ruling

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked new congressional districts backed by President Trump from being used in the November election and ordered a statewide vote on whether to uphold or reject the new map.

The decision Thursday marks a rare setback for Republicans in a national redistricting battle. Republicans had hoped Missouri’s new gerrymandered congressional boundaries could help them win an additional seat and hold on to their slim House majority in the midterms.

Missouri Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said she would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the decision “has thrust our state into a full‑fledged constitutional crisis.”

Missouri’s new districts were used in the August primaries. But the state Supreme Court said they cannot be used in the November general election — or ever again, unless voters first uphold the new districts passed by the Republican-led Legislature.

The court ruled that the new districts were effectively placed on hold last December, when opponents submitted more than 300,000 petition signatures seeking to put the map to a vote of the people. Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins waited until primary election day in August to reject the petition. He asserted that the referendum process cannot be used for congressional redistricting. A lower court agreed, but the Supreme Court overturned Hoskins’ decision.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise,” the court said in its ruling. The legislation containing the new districts “did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters.” As a result, the congressional map adopted after the 2020 census “remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Hanaway, whose office represented Hoskins, called the ruling an unprecedented violation of federal law. So did Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who proposed the new congressional map to lawmakers to favor the GOP.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election,” Hanaway said in a statement.

Court ruling hinged on referendum rights

The Missouri Constitution does not specifically say a referendum petition can be used for a congressional redistricting law passed by the Legislature. But the Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional provision allowing a referendum on “any act” of the Legislature encompasses congressional redistricting.

It rejected assertions from Hanaway’s office that federal law prohibits referendum petitions on congressional redistricting.

“This is what democracy looks like,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, which sponsored the referendum petition. “The people of Missouri demanded a voice, and the court just confirmed what we’ve been saying all along. People, not politicians, will have the final say.”

Hoskins, acknowledging the loss, vowed to continue “the war to preserve our constitutional republic.”

The ruling, which capped a year of political maneuvering and legal wrangling, was one of two to go against Republican officials Thursday. The Supreme Court also ruled that Hoskins had wrongly rejected a petition for a ballot proposal making it difficult for politicians to change measures enacted by voters through ballot initiatives. The court also ordered that measure to be placed on the November ballot.

Missouri redistricting targeted longtime Kansas City lawmaker

Missouri currently has six Republicans and two Democrats in the U.S. House.

After Trump urged Republicans to redraw congressional districts to their advantage, Kehoe called lawmakers into a special session last year to reconfigure the 5th Congressional District, held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver.

Cleaver, who was unopposed in the August primary, has carried the Kansas City-based district with at least 60% of the vote in each of the last two elections.

Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin won an August primary in the gerrymandered 5th District, which had been stretched eastward to include rural Republican areas. About 59% of the district’s voters were new under the revised map, according to an Associated Press estimate.

Cleaver had not posted campaign signs in many of the new rural areas, explaining that he was waiting for the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision. But he had vowed to continue his reelection campaign regardless of the outcome.

“Despite the cynical and deeply shameful attempt to silence many of our neighbors, the people fought back and won,” Cleaver said in a social media post Thursday.

Brattin, a Marine veteran and founding member of the conservative Missouri Freedom Caucus in the state Legislature, said the decision disenfranchises thousands of primary voters who now will be shifted to different districts with candidates they didn’t get to choose.

The court “handed Democrats a decision they desperately needed in their effort to help national Democrats retake the U.S. House of Representatives,” Brattin said in a statement.

Redistricting battle spread to over a quarter of states

Congressional districts typically are redrawn at the start of each decade, based on new census data. But Trump’s quest for a midterm election advantage triggered an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle that spread to more than a dozen states, including California — and triggered a dozen lawsuits in Missouri alone.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruling was one of only a few nationally to go against Republicans’ redistricting efforts.

Prior to its latest ruling, Missouri’s top court already had rejected claims that the special session was illegal, mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed and the new districts aren’t compact enough.

After the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday, a few hundred people chanted, “Let us vote!” while rallying outside the courthouse. Grant Christensen, of Jefferson City, said he had signed the referendum petition to put the map to a vote.

“Gerrymandering is the same as voter suppression,” Christensen said. “Cutting up districts in order to steer them to vote one way or the other is not fair.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

NEW YORK — A federal judge on Friday once again spurned President Trump’s effort to erase his hush money conviction, rejecting the president’s bid to move the state court case to federal court and have it dismissed on presidential immunity grounds.

Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein reiterated his earlier finding against Trump, saying that the reasons Trump cited for renewing his request were “neither new nor legally sufficient.”

The judge added: “He has failed to show good cause and diligence.”

It is the third time Hellerstein has blocked Trump from having the U.S. District Court in Manhattan seize control of the case from the New York court where he was tried and convicted.

And, like before, Trump will appeal, according to a spokesperson for his legal team who called Hellerstein’s ruling “baseless and lawless.”

“The Supreme Court’s historic decision on Immunity, the Federal and New York State Constitutions, and other established legal precedent mandate that the Witch Hunt perpetrated by the Manhattan DA be removed to federal court, and immediately overturned and dismissed,” a statement issued on behalf of the legal team said. “President Trump will be filing a powerful appeal, and will continue defeating Democrat weaponization at every turn.”

The guilty verdict, reached in May 2024 while Trump was between terms, made him the first former — and now current — U.S. president to be convicted of a crime. Trump is also challenging his conviction through the state court appellate process, which is pending.

