A Trump-appointed judge was ordered to undergo a psychiatric examination as part of an ongoing judicial misconduct investigation after she called a Latino attorney a "White savior" who was intimidated by "Black excellence" due to his "White mediocrity" during a hearing.

U.S. District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas, who is Black and Native American, was temporarily removed from her docket by the Fifth Circuit Judicial Council earlier this month, following a May judicial-conduct complaint filed by attorney Ezra Young, whose permission to practice before Brown had previously been revoked.

The complaint centered on Brown's rhetoric toward Young during his appearance for a show-case hearing, in which he was facing sanctions over allegations from Brown that he shared sealed court filings online. Young represented a Black law professor who sued Southern Methodist University, alleging she was denied tenure because of discrimination. He joined the case in 2022 and appeared before Brown before the judge barred him from practicing in her courtroom.

OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE TORCHES TRUMP ADMIN IN LATEST COURTROOM SHOWDOWN, REFERS ATTORNEY FOR BAR REVIEW

During the April hearing, Brown railed against Young, accusing him of "bullying" the Black attorneys on the case.

"You’re the White savior, come to save all the stupid Black lawyers in Texas who need your help from New York," Brown later said, according to the transcript obtained by Bloomberg.

Brown repeatedly brought attention to Young's skin color, calling him "White presenting" and "fair-skinned" after Brown told her that he was a Latino.

"I think what’s happening here, quite candidly, is you are very intimidated for some reason, Mr. Young, with Black excellence, in light of your White mediocrity. Yeah. Right?" Brown said. "You should write that down. I mean, you — I’m — you look like a White man, right?"

She also called Young a "Chad" which she said is the male version of "Karen."

"It’s someone who calls the manager when they don’t get their way. They stomp their foot when the rules are supposed to apply to them, right?" Brown said.

OBAMA-APPOINTED JUDGE WITH TIES TO ANTI-TRUMP CONSPIRACY THEORY HIT WITH MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT

Brown also accused Young of sensationalizing the case after reading a news article that quoted his brief and referenced another law professor’s comparison of the Black professor’s treatment in the tenure dispute to a "lynching."

"And so when I read a headline — a sensationalized, very racialized headline that says, ‘it’s like I’ve been lynched,’ and it’s literally got no connection to this case, I have to ask you, Mr. Social Media, Main Character Chad, White Hero, Savior, Loves to Help Black People Be An Ally, where the lynching in this case came from?" Brown said.

The release of the April court hearing transcripts comes as Brown shared with lawyers, judges and several media outlets via email of Young's complaint and her response.

Meanwhile, in a July 28 filing responding to Young's complaint, Brown stood by her conduct.

"I do not believe my demeanor was inappropriate at any time, especially during the candid conversations about race," Brown wrote.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

"I take to heart the lessons I have learned from this experience and I ask the Chief Judge to weigh this candor, as well as my commitment to being mentored by senior judges with more experience in such situations when determining an appropriate disposition," Brown wrote. "I realize the importance of public confidence in the judiciary and take to heart my role in fostering the public’s faith in it."

President Donald Trump appointed Brown to the federal court in Texas in March 2019. She is the first Black woman to serve in that court.

Russell Brand’s wife, Laura Brand, took the stand Thursday as a defense witness, one day after the comedian and actor testified in his ongoing rape and sexual assault trial.

Brand, 51, is accused of three counts of rape, three counts of sexual assault and one count of attempted indecent assault involving six women between 1999 and 2009. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges and vehemently denies the allegations.

According to Sky News, Brand acknowledged that he had been "reckless" and used his fame to pursue sexual relationships, but insisted that the encounters were consensual. He also told the jury that consent was "fundamental, essential and necessary."

RUSSELL BRAND ACCUSED OF RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE OF 4 WOMEN; COMEDIAN DENIES ‘SERIOUS CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS’

During Laura's testimony, the mom of three — who first met her husband when she was 19, and he was 31 — opened up about the start of their relationship.

The pair began dating in 2006, but split the following year due to Brand’s difficulty with monogamy and her "inexperience."

LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

"When I met him, I was aware that he liked women, and I was aware toward the latter half of that year that he was engaging with other women," Laura told the court, per Sky News. "I was not interested in having a relationship with him if he was sleeping with other people. I was invested; we both had told each other we loved each other, but it was clear it was difficult for him to be monogamous."

The couple rekindled their relationship in 2015 and married in 2017. They share three children.

