Supreme Court

WASHINGTON — Ahead of Tuesday’s election, when Americans weighed in at the ballot box for the first time since President Trump returned to office, a vicious fight emerged among the president’s most prominent supporters.

The head of the most influential conservative think tank in Washington found himself embroiled in controversy over his defense of Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and antisemite, whose rising profile and embrace on the right has become a phenomenon few in politics can ignore.

Fierce acrimony between Fuentes’ critics and acolytes dominated social media for days as a historically protracted government shutdown risked food security for millions of Americans. Despite the optics, Trump hosted a Halloween ball at his Mar-a-Lago estate themed around the extravagance of the Great Gatsby era.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a congresswoman who rose to national fame for her promotion of conspiracy theories, took to legacy media outlets to warn that Republicans are failing the American people over fundamental political imperatives, calling on leadership to address the nation’s cost-of-living crisis and come up with a comprehensive healthcare plan.

And on Tuesday, as vote tallies came in, moderate Democratic candidates in New Jersey and Virginia who had campaigned on economic bread-and-butter issues outperformed their polling — and Kamala Harris’ 2024 numbers against Trump in a majority of districts throughout their states.

The past year in politics has been dominated by a crisis within the Democratic Party over how to rebuild a winning coalition after Trump’s reelection. Now, just one year on, the Republican Party appears to be fracturing, as well, as it prepares for Trump’s departure from the national stage and the vacuum it will create in a party cast over 10 years in his image.

“Lame duck status is going to come even faster now,” Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative commentator, wrote on social media as election results trickled in. “Trump cannot turn out the vote unless he is on the ballot, and that is never happening again.”

A post-Trump debate intensifies

Flying to Seoul last week on a tour of Asia, Trump was asked to respond to remarks from top congressional Republicans, including the House speaker and Senate majority leader, over his potential pursuit of a third term in office, despite a clear constitutional prohibition against it.

“I guess I’m not allowed to run,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One. “If you read it, it’s pretty clear, I’m not allowed to run. It’s too bad.”

Less than a year remains until the 2026 midterm elections when Democrats could take back partial control of Congress, crippling Trump’s ability to enact his agenda and encumbering his administration with investigations.

But a countdown to the midterms also means that Trump has precious time left before the 2028 presidential election begins in earnest, eclipsing the final two years of his presidency.

It’s a conversation already brewing on the right.

“The Republican Party is just a husk,” Stephen K. Bannon, a prominent conservative commentator who served as White House chief strategist in Trump’s first term, told Politico in an interview Wednesday. Bannon has advocated for Trump to challenge the constitutional rule on presidential term limits.

“When Trump is engaged, when Trump’s on the ballot, when Trump’s team can get out there and get low-propensity voters — because that’s the difference now in modern politics — when they can do it, they win,” Bannon said. “When he doesn’t do it, they don’t.”

Trump has already suggested his vice president, JD Vance, and secretary of State, Marco Rubio, will be top contenders to succeed him. But an extreme faction of his political coalition, aligned with Fuentes, is already disparaging them as globalists working at the whims of a baseless conspiracy of American Jews. Fuentes targeted Vance last week, in particular, over his weight, his marriage to a “brown” Indian woman, and his support for Israel.

“The infighting is stupid,” Vance said on Wednesday in a post on the election results, tying intraparty battles to Tuesday’s poor showing for the GOP.

“I care about my fellow citizens — particularly young Americans — being able to afford a decent life, I care about immigration and our sovereignty, and I care about establishing peace overseas so our resources can be focused at home,” he said, adding: “If you care about those things too, let’s work together.”

Democratic fractures remain

Some in Republican leadership saw a silver lining in an otherwise difficult night on Tuesday.

The success of Zohran Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist who will serve as the youngest and first Muslim mayor of New York City, “is the reason I’m optimistic” for next year’s midterms, House Speaker Mike Johnson told RealClearPolitics on Wednesday.

New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani speaks at Tuesday night’s victory celebration.

(Yuki Iwamura / Associated Press)

“We will have a great example to point to in New York City,” Johnson said. “They’ve handed the keys to the kingdom to the Marxist. He will destroy it.”

Mamdani’s victory is a test for a weak and diffuse Democratic leadership still trying to steer the party in a unified direction, despite this week’s elections displaying just how big a tent Democratic voters have become.

Republicans like Trump know that labeling conventional Democratic politicians as socialists and communists is a political ploy. But Mamdani himself, they point out, describes his views as socialist, a toxic national brand that could hobble Democratic candidates across the country if Republicans succeed in casting New York’s mayor-elect as the Democrats’ future.

“After last night’s results, the decision facing all Americans could not be more clear — we have a choice between communism and common sense,” Trump said at a White House event on Wednesday. “As long as I’m in the White House, the United States is not going communist in any way, shape or form.”

In an interview with CNN shortly after Mamdani’s victory was called, Hakeem Jeffries, the House minority leader hoping to lead the party back into the majority next year, refused repeated questioning on whether Mamdani’s win might hurt Democratic prospects nationwide.

“This is the best they can come up with?” he said, adding: “We are going to win control of the House of Representatives.”

Bannon, too, warned that establishment Republicans could be mistaken in dismissing Mamdani’s populist appeal across party lines to Trump’s base of supporters. Mamdani, he noted, succeeded in driving out low-propensity voters in record numbers — a key to Trump’s success.

Tuesday’s election, he told Politico, “should be a wake-up call to the populist nationalist movement under President Trump that these are very serious people.”

“There should be even more than alarm bells,” he added. “There should be flashing red lights all over.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Will these six California GOP House members survive new districts?
The deep dive: Shakedown in Beverly Hills: High-stakes poker, arson and an alleged Israeli mobster
The L.A. Times Special: Toting a tambourine, she built L.A.’s first megachurch. Then she suddenly disappeared

More to come,
Michael Wilner
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

NEW YORK — A federal appeals court on Thursday gave new life to President Trump’s bid to erase his hush money conviction, ordering a lower court to reconsider its decision to keep the case in state court instead of moving it to federal court.

A three-judge panel in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein erred by failing to consider “important issues relevant” to Trump’s request to move the New York case to federal court, where he can seek to have it thrown out on presidential immunity grounds.

But, the appeals court judges said, they “express no view” on how Hellerstein should rule.

Hellerstein, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, twice denied Trump’s requests to move the case. The first time was after Trump’s March 2023 indictment; the second followed Trump’s May 2024 conviction and a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that presidents and former presidents cannot be prosecuted for official acts.

In the later ruling, at issue in Thursday’s decision, Hellerstein said Trump’s lawyers had failed to meet the high burden of proof for changing jurisdiction and that Trump’s conviction for falsifying business records involved his personal life, not official actions that the Supreme Court ruled are immune from prosecution.

Hellerstein’s ruling, which echoed his previous denial, “did not consider whether certain evidence admitted during the state court trial relates to immunized official acts or, if so, whether evidentiary immunity transformed” the hush money case into one that relates to official acts, the appeals court panel said.

The three judges said Hellerstein should closely review evidence that Trump claims relate to official acts.

If Hellerstein finds the prosecution relied on evidence of official acts, the judges said, he should weigh whether Trump can argue those actions were taken as part of his White House duties, whether Trump “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.

Ruling came after oral arguments in June

Judges Susan L. Carney, Raymond J. Lohier Jr. and Myrna Pérez made their ruling after hearing arguments in June, when they spent more than an hour grilling Trump’s lawyer and the appellate chief for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office, which prosecuted the case and wants it to remain in state court.

Carney and Lohier were nominated to the court by Democratic President Barack Obama. Pérez was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.

“President Trump continues to win in his fight against Radical Democrat Lawfare,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said in a statement. “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 immediately overturned and dismissed.”

Bragg’s office declined to comment.

Trump was convicted in May 2024 of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult film actor Stormy Daniels, whose allegations of an affair with Trump threatened to upend his 2016 presidential campaign. Trump denies her claim, said he did nothing wrong and has asked a state appellate court to overturn the conviction.

It was the only one of the Republican’s four criminal cases to go to trial.

Trump team cites Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity

In trying to move the hush money case to federal court, Trump’s lawyers argued that federal officers, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office.” Part of the criminal case involved checks that Trump wrote while he was president.

Trump’s lawyer, Jeffrey Wall, argued that prosecutors rushed to trial instead of waiting for the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision. He also said they erred by showing jurors evidence that should not have been allowed under that ruling, such as former White House staffers describing how Trump reacted to news coverage of the hush money deal and tweets he sent while president in 2018.

“The district attorney holds the keys in his hand,” Wall told the three-judge panel in June. “He doesn’t have to introduce this evidence.”

In addition to reining in prosecutions of ex-presidents for official acts, the Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling restricted prosecutors from pointing to official acts as evidence that a president’s unofficial actions were illegal.

Wall, a former acting U.S. solicitor general, called the president “a class of one,” telling the judges that “everything about this cries out for federal court.”

Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the district attorney’s office, countered that Trump was too late in seeking to move the case to federal court. Normally, such a request must be made within 30 days of an arraignment. Exceptions can be made if “good cause” is shown.

Hellerstein concluded that Trump hadn’t shown “good cause” to request a move to federal court as such a late stage. But the three-judge panel on Thursday said it “cannot be confident” that the judge “adequately considered issues” relevant to making that decision.

Wall, addressing the delay at oral arguments, said Trump’s team did not immediately seek to move the case to federal court because the defense was trying to resolve the matter by raising the immunity argument with the trial judge, Juan Merchan.

Merchan rejected Trump’s request to throw out the conviction on immunity grounds and sentenced him Jan. 10 to an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction intact but sparing him any punishment.

Sisak writes for the Associated Press.

Nov. 4 (UPI) — As voters across the country headed to the polls Tuesday, Democrats running in high-profile races are on track to be sent to governor’s mansions in New Jersey and Virginia and the mayor’s office in New York City.

New York City

Zohran Mamdani was poised Tuesday night to be the next mayor of New York City, besting former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a race that was closely watched nationwide, including by President Donald Trump.

