The Chicago Cubs’ Kyle Tucker runs the bases after hitting a solo home run during the seventh inning of Game 4 of their NLDS against the Milwaukee Brewers.
(Nam Y. Huh / Associated Press)
The most obvious area of need for next year’s Dodgers will be in the outfield.
Andy Pages will be back, trying to build upon his 27-homer campaign in 2025. Teoscar Hernández will enter the second of his three-year contract, trying to rebound from his injury-plagued struggles this past summer.
But the third spot remains wide open, with Michael Conforto hitting free agency after his dismal performance on a one-year, $17 million deal this past year, and Alex Call having been used in more of a depth role after his arrival of this year’s trade deadline.
Internally, the Dodgers don’t have an immediate plug-and-play option, as top prospects Josue De Paula, Zyhir Hope, Eduardo Quintero and Mike Sirota remain a ways away from the majors.
Thus, don’t be surprised to see the Dodgers linked with big names on either the free-agent or trade market this winter, starting with top free-agent prize Kyle Tucker.
Since the summer, industry speculation has swirled about the Dodgers’ expected pursuit of Tucker this offseason. The four-time All-Star did not finish 2025 well while nursing a couple injuries, but remains one of the premier left-handed bats in the sport, and could command upward of $400-$500 million on a long-term deal — a hefty price tag, but certainly not one beyond the Dodgers’ capabilities.
Free agency will include other notable outfield options. Cody Bellinger is hitting the open market, though a reunion with the Dodgers has always seemed like a long shot. Harrison Bader and Trent Grisham could provide more glove-first alternatives, and have been linked with the Dodgers in the past.
Then there are potential trade candidates, from left fielder Steven Kwan of the Cleveland Guardians to utilityman Brendan Donovan of the St. Louis Cardinals, also players the Dodgers have inquired about in the past.
The Dodgers could construct their 2026 roster in other ways, thanks to the versatility Tommy Edman provides in center field. But another outfield addition remains their most logical priority this winter. And there will be no shortage of possibilities.
Welcome back to the Times of Troy newsletter, where we’re still struggling with how to view USC’s 21-17 win at Nebraska. On one hand, USC gutted out a hard-earned road victory, just its second true road win outside of L.A. since 2023, with a stingy defensive stand in the second half. On the other, USC’s offense was out of sorts, its quarterback had the worst start of his tenure and its defense was run over for the third time in four games.
No matter your perspective, this much is indisputable: USC is 6-2, bowl eligible and in prime position to be 8-2 heading to Eugene in late November. Remember, the Trojans were 4-5 at this time last year.
But after flying back west for the final time this regular season, we’re going to take a brief break from football to alert you that college basketball season, believe it or not, is about to begin. And both of USC’s teams enter the season on fascinating and uncertain terms.
Fight on! Are you a true Trojans fan?
Let’s start first with the men’s team and Eric Musselman, who thought he’d have a five-star freshman to help springboard his program to relevance in Year 2. But the injury to Alijah Arenas has undoubtedly altered that trajectory. What we don’t know now is how much and for how long.
That’s just the beginning of the questions facing USC. Here are three others …
1. Who’s going to play point guard?
You may remember this same query from this time last season, when USC entrusted the role to Desmond Claude, who was a good playmaker, but not a great floor general. He turned the ball over nearly four times per game.
Arenas was expected to be the primary ballhandler. But with him out, it’ll be some combination of Rodney Rice, Chad Baker-Mazara, Jordan Marsh and Jerry Easter sharing ballhandling duties. None have any extensive experience as a floor general. Marsh has been a pleasant surprise in practice, but was more of a pure scorer at North Carolina Asheville.
Rice will have a lot on his shoulders already. And that’s not considering his actual shoulder, which has held him out for much of the preseason. He’ll need someone else to step up to help.
2. How much better is USC’s frontcourt?
When USC played its two exhibition games last month, opposing coaches couldn’t believe how much 7-foot-5 center Gabe Dynes affected the game defensively. Dynes was arguably USC’s best player in the preseason, and he wasn’t even expected to start in the Trojans’ frontcourt.
He had six blocks in his debut and should help give USC improved rim protection this season. Which is to say any rim protection at all.