Laura described Brand as "caring and kind, a wonderful father to our children, and an amazing, attentive husband," adding that he has an "eye for detail I have never known before."

GET ENTERTAINMENT SCOOP DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR EMAIL BY CLICKING HERE

"I feel very seen by him," she said. "We have a very honest, frank and clear relationship and marriage.… Our relationship has always been [about] honesty. I love him very much."

According to the outlet, there was a brief moment of tension in court when defense attorney Ian Winter asked Laura about her "view as to the truth of the allegations."

The judge quickly intervened, telling the attorney that Laura was not an expert witness. The jury was temporarily sent out of the courtroom.

HARVEY WEINSTEIN SENTENCED TO 15 YEARS IN PRISON FOR 2006 SEX CRIME IN NEW YORK

Prosecutors allege that Brand committed the offenses against six women over a 10-year period. The women have testified in court about alleged encounters at a hotel, a bar, a radio station, a workplace and Brand’s home.

Brand has denied forcing any of the women to engage in sexual activity against their will.

KATY PERRY FIGHTS BACK AGAINST RUBY ROSE'S 'CATEGORICALLY FALSE' SEXUAL ASSAULT ALLEGATIONS

In a video posted to X last year, Brand thanked his fans for messages of support, then criticized the British government and legal system before addressing the charges directly.

He explained that he "was a fool before I lived in the light of the Lord. I was a drug addict, a sex addict and an imbecile, but what I never was was a rapist. I've never engaged in nonconsensual activity. I pray that you can see that by looking in my eyes."

Brand added, "Of course, I'm now going to have the opportunity to defend these charges in court, and I'm incredibly grateful for that."

He wrapped up his video by assuring his followers that he'd continue to address the allegations against him.

As police explained in a press release, detectives began investigating Brand after allegations were made public by U.K. media outlets Channel 4 and The Sunday Times in September 2023.

The outlets launched a joint investigation into the allegations, resulting in a lengthy article on the Times' website, as well as an episode of Channel 4's documentary series, "Dispatches," called "Russell Brand: In Plain Sight." Both contained a number of anonymous complaints, with women accusing Brand of physical and emotional abuse and bullying, as well as some instances of sexual assault.

PUT YOUR ENTERTAINMENT KNOWLEDGE TO THE TEST AND SEE HOW YOU SCORE

Brand denied the claims shortly after they were made public, saying in a video statement shared on social media that his relationships were "always consensual."

The actor revealed that he received a few inquiries from media outlets with regard to "a litany of extremely egregious and aggressive attacks."

"Amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute," he said.

According to Brand, the encounters occurred during a "time of promiscuity" but were "always consensual." He also noted that he "was always transparent about that then, almost too transparent, and I am being transparent about it now as well."

"To see that transparency metastasized into something criminal, that I absolutely deny, makes me question: Is there another agenda at play?" he asked.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital's Janelle Ash and Stephanie Giang-Paunon contributed to this post.

The article examines Gadi Eisenkot’s portrayal as a centrist political alternative to Benjamin Netanyahu, contrasting that image with his military record and role in developing Israel’s Obliteration Doctrine.

The upcoming Texas gubernatorial election between incumbent Greg Abbott and challenger Gina Hinojosa will determine if a new congressional map favoring Republicans or one protecting Latino representation becomes law.

The upcoming Texas gubernatorial election between incumbent Greg Abbott and challenger Gina Hinojosa will determine if a new congressional map favoring Republicans or one protecting Latino representation becomes law.

Assume the following: A person unlawfully entered the United States 20 years ago and has since started a business and raised U.S.-citizen children, has no criminal record, and has never been found to be dangerous. Should federal immigration law treat that person the same way it treats someone who was just apprehended at the border? Should the law treat that person as if Congress had specifically made them subject to mandatory detention for criminal or terrorism-related conduct?

Under the Trump administration, the answer is yes. President Donald Trump's current policy treats noncitizens who entered without lawful admission as subject to mandatory detention without bond throughout removal proceedings, even if they have lived in the United States for decades and have no criminal record⁠. The executive branch adopted that position in new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) guidance issued in July 2025⁠, reversing its prior interpretation of the same detention law.

