Supreme

In death as in life, Parton left us one of the few spaces where Americans can still unite under a single banner. The banner of Dolly.

Flags are flying at half-mast to honor singer Dolly Parton, who died Tuesday at the age of 80.

There are few artists, let alone individuals of any stripe, whose loss compels a national day of mourning. Especially now, when it can appear there is little to agree upon and everything to debate.

But in death as in life, Parton left us one of the few spaces where Americans can still unite under a single banner: The banner of Dolly.

Her music was borderless, disarming and genuine. Simply put, it was a reflection of the woman who wrote and performed the songs. Her outsized personality, warmth, compassion and charm made her more than a country music star. Parton was an icon whose music, philanthropy and authenticity superseded genre, class, sexuality, color and politics.

She ingratiated herself to the public in bigger-than-big wigs, “trashy” outfits (her words) and with an unfailing sense of humor about herself. When I interviewed Parton in 2001 upon release of her album “Little Sparrow,” she expounded on her fashion sense.

“Just ‘cause I’m singing about a farmer doesn’t mean I have to come out in overalls,” she said. “Or just ‘cause I’m singing about a woman having a baby doesn’t mean I have to wear a maternity smock. But if I did, I’d put rhinestones on it.”

Parton’s self-effacing jokes made her immense talent less threatening in an entertainment industry that often reserved the title of “genius songwriter” for men. And women’s contributions were often minimized by putting the focus elsewhere.

In 1977, when she appeared on “The Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson,” the most powerful man on television asked what her ample bustline would have been called back home. “Healthy,” he joked? She laughed it off. He then said he would give a year’s pay to “peek under there.” She was quick with a comeback, “I paid good money for these.”

Parton was a master at meeting wisecracks about her shapely figure with her own one-liners. When Carson’s successor Jay Leno asked if her breasts were real, Parton replied, “They’re real big!”

The boob jokes were predictable during her frequent appearances on talk and variety shows. But the of-its-time sexism was neutralized when she’d pull out her acoustic guitar and perform a song as comfortably as if she were sitting on the porch of her childhood home in Appalachia. The audience was then reminded that it was her indelible songs like “Coat of Many Colors” or “Jolene,” and the home-spun beauty of Parton’s voice, that made her a star.

The fourth of 12 children born to a poor sharecropper in a one-room cabin on the banks of the Little Pigeon River in Pittman Center, Tenn., Parton over six decades sold more than 100 million records to become one of the bestselling music artists of all time. She expanded her audience when in 1980 she played an overworked, underappreciated secretary alongside Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin in “9 to 5.” The title track she wrote and performed for the film is an enduring work anthem, no matter the generation.

Despite Parton’s huge pop successes, which also included “Here You Come Again” and “Islands in the Stream,” she always came back to her roots. “When I came out of the Smoky Mountains, I tried to make a living doing [mountain music], but I couldn’t,” she said back in 2001. “I had to prostitute myself in certain ways musically in order to make a living. It’s almost like I had to get rich in order to sing like I was poor again.”

But it was largely what Parton did and said outside the recording studio and film set that made her such an inspiring and beloved figure, especially in communities that had been overlooked, marginalized or demonized.

She spent her lifetime giving back to Appalachia and other regions of her home state, sponsoring literacy programs and building the Dollywood theme park to attract tourism and create jobs. She covered tuition and related college expenses should Dollywood employees enroll in higher education. It was also reported that Parton had anonymously paid for the band uniforms for a number of Tennessee high schools for years.

When Whitney Houston popularized the country singer’s song “I Will Always Love You,” Parton used her songwriting royalties to buy property in a historically Black Nashville neighborhood, and moved her own business offices into the complex rather than in the city’s corporate or music-row districts. Functioning as a local commercial building and office space, it allowed her to invest directly in the surrounding community. Parton referred to the property as “the house that Whitney built.”

Parton was also known for her long history of openly supporting the gay community. She raised money for HIV-related charities, and her production company, Sandollar Productions, co-produced the Oscar-winning documentary “Common Threads: Stories From the Quilt,” which honored people lost to AIDS. She also publicly came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2009 and voiced her support for the trans community after several anti-trans measures came into law in Tennessee in 2023.

Communities across the political and cultural spectrum, and countries overseas, are now remembering and honoring Parton with drag parades, New Orleans brass band tributes and even a King’s Guard rendition of “9 to 5” outside Buckingham Palace.

Parton’s acts weren’t political. They were empathetic. And unifying. Even in death.

Aug. 25 (UPI) — A man is facing federal charges for forging the signature of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and impersonating a federal agent.

Joshua M. Culver was indicted Friday in the Northern District of Indiana on four counts of falsely impersonating an officer of the United States and one count of forging the signature of a judge and court seal.

He was arrested in Colorado and has been assigned a public defender there.

The indictment alleges that Culver identified himself as a National Security Agency agent on at least two occasions in September 2025. He allegedly did so at the Tippecanoe County Sheriff’s Office trying to get information about the location of a family member. The indictment also alleges that he made phone calls to someone at their employer threatening them and accusing them of breaking the law.

In January 2026, Culver allegedly claimed to be a “Special Master enforcing orders of the United States Supreme Court” to get a Lake County, Ind., judge to dismiss criminal cases and judgments against him.

He’s accused of forging Roberts’ signature and using a counterfeit seal on an order in September that told a Grant County, Ind., court to drop theft charges against him.

California Supreme Court justices hammered Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco over his seizure of hundreds of thousands of Proposition 50 ballots in a pair of back-to-back hearings on Monday, appearing poised to order the ballots returned and sharply limit the sheriff’s power to snatch similar election materials in the future.

Bianco, a Republican who came in fourth in this spring’s crowded California gubernatorial primary, carted off truckloads of ballots from the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in February, after securing a warrant based on claims that the office allowed fraudulent votes in the special election to redraw California’s congressional districts last fall.

According to a sworn declaration by one of Bianco’s sergeants, armed deputies from Riverside County’s Special Investigations Bureau, Emergency Response Team and SWAT unit were sent to sweep up pallets of sealed votes and bring them to the Moreno Valley Sheriff’s Station on Feb. 26 — a day after California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and Secretary of State Shirley Weber ordered Bianco to stand down.

In the days that followed, deputies began their own ad hoc recount — an activity they’d never been trained for, and which state officials and civil liberties groups say flies in the face of the plain language of the state’s election law that says “in no event shall ballots be moved.”

Voters sued. So did Bonta. In oral arguments on both cases Monday morning, California‘s seven Supreme Court justices appeared at times flabbergasted by claims that the move was not only permitted but blessed under state law — and that California’s top cop had no power to block it.

“I’m just wondering … why didn’t the sheriff’s office contemplate the available routes under the elections code for resolving the alleged disparity?” asked Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu. “Isn’t there a procedure for resolving this?”

