Supreme

US federal judge blocked wall’s construction on Texas-Mexico border amid an ongoing legal battle.

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow it to resume plans to build a border wall through the Big Bend region of West Texas, as part of its anti-immigration policy to strengthen security on the border with Mexico.

The Justice Department filed an emergency request on Wednesday asking the court to lift a federal judge’s injunction in a lower court that has halted construction while a lawsuit against the project, brought by an environmental group and other challengers, plays out.

The Department of Homeland Security plans include vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting and detection technology in and around Big Bend National Park.

Big Bend has about 805km (500 miles) of border, and, according to opponents of the project who have sued the administration, accounts for about 1 percent of migrant arrests.

Landscape, historic church

The lawsuit, filed by plaintiffs including the Center for Biological Diversity and a Big Bend-area river guide, seeks to preserve the landscape, protect a historic church, and challenge the federal government’s waivers of environmental and historical laws to fast-track the $1.7bn project.

Former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and current Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who issued the waivers between February and July, found the region to be an “area of high illegal entry”, requiring additional barriers to control the border.

US District Judge Kathleen Cardone issued an injunction in El Paso on October 2 halting work “until and unless Defendants comply with all applicable laws,” she wrote in her order.

In a later opinion, the judge found that the waivers exceeded the authority of Noem and Mullin.

The Justice Department in its request urged the Supreme Court to pause or overturn Cardone’s injunction.

The Supreme Court has not yet responded to this appeal.

“Even assuming that the secretary’s waiver authority implicates a question of ‘vast economic and political significance,’ Congress did clearly authorize the secretary both to build border barriers and to waive legal requirements in order to facilitate their expeditious construction,” the Justice Department wrote.

In August, the administration paused construction in Big Bend after the project drew bipartisan criticism over its potential impact on the park’s landscape and wildlife.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down an appeal from President Trump and rejected his order to end hormone treatments and other gender-affirming care for transgender inmates in federal prisons.

The justices denied Trump’s appeal without comment, over dissents by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito.

The order leaves in a place a decision by a senior judge appointed by President Reagan who had blocked Trump’s new prison policy from taking effect.

The decision is a rare win for trans rights at the Supreme Court.

In June, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, said he would “not wade into the culture war being waged against transgender individuals” and ruled the Trump administration did not have evidence or good reasons for changing the long-standing policy for these inmates.

He cited the Administrative Procedure Act, which forbids abrupt and “arbitrary” changes in federal regulations.

Lamberth said the Bureau of Prisons’ new regulation would “arbitrarily deprive inmates of medications and other lifestyle accommodations that its own medical staff have deemed to be medically appropriate.” The evidence showed that “gender affirming care is the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria and severe harm flows from the cessation of such care,’’ he wrote.

Last month, the D.C. Circuit upheld his decision on a 2-1 vote, prompting the administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued on behalf of three inmates, said the court should not “overturn a three decades-long status quo.” Since 1992, the Bureau of Prisons has “treated people with gender dysphoria with hormone therapy,” their lawyers told the court.

In response to Trump’s order, the “BOP overrode its own medical providers’ clinical judgment and mandated the cessation of treatment for almost 1,000 people in its custody,” they said.

At issue in this latest legal dispute over trans rights was whether the government had evidence to justify a sharp change in its prison regulations.

In the past, the court has often deferred to prison officials on their handling and treatment of inmates.

“If deference to prison administrators means anything, it means that courts cannot second-guess their eminently reasonable choice to treat the mental-health condition of gender dysphoria with psychotherapy rather than physical, sex-rejecting interventions,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said in his appeal.

A group of parents claims local admission policy boosts Black and Latino students while constraining Asian applicants.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about the role of race in admissions to selective Maryland middle schools after a group of parents claimed policies discriminated against Asian students in favour of Black and Latino students.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the parents’ plea on four academically rigorous “magnet” schools in Montgomery County, a suburb on the outskirts of Washington, DC, in the neighbouring state of Maryland.

The high court said it would weigh whether the parent group has enough evidence of discrimination for the case to move forward.

Lower courts previously dismissed the case because Asian-American students were not underrepresented at the specialised-curriculum schools compared with the pool of students that applied.

If the Supreme Court rules for the parent group, the Association for Education Fairness, it could revive the lawsuit.

The court is expected to hear arguments in the coming months and rule by June.

‘The Pandemic Plan’

The Montgomery County school district’s selection process was introduced in the 2021-2022 school year during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It screens all students for academic potential, and then implements a lottery to randomly assign students from that pool to receive enriched instruction at either a magnet school or a local school.

The suit alleged that the screening process makes it harder for Asian-American students, who the challengers said are clustered in “high-performing, low-poverty elementary schools”, to enter the lottery pool.

Part of the process ranks a student’s performance by comparing the student’s test scores against those of other students whose family incomes are at a similar level.

“Under the applicant pool benchmark, the government can set specific racial targets, hit them, and avoid even an inquiry into discriminatory intent,” so long as it has not explicitly called out race in its process, they wrote in their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Previously thrown out

The case was thrown out in 2022 by US District Judge Paula Xinis. She noted that the percentage of admitted Asian-American students exceeded the percentage of Asian Americans among all applicants to the magnet schools.