The U.S. Supreme Court will now decide whether Congress actually required the result Trump is seeking. On October 1, the justices agreed to hear the case of Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha⁠. Ricardo Aparecido Barbosa da Cunha, a Brazilian national, entered the United States without inspection around 2005. He later applied for asylum, received work authorization, and eventually bought a home. He operates a small construction business and lives with his wife and two U.S.-citizen children. He has no criminal record. But immigration officers still arrested him while he was driving to work in Massachusetts in September 2025.

After Cunha challenged his detention, a federal court ordered a bond hearing and an immigration judge found that he posed neither a danger nor a flight risk and therefore released him on bond while his case proceeded. The Trump administration then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and lost. Now the Supreme Court will have the final word⁠.

The Supreme Court is not deciding whether Cunha may ultimately remain in the country. Instead, it is deciding the narrower question of whether the Immigration and Nationality Act mandates detention pending removal proceedings for someone like Cunha who is present in the United States without having been lawfully admitted⁠.

The legal dispute turns on two phrases in one section of this federal immigration law. According to Section 1225, a noncitizen present in the United States who has not been legally admitted is considered an "applicant for admission." But when Congress imposed mandatory detention later in that same section, it used additional language, applying it to an applicant for admission who is "seeking admission."

That distinction may sound technical and trivial, but its consequences are enormous. If every statutory "applicant for admission" is automatically still "seeking admission," then the government can treat someone who crossed the border 20 years ago the same as someone arriving today and keep them in jail without the possibility of bond. If the two phrases mean two different things, however, then Cunha and others like him are generally eligible for a bond hearing under Section 1226, which permits both detention and release on bond or conditional parole⁠.

The Trump administration argues that if Congress has deemed someone an applicant for admission, that person must necessarily still be seeking the admission for which they are considered an applicant. But the administration's argument asks the Court to stretch federal law beyond its reasonable limits. Congress expressly deemed certain people "applicants for admission." It did not separately deem them to be "seeking admission."

This case, in short, is about textualism. And as the late Justice Antonin Scalia and his co-author Bryan Garner argue in their book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, one of the key principles of textualism is that "a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning." When Congress uses different words in closely related provisions, in other words, courts should hesitate before assuming that the different words mean the exact same thing.

In ordinary English, it is certainly difficult to describe a man driving from home to work after living in the United States for over two decades as presently "seeking admission." He is not seeking to enter the U.S.; he already entered decades earlier. The 2nd Circuit's unanimous opinion—written by Judge Joseph Bianco, a Trump appointee—reached this conclusion, holding that "seeking admission" describes ongoing activity rather than merely a retained statutory status⁠.

Meanwhile, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the administration's position in a similar case, Judge Dana Douglas, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, invoked the same Scalia-Garner textualist principles in dissent. 

The legal dispute, therefore, does not follow neat partisan lines. Judges from different ideological backgrounds have both concluded that the administration's reading goes beyond the words that Congress wrote.

The broader statutory structure also supports that conclusion. Congress has long required mandatory detention in Section 1226 for specified criminal and terrorism-related grounds⁠. And the Laken Riley Act of 2025 expanded those mandatory-detention categories⁠. But if nearly everyone who ever illegally entered the country is already subject to mandatory detention, as the administration asserts, then all of those carefully drawn separate categories for mandatory detention suddenly become superfluous and pointless for noncitizens who illegally entered the country, an objection that Douglas raised in dissent⁠.

History also clarifies the point. For nearly 30 years, across five presidential administrations (including Trump's first), the government generally treated people like Cunha as potentially eligible for bond. Trump only reversed course in July 2025. The 2nd Circuit thus accurately described the earlier interpretation as a well-established executive branch practice⁠.

Of course, past executive practice cannot override clear statutory language. But if Congress really did mandate a sweeping detention regime in 1996⁠, it is striking that every presidential administration since then has operated under a totally different understanding⁠.

None of this gives Cunha lawful immigration status. Nor does it guarantee his release or prevent the government from deporting him. Rather, it allows an immigration judge to ask a basic question: Is keeping this particular person in jail actually necessary while his case proceeds?

The administration may believe mandatory detention makes immigration enforcement faster or more effective. And Congress is free to adopt that policy if it chooses to do so. But Congress does have to choose it first.

Protecting the constitutional separation of powers is one of textualism's most important functions. Textualism is often described as a conservative method of statutory interpretation. But its deeper value is constitutional. It forces both courts and presidents to follow the law Congress actually passed. Sometimes that produces harsher results. Sometimes it produces more humane ones. But either way, it restrains the executive and judicial branches from exceeding their proper spheres.