The staff has been high on Jacob Cofie since he arrived on campus. Don’t be surprised if he ascends to a major role. Ezra Ausar, at 253 pounds, should be a beast on the boards, and Jaden Brownell should give USC’s frontcourt range out to the arc. This group has a lot of varied skillsets, and that should put the defense especially in a much better position.
3. Can USC score enough?
When asked what he learned most from his team during the preseason, Musselman didn’t mince words.
“We’ve got to figure out a way to score better,” he said.
Arenas, again, was supposed to lead the way in that regard. Rice was more of a secondary scorer at Maryland, as was Baker-Mazara at Auburn. USC looks, as of now, like a whole team of complementary offensive players, with no alpha yet. That can change. Maybe Cofie steps into the spot before season’s end. But it’s definitely something to monitor through the non-conference season.
What about the women’s team?
Kennedy Smith controls the ball while pressured by UConn guard Paige Bueckers during last season’s NCAA women’s tournament.
(Young Kwak / Associated Press)
USC enters this season with far lower expectations than this time last year, on account of JuJu Watkins’ knee injury, which will keep her out until next season. So what can we expect from Lindsay Gottlieb’s Trojans?
Here are the three big questions facing the USC women this season …
1. How can USC fill the void without Watkins?
This is the only question that really matters. Problem is there’s no clear answer. Gottlieb has been clear that no one player will replace Watkins, as tempting as it may be to slot top prospect Jazzy Davidson into that spot.
It’s more reasonable to recreate Watkins’ production in the aggregate. But that won’t be easy when you consider how much other production the Trojans lost from last season, in addition to Watkins. USC must replace 88% of its scoring and 80% of their rebounding output, and while that’s not that unique in the era of the transfer portal, it does mean the team is likely to have a very different identity.
Gottlieb has said that USC is going to play with more pace this season. But who will it turn to when it needs a bucket? Davidson is perhaps the likeliest candidate, but I’m particularly curious to see the development of sophomore Kennedy Smith. Smith was inconsistent offensively as a freshman. But Gottlieb plans to put the ball in her hands more, and how that works out will say a lot about the direction of the season.
2. What’s going on in the frontcourt?
Last season, there was no question who USC could count on down low. Rayah Marshall was a three-year starter, while Kiki Iriafen is now one of the best young bigs in the WNBA.
But with both gone, USC doesn’t have any proven options to step into their place. Gottlieb has said that USC will use a by-committee approach with transfer Yakiya Milton, Lithuanian import Gerda Raulusaityte and returners Vivian Iwuchukwu and Laura Williams. Of those four, only Milton was part of a college basketball rotation last season, and she only averaged two points per game in 11 minutes at Auburn.
Raulusaityte is the big unknown. One of the youngest members of the Lithuanian national team, USC kind of needs her to be an immediate contributor. Especially with her ability to stretch the floor as a shooter, something the other three don’t do. If she struggles, USC could be in trouble with its lack of talent down low.
3. How good will Davidson be right away?
Watkins is a tough act to follow as a top-rated freshman. But Davidson has the potential to be a stat-stuffing star right away.
I don’t know if she’ll score quite like Watkins, who shot 42% and scored 24 points per night as a freshman. What she will do, perhaps even more than Watkins, is elevate the games of teammates around her. You can read more about that in an upcoming story on Davidson.
But can she get a bucket when USC needs one? And can she force her way through traffic with her spindly frame? There are still questions to be answered. But while Gottlieb is doing her best to temper expectations, I think USC is going to need its star freshman to be a star right away, if it has any hope of competing in the Big Ten like it did last season.
—Jayden Maiava didn’t have it as a passer. So he used his legs. And that worked wonders. Maiava was a meager nine of 23 through the air for 135 yards, but he reminded the world that he’s a capable runner, too, as he rushed for 62 yards in 11 carries. The highlight of his day came in the third quarter, when Maiava took off on consecutive plays for a pair of 16-yard gains, the second of which saw him stiff-arm his way to a score. Maiava hasn’t looked to run much this season. But maybe he should consider doing it more.
—USC’s three most influential players Saturday were all walk-ons. Running back King Miller was USC’s only consistent source of offense. Kaylon Miller, his brother, stepped in for an injured Alani Noa and was arguably USC’s best lineman in the ground game. And USC kicker Ryon Sayeri continued to shine by knocking through two more field goals. I’m not sure what that says about USC’s team. But it’s not something you see every day.
