives. That should not be controversial, much less subject to a fine.”
Irving’s pro-Palestine stance
Meanwhile, nine-time National Basketball Association (NBA) All-Star Irving has previously made his pro-Palestine stance on Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza clear.
In February, Irving wore a shirt reading “PRESS” at the NBA All-Star Game to honour journalists who had been killed in Gaza while covering the war.
According to reports, the tag on his shirt read: “Dedicated to our beloved journalists in Gaza showing the world the truth.”
In April, Irving changed his display picture on Instagram to an image of a Palestinian child blocked from attending school by Israeli soldiers in the occupied West Bank.
During a pre-game interview in 2024, he was seen wearing a chain with the Palestine flag in the shape of Israel’s landmass.
In 2023, the basketball player wore a keffiyeh, a cotton headdress with a distinctive checkered pattern worn in many parts of the Arab world that represents Palestinian identity, during a post-match news conference.
Schools in England are to get around £500 million in extra funding towards the teachers’ pay award this school year, reducing the risk of a strike ballot by the largest education union.
Daniel Kebede, the General Secretary of the NEU, said the offer of more funding was a “significant” step in negotiations.
In a letter to the union on Wednesday, which has been seen by the BBC, the government said the increase would be funded by savings in employers’ contributions to the local government pension scheme.
The letter said the 4.9 percentage point drop in what employers are expected to contribute will deliver “significant savings” on the pay bill for support staff, which will not be clawed back by central government.
The National Education Union said it expected the extra money to be around £500m, which schools can now use towards teachers pay this year.
In July, ministers accepted the recommendation of the independent pay review body for teachers and agreed a 3.5% increase from September 2026 would be followed by 3% the following year.
The pay increase had been partly funded by an additional £700m for 2026-27 and £1.1bn for the following year.
Independent economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that left schools facing a shortfall of around 1% between rising costs and funding this year.
Luke Sibieta, IFS research fellow, said the extra money would mean the pay increase this year was fully funded – and on top of other funding increases, schools would be £1.6bn better off by next year than they had expected this summer.
The additional money could potentially bring the uplift for this year into line with next year.
Kebede said schools has been “running on empty” and the funding signalled “a welcome return to reality, and a message of hope for the entire school community”.
Paul Whiteman, General Secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, said the decision is “certainly welcome”, putting schools in a “better position”.
He said his union would look carefully at the detail “to determine whether this means the pay uplift is genuinely fully funded” for schools.
Pepe Di’Iasio, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he was “pleased” at the announcement of additional funding but “the wider pressure on school and college budgets remains intense”.
Similarly, the NASUWT union welcomed the news. General Secretary Matt Wrack added schools needed “a sustainable, long-term injection of extra funding” to meet the needs of young people.
In an indicative ballot by the NEU in April, 90% of teachers who voted said they would be prepared to take industrial action over funding and pay, on a turnout of 48%.
A formal ballot was due to begin on 3 October and close 15 December, raising the prospects of teachers pay strikes early in 2027.
The national executive of the NEU will meet on 24 September to consider whether to call that off following the additional funding on offer from the government.
A spokesperson for Education Secretary Lucy Powell said the government was “confident schools can now meet the costs of the award at a national level”.
“The Secretary of State has been clear from day one that supporting teacher recruitment, retention and wellbeing, and rebuilding the relationship with the profession, are among her top priorities.”
“This has been a very difficult time for everybody associated with the Clippers, and for that, I have sincere regrets,” Ballmer said in the statement released 11 days after the NBA first sanctioned the owner and his team. “I want to apologize to our fans, employees, and my fellow NBA team owners for the distraction and distress this matter has caused, for which I accept responsibility as principal owner.”
The investigation found Leonard received $66 million in cash and equity from four companies facilitated by Ballmer and Clippers executives at the behest of Dennis Robertson, Leonard’s uncle and then-agent. Ballmer invested $60 million in Aspiration Partners, while Boingo Wireless, Daktronics and Lockton Insurance received $22 million from the Clippers in consulting fees.
The Clippers initially protested and vowed to use all means available to contest sanctions that included banning Ballmer from all league activities for a year, fining the team $30 million and taking away five first-round draft picks in the 2029, 2030, 2031, 2032 and 2033 drafts.
Leonard previously agreed to pay a $700,000 fine and did not contest the sanctions, removing the possibility of the case going to arbitration because the mechanism only exists for players and not teams.
“We are committing to put this chapter behind us,” Ballmer’s statement read. “We have communicated to the NBA that we are complying with the penalties assessed by the league, have paid the fine and are moving forward. While there are still disagreements concerning the findings in the report, this is not where I want to focus. Team owners should support, not distract.”
Two of Ballmer’s top executives were also sanctioned, altering the way the team will have to operate moving forward.
Clippers president of business operations Gillian Zucker was suspended without pay for one year for “being primarily and directly culpable for the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for providing false and misleading statements to investigators.”
Clippers president of basketball operations Lawrence Frank was suspended without pay for six months for “his involvement with the impermissible endorsement arrangements and for approving impermissible expenses incurred by Mr. Leonard and his family.”
Ballmer, however, has assembled a deep front office staff, giving the Clippers a number of options to offset the loss of those who are suspended.
“The challenges ahead of us are significant, but so is our resolve,” Ballmer wrote. “We will continue to build our team and invest in our community. The confidence of our fans is our priority. With our talented roster, outstanding staff and clear vision, I am certain that we will compete at the highest level and be an organization our fans can be proud of.”
The decision to comply with the sanctions rather than attempting to contest them in the court could help resolve one of the biggest outstanding offseason items the Clippers face.
Leonard’s trade to the Toronto Raptors in exchange for forward Brandon Ingram, shooting guard Gradey Dick, two first-round draft picks, a pick swap and two second-round picks was put on hold while both teams awaited investigation results.
With the NBA stripping the Clippers of five future first-round picks, the package they are expected to receive when the Leonard trade is completed would have a substantial impact on their future roster-building options.