Whether mandatory detention would accelerate Trump's deportation program is a question of policy. Whether it is just is a question of ethics. Whether Congress authorized it is a question of law.

In Cunha, the best textualist reading is that Congress preserved the possibility of bond and left room for an immigration judge to determine whether detention is necessary. That textualism, liberty, and compassion point to the same result is not the reason to reach it. In this case, however, it is a welcome coincidence.

The post Trump's Mandatory Immigration Detention Policy Fails the Textualist Test appeared first on Reason Magazine.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that a Donald Trump-backed lawyer has been “unlawfully serving” as the top federal prosecutor in Los Angeles. The decision regarding Bill Essayli’s service does not immediately take effect, and Essayli said the Supreme Court “will ultimately decide” the legality of his tenure.

The justices may have the last word not only on Essayli but also on a host of lawyers who have purported to lead districts around the country without being confirmed by the Senate. U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright noted in his ruling that the federal government has asked the Supreme Court to consider the issue in disputes over Trump’s chosen lawyers in Nevada (Sigal Chattah) and northern New York (John Sarcone).

In an order accompanying his ruling, Seabright, a George W. Bush appointee, gave the government a chance to try to halt his ruling pending appeal as the administration presses the appointment issue to the justices.

Urging the high court to use the Nevada case to resolve the nationwide issue, the Justice Department argued that lower court rulings against the administration “misconstrue” the law that deals with federal vacancies, “upend a quarter-century of practice,” “threaten chaos for the next presidential transition” and “cast a pall over prosecutions in 14 judicial districts nationwide.”

We could learn later this year whether and when the justices will take up the matter. They could grant review to decide it this term after holding a hearing and issuing a ruling that would be expected by July.

Meanwhile, given Seabright’s pause on his decision taking immediate effect, Essayli said he will “continue running the office.” The New York Times included Essayli on its list of prosecutors who are “carrying out Trump’s grievance agenda,” writing that he “has pushed to charge cases against anti-Trump protesters, many of which fell apart in court” and “carried out a direct order from Mr. Trump to open an investigation of voting in the state.”

Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

The post Judge says Trump prosecutor in LA is ‘unlawfully serving’ in latest hit to Trump’s DOJ appeared first on MS NOW.

Years ago, I bought a contraption designed to separate and concentrate the most volatile components of a liquid mixture. I would tell you what I did with it, but I don't want to implicate myself in a federal felony.

Since 1868, it has been illegal for Americans to locate a "distilled spirits plant" in "any dwelling place," an offense currently punishable by a maximum $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison. The federal ban on home distilling is at the center of a case that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear, which raises a specific constitutional issue but also highlights the absurdity of treating this hobby as a crime.

That policy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled last April, cannot be justified as an exercise of the federal government's tax power. To the contrary, Judge Edith Jones said in the court's opinion, the ban is "an anti-revenue provision that prevents distilled spirits from coming into existence," meaning its effect is "to reduce revenue instead of raising it."

Nor is the provision consistent with "the Supreme Court's explanation of how the federal power of taxation works," Jones wrote. When Congress imposes a tax, the Court explained in 2012, it "leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice." But in this case, Jones noted, would-be home distillers "have only the choice not to do as they wish or risk fines and imprisonment."

The government argued that the ban helps collect liquor taxes by prohibiting a form of production that is difficult to detect. But "Congress cannot prohibit intrastate activity solely because it might produce products hard to tax," Jones said. If it could, she warned, there would be "no limit whatsoever" to its tax power.

Under the government's logic, Jones noted, "Congress may criminalize nearly any at-home conduct only because it has the possibility of concealing taxable activity. Home-based businesses may be forbidden. Remote work may be deemed a crime."

The Trump administration, which wants the Supreme Court to overturn the 5th Circuit's decision, argues that threatening to imprison home distillers is a "necessary and proper" safeguard against tax evasion. But whatever your take on the constitutional question, that policy is morally indefensible, haphazardly enforced, and inconsistent with the federal government's treatment of wine and beer.

The lead plaintiff in this case is Scott McNutt, a member of the Hobby Distillers Association. In 2014, McNutt received a "Notice of Potential Civil and Criminal Liability" from the Treasury Department, which said it had reason to believe he "may have purchased a still capable of producing alcohol and/or equipment and materials that may be used in the manufacture of a still."

