Selma Blair on Friday apologized following her arrest after an alleged altercation with flight attendants on a Delta flight earlier this month.
The 54-year-old actress said her lawyers had advised her not to say anything because of the ongoing legal matter, but added that she could say: "Not one day ever have I intended to hurt or frighten anyone a day in my life. And so to the people I disappointed, that I hurt, I frightened, alarmed I am so sorry."
In the emotional Instagram video, taken in what appeared to be her home, she added that she would be taking care of her health and her son "and thinking of you all with gratitude and love."
Blair was arrested for assault and arraigned on Monday, Oct. 12, on two counts of second-degree assault stemming from alleged attacks on a Port Authority police officer and a nurse following her arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport from Los Angeles. Police had responded to a call about a "physically abusive passenger" aboard Delta Flight 938.
Blair pleaded not guilty. The judge set bail at $20,000 cash/$60,000 bond/ $60,000 partially secured bond. She's expected in court in January 2027.
"On Sunday October 11 at approximately 11pm at JFK Airport, PAPD responded to a call about a physically abusive passenger aboard Delta Airlines flight 938 which was parked at the gate after arrival from LAX," New York Port Authority officials confirmed to Fox News Digital.
"Suspect was identified as Selma Blair, a 54-year-old woman. She was taken into custody and transported to the hospital for evaluation."
According to court documents, Blair was restrained on a stretcher at the airport but freed her leg, and allegedly kicked an officer in the face, neck and chest, causing substantial swelling. A nurse at Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, where Blair was taken, alleged that the actress kicked her in the chest while moving her.
Delta confirmed that law enforcement officials responded to an incident upon arrival to John F. Kennedy International Airport, a flight which departed out of Los Angeles earlier in the day.
"Delta has zero tolerance for unruly or unlawful behavior, as the safety of our customers and crew always comes first," Delta said in a statement. Sources told TMZ that Blair allegedly punched one flight attendant and bit another in the middle of the flight.
Law enforcement officials confirmed Blair was also separately served with a summons by the FBI, and is currently facing one charge of assault.
At the time, the New York Post reported that Blair's lawyer told the court that the actress "missed several doses of… a powerful medication that controls severe neurological symptoms."
Representatives for Blair later shared a lengthy statement with People, saying the actress "did not intend to harm anyone."
"Since Sunday night, the public account of what happened to Selma aboard a flight to New York has been built almost entirely on a police statement and a decade-old headline," the spokesperson said.
"A handful of journalists have taken the time to report on Selma as a human being rather than a headline, and we are grateful to them," the statement continued. "But fair reporting has been the exception, and in the space left by our silence, speculation has hardened into something being treated as fact. We can, however, correct the record on a few points already in public circulation. Selma Blair experienced a medical emergency on the flight. There was no attempt to open the door of the aircraft. Selma did not intend to harm anyone."
The statement also addressed rumors the actress does not in fact have multiple sclerosis, a diagnosis she went public with in 2018. The spokesperson called those rumors "outrageous," noting, "What Selma has been able to do physically in the years since is nothing short of a miracle."
It concluded, "There is much more to this story than has been reported, and we ask to consider the entirety of the facts before rushing to judgment, whether in the courtroom or in the court of public opinion."
Welcome back, Deadline: Legal newsletter readers. As midterm Election Day approaches, Supreme Court justices return to the bench Monday for their next two-week argument session, which features a case that is poised to bring the latest expansion of religion in public life.
While much of the nation’s attention will be on the ballot box and vote tallies on Tuesday, that morning the justices will hear a challenge from Catholic schools who argue that Colorado’s universal preschool program violates their rights by not exempting them from serving LGBTQ families. The state says that it “requires all preschools — secular and religious alike — to deliver publicly-funded services without excluding families based on protected-class status.” The hearing should indicate whether St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy will be the court’s latest endorsement of religious rights or an exception to that trend.
This week the court was relatively quiet, with the main action (as of Friday afternoon) coming in a shadow docket order on Tuesday. The justices refused to grant an application,brought by a legal aid group and Democratic-led cities with large immigrant populations, that urged the court to halt what they called “egregious collusion” between Texas and the federal government.
