ReportWire

Tag: Courts

  • A New Orleans candidate’s murder conviction was tossed but the state still challenges his past

    [ad_1]

    NEW ORLEANS — NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A down-ballot race for New Orleans clerk of criminal court has turned personal and contentious, as candidate Calvin Duncan, who spent three decades in prison before his conviction was vacated, faces attacks from Louisiana’s attorney general and the incumbent clerk over whether he was truly exonerated.

    Duncan, 62, taught himself law while in prison and struggled for years access his records. He says that makes his quest to be the city’s chief criminal recordkeeper personal.

    “I don’t never want to have what happened to me happen to nobody else,” said Duncan, whose murder conviction was vacated by a judge in 2021. He’s listed in the National Registry of Exonerations alongside figures like “Central Park Five” member Yousef Salaam, now a New York City councilmember.

    But Duncan’s campaign has been overshadowed by disputes about the word “exoneration” in his case, injecting drama into the final stretch of an otherwise sleepy municipal race. Voters head to the polls Saturday.

    Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill and incumbent clerk Darren Lombard have both denied Duncan’s innocence, pointing to a 2011 plea deal for manslaughter and armed robbery that Duncan says he accepted only to secure his release. In televised debates, media interviews and campaign advertisements, Lombard has called Duncan a murderer.

    Duncan, a Democrat, accuses his opponents of trying to mislead voters. Duncan’s supporters say it’s an example of bare-knuckle politics in New Orleans, where more than 10 candidates are also running to replace term-limited Mayor LaToya Cantrell, who pleaded not guilty in September to corruption charges.

    Jessica Paredes, executive director of the exoneration registry, said there should be no doubt that Duncan’s case deserves to be listed among the more than 3,700 exonerations tracked since 1989.

    “We err conservatively to maintain the integrity of the database,” she said. “Calvin’s exoneration was not one of these close calls. His case clearly meets our inclusion criteria.”

    Duncan presented new evidence of his innocence in a 1981 fatal shooting — including that police officers had lied in court — prior to his release from prison. A judge later vacated Duncan’s conviction under a legal statute of “factual innocence” and prosecutors dismissed the charges.

    Legal scholars say there is no across-the-board legal standard for exoneration, but Paredes’ group generally defines it as occurring “when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared after new evidence of innocence becomes available.”

    Even before Duncan ran for office, his case drew scrutiny from Murrill, the state’s Republican attorney general. After Duncan earned a law degree in 2023 and sought to obtain $330,000 in state compensation for his wrongful conviction, Murrill threatened to contest his ability to practice law unless he dropped his claim for the money, according to Jacob Weixler, Duncan’s attorney.

    Murrill’s spokesperson, Lester Duhe, confirmed that account, saying Duncan “knowingly and intentionally pled guilty to this manslaughter in court.” Duncan dropped his claim to avoid any impediment to practicing law, Weixler said.

    Less than two weeks before the election, Murrill escalated the dispute, releasing a public letter accusing Duncan of “gross misrepresentation” for calling himself exonerated. On Monday, dozens of attorneys in Louisiana signed a letter rejecting her claims.

    In the legal community, Duncan had already achieved a degree of celebrity before running for office.

    He recalls in his memoir how an older inmate advised him to learn the law to save himself. With only an eighth-grade education, Duncan honed his legal skills and was allowed to help other inmates prepare court documents as part of a prison legal program.

    His persistence eventually shaped national law. Duncan was the driving force behind a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended non-unanimous jury convictions in Louisiana and Oregon, the only two states still allowing a practice rooted in the Jim Crow era, said G. Ben Cohen, an attorney in the case.

    Duncan said getting a police report, let alone a trial transcript, could take years for inmates. The New Orleans criminal court system still leans heavily on paper records, and thousands of files were lost during Hurricane Katrina. In August, troves of criminal court records were mistakenly thrown away, requiring the clerk’s office to salvage them from a landfill.

    Lombard said a new digital filing system will come online this year. He calls his opponent unqualified, while Duncan argues he would bring a unique appreciation for the weight of the office.

    “I’ve seen and experienced firsthand when a clerk office does not function properly,” he said.

    ___

    Associated Press journalist Stephen Smith contributed to this report. Brook is a corps member for The Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A Veteran Defense Lawyer Turned Judge Will Oversee the Case Against Ex-FBI Director James Comey

    [ad_1]

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Michael Nachmanoff has built a quiet reputation in the federal courthouse in northern Virginia — a onetime public defender turned judge known for methodical preparation and a cool temperament. On Wednesday, he’ll find himself at the center of a political storm: presiding over the Justice Department’s prosecution of former FBI director James Comey.

    Confirmed to the bench by President Joe Biden in 2021, Nachmanoff was randomly assigned to the case after a Virginia grand jury indicted Comey last month on charges including obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The assignment instantly drew Donald Trump’s attention. The president, long fixated on Comey, blasted him as a “Dirty Cop” and derided Nachmanoff as a “Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge” while celebrating the charges as “JUSTICE FOR AMERICA!”

    Despite the political noise, lawyers who know Nachmanoff say he is unlikely to be swayed.

    “Whatever his personal politics are, I do not think that they will enter the courtroom,” said longtime Virginia defense attorney Nina Ginsberg, who has tried cases before him. “He’s confident enough in his ability to judge fairly that I don’t think he’s going to be influenced by politics or the media coverage.”

    Nachmanoff, 57, came to the bench after more than a decade as the Eastern District of Virginia’s top federal public defender, where he argued and won a Supreme Court case that helped reduce racial disparities in crack cocaine sentencing. He served six years as a magistrate judge, handling some politically tinged cases. In 2019 he oversaw the first appearances of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Trump ally Rudy Giuliani, releasing them on $1 million bonds. More recently, he refused to block the CIA from firing Dr. Terry Adirim, a Pentagon physician targeted by Trump allies over the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

    “He was an aggressive advocate, the kind of lawyer who left no stones unturned,” Ginsberg said of the judge. She said he conducts his courtroom in an even-handed, respectful manner.

    Timothy Belevetz, a defense lawyer and former federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, said Nachmanoff was “always a worthy adversary.”

    “He’s been around the courthouse for years and years and years,” Belevetz said. “He’s very well-respected. He’s very smart, he’ll give parties a fair shake, he listens to the arguments.”

    Comey was charged late last month with lying to Congress. Days earlier, Trump appeared to urge Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute the former FBI director and other political enemies.

    Comey himself has acknowledged the political backdrop but expressed confidence in the court system. In a video after his indictment, he said: “My heart is broken for the Department of Justice but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So let’s have a trial.”

    The clash between Trump and Comey has been building for years. Trump fired the FBI director in 2017, just months into his first term, as the bureau investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election. Since then, the former president has repeatedly called for Comey’s prosecution and, in the days before the indictment, publicly pressed Bondi to act.

    For lawyers who’ve worked with Nachmanoff, that kind of political noise is unlikely to matter. They point to his long record of independence and constitutional rigor. “Federal public defenders are renowned for their fidelity to the Constitution and due process,” said Lisa Wayne, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

    She said the White House should welcome Nachmanoff’s involvement as a safeguard “against the appearance of partisan political attacks.”

    Associated Press writers Adriana Gomez Licon in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and Eric Tucker and Gary Fields in Washington contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • National Guard members from Texas sent to Ill.

    [ad_1]

    ELWOOD, Ill. — National Guard members from Texas were getting settled at an Army Reserve center in Illinois on Tuesday, the most visible sign yet of the Trump administration’s plan to send troops to the Chicago area despite a lawsuit and vigorous opposition from Democratic elected leaders.