Xinis also found no evidence that the lottery policy was implemented with discriminatory intent.

The school system has consistently argued the new admissions policy, called the “Pandemic Plan” due to the timing of its release, is race-neutral.

“The Pandemic Plan is a colorblind lottery,” lawyers wrote in a brief asking the Supreme Court not to take up the case. “Nothing about the Pandemic Plan, its history, or its purpose is offensive to the Constitution.”

Supreme Court justices will now consider whether a group claiming to be targeted by a race-neutral policy must show it was disproportionately harmed to prove intentional discrimination.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider outlawing school diversity policies that limit Asian American students at magnet programs and selective high schools.

Three years ago, the court ruled that Harvard and other universities may not discriminate on whom they admit based on the race of their applicants. Evidence in that case showed that Asian applicants with very high test scores were often turned down.

But the justices have been divided over admissions rules for highly selective high schools in Boston, New York and Fairfax County, Va., as well as magnet programs for gifted middle school students.

In most instances, judges have said school officials may use “race-neutral” policies to achieve racial diversity. For example, giving an automatic admission to the top 5% of the students in all of a big city’s high schools or its middle schools could achieve greater racial and ethnic diversity.

But the court’s conservatives, led by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, have condemned such policies as thinly disguised racial discrimination.

Magnet programs exist across the country, including in California and Los Angeles, and were conceived as a form of voluntary integration — a way to get white students to attend the same schools as nonwhite students, without having to resort to forced busing.

The idea was that a special school program would be attractive enough to serve as a “magnet” for white students to enroll at a school they might not otherwise attend. A mix of white and nonwhite students was seen as a benefit to the nonwhite students, because white students would be sharing the fate of the nonwhite students.

Asian students were frequently part of that original equation on the nonwhite side of the ledger and counted with other students classified as nonwhite, such as Black or Latino students. But in terms of student achievement, Asian students have performed more like white students, frequently surpassing white students academically.

One subset of magnet schools requires a selective admissions process, and these are at the center of the current dispute.

The court agreed to hear an appeal from parents in Montgomery County, Md., who were upset by a sharp drop in Asian students at its four magnet schools for gifted students.

For a decade, the school board had been troubled that fewer than 15% of the students at its magnet schools were Black or Latino, even though they made up about half of the student population.

In contrast, Asian students were less than 15% of the county’s student population but made up about half of the enrolees at the magnet programs.

After several years of debate, school officials dropped the use of a countywide competitive test and chose top performing students at all of its middle schools using a lottery.

That prompted a lawsuit that reached the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fairfax County in northern Virginia had adopted a somewhat similar policy for the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology. A federal judge ruled for Asian parents and said their students had been deprived of a “level playing field” in competing for admission.

But the 4th Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, disagreed and said Asian American students were still winning more seats than their percentage of the school population.

The Assn. for Education Fairness, the parents group in Montgomery County, lost for the same reason in the 4th Circuit. The number of admitted Asian students had declined, but their percentage remained well above their share of school population.

They appealed and urged the Supreme Court to rule on their case and to clarify the law.

“School districts across the country have overhauled admissions criteria for competitive public schools after concluding that existing systems produced undesirable racial enrollment patterns,” they said.

They said the court should end this type of racial discrimination against Asian students.

However, a longtime champion of admissions policies that rely on social and economic fairness said he hoped the court would side with Montgomery County.

“The Supreme Court has long disfavored racial preferences and pointed to race-neutral programs that look at factors like socioeconomic disadvantage as the right way to do affirmative action,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, director of the American Identity Project at the Progressive Policy Institute.

He said the Maryland school board followed that rule.

“It essentially provided an admissions break to students based not on race, but on the economic disadvantage of the elementary school they attended. The question now opened is whether the court will stand by precedent or move the goal posts. Is the court opposed to racial preferences, or to racial diversity itself?”

Los Angeles Unified, the nation’s second-largest school system, has an extensive magnet system, with 66 whole-school magnets and 268 magnet centers within a larger campus.

At this point, many of the magnets provide no discernible integration benefit and are viewed instead as inducements for any student to enroll. Many magnets are nearly all students of color because few white students apply.

A few schools, however, have more applicants than spaces, and the district relies on “the Magnet Priority Point System and the need to maintain a racially balanced enrollment, and by available space.”

Parents must mark one federally recognized race or ethnicity on the application, or it won’t be processed. A family gets points, for example, if a student applied unsuccessfully for a magnet in the past.

In L.A. Unified, 53 schools are designated for students rated as “gifted,” and there are four campuses with programs for highly gifted students, typically identified by a professional evaluator.

Available recent data for the highly gifted program at North Hollywood High indicated that the largest percentage of students, about 38%, were Asian. Overall, the district’s enrollment is about 3.5% Asian.

The justices will hear arguments in the case early next year.

Savage reported from Washington and Blume from Los Angeles.

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to toss out $122,000 in legal costs that lawyers for former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake were ordered to pay for false and misleading statements they made in a lawsuit that sought to require a hand-count of all ballots in the 2022 midterm elections.

The nation’s highest court on Tuesday denied a request from Andrew D. Parker, an attorney who represented Lake in the lawsuit, to review a lower-court decision over the legal costs arising from the unsuccessful litigation.