—The offensive line just can’t stay healthy. Left tackle Elijah Paige returned after missing the previous three games, only for Noa to go down. Noa never returned, and we won’t know more about his status until at least Monday. USC is getting especially thin on the interior, with guard Micah Banuelos having also missed Saturday’s game. Center Kilian O’Connor should be back soon, but it’s a wonder that USC has held it together up front while being ravaged by injuries.
Olympic sports spotlight
After losing three of four to start their Big Ten slate, the women’s volleyball team’s tough start to the Big Ten slate is now firmly in the rearview. The Trojans have won six in a row. Among Big Ten teams, only Nebraska, which is 21-0 and No. 1 in the nation, has an active win streak that’s longer.
USC should win its next two before welcoming the Huskers to Galen Center for an epic match on Nov. 16.
I’ve written in this space before about my love of all things Stephen King. I’m also well aware of the less-than-stellar track record of adapting his books into television and movies.
I’m not sure just yet where “IT: Welcome to Derry” falls on that spectrum. Only the first two episodes of the spinoff prequel to “It” are currently available on HBO Max, and while Derry remains as creepy and tense as ever, I worry a bit about where the story is headed. All that said, my favorite part of the original book was the character building with the town’s kids. So far, that part remains intact.
Until next time …
That concludes today’s newsletter. If you have any feedback, ideas for improvement or things you’d like to see, email me at [email protected], and follow me on X at @Ryan_Kartje. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.
Andrew was stripped of his title as a prince on Thursday
Members of a US congressional committee investigating the Jeffrey Epstein case have intensified their calls for Andrew Mountbatten Windsor to answer questions about his links to the late sex offender.
King Charles stripped his brother of his “prince” title on Thursday, following months of pressure over Andrew’s ties to Epstein. Andrew has always denied wrongdoing.
At least four Democrat members of the House Oversight Committee have since renewed their calls for Andrew to testify – although the panel is controlled by Republicans, who have not indicated they would support the move.
Congressman Suhas Subramanyam told the BBC: “If he wants to clear his name, if he wants to do right by the victims, he will come forward”.
Andrew could appear remotely, have a lawyer present and could speak to the panel privately, Subramanyam said.
“Frankly, Andrew’s name has come up many times from the victims,” he told Radio 4’s Today programme on Saturday.
“So he clearly has knowledge of what happened and we just want him to come forward and tell us what he knows.”
He added: “No matter who it is – American or not – everyone should be looked at.”
Fellow committee memberRaja Krishnamoorthi told BBC Newsnight he would be willing to formally summon Andrewwith a subpoena – although he conceded this would be difficult to enforce while he was outside of the US.
He said on Friday: “However, if Andrew wishes to come to the United States or he’s here, then he’s subject to the jurisdiction of the US Congress, and I would expect him to testify.”
He added: “At the end of the day, we want to know exactly what happened, not just to give justice to the survivors, but to prevent this from ever happening again.”
“Come clean. Come before the US Congress, voluntarily testify. Don’t wait for a subpoena. Come and testify and tell us what you know.”
Congressman Stephen Lynch also told the BBC hearing from Andrew “might be helpful in getting justice for these survivors” but said the committee would be unable to subpoena him “as the situation stands”.
Meanwhile, Liz Stein – one of Epstein’s accusers – said Andrew should “take some initiative” and help US investigators.
She told BBC Breakfast on Saturday: “A lot of us are curious as to why he’s unwilling to cooperate and be questioned about his involvement with Epstein.”
“If he has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding?”
“We know he had a longstanding friendship with Epstein and that he was in his social circle – so he may have seen things during his involvement with Epstein that he could speak to.”
Another of Epstein’s accusers, Anouska De Georgiou, likewise told Newsnight Andrew should appear before Congress, saying “it would be appropriate for him to be treated the same as anybody else would be treated”.
Getty Images
Liz Stein said Andrew should step in and help investigators
It comes after UK trade minister Chris Bryant told the BBC Andrew should go to the US to answer questions about Epstein’s crimes if invited, “just as with any ordinary member of the public”.