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who has accused President Donald Trump of using troops as “political props” and “pawns,” said he didn’t get a heads-up from Washington.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 pDD@4:2E65 !C6DD D2H >:=:E2CJ A6CD@??6= 😕 F?:7@C>D H:E9 E96 %6I2D }2E:@?2= vF2C5 A2E49 2E E96 &]$] pC>J #6D6CG6 r6?E6C 😕 t=H@@5[ dd >:=6D D@FE9H6DE @7 r9:428@] %CF42C<65 t>6C86?4J s:D2DE6C $6CG:46D AF==65 😕 2?5 @FE[ 5C@AA:?8 @77 A@CE23=6 E@:=6ED 2?5 @E96C DFAA=:6D] %C2:=6CD H6C6 D6E FA 😕 C@HD] tIEC2 76?4:?8 H2D DAC625 24C@DD E96 A6C:>6E6C]k^Am

    kAm%96 vF2C5’D 6I24E >:DD:@? H2D ?@E :>>65:2E6=J 4=62C[ E9@F89 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D 2? 288C6DD:G6 :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E @A6C2E:@? 😕 E96 ?2E:@?’D E9:C5=2C86DE 4:EJ[ 2?5 AC@E6DE6CD 92G6 7C6BF6?E=J C2==:65 2E 2? :>>:8C2E:@? 3F:=5:?8 @FED:56 r9:428@ 😕 qC@25G:6H] %96 AC6D:56?E C6A62E65=J 92D 56D4C:365 r9:428@ 😕 9@DE:=6 E6C>D[ 42==:?8 :E 2 “96== 9@=6” @7 4C:>6[ 2=E9@F89 A@=:46 DE2E:DE:4D D9@H D:8?:7:42?E 5C@AD 😕 >@DE 4C:>6D[ :?4=F5:?8 9@>:4:56D]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A’D 3:5 E@ 56A=@J E96 >:=:E2CJ @? &]$] D@:= @G6C =@42= @AA@D:E:@? 92D k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A?2E:@?2=8F2C5=682=4=2D9AC6D:56?E:2=A@H6C`65aa6gh345634g5b6d35habgbfb54cdQmEC:886C65 2 4@?7=:4E H:E9 3=F6 DE2E6 8@G6C?@CDk^2m] x==:?@:D 2?5 r9:428@ 2C6 FC8:?8 2 7656C2= ;F586 E@ :?E6CG6?6 2?5 DE@A “%CF>A’D =@?8564=2C65 ‘(2C’” @? E96 DE2E6] p 4@FCE 962C:?8 @? E96:C =2HDF:E 😀 D4965F=65 7@C %9FCD52J] x? ~C68@?[ 2 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^?2E:@?2=8F2C5@C68@?42=:7@C?:2ECF>A?6HD@>b3g6`a7g5a5bh7`hd552fb552b`7`eg`Qm;F586 @G6C E96 H66<6?5k^2m 3=@4<65 E96 vF2C5’D 56A=@J>6?E E@ !@CE=2?5[ ~C68@?]k^Am

    kAm!C:EK<6C 925 AC65:4E65 |@?52J E92E x==:?@:D }2E:@?2= vF2C5 EC@@AD H@F=5 36 24E:G2E65[ 2=@?8 H:E9 c__ 7C@> %6I2D] %6I2D #6AF3=:42? v@G] vC68 p33@EE A@DE65 2 A:4EFC6 @? D@4:2= >65:2 D9@H:?8 EC@@AD 3@2C5:?8 2 A=2?6 2?5 564=2C65[ “6G6C C625J]”k^Am

    kAm!C:EK<6C D2:5 96 “=:E6C2==J 42?46=65 6G6CJE9:?8” $2EFC52J 😕 2?E:4:A2E:@? @7 2 42== 7C@> s676?D6 $64C6E2CJ !6E6 w68D6E9]k^Am

    kAm“%96J 92G6 ?@E A:4<65 FA E96 A9@?6 2?5 42==65 >6] }@E @?46[” !C:EK<6C D2:5 %F6D52J 2E 2 82E96C:?8 @7 3FD:?6DD[ 4F=EFC2= 2?5 A@=:E:42= =6256CD 😕 |:??62A@=:D]k^Am

    kAm%96 ?62C=J `d_J62C@=5 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^A@DD64@>:E2EFD24EECF>A?2E:@?2=8F2C542=:7@C?:2_7habh6fe2d233a6a2`3fc36agc62g7gQm!@DD6 r@>:E2EFD p4Ek^2m =:>:ED E96 >:=:E2CJ’D C@=6 😕 6?7@C4:?8 5@>6DE:4 =2HD] w@H6G6C[ %CF>A 92D D2:5 96 H@F=5 36 H:==:?8 E@ :?G@<6 E96 x?DFCC64E:@? p4E[ H9:49 2==@HD 2 AC6D:56?E E@ 5:DA2E49 24E:G6 5FEJ >:=:E2CJ 😕 DE2E6D E92E 2C6 F?23=6 E@ AFE 5@H? 2? :?DFCC64E:@? @C 2C6 567J:?8 7656C2= =2H]k^Am

    kAm%96 u656C2= pG:2E:@? p5>:?:DEC2E:@? k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^E7C]722]8@G^E7Cb^nA286l56E2:=0d0fcf_Qm@C56C65 7=:89E C6DEC:4E:@?Dk^2m @G6C E96 pC>J #6D6CG6 r6?E6C 7@C D64FC:EJ C62D@?D F?E:= s64] e]k^Am

    kAm#@36CE w2CE=6J[ ea[ H9@ H@CAj |@C6 ?62C E96 D:E6[ D2:5 96 92D 5@F3ED 23@FE AFEE:?8 E96 vF2C5 @? 5FEJ]k^Am

    kAm“x E9:?< E96 AC6D:56?E >:89E 36 @G6CDE6AA:?8 9:D 3@F?52C:6D[” w2CE=6J D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 D:89E @7 2C>65 q@C56C !2EC@= 286?ED k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^49:428@:>>:8C2E:@?7656C2=2CC6DED96=:4@AE6CECF>A:46g537egg7fg7b3e5`3g753hghddf3ag4cQm>2<:?8 2CC6DED ?62C 72>@FD =2?5>2CA=:7:65 4@?46C?D 7C@> r9:428@2?D k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^:>>:8C2E:@?ECF>A49:428@A2DDA@CEDga6`fd6h2hg3e5f3dbc7bdhd_`ee7f4cQm2=C625J F?62DJk^2m 27E6C 2? :>>:8C2E:@? 4C24<5@H? E92E 3682? =2DE >@?E9] p86?ED 92G6 E2C86E65 :>>:8C2?E962GJ 2?5 =2C86=J {2E:?@ 2C62D]k^Am

    kAmr9:428@ |2J@C qC2?5@? y@9?D@? D:8?65 2? 6I64FE:G6 @C56C |@?52J 32CC:?8 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 286?ED 2?5 @E96CD 7C@> FD:?8 4:EJ@H?65 AC@A6CEJ[ DF49 2D A2C<:?8 =@ED[ 82C286D 2?5 G242?E =@ED[ 2D DE28:?8 2C62D 7@C 6?7@C46>6?E @A6C2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAmx? |6>A9:D[ %6??6DD66[ A@=:46 r9:67 r6C6=J? s2G:D D2:5 vF2C5 EC@@AD 4@F=5 2CC:G6 3J uC:52J] $96 D2:5 2 D>2== 8C@FA @7 4@>>2?56CD H6C6 2=C625J 😕 E96 4:EJ[ H@C<:?8 @? A=2??:?8 2?5 =@8:DE:4D]k^Am

    kAm#6AF3=:42? v@G] q:== {66[ H9@ DFAA@CED E96 677@CE[ 92D D2:5 E96 EC@@AD H:== 36 56AFE:K65 3J E96 &]$] |2CD92=D $6CG:46 E@ “A=2J 2 4C:E:42= DFAA@CE C@=6” 7@C =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E[ E9@F89 E92E C@=6 92D?’E 366? AC64:D6=J 567:?65 J6E]k^Am

    kAm$:?46 DE2CE:?8 9:D D64@?5 E6C>[ %CF>A 92D D6?E @C E2=<65 23@FE D6?5:?8 EC@@AD E@ `_ 4:E:6D[ :?4=F5:?8 q2=E:>@C6j |6>A9:Dj E96 s:DEC:4E @7 r@=F>3:2j }6H ~C=62?Dj 2?5 E96 r2=:7@C?:2 4:E:6D @7 ~2<=2?5[ $2? uC2?4:D4@ 2?5 {@D p?86=6D]k^Am

    kAm|@DE G:@=6?E 4C:>6 2C@F?5 E96 &]$] k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A?2E:@?2=8F2C54C:>6DE2EDha66dfd4_5ccdba_22ebb7e236a2ae3hQm92D 564=:?65k^2m 😕 C646?E J62CD] x? r9:428@[ 9@>:4:56D H6C6 5@H? b`T E@ afg E9C@F89 pF8FDE[ A@=:46 52E2 D9@HD] !@CE=2?5’D 9@>:4:56D 7C@> y2?F2CJ E9C@F89 yF?6 564C62D65 3J d`T E@ `f E9:D J62C 4@>A2C65 H:E9 E96 D2>6 A6C:@5 😕 a_ac]k^Am