The lawsuit by Lake and state lawmaker Mark Finchem sought to ban electronic tabulation devices. It was dismissed by a judge who found Lake and Finchem lacked standing to sue and that their lawsuit was filed too close to the election.

In 2022, Lake lost the governor’s race to Democrat Katie Hobbs and Finchem was defeated in the secretary of state’s race by Democrat Andrian Fontes. Both Republicans had promoted the narrative that the 2020 election was marred by fraud.

Maricopa County had sought sanctions against Lake, Finchem and their lawyers, alleging they broke a court rule by making unfounded allegations and by not conducting the necessary research before filing the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge John Tuchi later concluded the lawsuit’s claims lacked an adequate basis in fact, that the standard inquiry attorneys must make before pressing litigation hadn’t been done and that the lawyers acted recklessly in seeking a court order based on frivolous claims.

The requirement to pay the legal fees applies to the lawyers who pressed the lawsuit, not to Lake and Finchem.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected appeals over the lawsuit’s dismissal and the awarding of the legal fees.

The Associated Press left phone and email messages Tuesday for Parker, whose firm is based in Minneapolis.

Earlier this year, Parker asked the Supreme Court to throw out the requirement to pay Maricopa County’s legal fees in the case, arguing such sanctions would deter attorneys from bringing aggressive or novel legal claims.

Maricopa County said lawyers for Lake and Finchem had disregarded a letter that identified false allegations they had made in their lawsuit and relied on some of those claims in a later court filing. The county’s attorneys said those who brought the lawsuit failed to present evidence to support their allegations and falsely alleged that Arizona didn’t use paper ballots and that its electronic voting systems hadn’t been subjected to expert analysis.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Republicans Wednesday and gave political parties and their fundraising committees lower rates for broadcast campaign ads.

Over two dissents, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration and the National Republican Congressional Committee and upheld the use of the GOP-friendly rule in the midterm election.

In a brief order, the court said the issue should be left to the Federal Communications Commission.

The outcome has given Republican candidates an advertising edge in the final weeks of the campaign.

Federal law says a “legally qualified candidate” running for election is entitled to a “lower unit charge” for campaign ads in the 60 days prior to an election.

However, on March 30, the FCC, under Republican control, announced that broadcasters must extend the lower rates to political parties and their joint fundraising committees.

The FCC notice did not explain the basis for this change, and it refused to hold a commission hearing to debate the issue.

But the change was seen as benefiting Republicans.

Democratic candidates have raised more money from direct but limited contributions from individuals, while Republicans have raised far more through party committees that are funded by wealthy donors.

The non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said the FCC’s rule change was “contrary to the text and purpose of the federal statute and would effectively grant super PACs an advertising discount.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, issued a statement objecting to the change.

“The American public should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of the election, without a single opportunity for public input,” she said.

Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Roy Cooper from North Carolina objected to the FCC rule change in April and and asked for a review.

When no action was taken, they filed suit in federal court. They argued the FCC had no authority to change the law that gave only candidates, not fundraising committees, the benefit of the lower ad rates.

Since then, the two sides have gone back and forth in the courts, with both accusing the other of seeking a late change in the rules.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled for the Democrats in a pair of 2-1 decisions.

“Suffice to say that any ‘chaos’ is the FCC’s fault, not ours,” Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton appointee, said on Oct. 7. It “has endeavored to create from whole cloth a new rule entirely outside the purview of judicial review.”

But the Supreme Court stepped in twice to overturn the 4th Circuit and rule for the Republicans.

In a Sept. 4 order, the court said in an unsigned order the 4th Circuit intervened too soon. The law “makes clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission to resolve its application for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

In September, the FCC did nothing other than to ask for public comments on its March rule change.

Frustrated with the delay, the 4th Circuit issued a second order requiring the FCC to act by Oct. 9.

Last week, in response to an appeal from Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts put the 4th Circuit order on hold.

On Wednesday, the full court said the 4th Circuit Court should have left the issue to the FCC.

“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the judiciary to meddle in the workings of a coordinate branch of the government in this manner,” the court said an unsigned opinion.

In dissent, Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the administration’s appeal.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from freedom of information requirements.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The high court is intervening on Tuesday for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of US President Donald Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that US District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favour and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” US Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorised the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” CREW lawyers wrote.

In a statement Tuesday, CREW lawyer Nikhel Sus said the lower courts have uniformly ruled that it is entitled to records that could help the court determine whether DOGE wields the type of authority that would make it subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

“We will continue to pursue transparency for the American people, who deserve to know the details of the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally remake the federal government,” Sus said in the statement.

DOGE said it had slashed tens of billions of dollars in expenditures, but its claims were difficult for outside financial experts to verify.

Federal auditors found that some of DOGE’s reported savings across contract, grant and ⁠lease terminations were incorrect, lacked supporting evidence or included terminations that were already under way when DOGE was established, according to ⁠a report by the Government Accountability Office.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear arguments in a watchdog’s lawsuit seeking public records about trillionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The high court is intervening for a second time in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s case, which seeks access to DOGE records from its operations in the early days of President Trump’s second term. The Trump administration asked the court to hear the case.

Last year, the high court reined in a district court’s order for the government to produce DOGE-related records to CREW. The high court’s conservative majority concluded in June 2025 that U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled too broadly in ordering documents to be turned over to the group.