Meanwhile, the police watchdog said it had approached the Metropolitan Police to ask whether there are matters it should be looking into, in light of media reports about Andrew.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct said it had contacted Scotland Yard’s Directorate of Professional Standards last week – which oversees internal investigations into misconduct – and had not yet received any referrals.
Reports emerged in mid-October that Andrew sought to obtain personal information about his accuser Virginia Giuffre through his police protection in 2011. He has not commented on the allegation.
Separately, new court documents published in the US on Friday showed that Andrew wrote in an email in 2010 that it would be “good to catch up in person” with Epstein, after he was released from prison for soliciting prostitution from a minor.
The pair were then pictured together in Central Park in New York in December 2010, in a meeting that Andrew later told the BBC was to break off their friendship.
Andrew’s ties to Epstein were at the centre of Thursday’s decision, with the Palace announcement stating: “These censures are deemed necessary, notwithstanding the fact that he continues to deny the allegations against him.”
“Their Majesties wish to make clear that their thoughts and utmost sympathies have been, and will remain with, the victims and survivors of any and all forms of abuse.”
In recent weeks, pressure had increased on the monarchy to resolve the issue of Charles’s brother.
In early October, emails which re-emerged from 2011 showed Andrew in contact with Epstein months after he claimed their friendship had ended.
A posthumous memoir by Virginia Giuffre was also released – repeating allegations that, as a teenager, she was forced to have sex with Andrew on three separate occasions, claims he has always denied.
And earlier this week, the King was heckled about the matter.
Although Andrew denies the accusations, the Royal Family considers there have been “serious lapses of judgement” in his behaviour.
As well as losing his titles and honours, he was ordered to move out of his Windsor mansion – Royal Lodge – and into a property on the King’s Norfolk estate, paid for by the monarch.
The BBC understands that he will not have to move out immediately, and could move to Sandringham as late as the new year.
On Saturday, a black Land Rover with a number plate ending DOY was seen leaving Bishops Gate near Royal Lodge just before 08:00 GMT.
Only a driver was in the vehicle as it left the grounds of Windsor Great Park. Andrew has previously been pictured driving a vehicle with the same private number plate.
WASHINGTON — President Trump faces the most important international meeting of his second term so far on Thursday: face-to-face negotiations with Xi Jinping, who has made China a formidable economic and military challenger to the United States.
The two presidents face a vast agenda during their meeting in Seoul, beginning with the two countries’ escalating trade war over tariffs and high-tech exports. The list also includes U.S. demands for a Chinese crackdown on fentanyl, China’s aid to Russia in its war with Ukraine, the future of Taiwan and China’s growing nuclear arsenal.
Trump has already promised, characteristically, that the meeting will be a major success.
“It’s going to be fantastic for both countries, and it’s going to be fantastic for the entire world,” he said last week.
But it isn’t yet clear that the summit’s concrete results will measure up to that high standard.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that the two sides have agreed to a “framework” under which China would delay implementing tight controls on rare earth elements, minerals crucial for the production of high-tech products from smartphones and electric vehicles to military aircraft and missiles. He said China has also agreed to resume buying soybeans from U.S. farmers and to crack down on fentanyl components.
In return, Bessent said, the United States will back down from its stinging tariffs on Chinese goods.
Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador in Beijing under then-President Biden, said that kind of deal would amount to “an uneasy trade truce rather than a comprehensive trade deal.”
“That may be the best we can expect,” he said in an interview Monday. Still, he added, “it will be a positive step to stabilize world markets and allow the continuation of U.S.-China trade for the time being.”
But U.S. and Chinese officials have been close-mouthed on what, if anything, has been agreed on regarding Xi’s other big trade demand: easier U.S. restrictions on high-tech exports to China, especially advanced semiconductor chips used for artificial intelligence.
Burns said the two superpowers’ technology competition is “the most sensitive … in terms of where this relationship will head, which country will emerge more powerful.”
Giving China easy access to advanced semiconductors “would only help [the Chinese army] in its competition with the U.S. military for power in the Indo-Pacific,” he warned.
Other former officials and China hawks outside the administration have said, even more pointedly, that they worry that Trump may be too willing to trade long-term technology assets for short-term trade deals.
In August, Trump eased export controls to allow Nvidia, the world leader in AI chips, to sell more semiconductors to China — in an unusual deal under which the U.S. company would pay 15% of its revenue from the sales to the U.S. Treasury.