The notice warned that "federal law provides no exemptions for the production of distilled spirits for personal or family use." It added that "unlawful production of distilled spirits is a criminal offense," which it erroneously claimed was "punishable by a fine of up to $500,000" as well as "imprisonment for not more than 5 years."

Meanwhile, online retailers such as Amazon sell a wide variety of home stills, many of which are explicitly advertised as appliances designed to produce alcoholic beverages such as vodka, gin, brandy, and whiskey. Customers could be forgiven for assuming that's legal, especially since federal law has long permitted home wine and beer production "for personal or family use."

McNutt's lawyers say he "owns a still that he has used to lawfully distill fuel alcohol and seeks to 'tinker around' with beverage spirits." Another plaintiff, Thomas Cowdrey, "likewise seeks to experiment in creating new beverage spirits, including 'apple pie vodka,' for which he has developed a recipe."

Because of a law Congress enacted 158 years ago, McNutt and Cowdrey would be felons if they acted on those desires. It might be time to rethink that policy.

© Copyright 2026 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post A Supreme Court Case Underlines the Absurdity of the Federal Ban on Home Distilling appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The decision favors Trump’s effort to end a practice that has benefited about 360,000 migrants since 1990.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against reinstating a regulation that allowed immigration judges to suspend certain deportation proceedings.

RELATED:

Over 2,000 Immigrants Have Been Arrested in New York Since July

Issued in a brief, unsigned opinion, the justices’ decision favors President Donald Trump’s administration, which opposes maintaining a practice that President Joe Biden formalized.

“In 2024, Biden’s administration adopted a regulation that formally codified administrative closure procedures, concluding that it lets judges efficiently manage their caseloads and promote the fair treatment of immigrants. That regulation replaced a prior rule adopted in 2020 during Trump’s first term in office that had been judicially blocked,” Reuters reported.

When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, however, he announced that he would no longer allow administrative closure of cases as a mechanism for reducing workloads in immigration courts.

The family of Renee Good, one of two US citizens fatally shot by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis in January,have sued the Trump administration, saying there had been "no accountability" for her killing during deportation sweeps.

Good, 37, was shot dead in her car by… pic.twitter.com/h0KmryA3Z1

— TRT World (@trtworld) October 2, 2026

Texas had already challenged that policy in a federal court, arguing that the rule lets immigration judges “effectively grant indefinite amnesty to aliens illegally present in this country.”

Three cities with large immigrant populations — Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; and New Haven, Connecticut — along with an immigrant rights advocacy group, filed a lawsuit seeking to preserve Biden’s decision. The courts rejected these requests, bringing the matter before the Supreme Court.

Administrative closure of deportation proceedings, however, has been practiced for decades. According to government statistics, the rule has benefited about 360,000 migrants since 1990.

teleSUR/JF

Sources: EFE – Reuters

The cross-examination of the complainant in the trial of suspended Paphos mayor Phedonas Phedonos concluded on Tuesday after three days before the Paphos criminal court.

The cross-examination followed the complainant’s earlier testimony, with proceedings held behind closed doors.

Judges and lawyers were present in the courtroom, while Phedonos remained in an adjacent room as the complainant gave evidence.

The trial is scheduled to resume on November 2 at 9am, when the prosecution’s final two witnesses are expected to testify.

One of the witnesses is a businessman whose testimony has been delayed because he was hospitalised at a private hospital in Nicosia.

It remains unclear whether he will be able to appear in person before the court.

Phedonos faces five charges: rape, indecent assault of a woman, indecent assault of a woman by another act, assault causing actual bodily harm, and administering a drug or other substance capable of intoxicating a person or overcoming their resistance.

He denies all charges.

Brazil’s Liberal Party, the party behind presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, on Monday recognized the election results leading to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s victory, even though the far-right leader has not conceded. Party president Valdemar Costa Neto said in a statement posted on the social platform X that the party recognizes the election results but…

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County regarding the constitutionality of state and local bans on AR-15 semiautomatic rifles.

The United States is not simply declining to uphold international law; it is imposing costs on others for attempting to uphold it.

As the 2026 midterms approach, concerns are mounting over whether President Trump will attempt to overturn results through legal challenges, seizure of voting machines, or other controversial measures.

One of the more interesting developments at the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has been the rise of a kind of sporadic alliance in defense of civil liberties between Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch.

In 2018, for example, Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor, blasted the Supreme Court for refusing to even hear arguments in Stuart v. Alabama, an important case about forensic evidence, criminal trials, and the Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine one's accusers.