CREW claims DOGE is a federal agency and therefore is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

The Trump administration argues that DOGE is exempt from FOIA’s requirements as a presidential advisory body.

Cooper ruled in CREW’s favor and ordered expedited processing of the group’s records request. An appeals court panel also sided with CREW.

The Trump administration claims the panel ignored the Supreme Court’s direction to consider separation-of-powers concerns and intruded on the “autonomy and confidentiality” of presidential advisers.

“Subjecting advisory bodies to intrusive discovery triggers the very concerns that Congress sought to avoid by excluding presidential advisory bodies from FOIA’s reach,” Justice Department attorneys wrote.

The administration also says the appeals court impermissibly authorized the plaintiffs to take a sworn deposition of DOGE acting administrator Amy Gleason.

CREW says the appeals court fully complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order. The group also asserts that the public has a right to know how DOGE helped the administration carry out a sweeping overhaul of government operations in 2025.

“Undisputed facts in the public record — including the President’s statements — confirmed that (DOGE) was wielding enormous independent authority across the federal government,” its attorneys wrote.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

Is it a good idea to begin the transition through the Supreme Court (TSJ)? Perhaps. In any case, it is the path charted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who—following January 3rd—wields enormous influence over Venezuela’s interim authorities and all opposition players, including María Corina Machado.

Marco Rubio himself stated this on October 9, with Dinorah Figuera by his side: “To achieve a peaceful transition—which is what we desire, a peaceful transition toward a permanent and lasting democracy— a great deal of hard work must be done, along with some patience, and free and fair elections. But beyond mere free and fair elections, there will be a need for institutions that not only uphold democracy but also sustain stability, progress, prosperity, and freedom for the people of Venezuela for the foreseeable future.”

Those institutions are, fundamentally, the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) and the National Electoral Council (CNE). In that order.

The argument is simple yet very powerful. We have seen in Venezuela that it is possible to win an election (such as the National Assembly vote in 2015 and the presidential election in 2024) and yet have that victory yield no practical effect: in 2015, the election’s impact was nullified via the TSJ, and in 2024, via both the CNE and the TSJ.

Rubio knows this well, as he has been monitoring Venezuelan politics for many years and has surely heard the explanation of how the regime stripped those election results of their meaning through the TSJ and the CNE. In all likelihood, he heard those explanations from Machado herself. This is the path currently being pursued by the negotiating table comprising the interim authorities and the delegation from the 2015 National Assembly. So far, there have been three results. First, Article 65 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) was reformed to improve the balance between lawmakers and civil society representatives within the Judicial Nominations Committee—a body for which 127 candidates have already been proposed. Next, a council was appointed to verify the credentials of TSJ nominees; this council includes four of Venezuela’s most serious and respected legal experts. Third, civilian organizations were invited to put forward members for the Judicial Nominations Committee.

This week, both the Judicial Nominations Committee and the verification council are being formally established. The subsequent step is to call upon legal experts to apply for positions on the TSJ.

Given the current circumstances, it is to be expected that the negotiating table and the Trump administration will exert influence over the entire process, just as they have been doing. In fact, Juan Miguel Matheus—a member of the opposition team at the negotiating table—told El Pitazo that the 12 civil society members who will sit on the Nominations Committee will be selected through that table.

With a transition process in mind, why would having a competent TSJ in place within a couple of months be significant?

For a fundamental reason: under the state model established by the 1999 Constitution, the TSJ holds the final institutional say regarding any decision made by the Venezuelan state. The TSJ has the power to strike down laws passed by the National Assembly, declare presidential decrees null and void, annul acts of the National Electoral Council (CNE), and review rulings from any court in the country.

Therefore—and drawing on Venezuela’s past experience—if we aim to hold free elections, it is far better to approach them with a competent TSJ already in place. A capable Supreme Court of Justice could play a robust role in defending elections based on standards of electoral integrity.

Therefore, initiating the transition through a new Supreme Court is a good idea.

Main opposition Congress party announces rally to the top court to demand removal of the chief election commissioner.

The NFL is urging the Supreme Court to rule on the regulation of prediction markets, arguing in an amicus brief filed Thursday that states — which already regulate legal sports books — are better positioned to oversee sports-related contracts “given the current landscape.”

The NFL is supporting New Jersey’s request for the Supreme Court to rule on the governing authority for prediction markets, which provide an opportunity to trade — or wager — on the result of future events. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has maintained it has exclusive federal jurisdiction, while states have argued that the array of typically yes-or-no questions is akin to gambling and falls under their purview.

“Absent the clarity that only this Court can provide, (prediction market) operators will continue exploiting the gap between state and federal regulation, endangering consumers and the integrity of sports events across the country,” lawyers for the NFL wrote.

According to the NFL’s brief, on the first Sunday of this season, more than half of the trading volume on prediction markets — $1.8 billion out of $3.3 billion total — was related to the league.

“Any delay from the Court will result in increasing consumer harm and risk to game integrity,” the NFL wrote in its brief.

Kalshi spokeswoman Elisabeth Diana said its top priority is market integrity, and she pointed to its partnerships with the NHL, Major League Baseball and other sports organizations as evidence.

