Sides

PHOENIX — The top election official in Arizona’s most populous county will get more authority in running elections after a judge sided with his office in a prolonged legal fight with the local board that shares responsibility for overseeing the vote.

The decision could have broad implications in one of the nation’s most prominent battleground states, which will have several high-profile races this fall. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, has been roiled by election conspiracy theorists ever since President Trump lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden during his bid for reelection in 2020.

Justin Heap, the Republican recorder in Maricopa County, sued the predominantly Republican county board of supervisors last summer, alleging it had illegally taken control of certain aspects of election administration. Heap claimed the board transferred funding, IT staff and some key functions — including management of ballot drop boxes and establishing early voting sites — away from his office through an agreement negotiated with his predecessor, whom he had recently defeated in a GOP primary.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney mostly sided with Heap’s office in his ruling, which was filed Thursday but appeared on the public docket Friday. The board of supervisors “acted unlawfully and exceeded its statutory authority by seizing the Recorder’s personnel, systems and equipment and refusing to return them” to the recorder, he wrote.

Blaney also ruled that the recorder’s office is responsible for overseeing in-person early voting, among other duties, while the board is responsible for other operations, such as selecting election day voting locations, supplying polling locations and hiring poll workers.

“The Board’s assertion of plenary authority over election administration through its general supervisory powers is inconsistent with Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

Board Chairwoman Kate Brophy McGee said the board will consider an appeal.

“I disagree with other portions of the ruling, and I will explore all options with the Board of Supervisors, including an expeditious appeal,” McGee, a Republican, said in a statement. “From day one, the Board of Supervisors has provided Recorder Heap the resources and staffing needed to fulfill his statutory duties. We will continue to do so because voters always come first.”

In a statement, Heap praised the ruling as a “clear and decisive victory for the rule of law and for the voters of Maricopa County.”

“The court confirmed that the Board cannot override state law, use funding as leverage, or take control of election duties assigned to the Recorder,” Heap said. “This ruling restores both the authority and the resources necessary for my office to do its job.”

Heap, a former Republican state lawmaker, was elected in 2024 after unseating incumbent Stephen Richer in the GOP primary and defeating a Democratic candidate in the general election. In the past, Heap has stopped short of repeating false claims that the 2020 and 2022 elections were stolen but has said voters don’t trust the state’s voting system and that it’s poorly run.

False claims of fraud since the 2020 presidential election led to threats of violence against Richer and others in the Maricopa County elections office. Richer blamed Heap for contributing to an atmosphere of distrust and vitriol directed toward the office.

“He catered to the really ugly stuff that the people in that office had to live through,” Richer said of Heap, in an interview last month. “And he allied with people who were very much in the eye of the storm in terms of creating it.”

Once he took office, Heap terminated a previous agreement that was reached between Richer and the board that had revised how election operations were divided between the two offices. Heap filed his lawsuit with the backing of America First Legal, a conservative public interest group founded by Stephen Miller, now deputy chief of staff in the White House.

Kelety writes for the Associated Press.

April 13 (UPI) — The U.S. military said it will begin blocking all ships from leaving or entering Iran’s ports on Monday morning in line with a maritime blockade ordered by U.S. President Donald Trump to cut off Iranian oil exports.

U.S. Central Command said in a news release Sunday that the blockade would be enforced equitably against vessels of all nations sailing to or from Iranian ports, including all those on the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, but stressed vessels serving ports in neighboring countries would be left alone.

“CENTCOM forces will not impede freedom of navigation for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz to and from non-Iranian ports,” said the news release, which instructs the masters of all ships to monitor “Notice to Mariners” broadcasts and make radio contact with U.S. naval forces on bridge-to-bridge channels in Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz approaches.

The blockade would effectively cut off Iran’s international trade by preventing it from importing or exporting anything by sea, in particular its energy exports on which it is reliant for hard currency.

Further details would be communicated in a formal notice that would be provided to commercial ships and operators prior to the start of the blockade, due to come into force at 10 a.m. EDT, CENTCOM said.

The statement clarified comments by Trump early Sunday in which he appeared to announce a total blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in response to the failure of peace talks in Pakistan at the weekend.

Trump had said the U.S. Navy “will begin the process of BLOCKADING any and all Ships trying to enter, or leave, the Strait of Hormuz.”

On Saturday, CENTCOM announced that the U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyers USS Frank E. Peterson USS Michael Murphy had transited the Strait of Hormuz and operated in the Persian Gulf, preparatory to clearing Iranian mines and reopening the shipping route to commercial vessels.