Similarly, in United States v. Davis (2019), Sotomayor joined Gorsuch's majority opinion striking down a federal law that called for enhanced sentencing when a gun was used in connection with certain federal crimes because the law at issue was too imprecisely written to pass constitutional muster. "When Congress passes a vague law," Gorsuch wrote, "the role of courts under our Constitution is not to fashion a new, clearer law to take its place, but to treat the law as a nullity and invite Congress to try again."

Gorsuch and Sotomayor have also been on the same page in a number of Fourth Amendment cases, though Sotomayor's overall Fourth Amendment record is arguably stronger than Gorsuch's. In Torres v. Madrid (2021), for instance, the Supreme Court held that when the police shoot a fleeing suspect, it still counts as a "seizure" for Fourth Amendment purposes even if the suspect kept on the move after being shot. "The application of physical force to the body with the intent to restrain is a seizure," the Court held, "even if the person does not submit and is not subdued." Sotomayor joined that pro-civil liberties decision; Gorsuch, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, sided with the officers and voted in dissent.

Fortunately, the Gorsuch-Sotomayor band was back together last week to make some noise in support of the Bill of Rights in a dispute that pitted property rights against police powers. As Reason's Billy Binion reported, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case challenging a lower court's "categorical rule" that "property destroyed in the exercise of [a state's] 'police power' is immune to claims under the Takings Clause, the U.S. Constitution's pledge that government cannot usurp private property without fairly compensating the owner."

Sotomayor, joined by Gorsuch, strongly implied that she thought the lower court's rule was unconstitutional, though she accepted that "further percolation" on the issue was needed before the Court should step in. "Where, as here, a person alleges a 'classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use' or to pay an outstanding debt, like a tax lien," Sotomayor wrote, "the talismanic invocation of the State's 'law enforcement authority,' may be insufficient to avoid the requirement of just compensation." (Citations omitted.) Sotomayor then urged the lower courts that are "considering this issue to take care that due deference to state police powers does not eclipse constitutional rights."

Just as Gorsuch's Fourth Amendment record has its blemishes, Sotomayor's record on property rights has also been less than impressive at times. So it is doubly welcome to see these two justices back in the trenches together on this particular civil liberties front.

Elsewhere in the Law

Writing at SCOTUSblog, Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation, has an interesting article about the Supreme Court's landmark 1926 decision in Euclid v. Ambler, in which, as Boden put it, the Court ruled in favor of a town's "power to pass comprehensive zoning, and against a local developer who had argued the town's plan exceeded the city's police power and destroyed the property's value." In effect, the Court's ruling was "the birth of modern zoning."

One of the things that has long fascinated me about Euclid v. Ambler is the fact that the opinion was authored by Justice George Sutherland, who is probably best remembered today for his role as a leading judicial foe of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. In Euclid v. Ambler, however, Sutherland endorsed a view of regulatory authority that has been celebrated by liberal academics as "a model of pragmatic and well-balanced Progressive jurisprudence."

I suppose we might call it an irony of legal history: The intellectual leader of the Supreme Court's anti–New Deal bloc actually left a greater mark on the law by shoring up the immense power of city planners.

The post Gorsuch and Sotomayor Unite in Another Civil Liberties Case appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Prosecutors indict attorney on charges of contact with foreign agent and obstruction of justice, ask to keep her in custody over two weeks after police, Shin Bet arrested her

Paz's activism drew sharp criticism from some south Tel Aviv residents and strong support from right-wing politicians; she acknowledged the toll it took on her supportive family

Brazil’s far-right candidate challenges the election result after voting hours were extended over public transport disruptions.

---

Brazilian far-right presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro has rejected President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s reelection and vowed to seek the annulment of the vote, citing a Supreme Federal Court decision to extend voting hours amid allegations of disruptions to public transport.

RELATED: Massive Celebrations Erupt Across Brazil After Lula’s Run-off Victory

The Superior Electoral Court (TSE) confirmed Lula’s reelection on Sunday. Bolsonaro, however, declared the result unacceptable and announced plans to challenge it in court.

“It is impossible to recognize the election results,” Bolsonaro said. “We will turn to our legal team and request that these elections be annulled.”

Bolsonaro based his challenge on a ruling by Supreme Federal Court Justice Cristiano Zanin, who extended voting by two hours after the Workers’ Party (PT) reported alleged irregularities affecting voter transportation in several cities.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

The ruling came shortly before polls were due to close at 5 p.m. Zanin ordered polling stations nationwide to remain open until 7 p.m. Brasília time, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the urgency of the measure.