“Contrary to the NFL’s statements, the CFTC is actively policing sports-related markets, which are now listed on nearly every U.S. commodities exchange,” Diana said. “The CFTC’s ongoing rulemaking addresses many of the NFL’s supposed concerns. And those rules sit atop the same comprehensive system of federal enforcement that protects trillions of dollars of transactions in U.S. markets.”

A Polymarket spokesperson said the operator “shares the NFL’s commitment to preserving the integrity of the game,” and it is working on “a harmonized federal framework that delivers a stronger, more consistent form of integrity compared to a patchwork of disconnected state laws built for a bygone era.”

Ohio filed a brief on Wednesday urging the high court to side with New Jersey and preserve the power of all states to regulate prediction markets, as they do casino gambling and sports betting. The filing was backed by 38 states, including Republican and Democratic attorneys general from states including Arkansas, California, Illinois, Missouri, New York, South Carolina and Pennsylvania.

Roughly 20 states are involved in litigation over prediction markets, and a split has formed between appeals courts, making it more likely that the Supreme Court will take up the issue. The 6th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled in favor of states seeking to regulate prediction markets, while the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Kalshi in a ruling earlier this year.

“As between the two approaches, the NFL believes the Sixth and Ninth Circuits got it right, given the current landscape,” lawyers for the league wrote in their brief.

The NFL also is questioning the CFTC’s enforcement capabilities. In its filing, the league writes that the commission has 543 employees and their responsibilities include a range of derivatives beyond event contracts.

“Without adequate staff engaged in oversight and enforcement, even the best regulations cannot meaningfully ensure game integrity and consumer protection,” lawyers wrote in the NFL brief.

A message was left by the AP seeking comment from the CFTC.

The NFL has urged the CFTC and prediction markets to adopt a list of prohibited wagers that it feels pose the greatest threats to game integrity, according to the brief, but they have declined thus far. It also has asked the commission to adopt an age limit of 21 for trading on prediction markets, up from the current 18.

Diana said Kalshi has tried to collaborate with the NFL on market integrity, but it has received no response.

Cohen writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Marc Levy contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.

Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.

At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.

California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.

For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.

They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.

The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.

They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.

So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.

But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.

If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court will open its new term Monday by hearing arguments on whether the oil and gas industry may be forced to pay damages for the scorching heat waves, wildfires and droughts that are blamed on climate change.

It’s a momentous question the justices have put off deciding for nearly a decade — and may do so again.

California joined more than two dozen blue states and municipalities in 2023 when it sued the five largest oil companies, alleging “decades of deception” over the danger of a warming climate.

They have “privately known the truth for decades but have fed us lies and mistruths to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said.

Fire and smoke rise at the Chevron Refinery in El Segundo in October 2025.

(Robbin Goddard/Los Angeles Times)

Such climate-change lawsuits were patterned after the mass claims against the tobacco and opioid industries. Both were accused of concealing the dangers of their very profitable products.

But the climate suits have stalled. Judges have been divided over whether these potentially huge claims should be decided in federal or state court, and if so, under what law.

Last year, Boulder County, Colo., won a 5-2 ruling in the state Supreme Court that allowed its 2018 suit to proceed as a claim of a public nuisance, an unjust enrichment or a civil conspiracy. These are referred to as “common law” claims that are long-standing and traditional but do not rely on a measure approved by the Legislature.

The Colorado judges also said the climate-change suits are not “preempted” or blocked by federal anti-pollution laws because the suit for damages did not regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The dissenters said the state court was giving Boulder a “green light to act as its own republic” to punish the Exxon Mobil Corp. for the impact of “global climate change.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the oil companies sounded the same theme.

“Boulder, Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” they said. A ruling for the county would “authorize all 50 states and tens of thousands of municipalities” to ask their local juries to “impose ruinous liability” on the fossil fuel industry, they told the court.

The Trump administration joined in support of the industry’s appeal.

“Our federal system would disintegrate if each state could tackle inherently national or international problems by forcing its regulatory prescriptions on the other 49,” the administration’s lawyers wrote.

In February, the justices voted to hear the case and decide whether federal law blocks state law claims for the “effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions.”

The court scheduled the case of Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil vs. Boulder County as the first of the new term.

Legal experts say the industry’s claim to be shielded by federal law is weak.

UCLA law professor Alejandro Camacho described the “preemption arguments as the latest and perhaps most ambitious effort to weaponize federal law to prevent polluters and fraudsters from paying for the harms they cause.”

Neither the Constitution nor the Clean Air Act provides such a shield, he said.

Legal experts on the other side question the notion that a public nuisance can be defined so broadly to include both the sale of a legal product and the impact on carbon pollution, much of it coming from China and India.

The outcome in the Supreme Court remains in doubt.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, left, shown with Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh in 2025, withdrew from involvement in the climate case being argued Monday, when the court term begins.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Last week, Justice Samuel A. Alito, a reliable conservative, announced he was withdrawing from the case. He did not say why, but he owns stock in other oil companies that could be affected by the court’s decision.

A broad ruling for Boulder would send a shock through the fossil-fuel industry and clear the wave of climate-change suits to proceed in state courts.

The industry may turn to Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would shield energy companies from such liability claims.

Similarly, a broad ruling shielding the oil companies probably would block all of the climate change suits, including California’s.

The justices may opt out of ruling, however.