Tehran responded to the development with unspecified threats against the ports of its neighbors and raised the specter of widening the conflict to the Red Sea, the other sea passage in the region that is critical to the global economy.

“Security in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman is either for everyone or for NO ONE. If Iran’s ports are threatened, NO PORT in the region will be safe,” the Iranian military’s central command said in a statement carried by state-run broadcaster IRIB.

“Naval blockade of Iran? Bab al-mandeb Coming soon?!,” IRIB said earlier in a post referencing the narrow strait at the southern entrance to the Red Sea, which leads to the Suez Canal, where Iran-backed Houthi rebels attacked around 100 commercial ships November 2023 through September 2025.

Oil prices rose in response to the developments while stock markets retreated.

The benchmark Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate both climbed back above $100 a barrel with the Brent contract for June delivery changing hands at $102.31 per barrel in mid-morning trade in London while the WTI contract for May was trading at $104.44.

The FTSE 100 in London was down 0.33%, the DAX in Frankfurt fell almost 1.2% and France’s CAC 40 was off by almost 1%.

Former U.S. special envoy to the region David Satterfield expressed concerns over the blockade, warning that if shipping continued to be affected current supply disruption would widen beyond oil, with serious implications for Gulf countries’ exports of many other critical materials from aluminum and helium to polymers and fertilizer feed stocks.

“The Gulf is a critical global supply point, far beyond hydrocarbons — and the impact if this goes on for several more weeks is going to become quite profound, beyond just the cost of petrol and diesel at the pump,” Satterfield told the BBC.

The U.S. can continue to detain immigrants without bond, an appeals court ruled on Wednesday, handing a victory to the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

The opinion from a panel of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis overturned a lower court ruling that required that a native of Mexico arrested for lacking legal documents be given a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

It’s the second appeals court to rule in favor of the administration on this issue. The 5th Circuit in New Orleans ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to deny bond hearings to immigrants arrested across the country was consistent with the Constitution and federal immigration law.

Both appeals court opinions counter recent lower court decisions across the country that argued the practice is illegal.

In November, a district court decision in California granted detained immigrants with no criminal history the opportunity to request a bond hearing and had implications for noncitizens held in detention nationwide.

Under past administrations, most noncitizens with no criminal record who were arrested away from the border had an opportunity to request a bond hearing while their cases wound through immigration court. Historically, bond was often granted to those without criminal convictions who were not flight risks, and mandatory detention was limited to recent border crossers.

In the case before the 8th Circuit, Joaquin Herrera Avila of Mexico was apprehended in Minneapolis in August 2025 for lacking legal documents authorizing his admission into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security detained Avila without bond and began deportation proceedings.

He filed a petition seeking immediate release or a bond hearing. A federal judge in Minnesota granted the petition, saying the law authorized detention without bond when a person seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to being admitted. The judge found this was not the case for Avila because he had lived in the country for years without seeking naturalization, asylum or refugee status and thus wasn’t “seeking admission.”

Circuit Court Judge Bobby E. Shepherd wrote for the majority in a 2-1 opinion that the law was “clear that an ‘applicant for admission’ is also an alien who is ‘seeking admission,’” and so Avila couldn’t petition on these grounds.

Circuit Court Judge Ralph R. Erickson dissented, saying that Avila would have been entitled to a bond hearing during his deportation hearings if he had been arrested during the past 29 years. Now, he wrote, the Circuit Court has ruled that Avila and millions of others would be subject to mandatory detention under a novel interpretation of “alien seeking admission” that hasn’t been used by the courts or five previous presidential administrations.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Avila, didn’t immediately return an email message seeking comment.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi hailed the ruling, writing in a social media post: “MASSIVE COURT VICTORY against activist judges and for President Trump’s law and order agenda!”

At question is the issue of whether the government is required to ask a neutral judge to to determine whether it is legal to imprison someone.

It’s based on the habeas corpus, which is a Latin legal term referring to the constitutional right for people to legally challenge their detention by the government.

Immigrants have filed more than 30,000 habeas corpus petitions in federal court alleging illegal detention since Trump took office, according to a tally by the Associated Press. Many have succeeded.

McAvoy writes for the Associated Press.

Trita Parsi, Vice President of the Quincy Institute, argues that Iran is unlikely to agree to end the war without sanctions relief, while there is little sign Donald Trump is willing to offer meaningful concessions, adding that a deal remains unlikely until then.

A federal judge in the United States has agreed to block the administration of President Donald Trump from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon.

