restriction

PHOENIX — Marcus Smart estimated he’ll be limited to about 20 to 25 minutes in his Lakers preseason debut Tuesday night against the Phoenix Suns as he returns from Achilles tendinopathy.

Speaking after the team’s shootaround Tuesday, the 31-year-old guard said the rash of Achilles injuries suffered by NBA stars recently — including three during the playoffs last season — made his initial diagnosis frightening, but he took a cautious approach with the Lakers staff to ensure he was ready for the season.

“It wasn’t scary in the fact of understanding that tendinopathy, we all kind of have it playing over the time,” said Smart, who is entering his 12th NBA season. “Just making sure you do everything you need to do, to make sure that you can get back out here, or to be able to say, ‘No, I can’t.’ So you got to test it, unfortunately, and you got to see where you’re at. So we’ve done all the tests on the court, off the court and we’re feeling fast, feeling good so we want to give it a shot.”

Guard Luka Doncic is also expected to make his preseason debut after he was on a modified training schedule following a busy summer spent with the Slovenian national team. Coach JJ Redick said Monday after practice that Doncic and the team’s training staff had yet to determine a minutes restriction on Doncic, but expects that the five-time All-Star will see an increased workload by the time he suits up again for his second preseason game.

The Lakers will follow Tuesday’s game in Phoenix with a game against Doncic’s former team, the Dallas Mavericks, in Las Vegas on Wednesday. Because of the back-to-back schedule, it’s likely Doncic will play again Friday at Crypto.com Arena against the Sacramento Kings.

Since they are playing four games in six days, the Lakers ruled out guard Gabe Vincent, forwards Rui Hachimura and Jarred Vanderbilt and center Jaxson Hayes for Tuesday’s preseason game.

Rookie guard Adou Thiero [knee] has progressed to on-court activities, the team announced Tuesday, after the second-round draft pick was battling swelling in a knee. He will be re-evaluated in two to three weeks.

BOOTHBAY HARBOR, Maine — Republican lawmakers are targeting one of the country’s longest-standing pieces of environmental legislation, credited with helping save rare whales from extinction.

GOP leaders believe they now have the political will to remove key pieces of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, enacted in 1972 to protect whales, seals, polar bears and other sea animals. The law also places restrictions on commercial fishermen, shippers and other marine industries.

A Republican-led bill in the works has support from fishermen in Maine who say the law makes lobster fishing more difficult, lobbyists for big-money species such as tuna in Hawaii and crab in Alaska, and marine manufacturers who see the law as antiquated.

Conservation groups adamantly oppose the changes and say weakening the law will erase years of hard-won gains for jeopardized species such as the vanishing North Atlantic right whale, which is vulnerable to entanglement in fishing gear. There are fewer than 400 right whales remaining.

Here’s what to know about the protection act and the proposed changes.

Why the 1972 law still matters

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is important because it’s one of our bedrock laws that help us to base conservation measures on the best available science,” said Kathleen Collins, senior marine campaign manager with International Fund for Animal Welfare. “Species on the brink of extinction have been brought back.”

It was enacted the year before the Endangered Species Act, at a time when the movement to save whales from extinction was growing. Scientist Roger Payne had discovered that whales could sing in the late 1960s, and their voices soon appeared on record albums and throughout popular culture.

The law protects all marine mammals and prohibits capturing or killing them in U.S. waters or by U.S. citizens on the high seas. It allowed for preventative measures to stop commercial fishing ships and other businesses from accidentally harming animals such as whales and seals. The animals can be harmed by entanglement in fishing gear, collisions with ships and other hazards at sea.

The law also prevents the hunting of marine mammals, including polar bears, with exceptions for Indigenous groups. Some of those animals can be legally hunted in other countries.

Changes to oil and gas operations

Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska, a state with a large fishing industry, submitted a draft this summer that would roll back aspects of the law. The bill says the act has “unduly and unnecessarily constrained government, tribes and the regulated community” since its inception.

The proposal states that it would make changes such as lowering population goals for marine mammals from “maximum productivity” to the level needed to “support continued survival.” It would also ease rules on what constitutes harm to marine mammals.

For example, the law prevents harassment of sea mammals such as whales and defines harassment as activities that have “the potential to injure a marine mammal.” The proposed changes would limit the definition to activities that actually injure the animals. That change could have major implications for industries such as oil and gas exploration where rare whales live.