When they granted review of the case, they asked the lawyers on both sides to weigh in on whether the high court had “jurisdiction” to decide the Boulder case.

Usually the U.S. Supreme Court reviews only final judgments handed down by state courts, and the Boulder case did not result in a final ruling.

And without Alito, the court could split 4 to 4.

A decision based on a tie vote would affirm Boulder’s early stage victory but would not set a precedent that would govern other cases.

In its new term, the court also will hear major cases on immigration and guns.

Two of the cases test the Trump administration’s strict deportation policies. One denies bond hearings to people who entered the country illegally and may be deported.

In the past, the government usually offered bond hearings to those who could be held for months or even years while their claims were pending, so long as they could show they were not a flight risk or danger to the public.

But the Trump administration said it plans to detain tens of thousands of such persons indefinitely, even if they have no criminal record and pose no risk.

Government lawyers pointed to a provision of the 1996 immigration law that said people who entered the country illegally “shall be detained.” Previous administrations applied the mandatory-detention rule only to migrants who entered the U.S. illegally and were arrested near the border.

A refinery in Carson in 2024.

(Michael Blackshire/Los Angeles Times)

On Thursday, the court announced it will hear arguments on the mandatory detention policy, likely to be scheduled for January.

The other case involves so-called “third-country removals.”

The administration is determined to deport immigrants who have “final orders of removal,” many of whom have criminal records. But in some cases, they may not be sent back to their country of origin.

The policy of sending them to a third country has been condemned as harsh and cruel. Thousands of these people have been flown to impoverished countries that are dangerous and where they may be subjected to abuse.

The administration says it seeks assurances from those countries that the deported persons will not be not be abused or persecuted, but it refuses hearings for individuals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has ruled these deportees are entitled to a “meaningful notice” of where they are being sent and “meaningful opportunity” to contest this if they have a reasonable fear they will face persecution and torture.

Trump administration lawyers filed emergency appeals at the Supreme Court to set aside Murphy’s orders. They argued that the judge had gone beyond his authority, and the court’s conservatives agreed.

In December, however, the court will hear arguments from both sides on what the law calls for in such deportation cases.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 2, the court will hear a potential landmark on gun rights and and decide whether states may prohibit possession and sale of semiautomatic AR-15 rifles.

California and 11 other blue states have adopted such laws, often in response to mass shootings.

Gun rights advocates say these rapid-fire rifles are among the most popular weapons nationwide and should be protected as lawful under the 2nd Amendment’s right “to keep and bear arms.”

After turning away cases for a decade, the justices voted to hear 2nd Amendment challenges to the laws in Cook County, Ill., and the state of Connecticut.

Israel’s top court has overturned an election panel’s ban on Arab parties contesting parliamentary elections this month, saying the decision had not met the legal requirements for excluding them, according to Israeli media.

The Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously on Friday to undo the Central Elections Committee’s disqualification of the country’s two main Arab-majority political lists – Ra’am, also called the United Arab List, and the Joint List, which is an alliance of Hadash, Ta’al and Balad.

The decision keeps Palestinian citizens of Israel, who make up about 20 percent of the population, in the race after critics accused the committee of double standards ahead of the October 27 Knesset vote.

The court also voted 7-2 to reinstate Ofer Cassif, a sitting Jewish member of the Knesset from the Arab-Jewish Hadash party and an outspoken critic of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, media reports said.

The two dissenting justices said Cassif backs “armed struggle against the state of Israel”, which is grounds for his disqualification.

In September, the elections committee voted to disqualify the Joint List and Ra’am as parties, as well as Cassif and Sami Abu Shehadeh, head of the Balad party, as individuals.

Balad leader withdraws

The Supreme Court has nearly always overruled the committee when it votes to ban candidates.

However, at a hearing on Thursday, Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit told Abu Shehadeh that a majority of the nine justices favoured disqualifying him from the election.

They gave him until Friday to withdraw, saying that if he did not, he would be disqualified, according to the Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation.

Abu Shehadeh withdrew from the election after that.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a far-right ally of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, led the push to bar him over an article written after the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Abu Shehadeh described the attack as “an important historical event” in the piece, but denies supporting it.

Balad said in a statement that a court-ordered removal, rather than a voluntary one, would have had “grave consequences for the country’s political and parliamentary life” as it would set a precedent around the removal of Arab candidates.

Double standards

The Ra’am party made history after the 2021 election, becoming the first Arab party to join an Israeli government when it took part in a disparate coalition that briefly removed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power. Most Palestinian citizens of Israel had stayed out of coalition politics until then.

In this election, Ra’am is also fielding a Jewish Zionist candidate for the first time, Yoav Segalovitz, who won popularity in Arab communities for his work to curb crime as deputy minister for internal security.

The election committee’s September vote drew accusations of a double standard, as Palestinian-led parties faced exclusion while parties led by far-right ministers, some of whom have been sanctioned internationally, stayed on the ballot.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Friday, Abu Shehadeh said he withdrew because he “didn’t have any other choices”.

Although the Supreme Court has restored the Arab parties to the ballot, Abu Shehadeh said the reversal did not make the original disqualifications acceptable.

“In the end, what happened yesterday was a historical catastrophe for democracy, or the very narrow margins of democracy in the State of Israel,” he said. “I was disqualified because I think differently, because I have a different narrative on how to read history, the present, and the future in the place that we live today.”