Mamdani, a 34-year-old state lawmaker who ran as a democratic socialist, was projected to win the mayoral contest against Cuomo, who ran as an independent and with the last-minute backing of Trump, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the volunteer Guardian Angels crime prevention organization.

According to preliminary results from the city’s board of elections, Mamdani held 50.3% of the vote, representing more than 972,000 ballots cast. Cuomo was in second with 41.6% and Sliwa at third with 7.1%.

Mamdani claimed victory in a short video posted to X of a subway car coming to a stop at City Hall.

The race was largely a rematch of June’s Democratic primary where Mamdani beat Cuomo for the party’s nomination in a contest that was seen as a fight between the party’s progressive and establishment wings.

Mamdani’s platform included implementing a rent freeze, making bus transit free, offering free childcare for children aged 6 weeks to 5 years and raising the corporate tax rate while taxing the wealthiest New Yorkers at a flat 2%.

Cuomo ran on his extensive experience as a former governor of the state and prioritized improving public safety, including surging subway transit police. In contrast to Mamdani, Cuomo presented himself as a business-friendly centrist who could work with Trump, who injected himself late into the race.

Trump, who endorsed Cuomo Monday, has repeatedly called Mamdani a “communist” and said if he wins, “it is highly unlikely that I will be contributing federal funds, other than the very minimum required, to my beloved first home.”

Virginia

Former U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Democrat, claimed victory Tuesday night over Republican Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears to become the commonwealth’s 75th governor and first woman to hold its highest office.

Speaking to supporters during an election night watch party in Richmond, Spanberger vowed to serve all Virginians, including those who did not vote for her.

“And that means I will listen to you, work for you and with you,” she said.

“That is the approach I have taken throughout my entire career. I have worked with anyone and everyone regardless of political party to deliver results to the people that I serve. And that is because I believe in this idea that there is so much more that unites us as Virginians and as Americans than divides us,” she said.

“And I know — I know in my heart — we can unite for Virginia’s future and we can set an example for the rest of the nation.”

According to preliminary state results, Spanberger received 56.3% of the vote share for 1.2 million ballots compared to Earle-Sears’ 43.2%, or roughly 968,100 votes, with 107 out of 133 localities reporting.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, was among the first to comment on Spanberger’s victory, telling Virginians that she “won’t let you down.”

“Tonight, Virginians came together to send a resounding message that folks are ready to stand up for our freedoms and fight for our future,” he said in a statement on X.

“In the face of all the chaos from Washington and the attacks on our democracy, Abigail Spanberger brought people together around a vision for a better, more affordable future for Virginia.”

Polls closed at 7 p.m. EST.

She will replace Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who was barred by Virginia’s unusual constitutional limit on governors being elected to consecutive terms.

Democrats are hoping a win by Spanberger will further cement Virginia’s blue state status ahead of next year’s midterm elections, ABC News reported.

“It is only in Virginia and New Jersey that we have statewide elections where we can prove to the rest of the country — when given, when we have an opportunity to make a change at home in our state, we will take it,” Spanberger said at a recent campaign rally.

“We know the stakes of this election, and we know what we are for. We are for a governor focused relentlessly on lower costs on housing, healthcare and energy.”

Trump, meanwhile, did not officially endorse Earle-Sears, but on Monday he urged Virginia Republicans to show up to the polls, according to The Washington Post.

“Get out and vote for these unbelievably great Republican candidates up and down the line,” he said in a telephone call with supporters.

If elected, Earle-Sears would have been the first Black woman to serve as governor in any state.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, U.S. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, claimed victory in a race against Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who ran in his third bid for governor.

Sherrill, speaking to supporters in East Brunswick, said her opponent conceded defeat.

“This was a tough fight and this is a tough state, but I know you, New Jersey, and I love you,” she said during her victory speech.

“I fought for you, I’ve spoken with thousands of you over the last year. I know your struggles, your hopes, I know your dreams. So serving you is worth any tough fight I have to take on and I’m incredibly honored to be your next governor.”

The traditionally blue state had a larger share of red voters than typical in the 2024 election, and Trump lost the state by 6 points, down significantly from the nearly 16 points he lost by in 2020.

Trump endorsed Ciattarelli, but didn’t campaign for him in person. Trump did take part in a telephone rally on Monday night, MSNBC reported. He also put his weight behind the Republican in multiple Truth Social posts, including one geared toward Lakewood, N.J.’s Orthodox Jewish population on Sunday.

“Your votes in this Election will save New Jersey, a State that is near and dear to my heart,” Trump wrote, saying they “will rue the day” they voted for Sherrill.

Hours into voting Tuesday, officials shut down polling stations throughout New Jersey and moved voting to new election sites after receiving bomb threats via email. Law enforcement said the threats involving polling places in Bergen, Essex, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Passaic Counties were not credible.

Former President Barack Obama, meanwhile, campaigned in support of Sherrill, speaking at a rally in Newark on Saturday.

“If you meet this moment, if you believe change can happen, you will not just elect Mikie Sherrill as your next governor, you will not just put New Jersey on a brighter path, you will set a glorious example for this nation,” he said, according to the New Jersey Monitor.

Ballot measures

On the West Coast, Californians voted for what could be the most consequential ballot measure this year as they decide whether to adopt a new congressional map that is designed to give Democrats an edge in the midterm election. Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed the redistricting in retaliation to a new electoral map in Texas that favors Republicans.

Proposition 50 would redraw the congressional map to make five districts more Democratic-leaning, potentially neutralizing the effects of the new Texas map. Democrats across the country, including Obama, have supported Newsom’s plan as a way to counter Republican gerrymandering in predominantly red states.

“We have a chance at least to create a level playing field in the upcoming midterm elections,” Obama told Prop 50 supporters on a campaign call.

California Republicans, however, accused Democrats, themselves, of gerrymandering, with U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley calling it a “plague on democracy,” according to ABC News.

“I think it takes power away from voters, undermines the fairness of elections and degrades representative government,” he said.

Other key races

Pennsylvania voters will vote on whether to retain three Democratic justices on the state supreme court for new 10-year terms. The court’s 5-2 Democratic majority could be at stake.

Voters in the Houston area will vote in a special election to fill the U.S. House seat for Texas’ 18th Congressional District. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee died in 2024 and the winner of the seat in the 2024 general election, former Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, died three months into office.

Tuesday’s race is a primary, which will eventually go into a runoff.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 (UPI) — Farmers for Free Trade, a nonprofit group that advocates for lower tariffs and expanded global market access, wrapped up its “Motorcade for Trade” tour Tuesday in Washington to urge policymakers to ease trade tensions and support struggling producers.

Dozens of farmers joined at different points along the route to participate in town halls and farm stops, contributing to discussions on trade priorities, export markets and challenges.

The organization has prioritized five issues, including tariff reductions, exemptions for agricultural necessities, such as fertilizer and equipment, and a timely review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The caravan began Sept. 5 in Dorchester, Neb., with a cooperative event between farmers and Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb. The next three stops included sessions with Reps. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, and Jim Baird, R-Ind.

Although the Farmers for Free Trade team did not live in its RV, the group named it Ruth after driving more than 2,800 miles with it, spending many hours inside planning and being interviewed with their furry companion, a dog named Huckleberry.

“It’s really about getting information from farmers throughout the Midwest to understand what impact the administration’s trade and tariff policies have had on individuals,” said Brent Bible, an Indiana grain farmer. “It’s had an individual impact, not just on producers, but on communities throughout rural America,”

The caravan made 10 stops — in Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

“We hosted events throughout the Midwest — everything from meetings with members of Congress to farmer roundtables and tariff town halls,” said Brian Kuehl, the Farmers for Free Trade executive director.

Between the fourth and fifth stop, Kuehl said, it became increasingly difficult to set a schedule.

“Our No. 1 one priority was to meet with members of Congress, and a lot of times you wouldn’t know their schedule until a few days in advance. Then, in the middle of the tour, we had the government shutdown. A bunch of members we had events with canceled because they had to be in D.C.,” Kuehl said.

His team then pivoted to hosting listening sessions and trade talks with farmers, along with visiting the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin and various farms.

Despite some adjustments, Kuehl shared his team’s optimism for the tour.

“One of the things that’s so cool about agriculture is how diverse it is throughout the United States,” he said. “In the Midwest, you’re looking at soybean and corn farms. As we moved east, we saw more dairies and hog farms. We even visited a winery in Pennsylvania. Pretty much the trade disruptions are impacting them all negatively.”

In Indiana, Bible said, “Our input costs have gone up dramatically because of tariffs on imports — fertilizer, equipment, steel, aluminum. If we need a replacement part or a new tractor, all of those things are impacted. We’re getting squeezed at both ends, and when that happens, there’s nothing left in the middle.”

In Ohio, corn, soy and cattle farmer Chris Gibbs said, he’s felt that squeeze firsthand. After more than 40 years in agriculture, he described 2025 as “a cash flow and working capital crisis,” noting that he’s paying well above production costs for major crops.

“We’re about $200 per acre under the cost of production for corn and about $100 under for soybeans,” Gibbs said.

Because of the shutdown — now the longest in history — the U.S. Department of Agriculture “is essentially not functioning,” Gibbs said. “They normally release reporting information that the market relies on, but that hasn’t been occurring. Farmers are having to make major business decisions without the data we depend on.”

Gibbs added: “I’ve been farming almost 50 years, and I’m struggling, If I’m having to move money around just to stay afloat, what happens to the young farmers who don’t have savings yet? They’re hanging on by a thread.”

Farmers strategically planned the finale of their motorcade to be in Washington this week in alignment with the Supreme Court of the United States’ schedule. The high court plans to hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes President Donald Trump to impose tariffs to the extent he has.

“We’re in a commodity business,” Bible said. “If we have a truly free, functioning market, we can be competitive. But that hasn’t been the case. Prices have been artificially manipulated by policy decisions and retaliation from other countries.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court’s conservatives face a test of their own making this week as they decide whether President Trump had the legal authority to impose tariffs on imports from nations across the globe.

At issue are import taxes that are paid by American businesses and consumers.