The red state challenged a Biden-era rule that gave immigration judges discretion to pause removal proceedings to promote efficiency or protect due process rights. When the state brought the case against the Trump administration, the latter immediately joined Texas in a motion against the rule. A sympathetic judge, Reed O’Connor, blessed the deal and vacated the rule nationwide.
No justices dissented from the order declining the application from Centro Legal de la Raza and Baltimore, Maryland, Columbus, Ohio, and New Haven, Connecticut, which warned the high court of the “collusion that infected this suit from its inception.” They said that letting the deal stand would mean that “such collusive suits will surely proliferate further.” Now that the court has denied the application, we shall see.
President Donald Trump also got some good news on his personal docket, when the court ordered a response from Hillary Clinton to Trump’s bid to revive a civil lawsuit against her and others. Hoping the justices would summarily deny Trump’s petition, Clinton and her civil co-defendants initially waived their right to oppose the president’s attempt to resurrect the suit, in which he claimed they conspired ahead of the 2016 election to “weave a false narrative” that his campaign colluded with Russia.
But on Tuesday the court requested a response, signaling that at least one justice wants to hear from Trump’s 2016 election opponent before deciding what to do with his petition. It takes four justices to grant review, so the response request doesn’t necessarily mean that the court is interested in hearing the case, which lower courts have rejected. But it gives the president a bit of hope for now. We could learn later this year whether the justices will add this appeal to the term’s growing docket.
An issue that is more likely to attract the court’s attention is whether the administration has been properly letting lawyers lead federal prosecutors’ offices around the country without Senate confirmation. The latest lower court ruling against the administration came Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright said Trump’s chosen top prosecutor for the Los Angeles district had been “unlawfully serving.”
The George W. Bush appointee notedthat the government had pending petitions to the high court on the underlying legal dispute over how to interpret federal law on vacancies, with the Justice Department arguing that lower court rulings had “cast a pall over prosecutions in 14 judicial districts nationwide.” The justices could step in later this term to settle the issue, but they have discretion over whether and when to do so.
And though the court isn’t on the midterm ballot, the resulting makeup of the Senate will determine what sort of justices, if any, can fill any vacancies that arise in the near future. Justice Samuel Alito has said that he intends to serve at least through this latest court term, meaning at least until after the new Senate is seated.
But if Democrats win Senate control on Tuesday, there will still be speculation about whether he or the other eldest GOP-appointed justice, Clarence Thomas, will immediately step down to let Trump appoint their successors while he still has a Republican-controlled Senate. Both justices have suggested otherwise, but in any event, the court’s future is effectively on the ballot.
Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal newsletterfor 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.
At a hearing in federal court, prosecutors defended an unusual, 11th-hour criminal case accusing the former F.B.I. director of leaking classified information a decade ago.
James Ho, whom President Donald Trump appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in 2017 and considered as a potential Supreme Court nominee, recently criticized Trump v. Barbara, the June 2026 decision rejecting Trump's attempted restrictions on birthright citizenship. Ho's remarks, part of a speech he delivered on October 5 to a gathering of Christian activists at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C., are striking because they seem to contradict his longstanding position that the children of unauthorized immigrants qualify as citizens under the 14th Amendment when they are born in the United States.
The New York Timespresents Ho's speech as evidence that he hopes Trump will nominate him to the Supreme Court, assuming that opportunity arises during the next two years. But whatever you make of that theory, Ho's position on Trump v. Barbara is hard to reconcile with what he has repeatedly said about the meaning of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
"Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment," Ho wrote in a 2006 law journal article. "That birthright is protected no less for children of undocumented persons than for descendants of Mayflower passengers."
Ho reiterated that position in a 2011 Wall Street Journal essay. "Opponents of illegal immigration cannot claim to champion the rule of law and then, in the same breath, propose policies that violate our Constitution," he wrote.
The first sentence of the 14th Amendment, Ho noted, says "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The "plain meaning" of that language "is clear," Ho said. "A foreign national living in the United States is 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' because he is legally required to obey U.S. law." The historical evidence, he added, shows that "both proponents and opponents of the citizenship clause agreed" that "it would extend birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of Chinese laborers and other noncitizens."
So why does Ho think the Supreme Court reached the wrong result in Trump v. Barbara? "Foreign governments weaponize illegal immigration in order to hurt other countries," he said at the Museum of the Bible conference, which was convened by the Judicial Action Group. "For decades, administrations of both parties have warned the people about the use of illegal immigration as a weapon of war, and judges are supposed to defer to presidential proclamations about a state of invasion. So the Supreme Court should have upheld the president's birthright citizenship order in full based on his invasion proclamation."