PHOENIX — The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Arizona’s eleventh-hour bid to block the upcoming start of a court-ordered takeover of healthcare operations in its prisons after the state was found to have provided constitutionally inadequate care to incarcerated people and dragged its feet for over a decade in making required improvements. Justice Elena Kagan denied the state’s request Thursday, leaving an outside corrections professional set to take over healthcare management for 25,000 incarcerated people on Oct. 19.

Arizona had asked the courts to delay the takeover while it appealed that decision and the appointment of former Ohio corrections director Annette Chambers-Smith to lead the effort. The state sought the delay from the Supreme Court after lower courts rejected by the request.

Over the past 14 years, Arizona has been dogged by complaints that its prison healthcare system was run shoddily and callously and that it repeatedly failed to improve a system found to have exposed prisoners to harm and preventable deaths.

Under a 2014 settlement, the state pledged to overhaul medical and healthcare services for prisoners but was soon accused of failing to make promised improvements. That led to more than $2 million in contempt-of-court fines and the eventual revocation of the agreement by U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver, who said corrections officials had shown little interest in making required changes.

After a 2021 trial, Silver ruled against the state, issuing an injunction that required corrections authorities to address the constitutional violations. Earlier this year, she ordered the takeover after concluding the state hadn’t gotten a semblance of compliance with court-ordered changes and the U.S. Constitution after more than a decade of litigation. Silver found that prisoners remained exposed to grave threats of harm and suffering because of systematic deficiencies in their health care.

The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Re-entry did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday’s decision.

In a statement, Corene Kendrick, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represents prisoners in the lawsuit, applauded the court’s refusal to delay the takeover, also known as a receivership. She said Arizona fought accountability at every turn while prisoners suffered. “Today’s decision clears the way for a receiver to do what the state has failed to do for more than a decade,” Kendrick said.

In seeking a delay, Arizona’s attorneys said Silver adopted a drastic takeover remedy without first trying intermediate fixes to speed compliance. They also said the judge hadn’t given the corrections department enough time to continue making progress and argued that the official appointed to run healthcare operations wouldn’t be politically accountable. They said the agency is committed to improving health care in prisons, has made significant progress since 2023 and that the prisoners won’t suffer harm if the start of the takeover were delayed by a few months.

Lawyers for prisoners said the state was minimizing its noncompliance, disputed its claim it had not been given enough time to comply after 14 years of litigation and said Silver had already tried less-intrusive remedies. They also said the state’s proposal of a months-long delay in the takeover “grievously minimizes” the harm prisoners face from the state’s inability to provide adequate care.

Complaints about health care in Arizona’s prisons have spanned both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The lawsuit was filed in 2012 during Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s administration and continued under Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, when both contempt fines against the state were issued. Under Ryan Thornell, the corrections director in Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs administration, the department has complained that its progress in overhauling health care operations in recent years hasn’t been acknowledged.

The lawsuit over healthcare for incarcerated people covers Arizona’s nine state-run prisons but not the nearly 10,000 Arizona inmates held in private prisons.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

Brazilian president and opposition candidate snub the final debate ahead of the presidential election.

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and his main opponent Flavio Bolsonaro have snubbed a chance at a final debate ahead of the first round of the presidential election on Sunday, while police ruled out a bomb threat outside the country’s Supreme Court.

Lula, instead of taking part in the debate, opted to appear on a popular podcast with millions of YouTube subscribers while his rival Bolsonaro accused the electoral court of “censorship” as a reason for his withdrawal.

Bolsonaro, son of the former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, said during a live broadcast on Thursday on his social media channels that his decision not to participate in the debate was due to “censorship imposed by the electoral court”.

The right-wing candidate was referring to a decision that barred the debate broadcaster from keeping President Lula’s empty seat on stage.

The debate organised by TV Globo, the country’s most popular broadcaster, was set for Thursday and offered a final opportunity for the two presidential frontrunners to face off before polls open.

TV Globo said in a statement that the debate was cancelled because two rulings, one from the country’s electoral court and the other from the Supreme Court, had created “legal uncertainty” about the event.

Lula, 80, will face off against Bolsonaro in a first-round vote on Sunday, with polls giving him a slight advantage.

The pair are neck and neck in projections for a potential runoff on October 25, however.

Bomb scare

On the same day of the cancelled debate, Brazilian police ruled out a bomb threat outside the Supreme Court.

A suspect who “tried to jump the court’s fences” and “threw a backpack on top of a bus stop” had been arrested, the court said in a statement.

Authorities examined the backpack, which ultimately contained “only personal belongings,” military police spokesperson Raphael Broocke told AFP.

The suspect will remain in custody while the investigation continues, he added.

The Supreme Court has been criticised by the political right, notably for the 2025 conviction of ex-leader Jair Bolsonaro over a coup plot.

It has also become embroiled in a fraud scandal that has dominated the final weeks of the presidential campaign.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to review a Trump administration policy denying bond hearings for immigrants as the government carries out a sweeping crackdown.

The justices will consider whether immigrants who have been living in the U.S. have a right to a hearing to determine if they should remain detained while challenging their possible deportation.

The case will test a key pillar of the Trump administration’s hard-line immigration agenda.