Small-business owners had sued, including a maker of “learning toys” in Illinois and a New York importer of wines and spirits. They said Trump’s ever-changing tariffs had severely disrupted their businesses, and they won rulings declaring the president had exceeded his authority.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear their first major challenge to Trump’s claims of unilateral executive power. And the outcome is likely to turn on three doctrines that have been championed by the court’s conservatives.

First, they say the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning. Its opening words say: “All legislative powers … shall be vested” in Congress, and the elected representatives “shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposes and excises.”

Second, they believe the laws passed by Congress should be interpreted based on their words. They call this “textualism,” which rejects a more liberal and open-ended approach that included the general purpose of the law.

Trump and his lawyers say his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs were authorized by the International Economic Emergency Powers Act, or IEEPA.

That 1977 law says the president may declare a national emergency to “deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat” involving national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States. Faced with such an emergency, he may “investigate, block … or regulate” the “importation or exportation” of any property.

Trump said the nation’s “persistent” balance of payments deficit over five decades was such an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”

In the past, the law has been used to impose sanctions or freeze the assets of Iran, Syria and North Korea or groups of terrorists. It does not use the words “tariffs” or “duties,” and it had not been used for tariffs prior to this year.

The third doctrine arose with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and is called the “major questions” doctrine.

He and the five other conservatives said they were skeptical of far-reaching and costly regulations issued by the Obama and Biden administrations involving matters such as climate change, student loan forgiveness or mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations for 84 million Americans.

Congress makes the laws, not federal regulators, they said in West Virginia vs. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022.

And unless there is a “clear congressional authorization,” Roberts said the court will not uphold assertions of “extravagant statutory power over the national economy.”

Now all three doctrines are before the justices, since the lower courts relied on them in ruling against Trump.

No one disputes that the president could impose sweeping worldwide tariffs if he had sought and won approval from the Republican-controlled Congress. However, he insisted the power was his alone.

In a social media post, Trump called the case on tariffs “one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the ‘Majors.’ In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President.”

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, his top courtroom attorney, argues that tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. And if so, the court should defer to the president.

“IEEPA authorizes the imposition of regulatory tariffs on foreign imports to deal with foreign threats — which crucially differ from domestic taxation,” he wrote last month.

For the same reason, “the major questions doctrine … does not apply here,” he said. It is limited to domestic matters, not foreign affairs, he argued.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh has sounded the same note in the past.

Sauer will also seek to persuade the court that the word “regulate” imports includes imposing tariffs.

The challengers are supported by prominent conservatives, including Stanford law professor Michael McConnell.

In 2001, he and John Roberts were nominated for a federal appeals court at the same time by President George W. Bush, and he later served with now-Justice Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

He is the lead counsel for one group of small-business owners.

“This case is what the American Revolution was all about. A tax wasn’t legitimate unless it was imposed by the people’s representatives,” McConnell said. “The president has no power to impose taxes on American citizens without Congress.”

His brief argues that Trump is claiming a power unlike any in American history.

“Until the 1900s, Congress exercised its tariff power directly, and every delegation since has been explicit and strictly limited,” he wrote in Trump vs. V.O.S. Selections. “Here, the government contends that the President may impose tariffs on the American people whenever he wants, at any rate he wants, for any countries and products he wants, for as long as he wants — simply by declaring longstanding U.S. trade deficits a national ‘emergency’ and an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat,’ declarations the government tells us are unreviewable. The president can even change his mind tomorrow and back again the day after that.”

He said the “major questions” doctrine fully applies here.

Two years ago, he noted the court called Biden’s proposed student loan forgiveness “staggering by any measure” because it could cost more than $430 billion. By comparison, he said, the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s tariffs will impose $1.7 trillion in new taxes on Americans by 2035.

The case figures to be a major test of whether the Roberts court will put any legal limits on Trump’s powers as president.

But the outcome will not be the final word on tariffs. Administration officials have said that if they lose, they will seek to impose them under other federal laws that involve national security.

Still pending before the court is an emergency appeal testing the president’s power to send National Guard troops to American cities over the objection of the governor and local officials.

Last week, the court asked for further briefs on the Militia Act of 1908, which says the president may call up the National Guard if he cannot “with the regular forces … execute the laws of the United States.”

The government had assumed the regular forces were the police and federal agents, but a law professor said the regular forces in the original law referred to the military.

The justices asked for a clarification from both sides by Nov. 17.

SACRAMENTO — While President Trump was pushing National Guard troops from city to city like some little kid playing with his toy soldiers, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was coaxing voters into fighting the man’s election-rigging scheme.

It turned out to be an easy sell for the governor. By the end, Californians appeared ready to send a loud message that they not only objected to the president’s election rigging but practically all his policies.

Trump is his own worst enemy, at least in this solidly blue state — and arguably the California GOP’s biggest current obstacle to regaining relevancy.

Here’s a guy bucking for the Nobel Peace Prize who suggests that the country resume nuclear weapons testing — a relic of the Cold War — and sends armed troops into Portland and Chicago for no good reason.

The commander in chief bizarrely authorized Marines to fire artillery shells from a howitzer across busy Interstate 5. Fortunately, the governor shut down the freeway. Or else exploding shrapnel could have splattered heads in some topless convertible. As it was, metal chunks landed only on a California Highway Patrol car and a CHP motorcycle. No injuries, but the president and his forces came across as blatantly reckless.

And while Trump focused on demolishing the First Lady’s historic East Wing of the White House and hitting up billionaire grovelers to pay for a monstrous, senseless $300-million ballroom — portraying the image of a spoiled, self-indulgent monarch — Newsom worked on a much different project. He concentrated on building a high-powered coalition and raising well over $100 million to thwart the president with Proposition 50.

The ballot measure was Newsom’s and California Democrats’ response to Trump browbeating Texas and other red states to gerrymander congressional districts to make them more Republican-friendly. The president is desperate to retain GOP control of the House of Representatives after next year’s midterm elections.

Newsom retaliated with Prop. 50, aimed at flipping five California House seats from Republican to Democrat, neutralizing Texas’ gerrymandering.

It’s all sleazy, but Trump started it. California’s Democratic voters, who greatly outnumber Republicans, indicated in preelection polling that they preferred sleazy redistricting to an unhinged president continuing to reign roughshod over a cowardly, subservient Congress.

A poll released last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies found that 93% of likely Democratic voters supported Prop. 50. So did 57% of independents. Conversely, symbolic of Trump’s hold on the GOP and our political polarization, 91% of Republicans opposed the measure.

Similar partisan voting was found in a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. Pollster Mark Baldassare said that “96% of the people voting yes on 50 disapprove of Trump.”

Democrats — 94% of them — also emphatically disapproved of the Trump administration’s immigration raids, the PPIC poll showed. Likewise, 67% of independents. But 84% of Republicans backed how the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was rounding up people living here illegally.

ICE agents shrouded in masks and not wearing identification badges while traveling in unmarked vehicles — raiding hospitals, harassing school kids and chasing farmworkers — are not embraced in diverse, immigrant-accepting California.

When the PPIC poll asked voters how undocumented immigrants should be handled, 69% — including 93% of Democrats — chose this response: “There should be a way for them to stay in the country legally.” But 67% of Republicans said they should be booted.

The ICE raids were among the Trump actions — and flubs — that helped generate strong support for Prop. 50. It was the voters’ device for sticking it to the president.

“Californians are concerned about the overreach of the federal government and that helped 50,” Democratic consultant Roger Salazar says. “It highlights how much the Trump administration has pushed the envelope. And a yes vote on Prop. 50 was a response to that.”

Jonathan Paik, director of a Million Votes Project coalition that contacted 2 million people promoting Prop. 50, says: “We heard very consistently from voters that they were concerned about the impact of Trump’s ICE raids and the rising cost of living. These raids don’t just target immigrants, they destabilize entire communities and deepen economic struggles.

“Voters saw Prop. 50 as a way to restore balance and protect their families’ ability to work, pay rent and live safely.”

The measure also provided a platform for Democratic U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla of California to explore possibly joining a crowded field of candidates running for governor. Newsom is termed-out after next year.

The Trump administration did Padilla a gigantic favor in June by roughing up the senator and handcuffing him on the floor when he tried to query Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a Los Angeles news conference about ICE raids. Such publicity for a politician is golden.

Padilla became a leading advocate for Prop. 50 while seriously considering a gubernatorial bid. The senator said he’d decide after Tuesday’s special election.

“I haven’t made any decision,” he told me last week. “Sometime in the next several weeks.”

But it’s tempting for this L.A. native, the son of Mexican immigrants who was inspired to enter politics by anti-immigrant bashing in the 1990s.

“I’d have an opportunity and responsibility to be a leading voice against that,” he said. “California can be a leader for the rest of the country on immigration, environmental protection, reproduction quality, healthcare…”

In many ways it already is. But Trump hates that. And California Republicans step in it by meekly following the hugely unpopular president. Prop. 50 is the latest result.

California Republicans can do better than behave like Trump’s wannabe reserve toy soldiers.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: A youth movement is roiling Democrats. Does age equal obsolescence?
The what happened: Most Americans have avoided shutdown woes. That might change.
The L.A. Times Special: Voters in poll side with Newsom, Democrats on Prop. 50 — a potential blow to Trump and GOP

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Six years ago, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld highly partisan state election maps in North Carolina and Maryland — ruling that federal courts cannot block states from drawing up maps that favor one party over the other — one of the court’s liberal justices issued a warning.

“If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government,” Associate Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent.

Kagan argued that Republicans in North Carolina and Democrats in Maryland — the two examples before the court — had rigged elections in a way that “deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights,” “debased and dishonored our democracy” and turned “upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.”

“Ask yourself,” Kagan said as she recounted what had happened in each state: “Is this how American democracy is supposed to work?”

That’s the question Californians are now weighing as they decide how, or whether, to vote on Proposition 50, Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to scrap congressional maps drawn by the state’s independent redistricting commission and replace them with maps drawn by legislators to favor Democrats through 2030.

Democrats don’t deny that the measure is a deliberate attempt to dilute GOP voting power.