    kAmx? !@CE=2?5[ 2 &]$] x>>:8C2E:@? 2?5 rFDE@>D t?7@C46>6?E 724:=:EJ 92D 366? E96 D:E6 @7 ?:89E=J AC@E6DED 7@C >@?E9D[ A62<:?8 😕 yF?6 H96? =@42= A@=:46 564=2C65 2 C:@E[ H:E9 D>2==6C 4=2D96D @44FCC:?8 D:?46 E96?] ~G6C E96 H66<6?5[ =2C86C 4C@H5D 82E96C65 @FED:56 E96 724:=:EJ[ 2?5 7656C2= 286?ED 7:C65 E62C 82D]k^Am

    kAmp? 2AA62=D 4@FCE 92D D4965F=65 2C8F>6?ED 7@C %9FCD52J 😕 E96 8@G6C?>6?E’D 3:5 E@ @G6C4@>6 2 =@H6C 4@FCE’D CF=:?8D 2?5 56A=@J E96 vF2C5 😕 !@CE=2?5]k^Am

    kAm~C68@? s6>@4C2E:4 v@G] %:?2 z@E6< D2:5 D96 >6E %F6D52J H:E9 s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ $64C6E2CJ zC:DE: }@6> 2?5 E@=5 96C E96C6’D “?@ :?DFCC64E:@?” 😕 E96 DE2E6]k^Am

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By ERIN HOOLEY and CHRISTINE FERNANDO – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Argentine Court Approves Extradition to US of Businessman Linked to Milei Ally

    [ad_1]

    BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — Argentina’s top court on Tuesday approved the extradition of an Argentine businessman to face drug trafficking and money laundering charges in the United States, the latest development in a politically explosive case that has tainted a key ally of President Javier Milei.

    The Argentine Supreme Court ruled that the businessman, Fred Machado, should be handed over to American authorities in Texas, where a Justice Department indictment for drug trafficking, money laundering, wire fraud and other financial misdeeds stands against him. Machado denies the charges.

    Since Milei took office in 2023, he has imposed a sweeping austerity program aimed at balancing Argentina’s budget for the first time in decades, but recent political scandals have threatened his political agenda.

    Machado, who has been in custody in Argentina since 2021, is the center of the latest controversy. His long-running case sparked a media firestorm last week when documents surfaced showing that Machado had sent a $200,000 payment in 2020 to a member of Milei’s Libertad Avanza party, José Luis Espert.

    Espert, one of Milei’s top candidates for upcoming Oct. 26 midterm elections, admitted accepting the money in a social media video posted Thursday, claiming it was for consulting work to help a mining company linked to Machado. He denied knowledge of Machado’s allegedly illicit activities.

    Espert, a current lawmaker and economist, withdrew his candidacy Sunday for Milei’s libertarian party in Buenos Aires Province.

    “I have nothing to hide and I will prove my innocence before the courts,” Espert said in announcing his resignation, acknowledging that he took over a dozen trips on Machado’s planes, which U.S. authorities say were registered illegally. “Time will show that all of this was a big lie to taint this electoral process.”

    Milei seeks to expand his party’s tiny congressional minority in upcoming midterm elections as he struggles to push through his radical overhaul of Argentina’s long-troubled economy and reassure jittery investors.

    Milei, who is set to visit Trump at the White House on Oct. 14, told local media last week that he was “working on the details.”

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Abortion Providers Say Missouri’s Attorney General Is Trying to Get Patient Records

    [ad_1]

    Missouri’s Republican attorney general is trying to get the medical records of Planned Parenthood patients who’ve had abortions, officials who oversee clinics in Kansas City and St. Louis said in legal filings.

    The fight over the subpoenas is playing out in a lawsuit filed last year by Planned Parenthood Great Plains, the abortion provider’s affiliate for Kansas City, and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, the affiliate for St. Louis. Planned Parenthood officials argue that the state’s restrictions violate an amendment to the Missouri Constitution narrowly approved by voters in November to protect abortion rights.

    The Missouri attorney general’s office issued subpoenas starting in late August to two employees of the Kansas City Planned Parenthood affiliate, a physician contracting with it, and two former board members of the St. Louis-area Planned Parenthood affiliate, according to Planned Parenthood court filings last month. One filing seeking to quash the subpoenas said the attorney general demanded patient records, reports on adverse events and communications about patient care, along with clinical protocols, equipment maintenance records, contract documents and records related to compliance with state requirements.

    “Despite the Missouri Attorney General’s blatant attempts to overturn the will of the people, all patients expect and have the right for their medical records to be private,” the two affiliates said in a joint statement Tuesday. “Politicians have no place in the exam room with patients and their medical providers.”

    Attorney General Catherine Hanaway’s office did not immediately respond to an email Tuesday requesting comment. But in a filing in June, the state questioned Planned Parenthood officials’ repeated statements that “abortion rarely involves medical complications” and that state requirements do not improve patients’ health.

    “The purpose of litigation is to ‘ascertain the truth,’” the filing said.

    Abortion policy has been in flux nationally since the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to enforce bans. Twelve states now ban abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with limited exception, and women now are more likely to cross state lines for abortions or to obtain them via pills shipped in by prescribers elsewhere.

    A multiyear legal battle has seen Missouri swing back and forth between banning and allowing most abortions. Before last year’s ballot question, the state had a near-total ban.

    In July, Jackson County Circuit Court Judge Jerri Zhang, in Kansas City, blocked enforcement of many of the restrictions while the lawsuit proceeds, including licensing requirements and a 72-hour waiting period for abortions.

    Planned Parenthood clinics are doing procedural abortions in St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia, home to the University of Missouri’s main campus. Planned Parenthood Great Plains also has two clinics performing abortions on the Kansas side of the Kansas City metropolitan area.

    The Republican-led Legislature wants to return to a ban, with exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. It approved a proposed constitutional amendment in May to do that, but the explanation for voters that lawmakers wanted on the ballot in 2026 became tied up in another lawsuit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court the state capital of Jefferson City by a doctor who championed last year’s ballot question.

    Cole County Judge Daniel Green ruled last month that summary originally written by lawmakers was unfair and failed to tell voters they would be repealing last year’s measure. He ordered Missouri’s secretary of state to rewrite it.

    The revision Green approved Tuesday notes that the new measure would “Repeal Article I, section 36, approved in 2024,” but it doesn’t explain what that entails.

    Associated Press journalist David A. Lieb also contributed from Jefferson City, Missouri.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Deloitte to partially refund Australia for report with apparent AI-generated errors

    [ad_1]

    MELBOURNE, Australia — MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — Deloitte Australia will partially refund the 440,000 Australian dollars ($290,000) paid by the Australian government for a report that was littered with apparent AI-generated errors, including a fabricated quote from a federal court judgment and references to nonexistent academic research papers.

    The financial services firm’s report to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations was originally published on the department’s website in July. A revised version was published Friday after Chris Rudge, a Sydney University researcher of health and welfare law, said he alerted the media that the report was “full of fabricated references.”

    Deloitte had reviewed the 237-page report and “confirmed some footnotes and references were incorrect,” the department said in a statement Tuesday.

    “Deloitte had agreed to repay the final instalment under its contract,” the department said. The amount will be made public after the refund is reimbursed.

    Asked to comment on the report’s inaccuracies, Deloitte told The Associated Press in a statement the “matter has been resolved directly with the client.”

    Deloitte did not respond when asked if the errors were generated by AI.

    A tendency for generative AI systems to fabricate information is known as hallucination.

    The report reviewed departmental IT systems’ use of automated penalties in Australia’s welfare system. The department said the “substance” of the report had been maintained and there were no changes to its recommendations.

    The revised version included a disclosure that a generative AI language system, Azure OpenAI, was used in writing the report.

    Quotes attributed to a federal court judge were removed, as well as references to nonexistent reports attributed to law and software engineering experts.

    Rudge said he found up to 20 errors in the first version of the report.

    The first error that jumped out at him wrongly stated that Lisa Burton Crawford, a Sydney University professor of public and constitutional law, had written a nonexistent book with a title suggesting it was outside her field of expertise.

    “I instantaneously knew it was either hallucinated by AI or the world’s best kept secret because I’d never heard of the book and it sounded preposterous,” Rudge said.

    Work by his academic colleagues had been used as “tokens of legitimacy,” cited by the report’s authors but not read, Rudge said, addding that he considered misquoting a judge was a more serious error in a report that was effectively an audit of the department’s legal compliance.