Most appeals courts to have considered the issue have found that it violates federal law to detain immigrants, including those living in the U.S. illegally, without a bond hearing. Those decisions conflict with rulings by the 5th and 8th circuits, which held that immigrants accused of illegally entering and remaining in the U.S. must be detained while their deportation cases are pending.

The high court agreed to hear the case of Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a citizen of Brazil. Authorities say he entered the United States illegally two decades ago and applied for asylum in 2016. He sought a bond hearing after an immigration judge determined that his detention was mandatory following his September 2025 arrest.

He has never been charged or convicted of a crime, his attorneys said. The court is expected to hear the case in the coming months.

President Trump’s administration had urged the high court to take up a different but related case that involves the broader constitutional implications of the new policy.

Attorneys from the Republican administration argue the circuits’ split is “disrupting the orderly administration of immigration law.” They say the nation’s courts have been inundated with thousands of petitions filed by immigrants challenging the government’s legal interpretation.

“The result is an unworkable patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement, where aliens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention in some circuits but are entitled to bond hearings and often released in others,” lawyers for the administration wrote.

The plaintiffs are immigrants represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which says hundreds of district court judges have joined most circuits in rejecting the Trump administration’s new reading of the statutes. Plaintiffs’ lawyers say the administration is trying to deny bond hearings for immigrants apprehended anywhere in the U.S. — no matter how long they’ve lived in the country — rather than limiting the restriction to noncitizens stopped at the border.

“Millions of noncitizens could be affected by the government’s new interpretation,” ACLU attorneys wrote.

The Trump administration says its new mandatory detention policy is legal under a 1996 immigration law. The policy change departs from the practices of prior administrations, which typically allowed most noncitizens without criminal records to request a bond hearing if they were arrested away from the border.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The case is the latest dispute over US President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case focused on the Trump administration’s policy requiring millions of undocumented immigrants to remain in detention while they fight deportation.

The case, accepted on Thursday by the justices, is the latest dispute over US President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown to reach the nation’s highest court.

At issue is whether migrants already living in the US have a legal right to a hearing where a judge can decide whether they should be released on bond from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention while their deportation cases are pending.

In July 2025, the administration introduced new guidance directing federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants without a bond hearing for the duration of their deportation proceedings, which can last for years.

The new policy, which has divided lower courts, reverses a decades-old interpretation that allowed some immigrants in the US to be released while their cases were pending in immigration court, according to Reuters news agency.

Most US federal appeals courts have ruled that immigrants cannot be detained without a bond hearing. But the 5th and 8th US Circuit Courts of Appeals have found that immigrants accused of illegally entering and remaining in the country must remain detained while their deportation cases proceed.

Trump administration attorneys told the Associated Press the split is “disrupting the orderly administration of immigration law”.

“The result is an unworkable patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement, where aliens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention in some circuits but are entitled to bond hearings and often released in others,” the lawyers wrote.

Millions could be affected

The Supreme Court case stems from a 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling involving Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national who entered the US around 2004 or 2005.

Immigration officers arrested him in September 2025 while he was driving to work in the US state of Massachusetts. He was initially denied a bond hearing under the administration’s policy but was later released on bond, according to court documents cited by Reuters.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is representing the plaintiffs, told the Associated Press the Trump administration is trying to deny bond hearings for immigrants apprehended within the US rather than limiting the restriction to noncitizens stopped at the border.

“Millions of noncitizens could be affected by the government’s new interpretation,” ACLU attorneys wrote.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on Monday, when its new term starts.

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for Tennessee inmate Christa Pike to be executed, overturning a last-minute reprieve.

The killing by lethal injection was scheduled for Wednesday morning before judges from the Sixth Circuit Appeals court halted the execution. Tennessee’s attorney general then immediately requested the Supreme Court to overrule the lower court’s stay.

Pike, 50, has been awaiting execution since she was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996 for the murder of Colleen Slemmer.

If the execution proceeds, Christa Pike will be the first woman to be executed in Tennessee in more than 200 years. It was not immediately clear when the execution would take place.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh granted the application to vacate the stay of the execution. No explanation for lifting the stay was provided in the order.

The top court’s three liberal justices – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented in Wednesday evening’s order.

Sotomayor wrote that she dissents because the decision cleared the way for Tennessee to execute Pike before her pending legal challenges to her conviction “can be properly considered”.

“Tennessee’s desire to expedite Pike’s execution by a few days or even weeks cannot outweigh her ‘fundamental interest in [her] own life,” she said.

In a ruling earlier on Wednesday, judges from the Sixth Circuit Appeals court paused the execution saying they needed more time to consider the arguments in Pike’s case.

Pike’s lawyers said that for years, the state of Tennessee argued in court that she had lied about being sexually abused as a child.

But at a recent hearing about her execution method, the state said it did not dispute she suffered sexual abuse and rape.

Pike’s legal team asked the appeals court to send her motion back to the district court, arguing that if the federal courts based their ruling on the state’s earlier claim that she was lying, then the federal review was affected.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court refused to hear a different appeal from Pike.

Tennessee governor also denied a clemency request this week from the death row inmate.

Pike was 18 when she and her then-boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, beat, tortured and murdered Colleen Slemmer, a 19-year-old they met at a job training camp for troubled teens.