“Certainly there are other paths,” said Bianco’s attorney, Bradley W. Hertz.

Hertz, who argued the sheriff’s case after Riverside’s county counsel largely sided with the plaintiffs, said Bianco simply exercised his legal discretion.

“This wasn’t come in with guns blaring and take the documents,” Hertz said.

The dispute began over handwritten notes made as part of an experimental program to increase voter confidence in the county’s election procedures. That informal tally fell about 46,000 votes short of the official count, prompting accusations of fraud.

Officials contend the discrepancy between the computer count and the paper tally is “a good deed that went punished” — the result of exhausted officials being handed an extra-credit project they couldn’t quite execute.

“It was a pilot program that the registrar implemented at the request of the public, on top of all their other duties, to do these handwritten logs to try to track 350,000 pieces of mail that come in,” said Dale Larson, who represented Riverside County Registrar of Voters Art Tinoco at the hearing.

Both times it was attempted, the hand tally produced a significant undercount, prompting officials to cancel the pilot, Larson said.

Bianco and his allies insist the difference is evidence of maleficence, and that criminal law authorizes the sheriff to sidestep the state’s detailed election code and the attorney general’s sweeping authority to get to the bottom of it.

The justices repeatedly pressed on Hertz to explain how the general authority conferred to the sheriff under criminal law could trump the specificity of the state’s election rules — a position that would seem to upend foundational rules of American law.

They also cast doubt on Bianco’s “counterintuitive” claim that Bonta’s “supervisory” role over the state’s elected sheriffs was merely advisory and did not carry the authority of law.

“It’s not just counterintiitive — again, we’ve said a million times, we’ve got to just look at the plain language,” said Associate Justice Joshua P. Groban. “Nobody would think that’s what ‘supervised’ means, so why should we think that here?”

The court battle has played out with the UCLA Voting Rights Project bringing the suit on behalf of voters, and the Riverside County district attorney’s Office and the California State Sheriffs’ Assn. backing many of Bianco’s claims.
But it has also pitted the sheriff against the registrar, who was named as a co-defendent in the UCLA suit despite siding with plaintiffs in all but a narrow subset of its claims.

In court filings, Riverside County Counsel Minh C. Tran co-signed claims that Bonta and the voters had it right, carving out a narrow disagreement over whether Tinoco should have ignored the sealed warrant and faced arrest rather than allow ballots to be taken. They also questioned whether he was obligated to go to court himself to stop the seizure.

UCLA hit back at that claim, saying it was “the responsibility of the registrar to go to jail rather than hand over the ballots.”

“I know that’s strong medicine,” said Chad W. Dunn of the UCLA Voting Rights Project. “The registrar has a duty to announce publicly and get into court immediately, or at least allow the public to get into court immediately to contest the movement of ballots before it occurs.”

The decision looms as the Trump administration has moved to restrict mail-in voting and signaled it could contest results of the upcoming midterms — partisan flash points UCLA urged the court to address.

“This is bound to be repeated again,” Dunn said. “These are the public’s ballots, that’s why the election code is crafted the way it is, so that the public have a right to weigh in.”

Aug. 24 (UPI) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled that President Donald Trump can begin implementing measures from an executive order intended to restrict mail-in voting in many states and Washington, D.C.

However, legal challenges to that order could still cause issues for that plan before the midterm elections in November.

The ruling Monday means that the Department of Homeland Security can begin moving forward with compiling state-specific lists of people it believes are eligible to vote in the states — all led by Democrats – that had challenged the executive order.

Another part of the executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to require states that want to send ballots through the mail to submit lists of eligible voters with information allowing those ballots to be tracked by the government. A lower court had blocked that policy nationwide in a separate case, meaning that more legal action will be needed before the postal service can continue.

The high court’s ruling did not address the overall legality of the executive order.

“If the Postal Service’s final rule harms the states, theymay challenge that rule,” the ruling said.

The postal service entered an unpublished version of that final rule into the Federal Register late Friday despite the court injunctions against it.

Trump has repeatedly and without evidence claimed that mail-in voting is “inherently corrupt” and full of fraud, although voting experts have criticized the order and say such fraud is exceedingly rare. The president himself has voted by mail as recently as this year, NPR reported.

The high court handed down the ruling in an unsigned order over the dissent of three of its members: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In a dissent, Jackson said the ruling “needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” CNN reported.

She noted that, in the past, the Supreme Court has turned away challenges to election law because they were too close to elections. “Today’s revelation is that such claims can also come too early — never mind that an election is looming and related harms are presently occurring.”

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court cleared the way Monday for President Trump to seek new limits on the use of mail ballots, but they are not likely to take effect this year.

Acting by a 6-3 vote, the court’s conservatives granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside a judge’s order that blocked new federal regulations on states and their use of mail ballots.

It’s not clear, however, what happens now, since the midterm elections are less than three months away.

About 30% of the nation’s voters — and 80% of Californians — cast their ballots by mail in 2024. Trump, however, has long maintained the voting by mail leads to fraud, including voting by noncitizens.

The court’s order stressed the new regulations do not put new requirements on the states this year.

Trump’s executive order “is internal directive from the President to his subordinates mandating that certain agencies pursue certain policies. It neither requires nor forbids anything of anyone outside the Executive Branch,” the court said.

The Department of Homeland Security will compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are over 18 and eligible to vote.

“States are not required to use the Lists,” the court said, although they could lead to future prosecutions.

The most disputed provision could have authorized the Postal Service to restrict mail ballots to those who are on the Homeland Security lists, but that is a future proposal, not a rule that will take effect this year.

The unsigned order spoke for the six Republican appointees. The three liberals, all Democratic appointees, dissented into two separate opinions.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Trump’s order was unlawful and should have been struck down. “It needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections,” she said.

“Today’s decision does not address whether the President’s attempts to interfere with States’ administration of the November 2026 elections are lawful,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Elena Kagan. “Nor does it suggest that the Executive Branch has any constitutional or statutory authority to implement the President’s directives. Instead, today’s decision merely postpones adjudication of those challenges.”

Trump issued his executive order on March 31 with the aim of “ensuring citizenship verification” in federal elections. California and 22 other Democratic-led states sued a few days later and said Trump sought to use the Postal Service to impose new restrictions on voting by mail. They also argued the Constitution gives states and Congress the power to regulate elections, not the president.

A federal judge in Boston and 1st Circuit Court agreed with the challengers and blocked Trump’s executive order from taking effect for the November elections.

The case on appeal was Trump vs. California because California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta was a leader of the Democratic state attorneys who sued.

Aug. 21 (UPI) — The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily allowed construction on President Donald Trump‘s White House ballroom to continue, staying a lower court injunction demanding that it stop.