    “They’ve totally misquoted a court case then made up a quotation from a judge and I thought, well hang on: that’s actually a bit bigger than academics’ egos. That’s about misstating the law to the Australian government in a report that they rely on. So I thought it was important to stand up for diligence,” Rudge said.

    Senator Barbara Pocock, the Australian Greens party’s spokesperson on the public sector, said Deloitte should refund the entire AU$440,000 ($290,000).

    Deloitte “misused AI and used it very inappropriately: misquoted a judge, used references that are non-existent,” Pocock told Australian Broadcasting Corp. “I mean, the kinds of things that a first-year university student would be in deep trouble for.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s Play Store shake-up looms after court refuses to delay overhaul of monopoly

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to protect Google from a year-old order requiring a major makeover of its Android app store that’s designed to unleash more competition against a system that a jury declared an illegal monopoly.

    The rebuff delivered in a one-sentence decision by the Supreme Court means Google will soon have to start an overhaul of its Play Store for the apps running on the Android software that powers most smartphones that compete against Apple’s iPhone in the U.S.

    Among other changes, U.S. District Judge James Donato last October ordered Google to give its competitors access to its entire inventory of Android apps and also make those alternative options available to download from the Play Store.

    In a filing last month, Google told the U.S. Supreme Court that Donato’s order would expose the Play Store’s more than 100 million U.S. users to “enormous security and safety risks by enabling stores that stock malicious, deceptive, or pirated content to proliferate.”

    Google also said it faced an Oct. 22 deadline to begin complying with the judge’s order if the Supreme Court didn’t grant its request for a stay. The Mountain View, California, company was seeking the protection while pursuing a last-ditch attempt to overturn the December 2023 jury verdict that condemned the Play Store as an abusive monopoly.

    In a statement, Google said it will continue its fight in the Supreme Court while submitting to what it believes is a problematic order. “The changes ordered by the U.S. District Court will jeopardize users’ ability to safely download apps,” Google warned.

    Google had been insulated from the order while trying to overturn it and the monopoly verdict, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that attempt in a decision issued two months ago.

    In its filing with the Supreme Court, Google argued it was being unfairly turned into a supplier and distributor for would-be rivals.

    Donato concluded the digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition needed to be torn down to counteract a pattern of abusive behavior. The conduct had enabled Google to to reap billions of dollars in annual profits, primarily from its exclusive control of a payment processing system that collected a 15-30% fee on in-app transactions.

    Those commissions were the focal point of an antitrust lawsuit that video game maker Epic Games filed against Google in 2020, setting up a month-long trial in San Francisco federal court that culminated in the jury’s monopoly verdict.

    Epic, the maker of the Fortnite game, lost a similar antitrust case targeting Apple’s iPhone app store. Even though U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rodgers concluded the iPhone app store wasn’t an illegal monopoly, she ordered Apple to begin allowing links to alternative payment systems as part of a shake-up that resulted in the company being held in civil contempt of court earlier this year.

    In a post, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney applauded the Supreme Court for clearing the way for consumers to choose alternative app payment choices “without fees, scare screens, and friction.”

    Although the Play Store changes will likely dent Google’s profit, the company makes most of its money from a digital ad network that’s anchored by its dominant search engine — the pillars of an internet empire that has been under attack on other legal fronts.

    As part of cases brought by the U.S. Justice Department, both Google’s search engine and parts of its advertising technology were declared illegal monopolies, too.

    A federal judge in the search engine case earlier this year rejected a proposed break-up outlined by the Justice Department i n a decision that was widely seen as a reprieve for Google. The government is now seeking to break up Google in the advertising technology case during proceedings that are scheduled to wrap up with closing arguments on Nov. 17 in Alexandria, Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s Play Store shake-up looms after Supreme Court refuses to delay overhaul of the monopoly

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to protect Google from a year-old order requiring a major makeover of its Android app store that’s designed to unleash more competition against a system that a jury declared an illegal monopoly.

    The rebuff delivered in a one-sentence decision by the Supreme Court means Google will soon have to start an overhaul of its Play Store for the apps running on the Android software that powers most smartphones that compete against Apple’s iPhone in the U.S.

    Among other changes, U.S. District Judge James Donato last October ordered Google to give its competitors access to its entire inventory of Android apps and also make those alternative options available to download from the Play Store.

    In a filing last month, Google told the U.S. Supreme Court that Donato’s order would expose the Play Store’s more than 100 million U.S. users to “enormous security and safety risks by enabling stores that stock malicious, deceptive, or pirated content to proliferate.”

    Google also said it faced an Oct. 22 deadline to begin complying with the judge’s order if the Supreme Court didn’t grant its request for a stay. The Mountain View, California, company was seeking the protection while pursuing a last-ditch attempt to overturn the December 2023 jury verdict that condemned the Play Store as an abusive monopoly.

    In a statement, Google said it will continue its fight in the Supreme Court while submitting to what it believes is a problematic order. “The changes ordered by the U.S. District Court will jeopardize users’ ability to safely download apps,” Google warned.

    Google had been insulated from the order while trying to overturn it and the monopoly verdict, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that attempt in a decision issued two months ago.

    In its filing with the Supreme Court, Google argued it was being unfairly turned into a supplier and distributor for would-be rivals.

    Donato concluded the digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition needed to be torn down to counteract a pattern of abusive behavior. The conduct had enabled Google to to reap billions of dollars in annual profits, primarily from its exclusive control of a payment processing system that collected a 15-30% fee on in-app transactions.

    Those commissions were the focal point of an antitrust lawsuit that video game maker Epic Games filed against Google in 2020, setting up a month-long trial in San Francisco federal court that culminated in the jury’s monopoly verdict.

    Epic, the maker of the Fortnite game, lost a similar antitrust case targeting Apple’s iPhone app store. Even though U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rodgers concluded the iPhone app store wasn’t an illegal monopoly, she ordered Apple to begin allowing links to alternative payment systems as part of a shake-up that resulted in the company being held in civil contempt of court earlier this year.

    In a post, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney applauded the Supreme Court for clearing the way for consumers to choose alternative app payment choices “without fees, scare screens, and friction.”

    Although the Play Store changes will likely dent Google’s profit, the company makes most of its money from a digital ad network that’s anchored by its dominant search engine — the pillars of an internet empire that has been under attack on other legal fronts.

    As part of cases brought by the U.S. Justice Department, both Google’s search engine and parts of its advertising technology were declared illegal monopolies, too.

    A federal judge in the search engine case earlier this year rejected a proposed break-up outlined by the Justice Department i n a decision that was widely seen as a reprieve for Google. The government is now seeking to break up Google in the advertising technology case during proceedings that are scheduled to wrap up with closing arguments on Nov. 17 in Alexandria, Virginia.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can ban conversion therapy for LBGTQ+ kids

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will hear arguments in its latest LGBTQ+ rights case Tuesday, weighing the constitutionality of bans passed by nearly half of U.S. states on the practice known as conversion therapy for children.

    The justices are hearing a lawsuit from a Christian counselor challenging a Colorado law that prohibits therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation or gender identity. Kaley Chiles, with support from President Donald Trump’s Republican administration, argues the law violates her freedom of speech by barring her from offering voluntary, faith-based therapy for kids.

    Colorado, on the other hand, says the measure simply regulates licensed therapists by barring a practice that’s been scientifically discredited and linked to serious harm.

    The arguments come months after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority found states can ban transition-related health care for transgender youths, a setback for LGBTQ rights. The justices are also expected to hear a case about sports participation by transgender players this term.

    Colorado has not sanctioned anyone under the 2019 law, which exempts religious ministries. State attorneys say it still allows any therapist to have wide-ranging, faith-based conversations with young patients about gender and sexuality.

    “The only thing that the law prohibits therapists from doing is performing a treatment that seeks the predetermined outcome of changing a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity because that treatment is unsafe and ineffective,” Colorado state attorneys wrote.

    Therapy isn’t just speech, they said — it’s health care that governments have a responsibility to regulate. Violating the law carries potential fines of $5,000 and license suspension or even revocation.

    Linda Robertson is a Christian mom of four from Washington state whose son Ryan underwent therapy that promised to change his sexual orientation after he came out to her at age 12. The techniques led him to blame himself when it didn’t work, leaving him ashamed and depressed. He died in 2009, after multiple suicide attempts and a drug overdose at age 20.

    “What happened in conversion therapy, it devastated Ryan’s bond with me and my husband,” she said. “And it absolutely destroyed his confidence he could ever be loved or accepted by God.”