From the start, they’ve argued that the point of redistricting is to weaken Republicans’ voting power in California — a move they justify on the grounds that it is a temporary fix to offset similar partisan gerrymandering by Texas Republicans. This summer, President Trump upped the ante, pressing Texas to rejigger maps to shore up the GOP’s narrow House majority ahead of the 2026 election.

Experts say opponents of Proposition 50 have no viable federal legal challenge against the new maps on the basis that they disenfranchise a large chunk of California Republicans. Even since the 2019 U.S. Supreme Court decision Rucho vs. Common Cause, complaints of partisan gerrymandering have no path in federal court.

Already, Proposition 50 has survived challenges in state court and is unlikely to be successfully challenged if passed, said Richard L. Hasen, professor of law and director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA School of Law.

“If you’re a Republican in California, or you’re a Democrat in Texas, you’re about to get a lot less representation in Congress,” Hasen said. “I don’t think there’s anything you can do about that.”

If Californians vote in favor of the measure on Tuesday, the number of Republicans in the state’s House — nine of 52 total members — would likely be reduced by five. That could mean Republicans have less than 10% of California’s congressional representation even though Trump won 38% of the 2024 vote.

“All of this is unconstitutional, but the federal courts aren’t available to help,” said Justin Levitt, a law professor at Loyola Law School.

“Every time you redraw a district specifically to protect some candidates and punish others,” Levitt said, “what you’re basically saying is it shouldn’t be up to the voters to weigh in on whether they think the candidates are doing a good job or not.”

Possible legal avenues

But even if the issue of partisan gerrymandering is blocked in federal courts, there are other potential legal avenues to challenge California’s new legislative maps.

One route would be to claim that Proposition 50 violates the California Constitution.

David A. Carrillo, executive director of the California Constitution Center at Berkeley Law, said that if Proposition 50 passes, he expects a barrage of “see what sticks” lawsuits raising California constitutional claims. They stand little chance of success, he said.

“Voters created the redistricting commission,” he said. “What the voters created they can change or abolish.”

Attorneys might also bring racial discrimination claims in federal court alleging California lawmakers used partisan affiliation as a pretext for race in drawing the maps to disenfranchise one racial group or another, Carrillo said. Under current law, he said, such claims are very fact-dependent.

Attorneys are already poised to file complaints if the referendum passes.

Mark Meuser, a conservative attorney who filed a state complaint this summer seeking to block Proposition 50, said he is ready to file a federal lawsuit on the grounds that the new maps violate the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“We’re saying that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines,” Meuser said. “When race is a predominant factor in drawing the lines without a compelling interest, strict scrutiny will mandate the maps be stricken.”

Some legal experts believe that would be a tricky case to prove.

“It sure seems like the new map was oriented predominantly around politics, not race,” Levitt argued. “And though they’d be saying that race was a predominant factor in drawing the lines, that’s very, very, very different from proving it. That’s an uphill mountain to climb on these facts.”

Some experts think the new maps are unlikely to raise strong Voting Rights Act challenges.

Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California who specializes in elections, said the new districts appeared to have been carefully carved to preserve Latino- or Black-majority districts.

A successful challenge is possible, McGhee said, noting there are always novel legal arguments. “It’s just the big ones that you would think about that are the most obvious and the most traditional are pretty closed,” he said.

Supreme Court looms large

Ultimately, legal experts agree the fate of California maps — and other maps in Texas and across the nation — would depend on the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on a redistricting case from Louisiana.

Last month, conservative Supreme Court justices suggested in a hearing that they were considering reining in a key part of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act that prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in a language minority group.

“Whatever happens with Proposition 50 — pass or fail — almost doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things,” Carrillo said, noting that the Supreme Court could use the Louisiana case to strike Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. “There’s a big litigation storm coming in almost any scenario.”

Levitt agreed that the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, which could come any time between now and June, could change current law. But he stressed it is impossible to predict how broad the ruling could be.

“Whether that leaves any of California’s districts vulnerable — either in the current map or in the map if Prop. 50 passes — depends entirely on what Scotus says,” Levitt argued. “There are only nine people who know what they’ll actually say, and there are a lot of possibilities, some of which might affect California’s map pretty substantially, and some of which are unlikely to affect California’s map at all.”

Will Congress intervene?

As the redistricting battle spreads across the country and Democratic and Republican states look to follow Texas and California, Democrats could ultimately end up at a disadvantage. If the overall tilt favors Republicans, Democrats would have to win more than 50% of the vote to get a majority of seats.

Congress has the power to block partisan gerrymandering in congressional map drawing. But attempts so far to pass redistricting reform have been unsuccessful.

In 2022, the House passed the Freedom to Vote Act, which would have prohibited mid-decade redistricting and blocked partisan gerrymandering of congressional maps. But Republicans were able to block the bill in the Senate, even though it had majority support, due to that chamber’s filibuster rules.

Another option is a narrower bill proposed this summer by Republican Rep. Kevin Kiley, who represents parts of the Sacramento suburbs and Lake Tahoe and could lose his seat if Proposition 50 passes. Kiley’s bill, along with similar legislation introduced by California Democratic representatives, would ban mid-decade redistricting.

“That would be the cleanest way of addressing this particular scenario we’re in right now, because all of these new plans that have been drawn would become null and void,” McGhee said.

But in a heavily deadlocked Congress, Kiley’s bill has little prospect of moving.

“It may have to get worse before it gets better,” Hasen said.

If the redistricting war doesn’t get resolved, Hasen said, there will be a continued race to the bottom, particularly if the Supreme Court weakens or strikes down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Another scenario, Hasen argued, is Democrats regain control of Congress and the presidency, overcome the filibuster rule and pass redistricting reform.

If that doesn’t happen, Levitt said, the ultimate power rests with the people.

“If we want to tell our representatives that we’re sick of this, we can,” Levitt said. “There’s a lot that’s competing for voters’ attention. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t have agency here.”

Oct. 31 (UPI) — Ohio’s representatives approved a bi-partisan redistricting map that might help Republicans gain more seats, but Democrats OK’d the plan because the others offered were worse for them.

The Ohio Redistricting Commission approved the measure unanimously Friday.

“Coming to an agreement that is in the best interest of the state, not just the most vocal elements of either party, I think is some of the toughest things that we can do as elected leaders in 2025,” said state Rep. Brian Stewart, R-Ashville, the Columbus Dispatch reported.

But Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio said it was the best option among bad ones.

“Facing this impossible challenge with no certain path to preserve a fair map, we worked toward compromise,” said Antonio, D-Lakewood.

Democrats faced a Friday deadline because the Ohio constitution allows Republicans to create a map without Democrats in November. They were also concerned about a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act.

Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes of Akron will get a slightly more favorable northeast Ohio district, but it will still be very competitive, Punchbowl News reported.

Toledo Rep. Marcy Kaptur‘s district will be more difficult to win, but not impossible. She’s the longest-serving representative in the United States, and she won a close race in 2024. Her district chose President Donald Trump by seven points.

“Let the Columbus politicians make their self-serving maps and play musical chairs, I will fight on for the people and ask the voters for their support next year,” she wrote on X.

Cincinnati Rep. Greg Landsman also saw his chances at re-election diminished.

Ohio House Minority Leader Dani Isaacsohn, D-Cincinnati, said all of Ohio’s Democratic congresspeople could still win.

“This is a district Greg Landsman can and will win in, and that’s what the people of Cincinnati deserve,” Isaacsohn said.

Ohio had a failed ballot measure in 2024 that would have put residents in charge of making district maps.

“There’s a lot of anger and frustration in this room, and it’s not just the result of this most recent betrayal. The anger and frustration has been years in the making,” said Mia Lewis, associate director at Common Cause Ohio, the Dispatch reported.

“You have shown all of us, all of Ohio, that politicians cannot be involved in drawing district lines.”

Jen Miller, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Ohio, said the people were denied being part of the process. “Republican and Democratic voters feel like their parties sold them out — and they’re both right.”

Hello and happy Thursday. It’s me again, California columnist Anita Chabria, filling in for your usual host, Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner, who will be back next week.

California’s Proposition 50, the measure that would redraw election maps to favor Democrats, started out seeming controversial and likely to spark a huge battle.

But in recent days, it’s become clear that the majority of Californians are pro-50. So much so that Gov. Gavin Newsom has offered up the ultimate taunt — he’s ended small-donor fundraising on the measure. Can you imagine President Trump telling MAGA, “Keep your five bucks. It’s better in your pocket than mine.”

So it’s sort of like Newsom is walking across the finish line flush with swagger and cash — maybe not wise, but a statement.

Obviously, Newsom will soon be asking for more money for more things, including his was-never-not-happening presidential bid. But for now, the narrative he’s crafted with Proposition 50 (win or lose, because truly you don’t know until the last ballot is counted) is a consequential and important win for democracy and a ray of hope for the next election, merely a year away.

Here’s why.

Gov. Gavin Newsom and Texas state Rep. Barbara Gervin-Hawkins appear at a news conference in July at the governor’s mansion.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

It was never unpopular

The big secret you should know about Proposition 50 is that it was never unpopular with California’s blue voters.

Sure, Republicans hate it. Especially those, such as Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Rocklin), who will probably lose their jobs if it passes. I’ll give Kiley credit on this — he for a short bit tried to convince his party that all mid-decade redistricting was bad. He had no luck, mostly because House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) rolls like jelly when it comes to Trump.

But the majority of Republicans in California and across the country have offered nary a whisper in condemnation of red-tilting cheat maps.

In truth, Proposition 50 started out as a bluff — nothing more than a way to push back on Texas Republicans who were working at full speed to appease Trump by rejiggering their own maps to provide him with a safe margin of seats for the midterms.

Hoping to deter Texas appeasement GOPers from this scorched-earth pursuit, Texas Democratic congressional representatives started floating the rumor this year that if the Lone Star State went forward with its scheme to create five extra red seats, California would do the same for blue. It was nothing more than a bit of tit-for-tat blustering.

There was, however, no such plan by Newsom, and insiders say the feint took the governor by surprise. But kind of a happy surprise, because the idea caught on like wildfire and — even more surprising — turned out to be legally doable.