Friday’s ruling sides with The New York Times in its argument that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

US District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, DC, ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including those from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials.

He ruled that the Pentagon policy ultimately violates the First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation’s security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech. That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now,” the judge wrote.

Times lauds ruling

New York Times spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said the newspaper believes the ruling “enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country”.

“Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars,” Stadtlander said in a statement. “Today’s ruling reaffirms the right of The Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public’s behalf.”

Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer who represented the Times at a hearing earlier this month, said in a statement that the court ruling is “a powerful rejection of the Pentagon’s effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war”.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government lawyers wrote.

The Times’ legal team, meanwhile, claimed the policy is designed to silence unfavourable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Weeding out ‘disfavoured’ journalists

The judge said he recognises that “national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected”.

“But especially in light of the country’s recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing,” Friedman wrote.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s [credentials],” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon had asked the judge to suspend his ruling for a week for an appeal. Friedman refused.

The judge ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists. But he said his decision to vacate the challenged policy terms applies to “all regulated parties”.

Friedman gave the Pentagon a week to file a written report on its compliance with the order.

The Times argued that the Pentagon has applied its own rules inconsistently. The newspaper noted that Trump ally Laura Loomer, a right-wing personality who agreed to the Pentagon policy, appeared to violate the Pentagon’s prohibition on soliciting unauthorised information by promoting her “tip line”.

The government didn’t object to Loomer’s tip line but concluded that a Washington Post tip line does violate its policy because it purportedly “targets” military personnel and department employees.

The judge said he does not see any meaningful difference between the two tip lines.

“But the problem is that nothing in the Policy explicitly prevents the Department from treating these two nearly identical tip lines differently,” Friedman added.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed Friday to block the Trump administration from enforcing a policy limiting news reporters’ access to the Pentagon, agreeing with The New York Times that key portions of the new rules are unlawful.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington sided with the newspaper and ruled that the Pentagon policy illegally restricts the press credentials of reporters who walked out of the building rather than agree to the new rules.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the credentialing policy violates the journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from the Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

Friedman, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the policy “fails to provide fair notice of what routine, lawful journalistic practices will result in the denial, suspension, or revocation” of Pentagon press credentials. He ruled that it violates the First and Fifth amendment rights to free speech and due process.

“In sum, the Policy on its face makes any newsgathering and reporting not blessed by the Department a potential basis for the denial, suspension, or revocation of a journalist’s (credential),” he wrote. “It provides no way for journalists to know how they may do their jobs without losing their credentials.”

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the ruling.

It has argued that the policy imposes “common sense” rules that protect the military from the disclosure of national security information.

“The goal of that process is to prevent those who pose a security risk from having broad access to American military headquarters,” government attorneys wrote.

Times attorneys claim the policy is designed to silence unfavorable press coverage of President Trump’s administration.

“The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from granting itself the unbridled power to restrict speech because the mere existence of such arbitrary authority can lead to self-censorship,” they wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Konstantin Toropin contributed to this report.

March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of allowing a so-called street preacher in Mississippi to challenge a law prohibiting where he can protest.

The high court said Gabriel Olivier can file a civil suit in response to a law in Brandon, Miss., that prevents public protests outside of designated areas. He said the law violates the 1st Amendment’s free speech protection.

Police in Brandon, Miss., arrested Olivier in 2021 as he and a group of protesters shouted slurs and insults at concertgoers as they entered an amphitheater. Some members of the group also held up graphic signs showing aborted fetuses.

He was convicted of violating the city’s laws banning protesters from coming within about 265 feet away of the amphitheater and from using loudspeakers that can be heard from more than 100 feet away, CNN reported.

Olivier pleaded no contest to the charges and was ordered to pay a fine and serve a year of unsupervised probation. Following his sentence, he sued the city, saying its law violated his free speech rights.

A 1994 Supreme Court ruling — Heck v. Humphrey — though says that a defendant convicted of a crime can’t then sue over the legality of their conviction. Otherwise, he and other defendants could be cleared of their convictions outside of the normal criminal appeals process, The Washington Post reported.

Olivier’s lawyers said his case should be allowed to proceed because success wouldn’t affect the result of his conviction, for which he wasn’t imprisoned. The Supreme Court agreed with a unanimous vote.

The ruling did not pass judgment on the constitutionality of the city of Brandon’s laws, only that Olivier is allowed to challenge them.

ENGLAND

Even though four teams have been knocked out this week, it is all but certain that the Premier League will get an extra place.