    Chiles contends her approach is different from the kind of conversion therapy once associated with practices like shock therapy decades ago. She said she believes “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” and she argues evidence of harm from her approach is lacking.

    Chiles says Colorado is discriminating because it allows counselors to affirm minors coming out as gay or identifying as transgender but bans counseling like hers for young patients who may want to change their behavior or feelings. “We’re not saying this counseling should be mandatory, but if someone wants the counseling they should be able to get it,” said one of her attorneys, Jonathan Scruggs.

    The Trump administration said there are First Amendment issues with Colorado’s law that should make the law subject to a higher legal standard that few measures pass.

    Chiles is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that has appeared frequently at the court in recent years. The group also represented a Christian website designer who doesn’t want to work with same-sex couples and successfully challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law in 2023.

    The group’s argument in the conversion therapy case also builds on another victory from 2018: A Supreme Court decision found California could not force state-licensed anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion. Chiles should also be free from that kind of state regulation, the group argued.

    Still, the Supreme Court has also found that regulations that only “incidentally” burden speech are permissible, and the state argues that striking down its law against conversion therapy would undercut states’ ability to regulate discredited health care of all kids.

    The high court agreed to hear the case after the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver upheld the law. Another appeals court, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, has struck down similar bans in Florida.

    Legal wrangling has continued elsewhere as well. In Wisconsin, the state’s highest court recently cleared the way for the state to enforce its ban. Virginia officials, by contrast, have agreed to scale back the enforcement of its law as part of an agreement with a faith-based conservative group that sued.

    ___

    Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Google’s Play Store Shake-Up Looms After Supreme Court Refuses to Delay Overhaul of the Monopoly

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to protect Google from a year-old order requiring a major makeover of its Android app store that’s designed to unleash more competition against a system that a jury declared an illegal monopoly.

    The rebuff delivered in a one-sentence decision by the Supreme Court means Google will soon have to start an overhaul of its Play Store for the apps running on the Android software that powers most smartphones that compete against Apple’s iPhone in the U.S.

    Among other changes, U.S. District Judge James Donato last October ordered Google to give its competitors access to its entire inventory of Android apps and also make those alternative options available to download from the Play Store.

    In a filing last month, Google told the U.S. Supreme Court that Donato’s order would expose the Play Store’s more than 100 million U.S. users to “enormous security and safety risks by enabling stores that stock malicious, deceptive, or pirated content to proliferate.”

    Google also said it faced an Oct. 22 deadline to begin complying with the judge’s order if the Supreme Court didn’t grant its request for a stay. The Mountain View, California, company was seeking the protection while pursuing a last-ditch attempt to overturn the December 2023 jury verdict that condemned the Play Store as an abusive monopoly.

    In a statement, Google said it will continue its fight in the Supreme Court while submitting to what it believes is a problematic order. “The changes ordered by the U.S. District Court will jeopardize users’ ability to safely download apps,” Google warned.

    Google had been insulated from the order while trying to overturn it and the monopoly verdict, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that attempt in a decision issued two months ago.

    In its filing with the Supreme Court, Google argued it was being unfairly turned into a supplier and distributor for would-be rivals.

    Donato concluded the digital walls shielding the Play Store from competition needed to be torn down to counteract a pattern of abusive behavior. The conduct had enabled Google to to reap billions of dollars in annual profits, primarily from its exclusive control of a payment processing system that collected a 15-30% fee on in-app transactions.

    Those commissions were the focal point of an antitrust lawsuit that video game maker Epic Games filed against Google in 2020, setting up a month-long trial in San Francisco federal court that culminated in the jury’s monopoly verdict.

    Epic, the maker of the Fortnite game, lost a similar antitrust case targeting Apple’s iPhone app store. Even though U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rodgers concluded the iPhone app store wasn’t an illegal monopoly, she ordered Apple to begin allowing links to alternative payment systems as part of a shake-up that resulted in the company being held in civil contempt of court earlier this year.

    In a post, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney applauded the Supreme Court for clearing the way for consumers to choose alternative app payment choices “without fees, scare screens, and friction.”

    Although the Play Store changes will likely dent Google’s profit, the company makes most of its money from a digital ad network that’s anchored by its dominant search engine — the pillars of an internet empire that has been under attack on other legal fronts.

    A federal judge in the search engine case earlier this year rejected a proposed break-up outlined by the Justice Department i n a decision that was widely seen as a reprieve for Google. The government is now seeking to break up Google in the advertising technology case during proceedings that are scheduled to wrap up with closing arguments on Nov. 17 in Alexandria, Virginia.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Is Ghislaine Maxwell’s Last Chance at Freedom a Presidential Pardon?

    [ad_1]

    Toying more freely with his pardon powers in an untethered second term, he told reporters outside the White House in July, “I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I have not thought about.”

    On Monday, speaking in the Oval Office hours after the Supreme Court news broke, the answer evolved again. “I haven’t heard the name in so long,” Trump said. “I can say this, that I’d have to take a look at it.”

    “I will speak to the DOJ,” he added, noting that he has “a lot of people who have asked me for pardons,” including Diddy.

    Days after Justice Department lawyers asked the Supreme Court to reject Markus’s petition in July, the agency held an unusual interview with Maxwell. She and Markus met with Todd Blanche, the department’s number two official and Trump’s lead lawyer in his New York hush money trial last year, in a Florida courthouse for two days. About a week later, she was moved to a lower-security Texas prison. When the interview tapes were released in August, they revealed the most extensive record to date of Maxwell’s speaking voice; her insistence, immediately broadcast across MAGA-friendly social media accounts, that she had never seen Trump do anything wrong; and perhaps not much else.

    “I wish I could respond to those critics,” Markus told me in August when I raised to him the prevailing concerns about a quid pro quo. “But we’re just not going to comment on that.”

    For the large and vocal community of Maxwell-watchers across social media, the intrigue surrounding a potential pardon continues to percolate. Lady Victoria Hervey, a former girlfriend of Prince Andrew and Mar-a-Lago regular who knew Maxwell from the ’90s London party scene, told me in July that “the only way to really deal with this situation” is to allow Maxwell to “have her voice.” I asked her on Monday if she still thought, as she had mentioned a few times, that a pardon was in the works.

    “I think it’s highly possible,” Hervey said.

    [ad_2]

    Dan Adler

    Source link

  • Democratic governors vow court fight as Trump sends National Guard members to Oregon

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump is sending California and Texas National Guard members to Oregon after a judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying that state’s guard to Portland, and the Democratic governors of California and Oregon pledged Sunday to fight the move in court.

    Oregon and California were awaiting a federal judge’s hearing on their request for an order to temporarily block the Trump administration from deploying California National Guard troops in Portland, Oregon. The same judge blocked the administration from deploying Oregon National Guard troops in Portland on Saturday.

    A Pentagon spokesperson said in a statement that about 200 federalized members of the California National Guard who had been on duty around Los Angeles were being reassigned to Portland. Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek said about 100 arrived Saturday and around 100 more were en route Sunday.

    Kotek said there had been no formal communication with the federal government about the deployment. California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said about 300 previously federalized California guard members could eventually be deployed.

    Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote in a memo that was submitted to the court that up to 400 Texas National Guard personnel were being activated for deployment to Oregon, Illinois and possibly elsewhere.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in a post on X Sunday night that he had authorized the call-up. “You can either fully enforce protection for federal employees or get out of the way and let Texas Guard do it,” he wrote.

    The events in Oregon come a day after Illinois’ governor made a similar announcement about troops in his state being activated.

    Kotek said the latest move by federal officials is an attempt to circumvent Saturday’s court ruling that blocked deployment of Oregon’s guard members.

    “The facts on the ground in Oregon haven’t changed,” Kotek said during a news conference Sunday. “There’s no need for military intervention in Oregon. There’s no insurrection in Portland, there’s no threat to national security.”

    Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said his state, along with the city of Portland and California, is seeking an amended temporary restraining order against the deployment of any National Guard troops.

    “What was unlawful yesterday is unlawful today,” Rayfield said. “The judge’s order was not some minor procedural point for the president to work around, like my 14-year-old does when he doesn’t like my answers.”

    Rayfield added that Oregon “will absolutely not be a party to the president’s attempt to normalize the use of the United States military in our American cities.”

    Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement that California personnel were on their way Sunday and called the deployment “a breathtaking abuse of the law and power.” He said these troops were “federalized” and put under the president’s control months ago over his objections, in response to unrest in Los Angeles.