In a one-page order signed by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court for now blocked an injunction issued in April by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruling that only that security-related, underground components of the $400 million project could move go ahead without congressional approval.

Leon’s ruling found that construction at the White House requires authorization from Congress and ordered the construction to halt while a legal challenge brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation plays out.

He carved out an exception for the government to continue underground work deemed necessary for the White House’s safety and security.

The administration quickly appealed that order, citing a shooting incident at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner as evidence that the 90,000-square-foot ballroom is a security necessity.

Trump, meanwhile, harshly criticized Leon, calling him an “out of control Trump hating” judge whose ruling “severely jeopardizes the lives and welfare of the people who work, and will be working, at the White House.”

The administration said in Supreme Court filings last week that construction on the ballroom is already 65% complete as a 250-person crew is working on it nearly 24 hours per day.

Leon’s ruling would “halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued, while also claiming the group does not have standing to sue.

The National Trust, meanwhile, contended the administration is illegally trying to complete construction as soon as possible in a bid to “outrun judicial review” and push the project “beyond the point of no return.”

But its efforts “to foil judicial review and arrogate Congress’s exclusive powers should not be rewarded with a stay that allows [it] to complete a ballroom [it] lacked any authority to commence in the first place,” the Trust argued.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is weighing President Trump’s claim that his new White House ballroom is urgently needed to protect him, his staff and guests from attacks by drones, terrorists and snipers.

On Friday, with a lower-court order about to go into effect halting construction on the controversial project, Chief Justice John G. Roberts decided that the court needed more time. He issued a temporary order pausing the case and allowing construction to continue while the justices decide on a pending legal challenge.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers described the East Wing ballroom as an “integrated military complex” that is “vitally required by national security.” They argued that a judge’s order blocking further construction threatened the safety of the president and must be overturned. They also said the project is nearly two-thirds completed.

At issue is whether the president acting on his own may build a huge new ballroom complex that is expected to dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

It is a confrontation over the boundaries of executive power at a moment when Trump has repeatedly tested the ability of courts, Congress and independent institutions to constrain his agenda.

Trump bulldozed the historic East Wing before the courts had resolved whether the administration had the authority to proceed, leaving opponents to argue the project could become effectively irreversible before judicial review was complete.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December and argued that the president had overstepped his authority.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon agreed and ordered a stop to the above-ground construction — that is, on the ballroom. He said the work on the underground bunker may proceed.

The U.S. court of appeals affirmed his order by a 2-1 vote on Aug. 7 but put the decision on hold until Friday. Roberts’ order did not explain the reason for the delay, or how soon the court might rule.

In a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court, Trump administration lawyers sought to refocus the case as one about national security and the president’s safety.

“Given the current unprecedented levels of danger … every day the President does not have access to the vital security features of the military complex presents unacceptable risk,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said Wednesday in his final brief to the court.

Construction continues on the White House East Wing ballroom on Aug. 20.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

The Constitution and federal law say new buildings may not be erected on public property in the District of Columbia “without the express authority of Congress.”

But acting on his own, Trump ordered the East Wing of the White House torn down in October and work began on a new and much larger building to replace it.

He said the new ballroom could provide safe and secure seating for 1,000 dinner guests. He did not ask Congress to weigh in or approve the massive project.

In defense, Trump administration lawyers pointed to an annual appropriation from Congress that funds “the care, maintenance, repair, alteration, refurnishing” and other such improvements at the White House.

They also said private donations would pay most of the $400-million cost of the new ballroom. One estimate placed the cost of the ballroom and the bunker at $600 million, with taxpayers covering half, the Washington Post reported.

The president, his family and White House employees would have secure underground space, Sauer said, while a “totally secure ballroom space” would provide a new level of protection for guests and foreign dignitaries.

Otherwise, they would be seated outside in tents on the lawn, Trump said, which was neither appealing nor safe.

President Trump speaks to the media as the construction of a new helipad on the South Lawn of the White House continues on Aug. 19.

(Alex Wong / Getty Images)

His solicitor general also argued it was too late to stop the project.

“A 250-person crew is working 20 hours a day, seven days a week to keep the project ahead of schedule and under budget,” he wrote on Aug. 13. “Today, the project is 65% complete in its entirety, and moving quickly toward total completion.”

Trump’s signature construction project has fueled accusations from his political opponents that he is abusing his power to build a lavish space for entertaining guests as ordinary Americans struggle with affordability.

In April, Republicans in Congress sought to put federal money behind the project, despite Trump’s earlier insistence that private donors would pay for the ballroom.

The effort never became law, faced with bipartisan opposition to a bill that would tie them to the unpopular project, leaving the administration to proceed with a privately financed effort whose legal authority was already being challenged in court.

The Society for the Rule of Law and a group of former White House lawyers warned the court against accepting Trump’s broad claims of power.

“Under the executive’s view, the President could bulldoze the entire White House and replace it with a new building of his own design, including a skyscraper. No other President has asserted such transformative power,” they wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.

“The invocation of national security is not a magic incantation that suspends the rule of law,” they added.

The biggest hurdle facing the challengers may be the issue of standing.

The court’s conservatives are often skeptical of lawsuits if it is not clear the plaintiffs have or will suffer a distinct injury that goes beyond their opposition to a government policy.

In this case, the National Trust said its historians and preservationists will be disturbed to walk by the White House grounds if there is a massive new structure that is not in keeping with the historic Executive Mansion.

Construction continues on the East Wing ballroom at the White House on Aug. 10, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

(Andrew Harnik / Getty Images)

“The subjective displeasure of an offended observer does not amount to a concrete injury,” Sauer said.

The D.C. Circuit judges were also split on the threshold issue of standing.

Judges Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee, ruled the suit may proceed because the plaintiffs suffered injuries to their “aesthetic, cultural and historical interests.”

Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented and said the preservationists walking by the White House would not suffer the kind of concrete injury that gives them standing.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is allowing the White House to continue construction on President Trump’s $400 million ballroom project for now.

Roberts signed a temporary order on Friday allowing work to continue while the court considers an emergency appeal from the Trump administration.

Lower courts had ordered a halt to the project, finding that it must have congressional approval. That ruling was set to take effect on Friday. Roberts signed the order because he oversees appeals of Washington-based cases.

The case comes before the nation’s highest court as Trump, a Republican, exercises unparalleled assertions of presidential power and increasingly seeks to mold the capital in his own image.

The Trump administration has scored a series of victories on the high court’s emergency docket, though the justices have ruled against some of the president’s signature policies after fuller review.

The administration has argued that the president has total authority to renovate the White House and other federal buildings as he sees fit and that the ballroom project must be completed due to national security concerns.