England (23.847) already have a coefficient score pretty much the same as last season’s second-placed country (Spain, 23.892).

Nothing should be completely taken for granted, as England seemed destined to get an EPS slot in 2023-24 only to suffer a terrible set of results in the quarter-finals.

But it is going to take another very bad night on Thursday for there to be any real jeopardy.

It also helps that Bayern Munich will face Real Madrid in the quarter-finals, meaning one of England’s closest rivals will lose a team. And Barcelona must play Atletico Madrid, too.

As a picture of how far England are ahead, German and Spanish sides are effectively 18 victories behind. And Serie A can no longer catch the Premier League.

SPAIN

The Spanish league is in second place and now has more teams left in Europe (six) than any other league.

It will be a close battle as each win is worth less to the coefficient than for Germany.

The Champions League meeting between Bayern and Real Madrid could prove crucial in the race.

Spain will also be hit by their teams meeting each other.

Atletico and Barcelona will meet in the Champions League quarter-finals.

In the Europa League, Celta Vigo and Real Betis are on a collision course in the semi-finals.

GERMANY

The Bundesliga has only Bayern left active in the Champions League, and it will need a strong turnaround of results on Thursday.

Of the three German teams in action in the Europa League and Conference League, not one goes into their second leg with a lead. They all need positive results to be able to challenge Spain.

PORTUGAL

It seemed like Portugal’s chances of making the top two were effectively over when Santa Clara were knocked out of the Conference League in the qualifying rounds.

But three of their remaining four teams are still active.

However, to be in contention for second all are going to have to go very deep.

ITALY

Serie A has lost four of its seven teams and now only has a slim chance of making second place.

Bologna and Roma face each other in the Europa League last 16, so another team will go out.

At least Fiorentina won in the Conference League.

FRANCE

It has been a disappointing season for Ligue 1 teams, starting with Nice’s failure to make it through Champions League qualifying.

It did not get much better from there for Nice, as they were then eliminated from the Europa League.

France do have four teams still active but seem unlikely to bridge the gap.

POLAND

It will come as a surprise to many to find Poland so high up in the table, and they were in the top two for a while. But Poland no longer have a realistic chance.

All four of the country’s teams have been playing in the Conference League, while more than a third of their coefficient points were picked up in the qualifying rounds.

It would need both of their teams to win every remaining game.

No other country has a mathematical chance of the top two.

F1’s bosses are caught in the middle of this debate, recognising the superficial appeal of the back-and-forth racing, but concerned about what the new cars are doing to the sport they grew up loving because they were attracted by its essence as the ultimate test of driver and machine.

Andrea Stella, team principal of world champions McLaren, said: “In qualifying, there’s some aspects of driving that could be counterintuitive.

“Like, occasionally there are comments from our drivers that once they make a mistake, actually save some energy, you go faster overall in a sector, because the energy you saved with the delay on the throttle because you had a problem is going to reward you at the end of the straight.”

Mercedes F1 team principal Toto Wolff said: “From an entertainment perspective, I believe that what we’ve seen today between Ferrari and McLaren was good racing. Many overtakes.

“We were all part of Formula 1 where there was no overtake, literally. Sometimes we’re too nostalgic about the good old years.

“But I think the product is good in itself. We saw quite some racing in the midfield also. And that is, I think, the positive.

“Now, from a driver’s standpoint, when it comes to the qualifying lap, that is different. Clearly, lift and coast in the qualifying, I’m sure for someone like Max, who is a full-attack guy, it’s difficult to cope and digest.

“Qualifying flat-out would be nice. But when you look at the fans and the excitement that is there, live, the cheering when there’s overtakes and also on social media, the younger fans, the vast majority, through all the demographics, like the sport at the moment.

“So, yes, we can always look at how we’re improving it. But at the moment, all the indicators and all the data say people love it. And I spoke with Stefano (Domenicali, the F1 president). He says that, too.”

The cancellation of the Bahrain and Saudi Arabia Grands Prix gives the sport a little more breathing space to consider all this.

There is a meeting of team bosses with F1 and governing body the FIA this week, and another race in Japan in two weeks’ time before a five-week break before the next Grand Prix in Miami at the beginning of May.

A number of ideas to reduce the degree to which the purity of the driving experience has been polluted are already in the mix, such as removing a lower limit for energy recovery currently in force in a certain phase of the straights. And others may yet emerge.

Stella says: “Do we want to be faithful to the DNA of racing in a traditional sense? Do we accept that this counterintuitive situation belongs to the business or not? This is a high-level philosophical question.”