    “The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens,” Newsom said.

    California also joined Oregon’s lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s deployment of National Guard personnel to Portland as unlawful and unnecessary overreach.

    Three hundred California National Guard personnel deployed in southern California had already been federalized until early November, and leaders of the California Military Department had learned that all 300 of those “will be imminently deployed to Portland,” according to the amended complaint filed Sunday.

    Trump deployed California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June to enforce immigration law and has no legal grounds to redeploy them to Oregon for another purpose, Sunday’s court filing stated.

    “They cannot continue to hold the federalized National Guard members hostage by altering their mission and sending them to another State,” the filing said.

    The lawsuit notes that the president has the authority to deploy National Guard troops under very specific circumstances: repelling an invasion, suppressing a rebellion or enforcing federal laws.

    “There is no rebellion in Portland,” the filing said.

    In a related court filing, an attorney in the California Military Department said the U.S. Army Northern Command advised the department on Sunday that an order will be issued keeping the 300 guard personnel federalized through the end of January.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Portland has recently been the site of nightly protests. A Trump-appointed federal judge in Oregon on Saturday temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to deploy the Oregon National Guard in Portland to protect federal property amid protests after Trump called the city “war-ravaged.”

    Oregon officials and Portland residents alike said that description was ludicrous. The protest was relatively small and localized to just one block of the city of 650,000 residents, Kotek said.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, appointed by Trump during his first term, issued the order pending further arguments in a lawsuit brought by the state and city. She said the relatively small protests did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the president is “specifically targeting cities that lean Democratic” or have leaders and residents who speak out against the administration’s abuses of power.

    “It’s our National Guard, California’s National Guard, not Trump’s Royal Guard, as he seems to think,” Bonta said during a Sunday evening news conference. “Trump can’t use our military troops as his own personal police force.”

    Portland Mayor Keith Wilson said Sunday that he saw federal agents engaged in what he described as unjustified use of force and indiscriminately spraying pepper spray and impact munitions during a protest outside the ICE facility.

    “This is an aggressive approach trying to inflame the situation that has otherwise been peaceful,” Wilson said.

    Portland has alerted the civil rights division of the Department of Justice to the agents’ actions, Wilson said.

    Trump has characterized both Portland and Chicago as cities rife with crime and unrest. Since the start of his second term, he has sent or talked about sending troops to 10 cities.

    Trump authorized the deployment of 300 Illinois National Guard troops to protect federal officers and assets in Chicago on Saturday.

    Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker’s office said the situation in Chicago “does not require the use of the military and, as a result, the Governor opposes the deployment of the national guard under any status.” Pritzker didn’t receive any calls from federal officials about the deployment, his office said.

    ___

    Weber reported from Los Angeles and Brook from New Orleans. Associated Press journalists Jennifer McDermott in Providence, Rhode Island, and Josh Boak in Washington contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • California governor says Trump is sending 300 California National Guard members to Oregon

    [ad_1]

    SACRAMENTO, Calif. — President Donald Trump is sending 300 California National Guard members to Oregon after a judge temporarily blocked his administration from deploying that state’s guard to Portland, California’s governor said Sunday.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged Sunday to fight the move in court.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96C6 H2D ?@ @77:4:2= 2??@F?46>6?E 7C@> (2D9:?8E@? E92E E96 r2=:7@C?:2 }2E:@?2= vF2C5 H2D 36:?8 42==65 FA 2?5 D6?E E@ ~C68@?[ ;FDE 2D H2D E96 42D6 H96? k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^49:428@:==:?@:DECF>A?2E:@?2=8F2C52437_bb`h`hae`df4dff`gadcf_63a7gQmx==:?@:D’ 8@G6C?@C >256 2 D:>:=2C 2??@F?46>6?Ek^2m $2EFC52J 23@FE EC@@AD 😕 9:D DE2E6 36:?8 24E:G2E65]k^Am

    kAm~C68@? v@G] %:?2 z@E6< D2:5 E92E `_` r2=:7@C?:2 }2E:@?2= vF2C5 >6>36CD 2CC:G65 😕 96C DE2E6 $2EFC52J ?:89E 3J A=2?6 2?5 >@C6 2C6 @? E96 H2J] z@E6< D2:5 E96C6 92D 366? ?@ 7@C>2= 4@>>F?:42E:@? H:E9 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 23@FE E96 56A=@J>6?E]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 24E:@? 2AA62CD E@ :?E6?E:@?2= E@ 4:C4F>G6?E J6DE6C52J’D CF=:?8 3J 2 7656C2= ;F586[” z@E6< D2:5 $F?52J] “%96C6 😀 ?@ ?665 7@C >:=:E2CJ :?E6CG6?E:@? 😕 ~C68@?] %96C6 😀 ?@ :?DFCC64E:@? 😕 !@CE=2?5] }@ E9C62E E@ ?2E:@?2= D64FC:EJ] ~C68@? 😀 @FC 9@>6[ ?@E 2 >:=:E2CJ E2C86E]”k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C z@E6< D2:5 $F?52J 96 4@F=5 ?@E G6C:7J E96 4FCC6?E =@42E:@? @7 E96 }2E:@?2= vF2C5 >6>36CD H9@ 2CC:G65 😕 ~C68@? @? $2EFC52J[ 5:C64E:?8 BF6DE:@?D E@ E96 s676?D6 s6A2CE>6?Ek^Am

    kAm%96 r2=:7@C?:2 }2E:@?2= vF2C5 2=D@ C676CC65 BF6DE:@?D E@ E96 s676?D6 s6A2CE>6?E] p 56A2CE>6?E DA@<6DA6CD@? 564=:?65 E@ 4@>>6?E] %96C6 H2D ?@ :>>65:2E6 4@>>6?E 7C@> E96 (9:E6 w@FD6]k^Am

    kAm}6HD@>[ 2 s6>@4C2E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E E92E r2=:7@C?:2 A6CD@??6= H6C6 @? E96:C H2J $F?52J 2?5 42==65 E96 56A=@J>6?E “2 3C62E9E2<:?8 23FD6 @7 E96 =2H 2?5 A@H6C]” w6 D2:5 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^?6HD@>ECF>AF?C6DEC2:5D:>>:8C2E:@?AC@E6DED_43e2fc6e5525e3e5fef63cfd_h`ga2fQmE96D6 EC@@AD H6C6 “7656C2=:K65” 2?5 AFE F?56C E96 AC6D:56?E’D 4@?EC@=k^2m >@?E9D 28@ @G6C 9:D @3;64E:@?D[ 😕 C6DA@?D6 E@ F?C6DE 😕 {@D p?86=6D]k^Am

    kAm“%96 4@>>2?56C:?49:67 😀 FD:?8 E96 &]$] >:=:E2CJ 2D 2 A@=:E:42= H62A@? 282:?DE p>6C:42? 4:E:K6?D[” }6HD@> D2:5 😕 E96 DE2E6>6?E] “(6 H:== E2<6 E9:D 7:89E E@ 4@FCE[ 3FE E96 AF3=:4 42??@E DE2J D:=6?E 😕 E96 7246 @7 DF49 C64<=6DD 2?5 2FE9@C:E2C:2? 4@?5F4E 3J E96 AC6D:56?E @7 E96 &?:E65 $E2E6D]”k^Am

    kAmp %CF>A2AA@:?E65 7656C2= ;F586 😕 ~C68@? @? $2EFC52J E6>A@C2C:=J 3=@4<65 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@?’D A=2? E@ 56A=@J E96 ~C68@? }2E:@?2= vF2C5 😕 !@CE=2?5 E@ AC@E64E 7656C2= AC@A6CEJ 2>:5 AC@E6DED 27E6C %CF>A 42==65 E96 4:EJ “H2CC2G2865]” ~C68@? @77:4:2=D 2?5 !@CE=2?5 C6D:56?ED 2=:<6 D2:5 E92E 56D4C:AE:@? H2D =F5:4C@FD]k^Am

    kAm&]$] s:DEC:4E yF586 z2C:? x>>6C8FE[ H9@ H2D 2AA@:?E65 3J %CF>A 5FC:?8 9:D 7:CDE E6C>[ :DDF65 E96 @C56C A6?5:?8 7FCE96C 2C8F>6?ED 😕 E96 DF:E] $96 D2:5 E96 C6=2E:G6=J D>2== AC@E6DED E96 4:EJ 92D D66? 5:5 ?@E ;FDE:7J E96 FD6 @7 7656C2=:K65 7@C46D 2?5 2==@H:?8 E96 56A=@J>6?E 4@F=5 92C> ~C68@?’D DE2E6 D@G6C6:8?EJ]k^Am