That poses an existential threat to the Rice’s whale, which numbers only in the dozens and lives in the Gulf of Mexico, conservationists said. And the proposal takes specific aim at the North Atlantic right whale protections with a clause that would delay rules designed to protect that declining whale population until 2035.

Begich and his staff did not return calls for comment on the bill, and his staff declined to provide an update about where it stands in Congress. Begich has said he wants “a bill that protects marine mammals and also works for the people who live and work alongside them, especially in Alaska.”

Fishing groups want restrictions loosened

A coalition of fishing groups from both coasts has come out in support of the proposed changes. Some of the same groups lauded a previous effort by the Trump administration to reduce regulatory burdens on commercial fishing.

The groups said in a July letter to House members that they believe Begich’s changes reflect “a positive and necessary step” for American fisheries’ success.

Restrictions imposed on lobster fishermen of Maine are designed to protect the right whale, but they often provide little protection for the animals while limiting one of America’s signature fisheries, said Virginia Olsen, political director of the Maine Lobstering Union. The restrictions stipulate where lobstermen can fish and what kinds of gear they can use. The whales are vulnerable to lethal entanglement in heavy fishing rope.

Gathering more accurate data about right whales while revising the original law would help protect the animals, Olsen said.

“We do not want to see marine mammals harmed; we need a healthy, vibrant ocean and a plentiful marine habitat to continue Maine’s heritage fishery,” Olsen said.

Some members of other maritime industries have also called on Congress to update the law. The National Marine Manufacturers Assn. said in a statement that the rules have not kept pace with advancements in the marine industry, making innovation in the business difficult.

Environmentalists fight back

Numerous environmental groups have vowed to fight to save the protection act. They characterized the proposed changes as part of the Trump administration’s assault on environmental protections.

The act was instrumental in protecting the humpback whale, one of the species most beloved by whale watchers, said Gib Brogan, senior campaign director with Oceana. Along with other sea mammals, humpbacks would be in jeopardy without it, he said.

“The Marine Mammal Protection Act is flexible. It works. It’s effective. We don’t need to overhaul this law at this point,” Brogan said.

What does this mean for seafood imports

The original law makes it illegal to import marine mammal products without a permit and allows the U.S. to impose import prohibitions on seafood products from foreign fisheries that don’t meet U.S. standards.

The import embargoes are a major sticking point because they punish American businesses, said Gavin Gibbons, chief strategy officer of the National Fisheries Institute, a Virginia-based seafood industry trade group. It’s critical to source seafood globally to be able to meet American demand for seafood, he said.

The National Fisheries Institute and a coalition of industry groups sued the federal government Thursday over what they described as unlawful implementation of the protection act. Gibbons said the groups don’t oppose the act but want to see it responsibly implemented.

“Our fisheries are well regulated and appropriately fished to their maximum sustainable yield,” Gibbons said. “The men and women who work our waters are iconic and responsible. They can’t be expected to just fish more here to make up a deficit while jeopardizing the sustainability they’ve worked so hard to maintain.”

Some environmental groups said the Republican lawmakers’ proposed changes could weaken American seafood competitiveness by allowing imports from poorly regulated foreign fisheries.

Whittle writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to uphold President Trump’s birthright citizenship order declaring that children born to parents who are in the United States illegally or temporarily are not American citizens.

The appeal, shared with the Associated Press on Saturday, sets in motion a process at the high court that could lead to a definitive ruling from the justices on whether the citizenship restrictions are constitutional.

Lower-court judges have blocked them from taking effect anywhere. The Republican administration is not asking the court to let the restrictions take effect before it rules.

The Justice Department’s petition has been shared with lawyers for parties challenging the order, but is not yet docketed at the Supreme Court.

Any decision on whether to take up the case probably is months away and arguments probably would not take place until the late winter or early spring.

“The lower court’s decisions invalidated a policy of prime importance to the president and his administration in a manner that undermines our border security,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote. “Those decisions confer, without lawful justification, the privilege of American citizenship on hundreds of thousands of unqualified people.”

Cody Wofsy, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represents children who would be affected by Trump’s restrictions, said the administration’s plan is plainly unconstitutional.

“This executive order is illegal, full stop, and no amount of maneuvering from the administration is going to change that. We will continue to ensure that no baby’s citizenship is ever stripped away by this cruel and senseless order,” Wofsy said in an email.

Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term in the White House that would upend more than 125 years of understanding that the Constitution’s 14th Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born on American soil, with narrow exceptions for the children of foreign diplomats and those born to a foreign occupying force.