Hellerstein’s decision came after a federal appeals court last year ordered him to reconsider his prior denial. The judge previewed his ruling during oral arguments in February, slamming Trump’s lawyers for legal maneuvers that amounted to taking “two bites at the apple.”

State prosecutors did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The case centered on a payment to Stormy Daniels

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose claim of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier had threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign.

Trump was sentenced to an unconditional discharge, which left his conviction intact but spared him any punishment. He had long denied Daniels’ claim and said he did nothing wrong. He has sought to get the conviction overturned both by attempting to move the case to federal court and through the appeals process in state court, which is pending.

Hellerstein rejected Trump’s requests to move the case twice before. The first was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment. The second was after Trump’s trial, as his lawyers sought to nix his conviction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling that presidents and ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for official acts and prosecutors can’t use official acts as evidence that unofficial actions were illegal.

Trump appealed Hellerstein’s post-trial ruling and, last November, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the judge to reconsider his decision, finding that he had failed to consider “important issues relevant” to the president’s request to move the case.

A three-judge appellate panel said it expressed no view on how he should rule but instructed Hellerstein to closely review evidence that Trump claimed was related to official acts and whether Trump could argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties.

The judges also instructed Hellerstein to determine if Trump had “diligently sought” to have the case moved to federal court and whether the case can even be moved to federal court now that Trump has been convicted and sentenced in state court.

The judge questioned the Trump legal team’s strategy

During oral arguments in February, Hellerstein took issue with the Trump legal team’s decision-making after the Supreme Court ruling.

Instead of immediately seeking to move the case to federal court, he noted, Trump’s lawyers first asked the trial judge in state court, Juan Merchan, to throw out the verdict on immunity grounds. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment, but a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. has ruled that exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Trump, a Republican, did not attend the arguments.

Trump lawyer Jeffrey Wall argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision and that Trump’s legal team was crunched for time after the high court’s ruling because his sentencing was scheduled for just 10 days later.

Trump’s lawyers did not ask Hellerstein to intervene until nearly two months later, while their request to Merchan was still pending. The judge called that a “strategic decision” and suggested that by going to the state court first, Trump’s lawyers cost him the right to pursue remedies in federal court.

“No, your honor,” Wall replied. “It is what any sensible litigant would do” in that situation.

“Not so,” Hellerstein replied.

“That is a decision on your part,” the judge added. “You didn’t have to do that. You could have come right to the federal court. Just by filing a notice of removal, there would be no sentencing.”

Trump’s lawyers “made a choice,” Hellerstein said, “and you sought two bites at the apple.”

In his written ruling Friday, Hellerstein said Trump was asking for a “‘second bite at the apple,’ a result the law disfavors.”

The judge added that “Trump’s delay in filing for removal constitutes a ‘quintessential strategic decision,’ and the ‘fact that he later came to view that decision as a poor one is not sufficient, by itself, to establish cause.’”

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.

When Lane Kiffin dials a number, the person on the other end usually answers and takes the call.

Todd Monken crossed paths with Kiffin many times while both crisscrossed the country for decades, taking this job and that, as head coaches and assistants at top colleges and in the NFL.

Monken became an NFL head coach for the first time in January, taking over the Cleveland Browns. Kiffin is about to begin his first season as the Louisiana State head coach, so Monken didn’t know why Kiffin’s number popped up on his screen over the weekend.

“I wondered why Lane Kiffin reached out to me a week ago,” Monken told reporters Sunday. “Now I know. I didn’t call him back. I guess I should have.”

Kiffin called to tell Monken something the rookie NFL coach learned later in the day. Dae’Quan Wright, a tight end the Browns waived Sunday morning, plans to play for LSU if he clears waivers, his agents told ESPN.

Dae’Quan Wright of the Cleveland Browns warms up before a preseason game against the Buffalo Bills at Huntington Bank Field on Aug. 22.

(Nick Cammett / Diamond Images via Getty Images)

Wright, who went undrafted after playing for Kiffin at Mississippi, is believed to be the first player to have an agreement to return to college football after signing with an NFL team. He was with the Browns for fewer than two weeks after the Philadelphia Eagles signed him as an undrafted free agent and placed him on waivers in early August.

Although Wright didn’t play in the Browns’ two preseason games, he suited up Saturday against the Buffalo Bills because injuries to other players created a potential need. He never left the sideline.

Another NFL player being courted by Kiffin, however, saw action. . Tampa Bay Buccaneers rookie linebacker Jack Pyburn recorded two sacks in a preseason victory over the New York Jets on Friday.

Pyburn, who also went undrafted after playing three years at Florida and his senior year at LSU, can regain his college eligibility if he terminates his contract with the Bucs and repays earnings. Pyburn’s deal guaranteed him $115,000 and included a $15,000 signing bonus.

LSU could pay him an estimated $1 million for his NIL, exceeding the NFL full-season rookie minimum of $885,000.

“I’m kind of caught in the middle of a whirlwind,” Pyburn told the Athletic, “and I’m just trying to play football.”

Wright and Pyburn are two of about 30 athletes who filed a lawsuit in Louisiana and were granted a temporary restraining order to return to college for one more season.

The lawsuit challenges new NCAA eligibility rules that give athletes a five-year window to compete in college sports. The plaintiffs are 2022 high school graduates whose college eligibility expired last spring under the previous rules. The NCAA did not include them in implementation of age-based eligibility, prompting lawsuits.

Several state courts have ruled in the players’ favor, and they have eligibility in the upcoming school year until appeals are ruled on. Most of the plaintiffs are basketball players, but Wright and Pyburn are two of 16 football players benefiting from the temporary restraining order granted by Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court.