When Trump first announced the plans for a new ballroom, he did not emphasize national security. He said the project would be funded by private donations, including from himself.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that Trump has no unilateral authority to undertake the work, which has included demolishing the East Wing. Lawyers for the preservation group accused the White House of trying to “outrun the courts” by accelerating construction.

The Trump administration says 65% of work has already been completed on the planned 90,000-square-foot (8,400-square-meter) ballroom, where the East Wing stood before the president ordered its demolition. Crews are working 20 hours a day, seven days a week on the project, where about $200 million in private donations has been spent or committed, Justice Department attorneys said in court documents.

A district court judge ordered a stop to aboveground construction of the planned ballroom in April in a ruling that was suspended before being upheld by an appeals court panel. The order from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington allows belowground work on bunkers and military installations to continue. Leon was nominated by President George W. Bush, a Republican.

Two appeals-court judges appointed by Democratic presidents found the project was for Congress to decide and “not a matter for Executive self-help.” A third judge, appointed by Trump, found that the preservationist group that challenged the project had no legal right to sue.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer picked up on that argument, calling the decision halting the work “extraordinary and unlawful.” He said the completion of the project was “vitally required by national security.”

Whitehurst and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 17 (UPI) — A group of Texas families are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to a state law that requires public schools to post a version of the Ten Commandments in a visible spot in every classroom.

The more-than-two-dozen families of various religious faiths and none are appealing a lower court’s decision in April to uphold Senate Bill 10. The families are from 22 school districts throughout the state and are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

“Texas politicians shouldn’t have a seat at the table in deciding how our children receive their religious education,” said plaintiffs Rebekah and Ted Lowe of Austin, who are raising their children in Christian and Jewish religious traditions. “This law puts one version of religious beliefs above all other in our public schools and sends a message to our children that what we teach them about religion at home is somehow wrong.”

“I’m not only worried about my own kids, but I’m deeply concerned about all the children in my congregation,” said plaintiff Rabbi Joshua Fixler of Houston. “These displays put children in the position of having to defend themselves and their families’ religious beliefs against a government mandate that makes them feel different and separate from their classmates.”

In April, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law does not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause — which prevents the government from establishing a religion — or free exercise clause — which forbids government from prohibiting “free exercise” of religion.

“This is a major victory for Texas and our moral values,” said Ken Paxton, Texas’s Republican attorney general, after the ruling. “The Ten Commandments have had a profound impact on our nation, and it’s important that students learn from them every single day.”

However, in its release on the request Monday, the ACLU noted that a Supreme Court case in 1980 — Stone vs. Graham — already dealt with the matter of the Ten Commandments in public schools. In that case, the high court found that a Kentucky law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted in every public-school classroom was unconstitutional and violated the establishment clause.

In the filing Monday, the lawyers for the families involved said the court should again reject the idea of government-imposed religion.

“If the permanent, unavoidable imposition of biblical scripture in public-school classrooms does not interfere with, or threaten to undermine, parents’ ability to direct their children’s religious education and ot instill particular religious beliefs and practices, it is difficult to imagine what would,” the filing said.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday again rebuffed President Trump’s push to throw out a jury’s $5 million finding that he sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll at a New York City department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her.

The Republican president’s lawyers had asked the justices to reconsider their refusal to hear his appeal. The court denied Trump’s petition along with several others.

It’s unusual — although not unheard of — for the court to grant such requests. Trump paid the judgment shortly after the court declined to take up his appeal in June.

Trump and the Justice Department are also asking the high court to toss out a second Carroll verdict totaling $83 million. They argue he’s immune from being sued over comments he made about her in 2019, when he was president. The court has not yet acted on that appeal.

Carroll is a longtime advice columnist and former TV talk show host. She testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly 1990s encounter into a violent attack in the dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, a luxury retailer across the street from Trump Tower in Manhattan. The jury found Trump liable for defaming Carroll when he denied her allegation in 2022.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

The Associated Press does not identify people who say they have been sexually assaulted unless they come forward publicly, as Carroll has done.

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Caracas, August 13, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government and representatives of the defunct 2015 National Assembly announced a series of agreements after concluding a first round of talks on Wednesday. 

The two parties will conduct a process aimed at transforming the judicial system as well as promoting the recovery of Venezuela’s gold reserves frozen at the Bank of England to support the country’s reconstruction following the June 24 earthquakes.

The agreement on the judicial overhaul, presented in a joint press conference at the 5-star Melá Hotel in Caracas, effectively replaces the process the Venezuelan National Assembly had launched in May following a reform that increased the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) from 20 to 32 members and a preliminary evaluation of magistrate candidates. 

Instead, the delegations agreed to “renew and expand the judicial nominations committee,” launch a “new nomination process” for the appointment of all Supreme Court justices, and establish a council to review the credentials and requirements of nominees to ensure compliance with the Constitution.

The joint document signed by National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, on behalf of the acting Delcy Rodríguez administration, and Dinorah Figuera, representing the opposition faction, makes no reference to the National Electoral Council (CNE), an issue considered key by anti-government forces. 

Figuera had previously vowed that the dialogue process would produce a new CNE by the end of 2026. Lawmaker Tomás Guanipa said that the opposition considers it “very important” for the issue to be addressed as soon as possible in order to “radically” change the electoral authority.

The negotiators instead prioritized “the recovery of the country’s international reserve assets” held at the Bank of England, while “establishing mechanisms for transparency, traceability, and auditing in their efficient use, to guarantee the well-being of all those affected” by the June 24 double earthquake.

Since 2019, the Bank of England has refused to release 31 tons of gold reserves belonging to Venezuela, which were deposited in 2008. Successive UK governments aligned with Washington in refusing to recognize the Nicolás Maduro government as legitimate. At current gold prices, the reserves are worth approximately US $4 billion.

Wednesday’s agreement likewise included a pledge to “work on strengthening programs for housing, electricity, healthcare, and debris removal.”

Acting President Rodríguez welcomed the “first step” in the dialogue process and urged all political forces to join the talks, “putting the well-being, peace, stability, and development of the country first.”

“I trust that this process will help build a path toward better democratic coexistence among the country’s different political sectors and that it will translate into concrete benefits for Venezuelans,” Rodríguez wrote on Telegram.

Following an initial session on August 6, the delegations held daily meetings split between plenary sessions and working sessions focused on the post-earthquake emergency and judicial and electoral reforms.

Jorge Rodríguez and Figuera pledged that the talks would yield “concrete actions” with “strict compliance with commitments.” The parties are scheduled to meet again in mid-September through both in-person and virtual sessions.