Newsom’s team did a couple of polls and guess what? Yep, voters wanted to fight back against Trump’s takeover. Congressional Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, agreed to back the measure and fundraise and here we are: A poll by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 6 in 10 likely voters support the measure, and of those who have already voted, 67% are in favor.

That backs up another new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California that found 56% of likely voters support the measure, mostly along party lines. Forty-three percent are against it.

Only 2% were undecided in The Times’ poll, and that dropped to 1% in the PPIC poll.

So Californians have made up their minds — now they just need to mail in their ballots (I swear I will send mine very, very soon).

What will 50 actually do?

So let’s say Proposition 50 does sail to victory. What then? Will it really save democracy, which is really in need of saving?

Probably not. Maybe. Hopefully? Here’s the truth. Our elections are in hugely big trouble, which I wrote about on Tuesday. For the vast majority of you who didn’t read that, here’s the recap: Donald Trump will probably try to cheat.

That suppression may take many forms. It could be new rules to make it harder to vote — such as requiring multiple forms of IDs with matching names (which many married women lack). It could involve something as dire as military “protection” of our polls. It may look like another attempt to end mail-in ballots or early voting.

It could involve Mike “Jelly” Johnson refusing to seat elected Democrats, as he is currently doing with Arizona’s newly elected, release-the-Epstein-files Arizona Rep. Adelita Grijalva.

It will almost certainly include charges of voter fraud, which Trump is already yapping about on social media. And it will almost certainly involve Republican gerrymandered maps in states besides Texas (though there are surprising holdouts in some places, including Nebraska).

All of that is to say that the midterms are going to be both a big, steaming mess and historically important.

But Proposition 50 shows that not only is there will to resist this breakdown of democracy, but there are also ways to fight. Whether or not it ultimately is the key to restoring the power check of an independent Congress, it’s an important proof that the fight is not over.

There are a couple of other things that stand out in this moment of uncertainty. First, Newsom is the Comeback Kid. There was a time after Kamala Harris took the Democratic nomination when his chances of ever sitting behind the Resolute Desk seemed slim. But Proposition 50 coincided with, and fed, his new turn as chief troll — and actually as an effective foil — to Trump.

He has quickly become one of the most recognizable leaders nationwide in fighting authoritarianism, and to his credit, he is speaking truth at a difficult moment.

Yes, that benefits him, but I’ll take pro-democracy pushback wherever I find it — and so apparently will other Californians. The same PPIC poll that found the majority of likely voters support Proposition 50 also found that 55% approve of the way Newsom is doing his job, and about half think California is on the right track.

Nationally, he’s gaining ground too. Another poll about the New Hampshire primary, often considered one of the first harbingers of Democratic things to come, found Newsom in second place after former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

In a couple of other polls, Newsom is in the mix, along with Buttigieg and New York U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. So he’s in the running, and not just in his own head — making Proposition 50 a win for the governor.

But Congress, that’s another story. Californians (and Americans in general) are not pleased with their congressional representatives. The PPIC poll found that only 14% of California adults are happy with the way Congress is doing its job. Honestly, judging from the way I feel about it, that seems high.

So keep your eye on California races, even after the maps are redrawn. The youngs are after the olds, and voters seem ready for change. Pelosi is facing two serious challengers, including state Sen. Scott Wiener. In Sacramento, Rep. Doris Matsui has a youthful contender.

California voters may end up wanting even more change than Democrats anticipate. They’re clearly in a mood to fight, and no telling with whom.

What else you should be reading:

The must-read: We checked DHS’s videos of chaos and protests. Here’s what they leave out.
The what happened: The Republicans thwarting the White House’s redistricting hopes
The L.A. Times special: ICE officials replaced with Border Patrol, cementing hard tactics that originated in California

P.S. More from Homeland Security. This is deeply disturbing propaganda being produced and disseminated without much remark by an armed federal agency. For those who aren’t J.R.R. Tolkien nerds, it’s a reference to a great evil destroying society. Whether or not you support the removal of undocumented people, the portrayal of all undocumented folks as evil and dangerous is well … dangerous. And wrong.

Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

At the center of the sprawling legal battle over President Trump’s domestic military deployments is a single word: rebellion.

To justify sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and other cities over the outcry of local leaders, the Trump administration has cited an obscure and little-used law empowering presidents to federalize soldiers to “suppress” a rebellion, or the threat of one.

But the statute does not define the word on which it turns. That’s where Bryan A. Garner comes in.

For decades, Garner has defined the words that make up the law. The landmark legal reference book he edits, Black’s Law Dictionary, is as much a fixture of American courts as black robes, rosewood gavels and brass scales of justice.

The dictionary is Garner’s magnum opus, as essential to attorneys as Gray’s Anatomy is to physicians.

Now, Black’s definition of rebellion is at the center of two critical pending decisions in cases from Portland, Ore., and Chicago — one currently being reheard by the 9th Circuit and the other on the emergency docket at the Supreme Court — that could unleash a flood of armed soldiers into American streets.

That a dictionary could influence a court case at all owes in part to Garner’s seminal book on textualism, a conserative legal doctrine that dictates a page-bound interpretation of the law. His co-author was Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice whose strict originalist readings of the Constitution paved the way for the court’s recent reversal of precedents on abortion, voting rights and gun laws.

On a recent weekday, the country’s leading legal lexicographer was ensconced among the 4,500 some-odd dictionaries that fill his Dallas home, revising the entry for the adjective “calculated” ahead of Black’s 13th Edition.

But, despite his best efforts not to dwell on the stakes of his work, the noun “rebellion” was never far from his mind.

Federal authorities stand guard at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Portland, Ore., that has been the site of protests against the Trump administration.

(Sean Bascom / Anadolu via Getty Images)

“One of the very first cases citing my book sent a man to his capital punishment,” he explained of an earlier dictionary. “They cited me, the guy was put to death. I was very disturbed by that at first.”

He managed his distress by doubling down on his craft. In its first 100 years, Black’s Law Dictionary was revised and reissued six times. From 1999 to 2024, Garner produced six new editions.

“I work on it virtually every day,” he said.

Most mornings, he rises before dawn, settling behind a desk in one of his three home libraries around 4 a.m. to begin the day’s defining.

That fastidiousness has not stopped the lexical war over his work in recent months, as judges across the country read opposite meanings into “rebellion.”

The Department of Justice and the attorneys general of California, Oregon and Illinois have likewise sparred over the word.

In making their case, virtually all have invoked Black’s definition — one Garner has personally penned for the last 30 years. He began editing the 124-year-old reference book in 1995.

“The word ‘rebellion’ has been stable in its three basic meanings in Black’s since I took over,” he said.

“Ooo! So at some point I added, ‘usually through violence,’” he amended himself.

This change comes from the definition’s first sense: 1. Open, organized, and armed resistance to an established government or ruler; esp., an organized attempt to change the government or leader of a country, usu. through violence.

States have touted this meaning to argue the word rebellion cannot possibly apply to torched Waymos in Los Angeles or naked bicyclists in Portland.

The Trump administration, meanwhile, has leaned on the second and third senses to say the opposite.

The California Department of Justice wrote in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court in the Illinois case that federal authorities argue rebellion means any form of “resistance or opposition to authority or tradition,” including disobeying “a legal command or summons.”

“But it is not remotely plausible to think that Congress intended to adopt that expansive definition,” the state said.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth walks onstage to deliver remarks as part of the Marine Corps’ 250th anniversary celebration at Camp Pendleton on Oct. 18.

(Oliver Contreras / AFP via Getty Images)

Although the scope and the stakes of the rebellion fight make it unique, the debate over definitions is nothing new, experts say.

The use of legal dictionaries to solve judicial problems has surged in recent years, with the rise of Scalia-style textualism and the growing sense in certain segments of the public that judges simply make the law up as they go along.

By 2018, the Supreme Court was citing dictionary definitions in half of its opinions, up dramatically from prior years, according to Mark A. Lemley, a professor at Stanford Law School.

Splitting hairs over what makes a rebellion is a new level of absurdity, he said. “This is an unfortunate consequence of the Supreme Court’s obsession with dictionaries.”

“Reducing the meaning of a statute to one (of the many) dictionary definitions is unlikely to give you a useful answer,” he said. “What it gives you is a means of manipulating the definition to achieve the result you want.”

Garner has publicly acknowledged the limits of his work. Ultimately, it’s up to judges to decide cases based on precedents, evidence, and the relevant law. Dictionaries are an adjunct.

Still, he and other textualists see the turn to dictionaries as an important corrective to interpretive excesses of the past.

“The words are law,” Garner said.

Law enforcement officers watch from a ledge of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility as a protester stands outside in an inflatable frog costume on Oct. 21 in Portland, Ore.

(Jenny Kane / Associated Press)

Judges who cite dictionaries are “not ceding power to lexicographers,” he argued, but simply giving appropriate heft to the text enacted by Congress.

Others call the dictionary a fig leaf for the interpretive excesses of jurists bent on reading the law to suit a political agenda.

“Judges don’t want to take personal responsibility for saying ‘Yes, there’s a rebellion’ or ‘no, there isn’t,’ so they say ‘the dictionary made me do it.’” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “No, it didn’t.”

Though he agreed with Black’s definition of rebellion, Segall rejected the idea it could shape jurisprudence: “That’s not how our legal system works,” he said.

The great challenge in the troops cases, legal scholars agree, is that they turn on a vague, century-old text with no relevant case law to help define it.

Unlike past presidents, who invoked the Insurrection Act to combat violent crises, Trump deployed an obscure subsection of the U.S. code to wrest command of National Guard troops from state governors and surge military forces into American cities.

Before Trump deployed troops to L.A. in June, the law had been used only once in its 103-year history.

With little interpretation to oppose it, the Justice Department has wielded its novel reading of the statute to justify the use of federalized troops to support immigration arrests and put down demonstrations.

Administration attorneys say the president’s decision to send soldiers to Los Angeles, Portland and Chicago is “unreviewable” by courts, and that troops can remain in federal service in perpetuity once called up, regardless of how conditions change.