Matthew Pottinger, Trump’s top China advisor in his first term, protested in a recent podcast interview that the deal risked trading a strategic technology advantage “for $20 billion and Nvidia’s bottom line.”
Underlying the controversy over technology, some China watchers warn, is a basic mismatch between the two presidents: Trump is focused almost entirely on trade and commercial deals, while Xi is focused on displacing the United States as the biggest economic and military power in Asia.
“I don’t think the administration has a strategy toward China,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It has a trade strategy, not a China strategy.”
“The administration does not seem to be focused on competition with China,” said Jonathan Czin, a former CIA analyst now at Washington’s Brookings Institution. “It’s focused on deal making. … It’s tactics without strategy.”
“We’ve fallen into a kind of trade and technology myopia,” he added. “We’re not talking about issues like China’s coercion [of smaller countries] in the South China Sea. … China doesn’t want to have that bigger, broader conversation.”
It isn’t clear that Trump and Xi will have either the time or inclination to talk in detail about anything other than trade.
And even on the front-burner economic issues, this week’s ceasefire is unlikely to produce a permanent peace.
“As with all such agreements, the devil will be in the details,” Burns, the former ambassador, said. “The two countries will remain fierce trade rivals. Expect friction ahead and further trade duels well into 2026.”
“Buckle up,” Czin said. “There are likely more sudden moves from Beijing ahead.”
In the long run, Trump’s legacy in U.S.-China relations will rest not only on trade deals but on the larger competition for economic and military power in the Pacific Rim. No matter how this week’s meetings go, those challenges still lie ahead.
Dodgers catcher Ben Rortvedt connects for a double against the Cincinnati Reds during Game 2 of the National League Wildcard Series at Dodger Stadium on Oct. 1.
(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
Neither Alex Call nor Ben Rortvedt had appeared in a playoff game until this season. And though neither Dodger reserve got off the bench in the first two games of the World Series, they’re a lot closer to the action then they expected to be before the July trades that brought them to Los Angeles.
“It’s really cool. I’m just soaking it all in,” said Call, who came over from the Washington Nationals at the deadline.
“It’s been a whirlwind,” added Rortvedt, who was acquired from the Tampa Bay Rays, then spent most of the summer in triple A before being called up when Will Smith got hurt in early September. “I’ve been taking it more day by day, so it hasn’t kind of struck me as much as people think it would. Definitely when this is done I’m really going to reflect and kind of realize how crazy it has been to kind of be on this team and be where we are now.”
Call, 31, who also played with the Cleveland Guardians in a five-year big-league career, appeared in one game in each of the Dodgers’ first three playoff series, going three for four with two walks, getting hit by a pitch and scoring a run.
“It’s kind of crazy because it feels like it should have been harder,” Call said of reaching the World Series. “With the Nats, it’s like we were going to have to grind our way all the way to the top. And then you get to come over the Dodgers and you’re the favorites, World Series champs. You’ve got probably the best roster ever assembled, with amazing stars up and down the lineup, and then they’re like, ‘Oh yeah, we want Alex Call on our team.’
“That’s kind of an amazing compliment.”
Rortvedt, 28, who also played with the Yankees and Minnesota Twins in four seasons, started the first four games of the postseason and hit .429.
“If I pinch myself, it’s kind of like I’m not sure [I’m here,]” he said. “I just try to be as prepared as I can, understand the magnitude of things, and just try to be prepared and try to slow everything down and do my best.”
The budget airline is making a big change to tickets at most airports
Ryanair said the change will help eliminate check-in charges(Image: rparys via Getty Images)
Ryanair is set to make a significant change to its ticketing system, effective from November 12. Starting from this date, the airline will only issue ‘100% Digital Boarding Passes’ (DBP), and physical tickets will no longer be accepted at most airports.
This scheme, initially scheduled for May 2025, seeks to help eliminate certain charges and save around 300 tonnes of paper each year, while allowing travellers to receive direct flight updates. But if you’re concerned about the practical aspects, don’t worry.