Before Wednesday’s joint press conference, Figuera held separate meetings with opposition groups and NGOs. Anti-government figures demanded that the release of “political prisoners” be a priority in the dialogue framework. Far-right factions have complained that María Corina Machado was not included in the negotiations, though the Unitary Democratic Platform backing her also met with Figuera last Friday.

The latest government-opposition negotiation initiative follows previous iterations, including in the Dominican Republic (2017-18) and Barbados (2023). 

Venezuelan authorities, including Jorge Rodríguez, had fiercely condemned the defunct 2015 opposition-majority legislature for usurping functions and plundering Venezuelan assets abroad. Rodríguez went as far as proposing that Figuera and associates be stripped of their Venezuelan nationality. Despite its mandate expiring in January 2021, a group of opposition lawmakers unilaterally decided to extend the term as the body retained recognition from Washington as Venezuela’s “legitimate government.”

The Trump administration has endorsed the latest dialogue process, with the State Department calling it a “unique opportunity” for a “political transition” in Venezuela.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the White House to resume construction on its $400 million ballroom project while it appeals a lower court’s order to halt the work.

Trump’s solicitor general on Friday petitioned the high court to suspend last week’s decision by a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The divided panel ruled last week Trump must stop the White House ballroom’s construction because Congress has not approved the project. The panel’s majority said Trump doesn’t have the unilateral authority to build a 90,000-square-foot ballroom where the White House’s East Wing stood before he ordered its demolition last fall.

The lower court suspended its own ruling for two weeks to give Trump’s Republican administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court. The solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to rule on its stay petition before the appeals court panel’s decision takes effect on Aug. 21.

“This case involves an extraordinary and unlawful injunction that will halt the ongoing construction of the integrated military complex, including a totally secure ballroom space, at the East Wing of the White House, which is vitally required by national security,” the solicitor general wrote.

The lower court’s 2-1 decision sided with historic preservationists who sued to stop construction of the ballroom.

The administration argues that the president, not Congress or the courts, has unimpeded authority to renovate the White House. The current state of the project, essentially an open construction site, makes it harder to protect the White House, the Justice Department contends.

The administration also says the National Trust for Historic Preservation does not have the legal right, or standing, to sue over the ballroom.

During an appeals court hearing in early June, an administration lawyer defended a broad view of presidential control over iconic public facilities.

The government could bulldoze the Statue of Liberty and the White House, Justice Department lawyer Yaakov Roth said in response to a hypothetical question, and the descendants of immigrants who came through Ellis Island and the enslaved people who built the White House would not have standing to sue.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

The Trump administration again on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene — and fast — to save President Trump’s plan for the U.S. Postal Service to place new nationwide limits on mail voting ahead of the November midterms.

It did so after a lower court judge blocked the Postal Service plan from moving forward for a second time on Tuesday.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote to the high court that if it does not act quickly to lift both of the lower court’s “erroneous” rulings blocking the plan, those orders “will effectively run out the clock on the government’s ability to implement” the changes in time for the November election, “thereby causing irreparable harm to the federal government, the public, and election integrity.”

Sauer’s latest argument was filed in an emergency case already before the Supreme Court, in which the Trump administration is challenging a June decision blocking the Postal Service’s rule changes by U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani.

Talwani, an appointee of President Obama, ruled in favor of California and 22 other states that had challenged the new rules as coming far too late in the election year to be implemented without causing significant disruptions and harming voters. That decision, which was upheld by an appellate court in July, had barred the new measures from being implemented in the states that sued, but not elsewhere.

However, Sauer filed his latest argument in response to a second ruling by Talwani in a separate case Tuesday, in which she sided with the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups to block the Postal Service plans from moving forward nationwide.

“That it is now less than 90 days before the November 3, 2026 midterm elections underscores the critical need for an injunction to prevent Defendants from changing election rules on the eve of the election,” Talwani wrote.

The court battle follows an executive order Trump issued in March, in which he called on the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections” by compiling their own state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote and then using those lists to restrict who may vote by mail in each state.

The order said the Postal Service “shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list.”

The order was immediately slammed by Democratic attorneys general and independent voting rights groups as a ploy by the Trump administration to get its hands on state voter rolls, which it has failed to secure in separate legal challenges, and severely limit mail voting, which Trump has without evidence alleged is a major source of voter fraud.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta helped lead the states’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s order, and has praised Talwani’s orders blocking it from taking effect. Bonta has said the law is clear that states control elections, not the federal government, and that Trump’s order is an illegal and dangerous power grab ahead of a pivotal election in which the president’s party is poised to lose power.

A spokesperson for Bonta’s office said it was aware of Sauer’s filing and considering “next steps” Wednesday.

The Trump administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court is limited in scope, in that it hinges on a technical argument that the challenges to the new rules are premature — and that the Postal Service should be allowed to continue preparing for the new rules to be implemented while the legal battle over their legality continues.

Sauer reiterated that argument in his filing Wednesday, asking the high court to not only issue its order soon, but to make clear in it that not one but both of Talwani’s orders are premature.

He wrote that courts cannot block the implementation of an executive order “that merely instructs agencies to pursue a proposed policy in a manner that is consistent with law,” particularly before those agencies “actually take concrete actions that injure” the groups suing to block the order.

Therefore, Sauer wrote, it would be “prudent” for the high court to make clear that it was halting Talwani’s first order “based on the uncertainty concerning the government’s future actions, not anything specific to the individual plaintiffs” — or, in other words, on grounds that would apply to her second order, too.

He wrote that it was “critical” that the court “act promptly.”

The states have asked the high court to block Trump’s order, which they said would deny mail ballots to “many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas.”

The League of Women Voters hailed Talwani’s order Tuesday as a win for voters and for the U.S. Constitution, which it said makes clear the president does not have the authority to rewrite election rules.

“Millions of Americans, including seniors, military voters, voters with disabilities, rural voters, and citizens living overseas, rely on voting by mail to participate in our democracy,” said Marcia Johnson, the group’s chief of activation and justice. “Today’s decision reaffirms that the rules governing our democracy must be set by the Constitution and the law, not by executive overreach.”

When the high court will rule is unclear, though the emergency nature of the appeal calls for a prompt response.

Brazil’s Supreme Court is set to hear several cases that could reshape protections for the Amazon rainforest, after a mostly conservative Congress overrode several of leftist Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s environmental vetoes.

The court will take up the cases on Wednesday, as lawmakers and environmental groups remain divided over how Brazil should balance economic development with environmental protections.

Deforestation in the Amazon has fallen to its lowest level in a decade during the first half of 2026. The cases put some of Brazil’s most consequential environmental fights before the country’s top court.

Indigenous land rights

On Friday, Brazil’s Supreme Court began reviewing final motions seeking clarification of a 2025 ruling that rejected the “time limit” thesis. The legal theory, backed by Brazil’s agribusiness lobby, restricts Indigenous land claims to territories occupied or under legal dispute when Brazil’s 1988 Constitution took effect.