In a series of decisions, lower courts have struck down the executive order as unconstitutional, or likely so, even after a Supreme Court ruling in late June that limited judges’ use of nationwide injunctions.

While the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, it did not rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The justices did not decide at that time whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional.

But every lower court that has looked at the issue has concluded that Trump’s order violates or probably violates the 14th Amendment, which was intended to ensure that Black people, including formerly enslaved people, had citizenship.

The administration is appealing two cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco ruled in July that a group of states that sued over the order needed a nationwide injunction to prevent the problems that would be caused by birthright citizenship being in effect in some states and not others.

Also in July, a federal judge in New Hampshire blocked the citizenship order in a class-action lawsuit including all children who would be affected.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers who are in the country illegally, under long-standing rules. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment.

The administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.

Sherman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

With the Taliban barring women from college in her native Afghanistan, Bahara Saghari set her sights on pursuing higher education in the United States.

Saghari, 21, practiced English up to eight hours per day for several years, eventually winning an offer to study business administration at a private liberal arts college in Illinois. She was hoping to arrive this fall, but her plans were derailed again, this time by President Trump’s travel ban.

“You think that finally you are going to your dream, and then something came up and like, everything’s just gone,” Saghari said.

Thousands of students are among the people affected by the Trump administration’s travel ban and restrictions on citizens from 19 countries, including many who now feel stranded after investing considerable time and money to come to the U.S.

Some would-be international students are not showing up on American campuses this fall despite offers of admission because of logjams with visa applications, which the Trump administration slowed this summer while it rolled out additional vetting. Others have had second thoughts because of the administration’s wider immigration crackdown and the abrupt termination of some students’ legal status.

But none face bigger obstacles than the students hit with travel bans. Last year, the State Department issued more than 5,700 F-1 and J-1 visas — which are used by foreign students and researchers — to people in the 19 ban-affected countries between May and September. Citizens of Iran and Myanmar were issued more than half of the approved visas.

U.S. still the first choice for many

Pouya Karami, a 17-year-old student from Shiraz, Iran, focused his college search entirely on the U.S. No other country offers the same research opportunities in science, he said. He was planning to study polymer chemistry this fall at Pittsburg State University in Kansas, but he had to shelve those plans because of the travel ban.

Karami deferred admission until next year and is holding out hope. He is still preparing for his embassy interview and reaching out to U.S. politicians to reconsider the travel ban’s restrictions on students.

“I’m doing everything I can about it,” he said.

The full travel ban affects citizens from 12 countries spanning Africa, Asia, the Middle East and the Caribbean. It blocks most people from obtaining new visas, although some citizens from the banned countries are exempt, such as green card holders, dual citizens and some athletes. Seven other countries have tighter restrictions that also apply to student visas.

When Trump announced the travel ban in June, he cited high visa overstay rates and national security threats from unstable or adversarial foreign governments as reasons for putting countries on the list. He has called some of the countries’ screening processes “deficient” and said he plans to keep the ban in place until “identified inadequacies” are addressed.

‘This kind of breaks my heart’

In Myanmar, the family of one 18-year-old student made his education their top priority, saving paychecks for him to go abroad for college. They risked their stability so he could have the chance to live a better life, said the student, who asked to be identified by only his nickname, Gu Gu, because he is worried about being targeted by the Myanmar or U.S. government for expressing criticism.

When he shared a screenshot of his acceptance letter to the University of South Florida in a family group chat, it exploded with celebratory emojis, Gu Gu said. He had been waiting for visa appointments to be announced when, one night, his mother woke him to ask about news of a U.S. travel ban. In an instant, his plans to study at USF this fall were ruined.

Many students his age in Myanmar have been drafted into the military or joined resistance groups since the military ousted the elected civilian government in 2021. While a civil war rages, he had been looking forward to simple freedoms in the U.S. like walking to school by himself or playing sports again.

“I was all in for U.S., so this kind of breaks my heart,” said Gu Gu, who was unable to defer his acceptance.

Students forced to look elsewhere

Saghari, the Afghan student, postponed her July visa interview appointment in Pakistan to August after learning of the travel ban, but ultimately canceled it. Knox College denied her request to defer her admission.

She later applied to schools in Europe but encountered issues with the admissions process. A German university told Saghari she would need to take another English proficiency test because an earlier score had expired, but taking the test the first time was already a challenge in Afghanistan’s political climate.