The Mirror has summarised three main questions and answers regarding the upcoming change, using official information from Ryanair. You can also learn more about the boarding pass change on the airline’s website here
1. How can I get a digital boarding pass?
Ryanair passengers can check in online at Ryanair.com or via the Ryanair App, which is available on Apple’s App Store and Google Play. The Express reports that passengers should complete this process before arriving at the airport to avoid extra charges.
After check-in, a DBP will automatically appear in the Ryanair App. You should present this at airport security and the boarding gate before your flight. The budget airline stated that this method is ‘quicker, easier,’ and results in ‘less stress’ compared to using paper tickets.
2. What happens if my phone dies or I lose it before boarding?
Losing your mobile phone can be a stressful experience, but according to Ryanair’s boss Michael O’Leary, it won’t stop you from catching your flight.
In a conversation on The Independent’s daily travel podcast, he explained: “The big concern that people have is: ‘What happens if I lose my battery or what if I lose my phone?’
“…If you lose your phone, no issue. As long as you’ve checked in before you got to the airport, we’ll reissue a paper boarding pass at the airport free of charge.”
Even if your mobile runs out of juice, O’Leary pointed out that staff will have each passenger’s ‘sequence number’ at the departure gate. This means you should still be able to board without it, so ‘nobody should worry’.
Guidance on Ryanair’s website echoes this, adding: “If you have already checked in online and you lose your smartphone or tablet (or it dies), your details are already on our system and you will be assisted at the gate.”
3. What if the airport Wi-Fi is poor, or I have no mobile data?
Ryanair has reassured passengers that once they’ve completed online check-in, their DBP will be accessible offline within the Ryanair App. However, its website guidance emphasises: “All Ryanair passengers will still receive email reminders to check-in online 48 and 24hrs predeparture.
“If any passenger arrives at airport but hasn’t checked in online (having ignored these reminders), they will still be required to pay the airport check-in fee.”
Currently, the fee is set at £55/€55 per passenger for most flights. However, passengers flying out of Spain are obliged to pay £30/€30, while those departing from Austria will be hit with a £40/€40 charge.
Oct. 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court is weighing a decision in the case Louisiana vs. Callais that may guide how the Voting Rights Act is enforced.
The high court heard rearguments last week in the case over the Louisiana legislature’s redistricted congressional map. A decision may be weeks, if not months, away.
The legislature redrew its congressional map in 2024 to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new map included two districts where a majority of voters are Black out of six districts total.
Plaintiffs in Louisiana vs. Callais argue that the redrawn map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because race was a guiding consideration in redistricting.
The Supreme Court has broadened the scope of this case with reargument under a supplemental question: Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act constitutional?
The collision between these two pieces of doctrine, both intended to insure equality in political participation, raises a critical question about how race and representation should be approached, one that the court is now poised to answer.
“The court is signaling that there has to be some reconciliation that happens beyond the status quo,” Atiba Ellis, Laura B. Chisholm Distinguished Research Scholar and professor of law in the Case Western Reserve School of Law, told UPI. “It’s hard to predict exactly how far that will go.”
One goal, different approaches
Section 2 and the Equal Protection Clause may share an underlying purpose but they take different approaches to meeting that goal.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits racial discrimination in election practices.
The extremes, according to Ellis, are that the court could determine Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional or it could reinterpret the test that it has long used in addressing concerns about race in redistricting cases.
Somewhere between the extremes is the court striking down the map at question but preserving Section 2.
“On the scale of possible solutions, it demonstrates that the court, informed by its colorblind jurisprudence that we saw in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard College, is wanting to further restrict if not all but abolish the use of race-conscious remedies in the elections context,” Ellis said.
Legal tests, cases
In the 2023 case Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard, the Supreme Court ruled that using race as a factor in college admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause.
The test that guides Section 2 enforcement, referred to as the Gingles test, is the criteria required to prove vote dilution under Section 2. It is based on the court’s decision in the case Thornburg vs. Gingles in 1986.
The Gingles test is a “results test,” Ellis said.
“We simply look at a practice like redistricting in its context and the results that it has,” he said. “Thornburg v. Gingles basically created a roadmap for the inquiry. Then a court can make an inquiry within the totality of the circumstances, including the impact, the history, the background and determine whether that practice violates Section 2.”
Equal Protection Clause enforcement is guided in part by a precedent established in the case Shaw vs. Reno. This case in 1993 was over an oddly shaped majority-Black congressional district drawn in North Carolina.