The agribusiness caucus argues that a cutoff date would provide legal certainty for landowners. Indigenous groups say it ignores decades of forced displacement and violence that pushed communities from their ancestral lands. Indigenous communities across the Amazon, including the isolated and uncontacted Kawahiva people, could be affected by the ruling.

The justices are considering motions that seek clarification of the court’s ruling, addressing questions about compensation and possible deadlines for completing Indigenous land demarcations.

The soya farming moratorium

On Wednesday, the court will consider a legal fight over the future of Brazil’s soya moratorium, an agreement that barred major traders from buying soya grown on land deforested in the Amazon after 2008.

The agreement has been credited with helping curb deforestation, even as Brazil became an agricultural powerhouse. But states that are major soya producers passed laws in January revoking tax incentives for participating companies, prompting the Brazilian Association of Vegetable Oil Industries (ABIOVE) to withdraw from the moratorium.

Brazil is the world’s largest producer and leading exporter of soya beans. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change has defended the soya moratorium, saying it helped reduce Amazon deforestation even as Brazil expanded production.

Environmental licensing

The court will also consider on Wednesday a challenge to a new environmental licensing law that took effect in February.

The law fast-tracks approval for projects including mines, highways and industrial plants, prompting environmental groups to warn that it could weaken safeguards in one of the world’s most important ecosystems.

Suely Araujo of the Climate Observatory said the law is already having tangible consequences in the Amazon, citing the paving of a controversial highway and plans to dredge the Tapajos River without adequate prior environmental review.

Baka’s confirmation is the latest repudiation of Viktor Orban’s legacy by Hungary’s new leaders

Hungary’s parliament has confirmed Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief and critic of former Prime Minister Viktor Orban, as the country’s next president.

The National Assembly voted in a secret ballot on Tuesday to confirm him as president with 140 votes in favour, six opposing and no abstentions.

He had been nominated on Saturday by the Tisza party, which holds a constitutional majority of more than two-thirds of parliament. During the nomination, Tisza lawmakers said Baka’s experience would represent “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Opposition party Fidesz – which dominated Hungary’s politics until a landslide electoral defeat in April – boycotted the vote. They accuse Tisza of using authoritarian tactics to reshape the country’s political system, a charge the party denies.

Baka, 73, served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009. He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. He will assume office on August 19.

Baka replaces ex-President Tamas Sulyok, an Orban appointee who weeks ago was ousted from the role by constitutional amendment, part of Tisza’s wide-reaching campaign to dismantle the political power structures built by Orban during his 16 years in power.

Tisza has also used its majority to reform the media, establish an anticorruption task force and impose an eight-year term limit on prime ministership, effectively barring Orban’s return to the office.

While Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, Baka’s is appointment is seen by many as the latest repudiation of Orban’s legacy.

Andras Baka, a strong advocate for judicial independence, becomes Tisza’s pick for Hungary’s next president.

Hungary’s governing Tisza party has nominated Andras Baka, a former Supreme Court chief removed from his post by Viktor Orban’s government in 2012, as its candidate for the country’s presidency.

The nomination, announced Saturday by Prime Minister Peter Magyar, marks the latest step in Tisza’s effort to dismantle Orban’s influence over state institutions since the party’s landslide election victory in April ended his 16-year rule.

The decision to nominate Baka for the presidency comes weeks after Tisza used a constitutional amendment to remove Orban-era President Tamas Sulyok from office.

On Tuesday, Baka, 73, is expected to be elected by parliament, where Tisza holds a constitutional majority.

Magyar wrote on Facebook that the nomination, made by secret ballot within the party’s parliamentary group, was “one of its most important decisions so far”.

Tisza lawmakers said Baka had always “attached paramount importance to the principle of separation of powers, consistently standing up for the rule of law and judicial independence”, adding that his experience represented “a significant asset” as the party lays “the foundations for Hungary’s new constitutional order”.

Fidesz, the party now in opposition, said it would boycott the vote, accusing Tisza of authoritarian tactics – allegations it denies.

Baka served two terms as a judge on the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg before being elected head of Hungary’s Supreme Court in 2009.

He was removed two years later after publicly criticising Orban’s government reforms, which he said threatened judicial independence. The European court later ruled that his dismissal had violated his rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression, a judgement the Council of Europe said Hungary failed to fully implement.

Hungary’s presidency carries mostly ceremonial powers, with limited authority to veto or refer legislation, though the nomination is being treated as a heavily symbolic move.

Aug. 7 (UPI) — Justice Samuel Alito said Friday in a rare interview that he is committed to returning for another term at the Supreme Court.

Speculation that Alito, 76, would retire swelled in June, after NPR mistakenly reported that he planned to step down at the end of this term.

On Friday, the justice put those rumors to bed.

“Obviously I’m here for another term,” Alito told The Wall Street Journal.

“It’s not pleasant, in the sense that it’s a reminder of mortality,” he said to the newspaper about questions related to his retirement.

“It’s like, what are those vultures doing up there?” the justice added. “They are flying around. But it goes with life tenure.”

Alito’s non-retirement was reported by NPR reporter Nina Totenberg, a veteran of Supreme Court coverage, on June 30.

NPR retracted the story later that same day.

Totenberg said she heard a retirement announcement while rushing out of the courtroom and mistakenly assumed it was Alito.

She called it “the worst professional mistake of my more than 50 years in journalism.”

Alito, a staunch conservative, was appointed by President George W. Bush and joined the court in 2006.

President Trump targeted birthright citizenship again Thursday by signing a pair of executive orders purporting to narrow it — including by cracking down on “birth tourism” and limiting which children born to immigrants in the U.S. qualify.

The new orders follow a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that rejected an attempt by Trump to end birthright citizenship outright.

During a signing ceremony in the Oval Office, Trump called that decision by the high court “very unfair” and said the new orders were an attempt to end birthright citizenship by other means.

“Our country suffers because of it, and we’re ending it a different way,” he said.

Trump promised “big crackdowns” on birth tourism, or the practice of pregnant foreign mothers coming to the United States, or foreign fathers using surrogates already in the U.S., specifically to ensure their children receive U.S. citizenship.

Trump said an entire industry has been built up around the practice, turning birthright citizenship into “a joke.”

“Wealthy people are building businesses around birthright citizenship. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It’s a disgrace,” he said. “They’re buying their way in, and we’re not going to let it happen.”

The orders were immediately criticized by proponents of birthright citizenship as an indefensible attempt by the president and his administration to make an end run around the Supreme Court’s clear finding that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution cannot be undone by the president.