She has been accepted to a Polish university on condition she pay her tuition up front. She said her application is under review as the school validates her high school degree.

Amir, a 28-year-old Iranian graduate who declined to provide his last name for fear of being targeted, wasn’t able to travel to the U.S. to take a position as a visiting scholar. Instead, he has continued to work as a researcher in Tehran, saying it was difficult to focus after missing out on a fully funded opportunity to conduct research at the University of Pennsylvania.

His professor at Penn postponed his research appointment until next year, but Amir said it feels like “a shot in the dark.”

He’s been looking at research opportunities in Europe, which would require more time spent on applications and potentially learning a new language. He still would prefer to be in U.S., he said, but he isn’t optimistic that the country’s foreign policy is going to change.

“You lose this idealistic view of the world. Like you think, if I work hard, if I’m talented, if I contribute, I have a place somewhere else, basically somewhere you want to be,” he said. “And then you learn that, no, maybe people don’t want you there. That’s kind of hard to deal with it.”

Seminera writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Todd Feathers contributed to this report.

Tom Brady will have fewer NFL-imposed restrictions on him this season as he enters his second year as an analyst on games broadcast on Fox.

The restrictions were placed on the legendary quarterback last August when his purchase of a 10% stake in the Las Vegas Raiders was pending approval from the league owners. Brady’s minority stake was approved in October.

One of the so-called Brady Rules enacted by the NFL prohibited the rookie broadcaster from attending production meetings during which the Fox crew meets with coaches and players ahead of that week’s game.

That retriction has been lifted, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy confirmed to The Times on Wednesday morning.

There is one caveat, however — Brady must attend those meetings remotely. He is still prohibited from going to a team facility for practices or production meetings, McCarthy said.

Brady is allowed to interview players off site, as he did on occassion last year, McCarthy said.

Like last year, Brady can’t “egregiously criticize officials,” said McCarthy, who added there were no issues along those lines in 2024.

Brady, a seven-time Super Bowl champion with the New England Patriots and Tampa Bay Buccaneers, was allowed by the league to attend the production meetings ahead of Super Bowl LIX in February.

The Athletic was first to report the loosening of the restrictions on Brady.

Regulation of psilocybin — the “magic” substance in psychedelic mushrooms — has been a hot-button issue for Californians in recent years, but repeated attempts by state lawmakers to allow medical use of the substance have floundered.

Now it seems change may come at the federal level.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is weighing a petition sent earlier this month by the Drug Enforcement Administration to review the scientific evidence and consider easing restrictions.

Psilocybin is currently classified as a Schedule I narcotic, the most restrictive category under federal law, reserved for drugs “with a high potential for abuse” and “no currently accepted medical use.” The DEA is considering moving psilocybin into the less restrictive Schedule II tier, which includes drugs that are considered addictive or dangerous — including fentanyl and cocaine — but also have medical value.

Past efforts to allow for therapeutic use of psilocybin have largely stalled in the face of official intransigence and lack of political will, including in California, where state lawmakers’ efforts to decriminalize psilocybin and other psychedelic substances have failed multiple times.

Despite strict prohibition under both state and federal law, psilocybin is widely available and growing in popularity for both recreational and therapeutic purposes.

Illegal cannabis dispensaries across Southern California openly sell actual psilocybin mushrooms, as well as dodgy chocolates and gummies that often purport to contain the substance but instead contain only synthetic versions. In recent decades, a growing body of research has found that psilocybin can be beneficial in treating mental health conditions including depression, anxiety and substance use disorder.

The issue of psychedelic access is high on the agenda of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s controversial and conspiracy-minded secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has signaled support in the past for expanding access to some hallucinogens in medical settings for treatment of mental health disorders.

Kennedy’s agency directed all inquiries to the DEA, which said in an email that it is “unable to comment on or confirm scheduling actions.”

The DEA sent the psilocybin petition after a drawn-out legal battle led by Dr. Sunil Aggarwal. For about five years, Aggarwal, co-director of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science Institute in Seattle, has been seeking a means to legally obtain and administer psilocybin to ailing and aging patients for care during the final phases of their lives.

Kathryn L. Tucker, a lawyer for Aggarwal, wrote a letter to the DEA this month that said he “continues to provide care to patients with advanced and terminal cancer who could benefit greatly from psilocybin assisted therapy, enabling them to experience a more peaceful dying process.”

“The science supports movement to schedule II; such placement will enable access under Right to Try laws, which contemplate early access to promising new drugs for those with life-threatening conditions,” Tucker wrote.