The PT accused mayors opposed to Lula of failing to comply with electoral court orders requiring municipalities to provide free public transport at full capacity on election day, as they would on a regular working day. The party also called for those responsible for the alleged violations to be caught in the act.

In Salvador, electoral authorities ordered the arrest of Pablo Souza, the city’s mobility secretary, over suspicions that he had withdrawn buses to disadvantage Lula. The northeastern city is governed by União Brasil, a center-right party allied with Bolsonaro. In the first round of the presidential election, Lula received 65% of the vote in Salvador, compared with 27% for Bolsonaro.

Brazilian trade union federations also denounced transport disruptions in several cities on election night and called for immediate action by the authorities.

In a statement, the unions condemned what they described as the deliberate obstruction of eligible voters’ right to participate in the election. They alleged that some cities had reduced their bus fleets despite a Supreme Federal Court order requiring public transport to operate at full capacity on election day.

The disruptions left thousands of people waiting at bus stops, uncertain whether they would reach polling stations in time. In some cases, the unions said, voters were unable to cast their ballots.

Bolsonaro’s campaign also sought an extension of voting hours, according to local media reports. His team requested additional time in cities across São Paulo, Paraná and Santa Catarina states, citing difficulties caused by heavy rainfall.

The dispute recalls the aftermath of the October 2022 presidential election, when Lula defeated Flávio Bolsonaro’s father, Jair Bolsonaro. The former president repeatedly challenged the result and conspired to overturn it.

On Jan. 8, 2023, thousands of his radicalized supporters stormed the Congress, presidential palace and Supreme Federal Court buildings in Brasília. Jair Bolsonaro was subsequently tried and is now serving a 27-year prison sentence for conspiring against Brazil’s democratic order and attempting a coup.

Is there an exception to the 5th Amendment's promise that government cannot take private property without "just compensation"? The Supreme Court declined to address that question this past Monday when it rejected a trio of petitions asking the justices to consider whether people should be compensated when law enforcement seizes or destroys their property.

Two of the cases concerned individuals who were not accused of a crime but whose property nevertheless became collateral damage as police pursued a suspect. In June 2022, police fired 30 tear gas canisters into Amy Hadley's home in South Bend, Indiana. Officers smashed windows, tore down security cameras, ransacked furniture, ripped down a panel and a fan, and punched holes in the walls as they searched for a fugitive named John Parnell Thomas, who had never been there. The police had erroneously concluded that Thomas accessed the internet via the IP address at Hadley's home. According to Hadley, the police caused at least $16,000 in damages, which insurance only partially covered.

About two months later, a SWAT team in Los Angeles arrived at Carlos Pena's North Hollywood printing business and destroyed it, along with his equipment inside, crippling his livelihood after a fugitive broke in and barricaded himself in the shop. (The suspect ultimately escaped.) Pena alleged approximately $60,000 in damages in his suit against the city, which declined to compensate him for his losses. His insurance also refused to step in—as is common in such cases, as policies often exclude damage caused by the government.

The third petition concerned Chicago drivers whose vehicles were seized by the city over modest unpaid parking tickets. Ryan O'Donnell's vehicle was impounded and sold for scrap because of about $524 in debt. Michael Goree's was seized and relinquished to the lienholder over a debt that did not belong to him; the $560 in unpaid tickets were for a different vehicle owned by his co-signer.

In all of these cases the lower courts' reasoning came from a similar place. Hadley, O'Donnell, and Goree's petitions were heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, which has adopted a categorical rule: Property destroyed in the exercise of "police power" is immune to claims under the Takings Clause, the U.S. Constitution's pledge that government cannot usurp private property without fairly compensating the owner. Pena's case went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, where the judges have declined to issue such a sweeping exception but have instead ruled that governments are exempt from paying out claims when the police actions in question were "necessary."

In a statement, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, outlined the many inconsistencies between the circuits on the topic. "It is still an 'open question' whether these or any other approaches are consistent with this Court's precedents. Few of these decisions likewise explain the source of any such police-power exception to the Takings Clause—whether the common law, the Constitution, or elsewhere," she wrote. "Such questions thus continue to 'benefit from further percolation' in the lower courts before this Court chooses to intervene."