The amendment reads in part, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In an apparent response to the president’s new orders, California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that exact language to the social media platform X. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) also responded on the platform, writing, “Trump doesn’t understand the Constitution — but the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship and equality speaks for itself.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement that Trump’s “continued crusade to end birthright citizenship is blatantly illegal,” that Democrats would challenge the orders, and that the president had “set himself up for yet another loss in the courts.”

“If you are born in America, you are American — period. The Constitution says it and the Supreme Court has affirmed it,” Schumer said.

A spokesperson for California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which successfully sued alongside other Democrat-led states to block Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, said attorneys there were reviewing the latest orders late Thursday.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which also sued to block the first order, denounced the new orders — and predicted they, too, would fall.

“The Supreme Court already decided this issue: Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution. No additional executive order can change the meaning of the Constitution,” Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. “Any executive order that tries to rewrite birthright citizenship will meet the same fate as the last one.”

Trump’s order on birth tourism defines the practice as “the entry of any foreign national into the United States via a nonimmigrant visa for the purpose of giving birth on American soil,” or “any effort by any foreign national to facilitate” such entry.

It orders the Homeland Security and State departments to ramp up controls to block such entries, including through the denial or revocation of visas and other travel authorizations for individuals suspecting of participating in such efforts.

“Foreign nationals seeking temporary admission into the United States must adhere to the purposes for which the Congress has authorized their temporary admission, and cannot be permitted to circumvent the immigration laws in an attempt to vest themselves and their children with lasting benefits that are irreconcilable with their nonimmigrant status,” the order reads.

The order purporting to limit which children born in the U.S. are eligible for birthright citizenship describes “certain categories of children” who it says “do not fall within the rule of birthright citizenship as announced by the Supreme Court.”

It orders U.S. agencies not to provide citizenship documents to any child whose parents are not citizens if either of their parents is a foreign government employee, ambassador or a member of a foreign terrorist organization; was “engaged in a commercial transaction to purchase or access birthright citizenship” for them or to ensure their mother was in the U.S. when she gave birth to them; or had paid for a surrogate in the U.S. to give birth to them.

Echoing arguments made before the Supreme Court in defense of Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship, Trump and other White House officials claimed on Thursday that birthright citizenship was only ever intended for the children of slaves.

“This was done right after the Civil War. This was for the babies of slaves,” Trump said.

Others have said that argument “disregards the historical record” — which clearly shows lawmakers understood that the amendment’s language was much broader than that.

White House officials said the orders would prevent a large number of children from receiving birthright citizenship, hailing it as momentous.

“It ends what has been one of the gravest and most egregious abuses of the American system, and it keeps American citizenship safe,” said Stephen Miller, one of Trump’s top advisors on immigration.

Asked if the new orders would withstand judicial scrutiny, Trump predicted they would, before directing the question to White House staff secretary Will Scharf.

“What we’re doing is taking legally validated means that are clearly within our disposal and targeting them square on to this birth tourism industry,” Scharf said. “There’s absolutely nothing in here that runs afoul of any of the Supreme Court’s opinions on the subject.”

Vice President JD Vance also hailed the move.

“Our immigration system has been exploited by those who treat citizenship as a commercial transaction, not a sacred bond. President Trump is taking bold steps to combat birth tourism and restore our sovereignty. A serious nation owes its citizens nothing less,” he wrote on X.

In its 6-3 decision in June, the Supreme Court rejected Trump’s first order purporting to end birthright citizenship outright, finding that the 14th Amendment — with very few exceptions — provided a right to children born in the U.S. that could not be undone by the president.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights — to freely participate in our political community,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the court. “The Framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land.’ We keep that promise today.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined Roberts in full, with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh concurring with the outcome based on separate federal law. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

The ruling was a major defeat for Trump, and was cheered by immigrant rights advocates, including many in California, as the final say on the matter — though Trump signaled almost immediately that the fight wasn’t over.

WASHINGTON  — California and 22 other Democratic-led states urged the Supreme Court on Monday to block President Trump’s plan to take control of voting by mail through the U.S. Postal Service.

They said it is too late in the election year to impose a new set of regulations for mail ballots.

Doing so, they said, would lead to mistakes, including eligible and registered voters being told they are not on the federal government’s approved list.

“Because of the high risk of errors and the limited window for correcting mistakes, many of the millions of voters who rely on mail voting — especially voters with disabilities and those in rural areas — would likely be denied mail ballots and disenfranchised,” they told the court.

More broadly, they argued that the Constitution “entrusted the states and Congress — not the president — with the responsibility to set rules for federal elections.”

The justices are likely to act in a few days on whether to allow the Trump administration‘s plan to proceed pending the adoption of new and detailed guidelines.

Last week, Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court contending judges in Boston moved too quickly to halt the administration’s new federal restrictions on voting by mail.

He argued judges should stand back for now, even though the midterm elections are only three months away.

Trump’s executive order required the U.S. Postal Service to use state-by-state lists of eligible voters who may send a ballot by mail.

Until now, states have had the constitutional authority to register voters for federal and state elections. And nearly a third of Americans now vote by mail.

Trump, however, has insisted that voting by mail leads to fraud, including by allowing noncitizens to vote.

Congress has refused to adopt new voting restrictions at Trump’s behest.

Instead, he issued an executive order on March 31 to enlist the Postal Service and the Department of Homeland Security to ensure “citizenship verification and integrity in federal elections.”

The order called on Homeland Security to compile state-by-state lists of citizens who are eligible to vote. And it told the postal service that it must use those lists to restrict who may vote by mail.

“The USPS shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals have been enrolled on a State-specific list,” the order said.

But a federal judge and the 1st Circuit Court in Boston ruled Trump’s new regulations may not be enforced this year, at least in the 23 Democratic-led states which sued.

On Monday, they told the court that USPS delivered nearly 100 million mail ballots to or from voters in 2024, with roughly 30% of all voters nationwide casting ballots by mail.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Kansas voters will decide Tuesday whether to elect state Supreme Court justices rather than have the governor appoint them, a push from conservatives who have chafed for years over court decisions they disagreed with on issues such as abortion, school funding and the death penalty.

If the constitutional amendment passes, supporters hope to elect at least four conservative, antiabortion justices to the seven-member court by 2033.

Kansas is considering the change amid concerns that increasingly contentious and expensive judicial elections in other states are making their courts more partisan and less independent. Spending in a single state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin last year topped $100 million.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a term-limited Democrat who opposes the measure, said gerrymandering and dark money have put the Legislature out of step with the state’s voters, and “to think you can make the judicial branch a part of that dysfunctional system is frightening.”

Rulings the GOP dislikes

GOP lawmakers cite rulings by Kansas courts over the last two decades as reasons a change is needed.