Border Patrol official Greg Bovino marches with federal agents to the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building in Los Angeles on Aug. 14.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Judges have so far rejected these claims. But they have split on the thornier issues of whether community efforts to disrupt immigration enforcement leave Trump “unable with the regular forces to execute the laws” — another trigger for the statute — and if sporadic violence at protests adds up to rebellion.

As of this week, appellate courts also remain sharply divided on the evidence.

On Oct 23, Oregon claimed the Department of Justice inflated the number of federal protective personnel it said were detailed to Portland in response to protests to more than triple its actual size — a mistake the department called an “unintended ambiguity.”

The inflated number was repeatedly cited in oral arguments before the 9th Circuit and more than a dozen times in the court’s Oct. 20 decision allowing the federalization of Oregon’s troops — an order the court reversed Tuesday while it is reviewed.

The 7th Circuit noted similar falsehoods, leading that court to block the Chicago deployment.

“The [U.S. District] court found that all three of the federal government’s declarations from those with firsthand knowledge were unreliable to the extent they omitted material information or were undermined by independent, objective evidence,” the panel wrote in its Oct 11 decision.

A Supreme Court decision expected in that case will probably define Trump’s power to deploy troops throughout the Midwest — and potentially across the country.

For Garner, that decision means more work.

In addition to his dictionaries, he is also the author of numerous other works, including a memoir about his friendship with Scalia. In his spare time, he travels the country teaching legal writing.

The editor credits his prodigious output to strict discipline. As an undergrad at the University of Texas, he swore off weekly Longhorns games and eschewed his beloved Dallas Cowboys to concentrate on writing, a practice he has maintained with Calvinist devotion ever since.

“I haven’t seen a game for the last 46 years,” the lexicographer said, though he makes a biannual exception for the second halves of the Super Bowl and college football’s national championship game.

As for the political football with Black’s “rebellion,” he’s waiting to see how the Illinois Guard case plays out.

“I will be looking very closely at what the Supreme Court says,” Garner said. “If it writes anything about the meaning of the word rebellion, that might well affect the next edition of Black’s Law Dictionary.”

In a major blow to LGBTQIA+ rights, Texas’ Supreme Court has ruled that judges can refuse to marry same-sex couples.

On 24 October, the state’s highest court issued an order adopting comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which focuses on the “judge’s extra-judicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.”

According to the newly implemented comment, effective immediately, judges who “publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon sincerely held religious belief” will not be in violation of the state’s judicial impartiality rules.

According to KERA News, the rule change comes after years of pushback by state legal officials against same-sex marriage and a 2020 lawsuit filed by Jack County judge Brian Umphress.

In the suit, he challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s now-withdrawn 2019 sanction of a Waco, Texas judge who refused to marry gay couples, despite still marrying heterosexual couples.

Umphress’ decision to sue stemmed from his alleged fear that he could face the same sanction.

Shortly after the amendment was announced, Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said the court would not comment on the change in a statement to the aforementioned news outlet.

“The order speaks for itself, and the Court cannot comment on its connection to pending litigation,” he said.

As of this writing, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct have not commented on the aforementioned change.

The recent development in Texas comes a few weeks before the US Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear a case challenging same-sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis — who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will meet in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog noted that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following its meeting on 7 November, an announcement could be released as soon as 10 November.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to fire the director of the U.S. Copyright Office.

The administration’s newest emergency appeal to the high court was filed a month and a half after a federal appeals court in Washington held that the official, Shira Perlmutter, could not be unilaterally fired.

Nearly four weeks ago, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to reconsider that ruling.

The case is the latest that relates to Trump’s authority to install his own people at the head of federal agencies. The Supreme Court has largely allowed Trump to fire officials, even as court challenges proceed.

But this case concerns an office that is within the Library of Congress. Perlmutter is the register of copyrights and also advises Congress on copyright issues.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his filing Monday that despite the ties to Congress, the register “wields executive power” in regulating copyrights.

Perlmutter claims Trump fired her in May because he disapproved of advice she gave to Congress in a report related to artificial intelligence. Perlmutter had received an email from the White House notifying her that “your position as the Register of Copyrights and Director at the U.S. Copyright Office is terminated effective immediately,” her office said.

A divided appellate panel ruled that Perlmutter could keep her job while the case moves forward.

“The Executive’s alleged blatant interference with the work of a Legislative Branch official, as she performs statutorily authorized duties to advise Congress, strikes us as a violation of the separation of powers that is significantly different in kind and in degree from the cases that have come before,” Judge Florence Pan wrote for the appeals court. Judge Michelle Childs joined the opinion. Democratic President Biden appointed both judges to the appeals court.

Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, wrote in dissent that Perlmutter “exercises executive power in a host of ways.”

Perlmutter’s attorneys have argued that she is a renowned copyright expert. She has served as register of copyrights since then-Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden appointed her to the job in October 2020.

Trump appointed Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche to replace Hayden at the Library of Congress. The White House fired Hayden amid criticism from conservatives that she was advancing a “woke” agenda.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 27 (UPI) — The White House asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to allow President Donald Trump to fire a top official in the Library of Congress after a lower court ruled against it.

Shira Perlmutter, director of the U.S. Copyright Office, was dismissed from her role by Trump just days after the president removed Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden in May. Hayden was replaced by U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on an interim basis.

In September, a federal appeals court ordered Perlmutter reinstated to her role under the legislative branch, not the executive branch, at the Library of Congress.

On Monday, the Trump administration told the high court in its appeal that the D.C. appeal circuit’s ruling contravened “settled precedent and misconceives the Librarian’s and Register’s legal status.”

“Treating the Librarian and Register as legislative officers would set much of federal copyright law on a collision course with the basic principle that Congress may not vest the power to execute the laws in itself or its officers,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in an emergency filing.

Meanwhile, Robert Newlen is listed as the acting Librarian of Congress.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s anti-Trump, anti-Texas congressional redistricting gamble seems about to pay off.

Newsom’s bet on Proposition 50 is looking like a winner, although we won’t really know until the vote count is released starting election night Nov. 4.

Insiders closely watching the high-stakes campaign would be shocked if Republicans pulled an upset and defeated the Democrats’ retaliatory response to red state gerrymandering.

They talk mostly about the expected size of victory, not whether it will win. The hedged consensus is that it’ll be by a modest margin, not a blowout.

Any size victory would help Newsom promote himself nationally as the Democrat whom party activists anxiously seek to aggressively fight Trumpism. It could energize grassroots progressives to back the Californian in early 2028 presidential primaries.

Propositions 50’s defeat, however, could be a devastating blow to Newsom’s presidential aspirations. If Californians wouldn’t follow him, why should other people?

Private and independent polls have shown Proposition 50 being supported by a small majority of registered voters. Not enough for an early victory dance. But the opposition is nowhere close to a majority. A lot of people have been undecided. They may not even bother to vote in a special election with only one state measure on the ballot.

As of last week, the return of mail-in ballots was running about the same as in last year’s presidential election at the same point — very unusual.

A slightly higher percentage of Democrats were casting ballots than GOP registrants. This is particularly significant in a state where 45% of voters are Democrats and only 25% are Republicans. The GOP needs a humungous turnout to beat Democrats on almost anything.

You can credit President Trump’s antics for riling up Democrats to vote early.

One practical importance of early Democratic voting is that the “yes” side doesn’t need to spend more money appealing to people who have already mailed in their ballots.

“It’s a bird in the hand kind of thing,” says Paul Mitchell, the Democrats’ chief data processor and principal drawer of the gerrymandered congressional maps up for approval in Proposition 50.

Mitchell believes the large recent weekend turnouts in California of “No Kings” protesters are indicative of the anti-Trump outrage that is generating Democratic enthusiasm for Proposition 50.

Republican consultant Rob Stutzman thinks that Proposition 50 could have been beaten with enough money. But not nearly enough showed up. Potential donors probably concluded it was a lost cause, he says. Don’t waste the cash.

It takes ridiculous amounts of money to win a competitive statewide race in California, with 23 million diverse voters scattered over hundreds of miles and several costly media markets.

Democrats, with their unmatched California power, have raised well over $100 million from unions, billionaire Democratic donors and other political investors.

Billionaire hedge-fund founder Tom Steyer put up $12 million. There are rumors he’s tempted to run for governor.

Los Angeles developer Rick Caruso is thinking very seriously about entering the 2026 gubernatorial race. He just paid for 100,000 pro-50 mail pieces in L.A. County, aimed at those least likely to vote.

One problem for the opposition is that it never unified behind a main anti-50 message. It ranged from “reject Newsom’s power grab” to “win one for Trump” and a purist lecture about retaining California’s current congressional districts drawn by a voter-created good government citizens’ commission.

The basic pro-50 message is simply, as Steyer says in his TV ad: “Stick it to Trump.”

This contest at its core is about which party controls Congress after next year’s midterm elections — or whether Republicans and Democrats at least share power. It’s about whether there’ll be a Congress with some gumption to confront a power-mad, egotistical president.

The fight started when Trump banged on Texas to redraw — gerrymander — its congressional districts to potentially gain five more Republican seats in the House of Representatives. Democrats need only a slight pickup to capture House control — and in an off-year election, the non-presidential party tends to acquire many.

Texas obediently obliged the nervous Trump, and other red states also have.

Newsom responded by urging the California Legislature to redraw this state’s maps to potentially gain five Democratic seats, neutralizing Texas’ underhanded move. The lawmakers quickly did. But in California, voter approval is needed to temporarily shelve the independent commission’s work. That’s what Proposition 50 does.

It also would boost Newsom’s standing among party activists across America.

“He’s been trying to claim the national leadership on anti-Trump. This is a chance for him to show he can deliver,” says UC Berkeley political scientist Eric Schickler. “There’s a sense the party doesn’t know how to fight back.

“On the flip side, if he were unable to persuade California voters to go along with him, it would be a hard sell to show Democrats nationally he’s the best person to take on Republicans.”

“It’s a gamble,” says UC San Diego political science professor Thad Kousser. “If 50 wins, he’s a person who can effectively fight back against Donald Trump. If it loses, he has no hope of winning on the national level.”