    kAm!@CE=2?5 |2J@C z6:E9 (:=D@? D2:5 $F?52J E92E E96 4:EJ 4@?E:?F6D E@ D66< =682= >62?D E@ 92=E 2?J }2E:@?2= vF2C5 56A=@J>6?E]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 24E:@? 4:C4F>G6?ED E96 4@FCE’D 564:D:@? 2?5 E9C62E6?D E@ :?7=2>6 2 4@>>F?:EJ E92E 92D C6>2:?65 A62467F=[” (:=D@? D2:5] “~FC =682= E62> 😀 4@@C5:?2E:?8 H:E9 @FC A2CE?6CD 2?5 H:== :>>65:2E6=J AFCDF6 2== =2H7F= DE6AD E@ 6?7@C46 E96 ;F586’D @C56C 2?5 AC@E64E !@CE=2?56CD’ C:89ED]”k^Am

    kAm%96 &]$] x>>:8C2E:@? 2?5 rFDE@>D t?7@C46>6?E 3F:=5:?8 😕 !@CE=2?5 92D C646?E=J 366? E96 D:E6 @7 ?:89E=J AC@E6DED]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 92D 492C24E6C:K65 3@E9 !@CE=2?5 2?5 r9:428@ 2D 4:E:6D C:76 H:E9 4C:>6 2?5 F?C6DE[ 42==:?8 E96 7@C>6C 2 “H2C K@?6” 2?5 DF886DE:?8 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A49:428@:>>:8C2E:@?H2C56A2CE>6?EAC:EK<6C`7e3a2_g65g223_c7_427_a67d_e2272Qm2A@42=JAE:4 7@C46k^2m H2D ?66565 E@ BF6== AC@3=6>D 😕 E96 =2EE6C] $:?46 E96 DE2CE @7 9:D D64@?5 E6C>[ 96 92D D6?E @C E2=<65 23@FE D6?5:?8 EC@@AD E@ `_ 4:E:6D]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 2FE9@C:K65 E96 56A=@J>6?E @7 b__ x==:?@:D }2E:@?2= vF2C5 EC@@AD E@ AC@E64E 7656C2= @77:46CD 2?5 2DD6ED 😕 r9:428@ @? $2EFC52J]k^Am

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Administration From Deploying Troops in Portland, Oregon

    [ad_1]

    PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland, ruling Saturday in a lawsuit brought by the state and city.

    U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut issued the order pending further arguments in the suit. She said the relatively small protests the city has seen did not justify the use of federalized forces and allowing the deployment could harm Oregon’s state sovereignty.

    “This country has a longstanding and foundational tradition of resistance to government overreach, especially in the form of military intrusion into civil affairs,” Immergut wrote. She later continued, “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law.”

    State and city officials sued to stop the deployment last week, one day after the Trump administration announced that 200 Oregon National Guard troops would be federalized to protect federal buildings. The president called the city “war-ravaged.”

    Oregon officials said that characterization was ludicrous. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in the city has been the site of nightly protests that typically drew a couple dozen people in recent weeks before the deployment was announced.


    Judge: The federal response didn’t match the facts

    Generally speaking the president is allowed “a great level of deference” to federalize National Guard troops in situations where regular law enforcement forces are not able to execute the laws of the United States, the judge said, but that has not been the case in Portland.

    Plaintiffs were able to show that the demonstrations at the immigration building were not significantly violent or disruptive ahead of the president’s order, the judge wrote, and “overall, the protests were small and uneventful.”

    “The President’s determination was simply untethered to the facts,” Immergut wrote.


    White House suggests an appeal is coming

    Following the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “President Trump exercised his lawful authority to protect federal assets and personnel in Portland following violent riots and attacks on law enforcement — we expect to be vindicated by a higher court.”

    Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield called the ruling “a healthy check on the president.”

    “It reaffirms what we already knew: Portland is not the president’s war-torn fantasy. Our city is not ravaged, and there is no rebellion,” Rayfield said in a statement. He added: “Members of the Oregon National Guard are not a tool for him to use in his political theater.”

    Trump has deployed or threatened to deploy troops in several U.S. cities, particularly ones led by Democrats, including Los Angeles, Washington, Chicago and Memphis. Speaking Tuesday to U.S. military leaders in Virginia, he proposed using cities as training grounds for the armed forces.

    Last month a federal judge ruled that the president’s deployment of some 4,700 National Guard soldiers and Marines in Los Angeles this year was illegal, but he allowed the 300 who remain in the city to stay as long as they do not enforce civilian laws. The Trump administration appealed, and an appellate panel has put the lower court’s block on hold while it moves forward.


    Portland protests were small, but grew after deployment was announced

    The Portland protests have been limited to a one-block area in a city that covers about 145 square miles (375 square km) and has about 636,000 residents.

    They grew somewhat following the Sept. 28 announcement of the guard deployment. The Portland Police Bureau, which has said it does not participate in immigration enforcement and only intervenes in the protests if there is vandalism or criminal activity, arrested two people on assault charges. A peaceful march earlier that day drew thousands to downtown and saw no arrests, police said.

    On Saturday, before the ruling was released, roughly 400 people marched to the ICE facility. The crowd included people of all ages and races, families with children and older people using walkers. Federal agents responded with chemical crowd control munitions, including tear gas canisters and less-lethal guns that sprayed pepper balls. At least six people were arrested as the protesters reached the ICE facility.

    Trump sent federal officers to Portland over the objections of local and state leaders in 2020 during long-running racial justice protests following George Floyd’s killing by Minneapolis police. The administration sent hundreds of agents for the stated purpose of protecting the federal courthouse and other federal property from vandalism.

    That deployment antagonized demonstrators and prompted nightly clashes. Federal officers fired rubber bulled and used tear gas.

    Viral videos captured federal officers arresting people and hustling them into unmarked vehicles. A report by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that while the federal government had legal authority to deploy the officers, many of them lacked the training and equipment necessary for the mission.

    The government agreed this year to settle an excessive force lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union by paying compensating several plaintiffs for their injuries.

    Boone reported from Boise, Idaho. Associated Press writer Josh Boak in Washington contributed.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Abrego Garcia wins request for hearing on whether smuggling charges are illegally ‘vindictive’

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. — HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

    The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker in Maryland, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration policy and mass deportation agenda.

    U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

    Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be indictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

    The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

    In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

    That statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

    Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

    Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

    Abrego Garcia was indicted on May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him from a prison in El Salvador back to the U.S. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

    If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

    The Salvadoran national has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

    In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

    The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

    Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes.

    Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

    Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador, he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, has denied those allegations.

    ___

    Follow Marc Levy on X at: https://x.com/timelywriter

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abrego Garcia Wins Request for Hearing on Whether Smuggling Charges Are Illegally ‘Vindictive’

    [ad_1]

    HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

    The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker in Maryland, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Donald Trump’s sweeping immigration policy and mass deportation agenda.

    U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

    Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be indictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

    The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

    In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

    That statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

    Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

    Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the U.S. Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

    If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

    In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

    The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

    Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes.

    Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

    Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador, he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, has denied those allegations.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Embattled Figure in Native American Politics Resigns as Chairman of Pueblo Governors Coalition

    [ad_1]

    SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — An embattled figure in Native American politics has resigned as chairman of the All Pueblo Council of Governors and ended his outside consulting work for the state of New Mexico days after he was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated.

    Records obtained by The Associated Press show James Mountain submitted his resignation letter Tuesday to the council, a prominent advocacy group for 19 Native American communities in New Mexico and another in Texas. He noted it was effective immediately.

    Also on Tuesday, Mountain terminated his work as a contract adviser to the state Indian Affairs Department, said Jodi McGinnis Porter, a spokesperson for New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

    Pojoaque Pueblo police arrested Mountain a week ago on suspicion of driving while intoxicated at a tribal casino. He was held over the weekend at a Santa Fe County jail after declining a field sobriety test, according to an online booking log and the Pojoaque Pueblo Tribal Court.

    The Associated Press left email and phone messages for Mountain on Friday seeking comment. The AP also left messages with the All Pueblo Council of Governors. The council’s website still listed Mountain as chairman Friday.

    It was unclear Friday whether Mountain has been formally charged, though the Pojoaque Pueblo court says an arraignment has been scheduled next week. The AP submitted a request for detailed judicial records to the court for a judge to consider.