The Supreme Court struck down this map, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was a predominant factor in its creation.
Unlike the Gingles test, the Shaw test is based on intent, according to Ellis.
“From the Shaw line to today, legislatures have had to basically walk this balance between not making race the predominant factor in redistricting — but you also can’t use race divisively by subsuming a minority group’s political power to the majority’s advantage,” Ellis said. “The former is what the Shaw line of precedent is out to do. The latter is what Section 2 does.”
“The problem, at least according to the Callais plaintiffs bringing the suit and other political entities that are supporting their position, is that these two precedents are inherently irreconcilable,” he continued.
John Cusick, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund, serves as a member of the counsel in the Louisiana vs. Callais case arguing in defense of the Louisiana congressional map. He represents the appellants in the case Robinson vs. Landry, which was the impetus for Louisiana to redraw its congressional map.
Cusick told UPI that the case is part of a broader effort to limit race-conscious remedies to Civil Rights violations.
“What’s at stake in this case is that opponents are seeking to roll back progress while there is a simple truth that remains: that Black voters in Louisiana deserve the same fair and effective representation as many other communities throughout the country,” Cusick said. “So Louisianans have organized and legislated and litigated for the promise of a fair legislative map.”
“What’s consistent here is that decades of Supreme Court precedent make clear that districts created to remedy the type of racial discrimination against Black voters that’s at the heart of this case is clear and consistent and well-settled law,” he continued. “That Louisiana creating a first and second majority minority district is constitutional and not, per se, a racial gerrymander.”
Broader issue
Based on the Supreme Court precedents at play, Cusick believes Louisiana’s congressional map will be found to be permissible. However, the supplemental question over whether the constitutionality of Section 2 as a whole could send ripples across Civil Rights law.
“The Voting Rights Act is the crown jewel of Civil Rights legislation,” Cusick said. “It has the greatest effect on this country’s promise of full and equal citizenship for all Americans. We are seeing efforts throughout the country to attack many of the tools that Civil Rights legislatures have relied on, whether they are constitutional protections, whether they are statutory protections, that identify racial discrimination, that root it out and provide fair and effective remedies in doing so.”
Cusick adds that attempts to peel away Section 2 can also have effects beyond Civil Rights protections against racial discrimination. Protections for people based on gender identity and disability are also at risk.
“If the court is adhering to the supplemental question presented, this case shouldn’t have a broader impact on the Voting Rights Act, specifically Section 2, let alone other areas of the law,” Cusick said. “While we’re hopeful of that, we’re not naive.”
The Entry Exit System (EES) was introduced on Sunday, which involves people from third-party countries such as the UK having their fingerprints registered and photograph taken to enter the Schengen area, which consists of 29 European countries, mainly in the EU
A change has been made to EES(Image: ADRIAN DENNIS, AFP via Getty Images)
A last-minute change has been made to the rules set up to track travellers entering the EU.
On Sunday, the long-awaited Entry/Exit System (EES) went live. It requires individuals from third-party countries such as the UK to register their fingerprints and have their photograph taken to enter the Schengen area, which is made up of 29 European countries, primarily within the EU. For most UK travellers, the EES process will be carried out at foreign airports.
However, when it comes to Eurostar services from St Pancras, border checks are carried out by French officials in the UK, rather than in Paris.
When the Mirror was shown how the system would work prior to its launch, uncertainty surrounded one part of it – the questions travellers are required to answer.
3. Do you have sufficient funds to support yourself during your stay?
4. Do you have medical insurance?
It remains unclear what the consequences are if passengers answer ‘no’ to any of those questions, or if they lie in their answers.
Now, it has been announced that passengers will not be asked those questions when travelling on the Eurostar from St Pancras.
A spokesperson for Eurostar told the Mirror: “Following constructive discussions with the French Ministry and our colleagues, we’re pleased to confirm that the questions will be technically removed from the kiosks during the initial six-month introduction phase of the new system.
“We welcome the pragmatic approach being taken by the French border authorities to help ensure a smoother experience for our customers during this transition period.”
This week Simon Lejeune, the chief safety and stations officer for the cross-Channel train operator, said that some passengers are being processed through the EES in as little as 50 seconds.