But veteran political consultant Mike Murphy — a former Republican who switched to independent — thinks Newsom could survive voters’ rejection of Proposition 50.

“It would take some of the shine off him. But he’d still be a contender. It wouldn’t knock him out. The worst you could say was that he lost 50 but was fighting the good fight.

“If 50 wins, Gavin might have a good future as a riverboat gambler if he puts all the chips in.”

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Pelosi faces challenges as age becomes unavoidable tension point for Democrats
The TK: Justice Department says it will monitor California poll sites amid Prop. 50 voting
The L.A. Times Special: She was highly qualified to be California governor. Why did her campaign fizzle?

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Oct. 25 (UPI) — President Donald Trump on Saturday said he will add a 10% tariff to Canadian goods after the airing of a controversial ad featuring former President Ronald Reagan during the World Series.

As the Toronto Blue Jays were on their way to winning the opening game by an 11-4 score over the Los Angeles Dodgers, an anti-tariffs ad featuring edited comments made by Reagan regarding his tariffs on Japanese goods.

The ad spurred Trump to follow through on an earlier threat to increase the tariff on Canadian goods exported to the United States.

“Canada was caught red-handed, putting up a fraudulent advertisement on Ronald Reagan’s speech on tariffs,” Trump said Saturday in a Truth Social post.

“The sole purpose of this fraud was Canada’s hope that the United States Supreme Court will come to their ‘rescue’ on tariffs that they have used for years to hurt the United States,” the president said.

“Ronald Reagan loved tariffs for the purpose of national security and the economy, but Canada said he didn’t,” Trump added.

The president said Canada was supposed to immediately cease airing the ad and remove it, but “they let it run last night during the World Series, knowing that it was a fraud.”

“Because of their serious misrepresentation of the facts and hostile act, I am increasing the tariff on Canada by 10% over and above what they are paying now,” Trump added.

Reagan made the comments during an April 25, 1987, radio address to defend his tariff policy, but the Ontario government used and edited them without permission from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute.

The Ontario ad runs for a minute and edits the former president’s comments, which Trump and others have called “misleading.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford said the ad’s intent is to “initiate a conversation” with U.S. officials and to reach “U.S. audiences at the highest levels,” CBS News reported.

The U.S. imposes a 10% tariff on Canadian energy, energy resources and potash and 35% for all other products that are not exempted by the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, according to the ReedSmith Trump 2.0 Tariff Tracker.

Oct. 24 (UPI) — Protesters on Friday clashed again with Customs and Enforcement Agency agents and other law enforcement outside an immigration processing center in suburban Chicago.

Other ICE operations have been reported in the southwest Chicago area, where there is a sizable immigrant population.

About 12 miles from the ICE processing center in Broadview, an elementary school was on lockdown amid reports of agents in the area.

On Thursday, about 10 miles from Broadview, two Chicago Public Schools students allegedly were assaulted by federal agents on their way to school in Little Village near the Discount Mall. The area is part of Chicago’s Mexican community.

And in Gary, Ind., about 37 miles southeast of Broadview, there was an anti-ICE protest about deportation flights from an airport.

President Donald Trump has ordered National Guard personnel into Chicagoland but a federal judge has barred them before a full trial or the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in. FBI agents also have been sent to the area, along with local police and Illinois state troopers.

In Broadview, protesters have been showing up weekly at the processing center. On Friday, the protests were contained in what authorities called a safety zone.

They are demonstrating against the Trump administration’s “Operation Midway Blitz” in an immigration crackdown that began Sept. 9.

“I believe that we are creating huge wounds, not only for the people who are being detained, but for the ICE officers who are doing these horrible things. I feel terrible for everybody,” Mary Kelly, who lives in nearby Oak Park, told WLS-TV.

Last Friday, Illinois State Police arrested 14 people, including one charged with obstructing/resisting police.

Residents and activists have challenged Broadview Mayor Katrina Thompson’s executive orders that limit protests to between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. and restrict access to areas near the facility.

They showed up on Monday at a Village Board meeting, saying the rules infringe on their free speech.

“I witnessed agents hitting people on the ground who were doing nothing,” protester Amanda Tovar told officials.

She noted a viral incident in which the Rev. David Black was struck in the head by pepper balls by federal agents.

“We’ve been brutalized first by ICE, now by the Illinois State Police,” one speaker said. “I mean, what happened to us on Saturday is insane. We’re peaceful protesters. It’s a National Day of Protesting and we get beat up for staying past 6 p.m.”

Chicago Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez and State Sen. Celina Villanueva have criticized “fascist” tactics by federal authorities.

Alderman Daniel La Spata told WLS-TV there have been “numerous confirmed sightings of ICE” throughout the West Town community area, including Ukrainian Village, Wicker Park and the Humboldt Park border.

School on soft lockdown

A.N. Pritzker School, an elementary school, had a soft lockdown for the second day and won’t open “until further notice,” the school’s principal said in a message posted on its website.

The school is named after a business magnate, attorney and philanthropist who is the grandfather of Illinois Gov. JD Pritzer.

“This is a Soft Lockdown, it is not an actual emergency, but rather a safety precaution,” the message said.

The soft lockdown began in the early afternoon.

“I want to take a moment to speak to each of you with care and concern. It has been brought to our attention that ICE agents have been reported in our neighborhood. As your principal, my top priority is your safety and well-being,” the principal said in the message.

WMAQ-TV didn’t receive a response from the Department of Homeland Security.

Two protesting students detained

In Little Village, WGN-TV reported two students saw masked ICE agents in the area, and decided to join in a protest and were subsequently detained.

“These kids were en route to school,” Chicago Alderman Byron Sigcho-Lopez said. “They saw the horrific scenes when you see masked individuals coming for your neighbors. They were unfortunately detained. One had blood on his face.”

In all, four students from Benito Juarez High School watched the protest.

“I am so angry and frustrated that these students have to add this worry to their school day,” Liz Winfield, teacher at Benito Juarez told WGN. “They should be worrying about college acceptance or if they’re going to get a date for the school dance. It is outrageous and unacceptable. They shouldn’t be worried about being taken by ICE on the way to school in the morning.”

Witnesses said the agents, donning military-style camouflage gear and gas masks, deployed tear gas.

“I started coughing a bit and went to the park to recover and then they started throwing tear gas closer to Sacramento. They detained two young people,” State Rep. Edgar Gonzalez said.

A security guard was also arrested when he asked the agents to show a warrant.

Chicago police, responding to the situation, said they arrested one person for battery to one of their officers.

It was the second day that federal immigration agents targeted the area.

Photos and video were posted on social media. People also blew whistles warning neighbors about the agents, the Chicago Sun Times reported.

The agents were led by U.S. Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino.

On Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Sara Ellis ordered to attend a hearing Tuesday after he was accused of violating a temporary restraining order limiting federal agents’ use of certain tactics to suppress protests or prevent media coverage of immigration enforcement in Illinois.

Ellis, appointed by President Barack Obama, earlier ordered Bovino to sit for a deposition with attorneys in the case.

Protests in Indiana

Organizers on Friday led an anti-ICE demonstration at the Gary/Chicago International Airport, a joint civil-military public airport in Indiana. The airport is adjacent U.S. Customs facility where immigration processing takes place.

“There is a direct connection between NWI and Chicago ICE raids and it’s facilitated by the Gary/Chicago International Airport,” a protest flyer reads that was obtained by The TRiiBE, a collaboration with indie investigative newsroom Unraved Press and alt-weekly Chicago Reader.

On Oct. 10, Gary Mayor Eddie Melton’s statement condemned the increased ICE activity.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule for the first time on whether the president has the power to deploy troops in American cities over the objections of local and state officials.

A decision could come at any time.

And even a one-line order siding with President Trump would send the message that he is free to use the military to carry out his orders — and in particular, in Democratic-controlled cities and states.

Trump administration lawyers filed an emergency appeal last week asking the court to reverse judges in Chicago who blocked the deployment of the National Guard there.

The Chicago-based judges said Trump exaggerated the threat faced by federal immigration agents and had equated “protests with riots.”

Trump administration lawyers, however, said these judges had no authority to second-guess the president. The power to deploy the National Guard “is committed to his exclusive discretion by law,” they asserted in their appeal in Trump vs. Illinois.

That broad claim of executive power might win favor with the court’s conservatives.

Administration lawyers told the court that the National Guard would “defend federal personnel, property, and functions in the face of ongoing violence” in response to aggressive immigration enforcement, but it would not carry out ordinary policing.

Yet Trump has repeatedly threatened to send U.S. troops to San Francisco and other Democratic-led cities to carry out ordinary law enforcement.

When he sent 4,000 Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles in June, their mission was to protect federal buildings from protesters. But state officials said troops went beyond that and were used to carry out a show in force in MacArthur Park in July.

Newsom, Bonta warn of dangers

That’s why legal experts and Democratic officials are sounding an alarm.

“Trump v. Illinois is a make-or-break moment for this court,” said Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck, a frequent critic of the court’s pro-Trump emergency orders. “For the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that allows the president to send troops into our cities based upon contrived (or even government-provoked) facts … would be a terrible precedent for the court to set not just for what it would allow President Trump to do now but for even more grossly tyrannical conduct.”

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a brief in the Chicago case warning of the danger ahead.

“On June 7, for the first time in our nation’s history, the President invoked [the Militia Act of 1903] to federalize a State’s National Guard over the objections of the State’s Governor. Since that time, it has become clear that the federal government’s actions in Southern California earlier this summer were just the opening salvo in an effort to transform the role of the military in American society,” their brief said.

“At no prior point in our history has the President used the military this way: as his own personal police force, to be deployed for whatever law enforcement missions he deems appropriate. … What the federal government seeks is a standing army, drawn from state militias, deployed at the direction of the President on a nationwide basis, for civilian law enforcement purposes, for an indefinite period of time.”

Conservatives cite civil rights examples

Conservatives counter that Trump is seeking to enforce federal law in the face of strong resistance and non-cooperation at times from local officials.