Sotomayor was quoting herself. In 2024, she released similar remarks in response to a petition from Texas woman Vicki Baker, whose house in McKinney had been hollowed by a SWAT team attempting to capture a fugitive. The high court declined to hear Baker's case, although she finally found relief under the Texas state constitution this year.

"It's possible that the Court sincerely doesn't think the lower courts have done enough thinking on this important but novel issue," Patrick Jaicomo, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice who represented Hadley, tells me. "Still, we've brought them 5 cases from 5 circuits. How much more percolation is needed?…The Court is going to have to address this important issue, and it's not clear what another circuit decision or 6 might do to aid that consideration."

Though Sotomayor's statement ran in parallel to the one two years ago, its slightly sharper warning intimated that we may be inching closer to a resolution. "I again encourage courts considering this issue to take care," she wrote, "that due deference to state police powers does not eclipse constitutional rights."

The post Police Destroyed Their Homes and Businesses. The Supreme Court Won't Say Who Should Pay. appeared first on Reason Magazine.

More than 158.7 million Brazilians are eligible to vote as President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva faces Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in a closely contested runoff.

---

Brazilian voters are choosing between President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Senator Flávio Bolsonaro in a presidential runoff after neither candidate secured a majority in the first round. More than 158.7 million people are eligible to vote, with polling stations open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. local time, according to the Superior Electoral Court (TSE).

RELATED: Lula Pledges Universal Full-Day Schooling in Brazil

In the first round on Oct. 4, Bolsonaro, of the Liberal Party (PL), received 47.03% of valid votes, or 56,104,503 ballots, while Lula, of the Workers’ Party (PT), won 45.16%, or 53,879,538 votes, according to official TSE figures. Neither surpassed the 50% threshold needed to win outright.

Voter abstention emerged as a significant factor in the first round, with 33,469,244 people staying away from the polls, representing 21.08% of registered voters. Both campaigns sought to attract those who did not vote, as pre-election polls pointed to a statistical tie.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

The final day of campaigning on Saturday brought closing rallies from both candidates. Speaking in São Paulo, Lula attacked his rival, calling him a “liar,” a “militiaman” and unqualified for the presidency.

“A person like that does not have the political, moral or ethical qualifications to become president of the Republic,” Lula told reporters.

Bolsonaro received backing during the campaign from U.S. President Donald Trump, who described the senator’s first-round result as “a great victory.”

On Oct. 20, Lula framed the election as a choice over Brazil’s national sovereignty, saying voters would decide whether they wanted “a Brazil that kisses the Brazilian flag or one that gets down on all fours before the U.S. flag.”

Voting is compulsory for literate Brazilian citizens aged 18 to 70. It is optional for illiterate citizens, those aged 16 and 17, and people over 70.

Voting abroad

A total of 918,876 Brazilians registered to vote abroad across 134 countries, accounting for about 0.5% of the electorate, according to the TSE. The number represents a 358% increase from 2010.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (@lulaoficial)

Text Reads: The Brazil we dream of is built together with the people—through struggle and hope! ❤️🇧🇷
Thank you to every Brazilian who stands by our side on this journey. It is this strength that drives us, and this unity that empowers us.
Tomorrow, let’s transform all this energy into the future! Together with the people, we will achieve so much more, secure new rights, and continue building a Brazil that is even fairer for everyone. Let’s do this together. Vote 13—vote for Brazil.

Overseas voters cast their ballots in person in 186 cities and can vote only for president and vice president. Women account for 57% of registered overseas voters and men for 43%, while the largest age group is between 40 and 44.

The United States has the largest number of registered Brazilian voters abroad, with 265,400, followed by Portugal with 134,700, Japan with 88,300, Canada with 46,400 and Germany with 41,500.

Other contests

Sunday’s elections also include gubernatorial runoffs in Acre, Amazonas, Rio Grande do Norte, Espírito Santo and Tocantins, as well as the Federal District. None of the candidates in those contests secured more than 50% of valid votes in the first round.

Ver esta publicación en Instagram

Una publicación compartida por teleSUR English (@telesurenglish)

Several municipalities are also electing mayors. In Chopinzinho and São João, both in the state of Paraná, voters are taking part in a referendum on changing the territorial boundaries between the two municipalities.

The runoff will determine whether Lula remains president or Bolsonaro takes office, concluding a campaign shaped by a narrow first-round margin, high abstention and competing appeals over Brazil’s political future and national sovereignty.