To facilitate the new demand, Eurostar has set up three areas at St Pancras, housing a total of 49 kiosks where pre-registration for EES can take place.
Mr Lejeune informed the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee that the process at the station is initially being handled solely by French border officers, and there have been “really good transaction times”.
He stated: “I was observing transaction times of 50 seconds. That’s for the full biometrics, as well as the passport check and the stamping for EES-eligible passengers.
“So quite encouraging, and that’s without the kiosks that do that pre-registration, which we’ll be introducing over the next few weeks.”
Christopher Cash (left) and Christopher Berry (right) both deny the accusation of spying for China
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has written to the prime minister asking him to address “unanswered” questions about the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China.
Charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry – who deny the allegations – were dropped in September, prompting criticism from MPs.
The director of public prosecutions (DPP) said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat. On Sunday, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said ministers were “disappointed” it had not proceeded.
In her letter, Badenoch said the government’s account of the situation had “changed repeatedly”.
Sir Keir Starmer previously said ministers could only draw on the last government’s assessment of China – which dubbed it an “epoch-defining challenge” – and his government has maintained it is “frustrated” the trial collapsed.
Badenoch outlined “several key questions which remain unanswered” in her letter on Sunday, and asked that Starmer or a senior minister appear before MPs “to clear things up once and for all”.
She wrote: “This is a matter of the utmost importance, involving alleged spying on Members of Parliament. It seems that you and your ministers have been too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security.”
The letter queried remarks made by Phillipson to the BBC earlier in the day, in which she said Starmer’s national security advisor Jonathan Powell had no role in the “substance or the evidence” of the case.
Phillipson also said ministers were “deeply disappointed that the case hasn’t proceeded”, and insisted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was “best placed to explain why it was not able to bring forward a prosecution”.
The Conservatives had suggested Powell, who has sought closer relations with Beijing, failed to give the CPS the evidence it said it needed to secure convictions.
Badenoch questioned Phillipson’s comments: “What does this mean? If he was “not involved” in the decision over months not to give the CPS what they needed, then who was?”
Jonathan Powell, one of Sir Keir’s most senior advisers and political allies, visited China earlier this year
The opposition leader also claimed the government – which had denied ministers were involved in the trial’s collapse before the DPP claimed the necessary material had not been obtained – had sought to “appease China”.
She disputed Starmer’s comments that ministers could only draw on the previous Conservative government’s position, writing: “As various leading lawyers have pointed out, this is not how the law works.”
Starmer had told reporters earlier this week: “You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence”.
“So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then.”
Badenoch asked that Starmer clarify whether any ministers knew about the government’s interactions with the CPS in which it “refused” to provide the material being sought.
She also asked if the matter had ever been raised with Starmer, including by Powell, and if an earlier denial of the government’s involvement had been “misleading”.
The Conservatives have submitted an urgent question in Parliament, asking ministers to address MPs on Monday to explain why the trial collapsed.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the BBC ministers “must urgently explain why it chose not to disclose the reams of information it has demonstrating China was a threat to national security in the 2021-2023 period”.
He said: “It looks as if Jonathan Powell was behind this decision – and he should resign if he is.”
Meanwhile, several former Conservative ministers and advisers have told the BBC there was no official designation of whether a country amounts to a threat.
They claim there is a document with “hundreds” of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences, which could have been given as evidence.
Sources cited the hack on the Ministry of Defence, which ministers suspected China was behind, as one of many incidents.
“I don’t think there is a sane jury in the world that would look at that evidence and conclude China was not a threat,” a source in the last government said.
Former Conservative ministers also point to public statements, including from the former head of MI5 Ken McCallum, who in 2023 said there had been a “sustained campaign” of Chinese espionage on a “pretty epic scale”.
The Liberal Democrats said the government’s approach to China was “putting our national security at risk”.
The party urged the government to block the planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London.
“Giving the green light to the super embassy being built in the heart of the City of London and above critical data connections would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale,” Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said.
Mr Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Mr Berry, were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024, when the Conservatives were in power.
They were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.
Under the Official Secrets Act, anyone accused of spying can only be prosecuted if the information they passed on was useful to an enemy.
Last month, the DPP said “the case could no longer proceed to trial since the evidence no longer met the evidential test”.