Aggarwal filed a lawsuit after his 2020 petition to reschedule psilocybin was denied. A federal panel dismissed the suit, but the move toward rescheduling continues now that the DEA has officially forwarded his petition to the Department of Health and Human Services.

But some researchers and other experts caution against moving too fast to expand access.

Dr. Steven Locke, a former Harvard Medical School psychiatry professor, wrote in an email that the question of whether psilocybin has any medical applications “remains controversial.” A past president of the American Psychosomatic Society, Locke has studied rare conditions such as Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder, which cause symptoms akin to long-lasting “bad trips” in a small percentage of people who use psilocybin mushrooms and other psychedelics.

“There is little evidence from good-quality studies to support claims for the efficacy of the use of psilocybin for the treatment of any medical disorders,” said Locke. “The reclassification should be contingent on a careful review.”

VIOLENT abusers are to be made to stay inside “restriction zones” for the first time under new laws. 

They must remain in certain areas, monitored by GPS tags, with potential jail time for a breach. 

2

Current laws ban thugs from an area — normally around a victim’s home. 

Campaigners say that restricts victims’ freedoms, as they feel safe only when they stay in their exclusion zones — and not when elsewhere. 

Probation services will enlist victims to draw up a list of locations offenders are allowed to visit. 

The Ministry of Justice move came after lobbying from campaigners. It may be introduced as part of the Sentencing Bill going through Parliament. 

Victims’ minister Alex Davies-Jones said it “will strengthen safeguards”. 

Announcing the change, Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Alex Davies-Jones said: “Through our Plan for Change, we’re putting victims first. 

“This move will strengthen safeguards for victims.

“I’ve heard firsthand how this innovative approach will give them the peace of mind they deserve and rebuild their lives without fear.”

Diana Parkes CBE and Hetti Barkworth-Nanton CBE, who are co-founders of the Joanna Simpson Foundation, said: “For far too long, victims have had to reshape their lives to avoid their offenders.

“Exclusion zones have made victims feel trapped as though they are the ones serving a sentence, with the victim carrying the weight of someone else’s crime. 

“This announcement from the Ministry of Justice is the much-needed change that has long been called for and is a powerful step forward.

“By placing restrictions on offenders instead, this will now give survivors the freedom they deserve to live, move and heal without fear. “

2

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday threw his support behind two bills that would streamline housing development in urban areas, saying it was “time to get serious” about cutting red tape to address the housing crisis.

Newsom said his revised state budget proposal, which he announced at a news conference Wednesday, also will include provisions that clear the way for more new housing by reforming the state’s landmark California Environmental Quality Act and clearing other impediments.

The governor praised Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) for sponsoring bills designed to ease the permitting process for infill projects, or building in urban areas that already have development.

Newsom’s housing proposal looks to force permit deadlines on the Coastal Commission, allow housing development projects over $100 million to use CEQA streamlining usually available to smaller projects, and create a fund, paid for by developers, to finance affordable housing near public transit.

CEQA has long been used by opponents to impede or delay construction, often locking developers into years-long court battles. The law is so vague that it allows “essentially anyone who can hire a lawyer” to challenge developments, Wiener said in a statement.

“It’s time to accelerate urban infill. It’s time to exempt them from CEQA, it’s time to focus on judicial streamlining. It’s time to get serious about this issue. Period, full stop,” Newsom said during the morning budget news conference. “… This is the biggest opportunity to do something big and bold, and the only impediment is us. So we own this, and we have to own the response.”

Assembly Bill 609, proposed by Wicks, who serves as the Assembly Appropriations Committee chair, would create a sweeping exemption for housing projects that meet local building standards, especially in areas that have already been approved for additional development and reviewed for potential environmental impacts.

“It’s time to refine CEQA for the modern age, and I’m proud to work with the Governor to make these long-overdue changes a reality,” Wicks said in a statement.

Senate Bill 607, authored by Wiener, who serves as chair of the Senate Housing Committee, focuses the environmental review process and clarifies CEQA exemptions for urban infill housing projects.

“By clearing away outdated procedural hurdles, we can address California’s outrageous cost of living, grow California’s economy, and help the government solve the most pressing problems facing our state. We look forward to working with Governor Newsom and our legislative colleagues to advance these two important bills and to secure an affordable and abundant future for California,” Wiener said in a statement.

Both bills are pending before the appropriations committees in the Assembly and Senate, respectively.