“Portland and Chicago have seen violent protests outside of federal buildings, attacks on ICE and DHS agents, and organized efforts to block the enforcement of immigration law,” said UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo. “Although local officials have raised cries of a federal ‘occupation’ and ‘dictatorship,’ the Constitution places on the president the duty to ‘take care that the laws are faithfully executed.’”

He noted that presidents in the past “used these same authorities to desegregate southern schools in the 1950s after Brown v. Board of Education and to protect civil rights protesters in the 1960s. Those who cheer those interventions cannot now deny the same constitutional authority when it is exercised by a president they oppose,” he said.

The legal battle so far has sidestepped Trump’s broadest claims of unchecked power, but focused instead on whether he is acting in line with the laws adopted by Congress.

The Constitution gives Congress the power “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Beginning in 1903, Congress said that “the President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State in such numbers as he considers necessary” if he faces “danger of invasion by a foreign nation … danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable to execute the laws of the United States.”

While Trump administration lawyers claim he faces a “rebellion,” the legal dispute has focused on whether he is “unable to execute the laws.”

Lower courts have blocked deployments

Federal district judges in Portland and Chicago blocked Trump’s deployments after ruling that protesters had not prevented U.S. immigration agents from doing their jobs.

Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, described the administration’s description of “war-ravaged” Portland as “untethered to the facts.”

In Chicago, Judge April Perry, a Biden appointee, said that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

But the two appeals courts — the 9th Circuit in San Francisco and the 7th Circuit in Chicago — handed down opposite decisions.

A panel of the 9th Circuit said judges must defer to the president’s assessment of the danger faced by immigration agents. Applying that standard, the appeals court by a 2-1 vote said the National Guard deployment in Portland may proceed.

But a panel of the 7th Circuit in Chicago agreed with Perry.

“The facts do not justify the President’s actions in Illinois, even giving substantial deference to his assertions,” they said in a 3-0 ruling last week. “Federal facilities, including the processing facility in Broadview, have remained open despite regular demonstrations against the administration’s immigration policies. And though federal officers have encountered sporadic disruptions, they have been quickly contained by local, state, and federal authorities.”

Attorneys for Illinois and Chicago agreed and urged the court to turn down Trump’s appeal.

“There is no basis for claiming the President is ‘unable’ to ‘execute’ federal law in Illinois,” they said. “Federal facilities in Illinois remain open, the individuals who have violated the law by attacking federal authorities have been arrested, and enforcement of immigration law in Illinois has only increased in recent weeks.”

U.S. Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, shown at his confirmation hearing in February, said the federal judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the Trump administration’s deployment of troops.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer presented a dramatically different account in his appeal.

“On October 4, the President determined that the situation in Chicago had become unsustainably dangerous for federal agents, who now risk their lives to carry out basic law enforcement functions,” he wrote. “The President deployed the federalized Guardsmen to Illinois to protect federal officers and federal property.”

He disputed the idea that agents faced just peaceful protests.

“On multiple occasions, federal officers have also been hit and punched by protestors at the Broadview facility. The physical altercations became more significant and the clashes more violent as the size of the crowds swelled throughout September,” Sauer wrote. “Rioters have targeted federal officers with fireworks and have thrown bottles, rocks, and tear gas at them. More than 30 [DHS] officers have been injured during the assaults on federal law enforcement at the Broadview facility alone, resulting in multiple hospitalizations.”

He said the judges in Chicago had no legal or factual basis to block the deployment, and he urged the court to cast aside their rulings.

Oct. 23 (UPI) — New data released by Harvard University’s undergraduate school showed a decline for the class of 2029 in both Hispanic and Black students, with a spike in its Asian student population.

Massachusetts-based Harvard College stated its 2029 class makeup showed Black students comprised 11.5%, with Hispanics at 11% and Asian-American students at 41%, according to newly released data.

However, the university did not release demographics and data on its White student population.

The data release followed the U.S. Supreme Court‘s recent ruling that struck down affirmative action practices in America’s higher learning institutions.

Prior to the high court’s decision, the Harvard student population had been made up of about 18% of Black students.

But Harvard’s total number of Hispanic students went up following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

According to data, roughly 21% of Harvards 2029 graduating class were eligible for federal Pell Grants. It added 45% were tuition free and 26% on an entirely free program.

Earlier this year, President Donald Trump instructed the Department of Education to inform U.S. educational institutions on the receiving end of federal funds to officially end affirmative action policies in a number of school-related practices.

Meanwhile, a Yale professor and expert on affirmative action history called the decline an example how the high court’s “disastrous decision from 2023 continues to cause Black enrollment rates to decline at many of the nation’s premier universities.”

“I fear that Harvard’s plummeting trend lines over the last two years offers an unattractive preview of the future in American higher education,” Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School, told The New York Times.

JERUSALEM — Vice President JD Vance criticized on Thursday a vote in Israel’s parliament the previous day about the annexation of the occupied West Bank, saying it amounted to an “insult” and went against the Trump administration policies.

Hard-liners in the Israeli parliament had narrowly passed a symbolic preliminary vote in support of annexing the West Bank — an apparent attempt to embarrass Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu while Vance was still in the country.

The bill, which required only a simple majority of lawmakers present in the house on Wednesday, passed with a 25-24 vote. But it was unlikely to pass multiple rounds of voting to become law or win a majority in the 120-seat parliament. Netanyahu, who is opposed to it, also has tools to delay or defeat it.

On the tarmac of Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion airport before departing Israel, Vance said that if the Knesset’s vote was a “political stunt, then it is a very stupid political stunt.”

“I personally take some insult to it,” Vance said. “The policy of the Trump administration is that the West Bank will not be annexed by Israel.”

Netanyahu is struggling to stave off early elections as cracks between factions in the right-wing parties, some of whom were upset over the ceasefire and the security sacrifices it required of Israel, grow more apparent.

While many members of Netanyahu’s coalition, including the Likud, support annexation, they have backed off those calls since U.S. President Trump said last month that he opposes such a move. The United Arab Emirates, a key U.S. and Israeli ally in the push to peace in Gaza, has said any annexation by Israel would be a “red line.”

The Palestinians seek the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, for a future independent state. Israeli annexation of the West Bank would all but bury hopes for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians — the outcome supported by most of the world.

Gaza’s reconstruction and Palestinians’ return

Vance also unveiled new details about U.S. plans for Gaza, saying he expected reconstruction to begin soon in some “Hamas-free” areas of the territory but warning that rebuilding territory after a devastating two-year war could take years.

“The hope is to rebuild Rafah over the next two to three years and theoretically you could have half a million people live (there),” he said.

The war caused widespread destruction across the coastal Palestinian enclave. The United Nations in July estimated that the war generated some 61 million tons of debris in Gaza. The World Bank, the U.N. and the European Union estimated earlier this year that it would cost about $53 billion to rebuild.

The Israel-Hamas war has killed at least 68,280 Palestinians, according to the Health Ministry in Gaza, which does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its count. The ministry maintains detailed casualty records that are seen as generally reliable by U.N. agencies and independent experts. Israel has disputed them without providing its own toll.

Intense U.S. push toward peace

Earlier this week, Vance announced the opening of a civilian military coordination center in southern Israel where some 200 U.S. troops are working alongside the Israeli military and delegations from other countries planning the stabilization and reconstruction of Gaza.

The U.S. is seeking support from other allies, especially Gulf Arab nations, to create an international stabilization force to be deployed to Gaza and train a Palestinian force.

“We’d like to see Palestinian police forces in Gaza that are not Hamas and that are going to do a good job, but those still have to be trained and equipped,” U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said ahead of his trip to Israel.

Rubio, who is to meet with Netanyahu later on Thursday, also criticized Israeli far-right lawmakers’ effort to push for the annexation of the West Bank.

Israeli media referred to the nonstop parade of American officials visiting to ensure Israel holds up its side of the fragile ceasefire as “Bibi-sitting.” The term, utilizing Netanyahu’s nickname of Bibi, refers to an old campaign ad when Netanyahu positioned himself as the “Bibi-sitter” whom voters could trust with their kids.

In Gaza, a dire need for medical care

In the first medical evacuation since the ceasefire began on Oct. 10, the head of the World Health Organization said Thursday the group has evacuated 41 critical patients and 145 companions out of the Gaza Strip.

In a statement posted to X, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called on nations to show solidarity and help some 15,000 patients who are still waiting for approval to receive medical care outside Gaza.

His calls were echoed by an official with the U.N. Population Fund who on Wednesday described the “sheer devastation” that he witnessed on his most recent travel to Gaza, saying that there is no such thing as a “normal birth in Gaza now.”

Andrew Saberton, an executive director at UNFPA, told reporters how difficult the agency’s work has become due to the lack of functioning or even standing health care facilities.

“The sheer extent of the devastation looked like the set of a dystopian film. Unfortunately, it is not fiction,” he said.

Court hearing on journalists’ access to Gaza

Separately on Thursday, Israel’s Supreme Court held a hearing into whether to open the Gaza Strip to the international media and gave the state 30 days to present a new position in light of the new situation under the ceasefire.

Israel has blocked reporters from entering Gaza since the war erupted with the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct 7, 2023.

The Foreign Press Association, which represents dozens of international news organizations including The Associated Press, had asked the court to order the government to open the border.

In a statement after Thursday’s decision, the FPA expressed its “disappointment” and called the Israeli government’s position to deny journalists access “unacceptable.”

The court rejected a request from the FPA early in the war, due to objections by the government on security grounds. The group filed a second request for access in September 2024. The government has repeatedly delayed the case.

Palestinian journalists have covered the two-year war for international media. But like all Palestinians, they have been subject to tough restrictions on movement and shortages of food, repeatedly displaced and operated under great danger. Some 200 Palestinian journalists have been killed by Israeli fire, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

“It is time for Israel to lift the closure and let us do our work alongside our Palestinian colleagues,” said Tania Kraemer, chairperson of the FPA.

Brito and Lee write for the Associated Press. Lee reported from Washington. AP writers Josef Federman in Jerusalem, Melanie Lidman in Tel Aviv, Kareem Chehayeb in Beirut and Farnoush Amiri in New York contributed to this report.