    Mountain’s 2023 appointment as cabinet secretary to the New Mexico Department of Indian Affairs under Lujan Grisham angered Native American advocates who work to address violence and missing persons cases within their communities.

    They pointed to past sexual assault charges against Mountain, while Lujan Grisham’s office emphasized that charges against Mountain were dismissed in 2010 after prosecutors said they didn’t have enough evidence to go to trial — and urged those raising concerns about his past to “respect the judicial process.”

    Lujan Grisham also had highlighted Mountain’s leadership at San Ildefonso Pueblo as the tribe’s governor, and his expertise in state and tribal relations. But the state Senate confirmation process for Mountain stalled, and he left the cabinet post after serving less than a year to work as Lujan Grisham’s senior policy adviser for tribal affairs.

    Mountain left direct state government employment at the end of March, but he settled into similar role as a contract adviser — until Tuesday’s contract termination, McGinnis Porter said.

    Mountain served as governor at San Ildefonso Pueblo from 2006 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2017. He oversaw the completion of the Aamodt Water Settlement, concerning the pueblo’s water rights, and the Indian Land Claims Settlement in 2006. He also ran his own state-tribal affairs consulting firm in recent years.

    Associated Press writer Susan Montoya Bryan in Albuquerque, New Mexico, contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Administration Can’t End Birthright Citizenship

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court in Boston ruled on Friday that the Trump administration cannot withhold citizenship from children born to people in the country illegally or temporarily, adding to the mounting legal setbacks for the president’s birthright order.

    A three-judge panel of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the fifth federal court since June to either issue or uphold orders blocking the president’s birthright order. The court concluded that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claims that the children described in the order are entitled to birthright citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

    The panel upheld lower courts’ preliminary injunctions, which blocked the birthright order while lawsuits challenging it moved ahead. The order, signed the day the president took office in January, would halt automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily.

    “The ‘lessons of history’ thus give us every reason to be wary of now blessing this most recent effort to break with our established tradition of recognizing birthright citizenship and to make citizenship depend on the actions of one’s parents rather than — in all but the rarest of circumstances — the simple fact of being born in the United States,” the court wrote.

    California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state was one of nearly 20 that were part of the lawsuit challenging the order, welcomed the ruling.

    “The First Circuit reaffirmed what we already knew to be true: The President’s attack on birthright citizenship flagrantly defies the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and a nationwide injunction is the only reasonable way to protect against its catastrophic implications,” Bonta said in a statement. “We are glad that the courts have continued to protect Americans’ fundamental rights.”

    In July, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston issued the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide after a key Supreme Court decision in June. Less than two weeks later, a federal judge in Maryland also issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the order. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation’s highest court.

    The justices ruled in June that lower courts generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions, but they didn’t rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states.

    A federal judge in New Hampshire later issued a ruling prohibiting Trump’s executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action suit, and a San Francisco-based appeals court affirmed a different lower court’s nationwide injunction in a lawsuit that included state plaintiffs.

    “The court is misinterpreting the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated by the Supreme Court,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said in a statement.

    At the heart of the lawsuits challenging the birthright order is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which includes a citizenship clause that says all people born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction, are citizens.

    Plaintiffs in the Boston case — one of the cases the 1st Circuit considered — told Sorokin that the principle of birthright citizenship is “enshrined in the Constitution,” and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a “flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.”

    Justice Department attorneys argued the phrase “subject to United States jurisdiction” in the amendment means that citizenship isn’t automatically conferred to children based on their birth location alone.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • “I Brought You Into My Mess”: Inside the Sentencing of Sean “Diddy” Combs

    [ad_1]

    “Sean has always made it a priority to open doors for Black people,” she added, “to make sure we are seen, heard, and valued in spaces where we’ve historically been excluded.”

    Deonte Nash, a former stylist for Combs writing in the government’s sentencing submission, said, “Many of us were abused precisely because Mr. Combs wanted us to hold his secrets to maintain his ‘reputation.””

    “Judge…. That’s a good man,” Brownlee wrote.

    “Judge, this is not a good man,” Nash said.

    On Friday, Combs, hair graying, entered the courtroom in a white sweater after Subramanian ruled this week that, as during his trial, he would be permitted to receive non-prison clothing at the Metropolitan Detention Center. He offered a wave to his family in the gallery and hugged his attorneys.

    After his lawyers and prosecutors spoke, Combs addressed the judge—his lengthiest public comments on the legal saga that has enveloped him since Ventura first sued. (He declined to testify at trial.)

    “I want to thank you for giving me the chance to finally speak up for myself,” Combs said.

    He framed his remarks in part as an apology to Ventura and Jane Doe. “I brought you into my mess,” Combs said, describing his behavior as “disgusting, shameful, and sick.”

    “I’m not this larger-than-life person,” Combs said he had come to realize. “I’m just a human being.”

    Janice Combs, mother of Sean.Leonardo Munoz/AFP/Getty Images.

    [ad_2]

    Dan Adler

    Source link

  • Denver DA failed to disclose police records in as many as 756 criminal cases

    [ad_1]

    The Denver District Attorney’s Office failed to share police records with defense attorneys in as many as 756 criminal cases since 2022, potentially violating court discovery rules, a probe by the office found.

    The prosecutors’ discovery software for years diverted Denver Police Department files that included a forward slash in the file name into an “error log that prosecutors were not aware of and could not access,” according to a statement from the office this week and notifications sent to defense attorneys in September.

    The misrouted files were not shared with defendants — a potential violation of discovery rules, which require prosecutors to disclose evidence to defendants during a criminal case. The district attorney’s office uncovered what it called a “technical issue” with the software as it reviewed its own practices amid mounting serious sanctions for discovery violations across Colorado.

    It was not immediately clear whether all of the files that were diverted into the error log were required to be disclosed to defendants, DA spokesman Matt Jablow said in a statement. But the office nevertheless notified defense attorneys and started the process of sharing all the files “out of caution and to avoid any delay,” he said.

    “The DA’s office produced the files, even though, in many of those cases… the information appears to have been produced in a different format, may not have been legally required to be produced, or both,” he said in the statement.

    Many of the misplaced files “contained information related to a defendant’s arrest, such as booking photos,” Jablow said. The error log issue most frequently impacted records that included dates in the file names, according to the notification sent to attorneys.

    The impact of the technical glitch will vary from case to case depending on the severity of the case, the information in the undisclosed files and how far along in the legal process the case is, said Colin McCallin, a criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor.

    Little is likely to change for defendants who have already pleaded guilty and served their sentences in less serious cases, like misdemeanors and petty offenses, he said. But there could be a bigger impact in ongoing prosecutions or more serious cases.

    “Obviously, if the evidence is exculpatory, if it suggests the person didn’t commit the crime, that is a big deal; that can lead to serious sanctions,” McCallin said. “…If it is a minor violation, like, ‘Oh, we didn’t get the person’s full criminal history or mugshot’ — that’s probably not going to be a big deal. I would imagine in most lower-level felony cases or misdemeanor cases, I don’t know if anything will happen at all. A lot of those folks will have moved on.”

    If the undisclosed material includes exculpatory evidence, it could prompt judges to dismiss cases or defendants to seek post-conviction relief, he added. Judges in ongoing cases might also consider sanctions against prosecutors for the discovery violations alone, regardless of what type of evidence was not disclosed, McCallin said.

    “It really does sound like this was a computer issue; it’s not like the DA’s office was sitting on evidence intentionally or purposely withholding evidence,” he said. “I don’t think anyone thinks that. But the problem is, it is still a discovery violation.”

    Angela Campbell, co-chair of the Denver chapter of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, said the district attorney’s public statements about the software issue have inappropriately minimized the potential impact of the discovery violations.

    “The Denver DA’s statement is concerning because it seems to fail to take accountability for the serious discovery violations committed by their office,” she said, adding that defense attorneys are just starting to investigate the missing files and it is too early to know the full impact of the misrouted records.

    “Nobody is saying that every single discovery violation was tantamount to a Brady violation — a failure to produce exculpatory evidence — but minimizing the discovery violations that occurred, first of all by saying, ‘Well, it was over 756 cases’ — they’re not just cases. These are 756 human beings,” she said. “People, presumably, who went to prison and endured serious consequences for what may or may not have been material discovery violations that would have impacted the cases. The truth is, right now, that I don’t think we know. And I don’t think they know.”

    [ad_2]

    Shelly Bradbury

    Source link