Most recently, a district court judge in July reinstated a three-day grace period for voters to return mail ballots after election day, which GOP lawmakers had eliminated. Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson, who is seeking the Republican nomination for governor, called the decision “outrageous” and urged people to vote yes on the ballot question.

The same judge — a finalist to fill the most recent Supreme Court vacancy — blocked enforcement of a 2025 law banning gender-affirming care for transgender minors. Masterson described him as “radical.”

The list of rulings Republicans criticize also includes rulings on education funding back to 2004. Supreme Court decisions forced lawmakers to increase funding to comply with the state constitution.

“If we elect our Supreme Court, they won’t force you to spend money on schools,” Masterson said in remarks in November to a conservative group, the Marion County Patriots for Liberty, the Marion County Record reported.

Abortion remains a key issue

Electing state Supreme Court justices gained currency among Republicans after a 2022 public vote affirming the high court’s landmark 2019 decision that Kansas’ Bill of Rights guarantees bodily autonomy and access to abortion. Total spending by both sides has exceeded $12 million.

Legislators who worked to overturn the Supreme Court’s protections, including Masterson, helped write this proposal.

Seven weeks after that 2022 vote, state Atty. Gen. Kris Kobach, then a GOP candidate for the office, told a Republican club in Wichita that electing justices would “slowly and quietly” put antiabortion justices on the high court.

The vote-yes campaign’s biggest donor — providing $1.7 million toward the campaign’s $3.7 million in spending — is a Nashville-based nonprofit that supports Republican candidates, groups and causes. Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential antiabortion group, has spent at least $87,000 in a recent 11-day span on mailers and texts.

“Kansans can bring an end to this reign of abortion by voting ‘yes,’” Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, said in an editorial written by a staffer on the antiabortion group’s website.

Meanwhile, the national and state affiliates for abortion provider Planned Parenthood contributed $1.6 million toward the vote-no campaign’s $8 million-plus in spending.

Jamie Swan, an engineer and college teaching assistant who knocked on doors for abortion rights in 2022, is doing the same to try to halt the proposal.

“I really believe that this is just a power grab,” she said.

Legislators have no say in appointments

Backers of the Kansas proposal brush aside arguments that electing the justices will give wealthy donors control over the Supreme Court.

“Globally and over history, even in its imperfection, the best system is democracy,” said Elizabeth Patton, state director of the low-tax, small-government group Americans for Prosperity, which has spent $935,000 to promote the vote-yes campaign.

Twenty-two states elect their top court’s judges, eight in partisan races. Governors in 26 states appoint them. In South Carolina and Virginia, legislators pick the justices.

Kansas elected justices for nearly 100 years before voters amended the state constitution in 1958. The governor now picks one of three finalists named by a nominating commission controlled by attorneys. Legislators have no role.

A review of every state’s current and past constitutions shows that the last state to add an amendment like the one Kansas is contemplating was Mississippi in 1914. Since then, 18 states’ amendments went the opposite way.

Voters weigh in every six years on whether a justice remains on the bench through a yes-or-no ballot question, but they’ve never booted a sitting justice. Conservatives say that means justices face no consequences for errant decisions.

Retirements and deaths on the bench allowed Kelly to appoint four of the current justices. Recently, the governor picked a district court judge who blocked enforcement of long-standing abortion restrictions in 2023.

“We don’t have a good way to fight back,” said state Sen. Mike Thompson, a conservative Kansas City-area Republican, who backs the measure.

Hanna writes for the Associated Press.

Palestine Action’s co-founder Huda Ammori has been granted permission to challenge the UK government’s decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation at the Supreme Court.

By almost every measure, Latino communities are bearing the brunt of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign, according to a new report.

The League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC, a Latino civil rights organization, found that court-sanctioned racial profiling has contributed to the disproportionate targeting of Latinos regardless of their immigration status.

“The impact of mass deportation is falling on Latinos as an ethnic group, not on undocumented immigrants as a legal category,” the report read in part. “U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, work-authorized immigrants, and multi-generational American families are absorbing measurable harm: economic, physical, and civic.”

Although other immigrant groups have been targeted, LULAC found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have mostly focused on immigrants from Latin America, particularly workers with no criminal history, who are also more likely to face violence or be placed in detention centers with substandard conditions.

Citing a recent UCLA study, LULAC said from January to October, federal immigration agents arrested more than 187,000 Latinos and deported more than 126,000.

Latino arrests also jumped from under 3,900 to nearly 6,000 after Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor and chief architect of President Trump’s immigration policy, set a new goal of arresting 3,000 undocumented people a day.

In an email response to The Times, a spokesperson with the Department of Homeland Security rejected the report’s findings.

“Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson wrote. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.”

“Law enforcement officers use ‘reasonable suspicion’ to investigate immigration status and probable cause to make arrests consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” the spokesperson added. “The Supreme Court has already vindicated us on these practices.”

LULAC’s report comes amid recent court filings claiming that federal immigration agents were caught on body camera footage and in text messages using racial slurs when referring to Latinos.

Additionally, Congress recently approved nearly $70 billion in immigration enforcement funding to cover the rest of Trump’s term with at least $38 billion to go to ICE and $26 billion to Customs and Border Protection.

LULAC said in putting the report together it reviewed public data and published studies to provide a fact sheet that paints a broader picture about the impact mass deportations are having on Latinos.

“The people being removed are disproportionately working-age, employed and without criminal records — the demographic core of the workforce in construction, hospitality, agriculture, food processing, and care work,” the report read.

As of July 11, more than 65,000 people were being held in detention and about 70% of the population had no criminal convictions, according to Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data gathering organization.

ICE detention data show that about 40% of detainees were being held for civil immigration violations including visa overstays and work visa violations.

Unless previously deported, living in the country illegally is considered a civil violation rather than a crime and carries penalties such as arrests, fines and deportation proceedings.

The indiscriminate immigration raids that terrorized Latino communities appeared to have worsened after the Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in September, according to LULAC’s report.

The Supreme Court justices overturned a district court injunction that barred immigration agents in Los Angeles from roving around Home Depots and car washes, stopping brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking day laborers and others from arrest on immigration charges.

But once the injunction lifted, federal immigration agents descended once more on Latino communities, even stopping U.S. citizens, according to LULAC.

This month, the American Civil Liberties Union reviewed more than 1,200 enforcement incidents across eight states, identifying 155 U.S. citizens who were detained, targeted, or experienced law enforcement misconduct, and 437 incidents involving likely racial profiling. It also identified 214 children affected, including 32 Americans.

LULAC said the immigration raids had an economic impact. Citing a recent UCLA study, it said small business and Latino entrepreneurs in Los Angeles County saw foot traffic drop significantly, losing millions in potential revenue in June 2025.

A spokesperson for LULAC could not immediately be reached for comment.