Ho hinted at this position in a November 2024 interview with South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman, who agrees with Ho that the Citizenship Clause covers the U.S.-born children of unauthorized residents. The previous July in United States v. Abbott, Blackman noted, Ho had written a dissenting opinion arguing that illegal immigration could qualify as an "invasion" under Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the Constitution, which says no state may "engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
Blackman asked Ho to address criticism of that opinion. "Anyone who reads my prior writings on these topics should see a direct connection between birthright citizenship and invasion," Ho replied. "Birthright citizenship is supported by various Supreme Court opinions, both unanimous and separate opinions involving Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and others. But birthright citizenship obviously doesn't apply in case of war or invasion. No one to my knowledge has ever argued that the children of invading aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship. And I can't imagine what the legal argument for that would be."
The problem with Ho's qualification is that it empowers the president to override birthright citizenship, which Ho has said is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, simply by declaring that illegal immigration amounts to an "invasion." It is not hard to see why that position would appeal to Trump, since it means he can unilaterally redefine citizenship.
Does that mean Ho is kissing up to Trump because he wants to replace any justice who might retire before the end of Trump's term? That is what Times reporter Mattathias Schwartz suggests. Schwartz concedes that Ho, like most of the potential Supreme Court nominees that Trump listed during his first term, falls into the category of "traditional conservatives with strong ties to the Federalist Society." But Schwartz says "some experts perceive Judge Ho's remarks" as "an attempt to show his alignment with Mr. Trump's worldview."
How so? Ho's speech "channeled frustrations shared by Mr. Trump and his base that the Supreme Court's six-judge conservative supermajority—three of whom are Mr. Trump's appointees—have failed to uniformly back his agenda," Schwartz writes. "Despite a string of conservative wins on abortion, gun rights, and gerrymandering, there is a sense on the Trump-aligned right that Justices Brett M. Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil M. Gorsuch are becoming unreliably centrist swing votes—'squishes' in the online parlance—in the mold of Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter."
That framing implies that backing Trump's agenda is a matter of conservative principle. But Trump himself has no coherent ideology, and his authoritarian impulses often run headlong into conservative principles such as originalism, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. It makes sense to describe justices who occasionally disagree with Trump as "centrist" only if you accept the idea that his views are the standard by which judicial performance should be judged.
In any event, Schwartz suggests that Ho is presenting himself as a Trump-friendly judge who, unlike Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Gorsuch, could be relied upon to take the president's side. But the evidence that Schwartz cites to support that take is thin.
As Schwartz acknowledges, it is not even clear that Ho wants the job for which he supposedly is auditioning. His wife, Allyson N. Ho, works for a law firm that frequently litigates Supreme Court cases, and Judge Ho has suggested that her career would be ruined if he joined Court. "I can't imagine that Allyson's firm would want to be categorically recused from the highest court in the land," Ho said in a recent interview. "To have to tell every client that, if you hire them, they can only seek cert from an eight-member Court? That would effectively end her career and her practice—one she's worked so hard, for decades, to build."
Undeterred by that wrinkle, Schwartz cites parts of Ho's speech that he thinks suggest a desire to please the president. "Judge Ho lamented the values of 'this fallen world,'" Schwartz writes. "He called on the judiciary to stand up to 'cultural elites who control the national discourse.' He also bluntly rebuked the Supreme Court for legalizing same-sex marriage. He said the court's majority was wrong not to block the distribution of an abortion drug. And he said it was wrong again when it rejected Mr. Trump's attempt to limit birthright citizenship."
Those comments presumably appealed to the Christian conservatives in the audience. But with the exception of Ho's position on Trump v. Barbara, none of this seems tailored to ingratiate Ho with Trump, who is not particularly religious and seems to have no real interest in revisiting same-sex marriage or overriding state abortion policies.
While opposition to "cultural elites" sounds consistent with Trump's populism, the context of that phrase makes it clear that Ho was defending originalism against result-oriented jurisprudence. "We know that originalism may be permitted in polite company," Ho said, "but only until it leads to outcomes that are detested by the cultural elites who control the national discourse and who dispense the prestige and the respect and the stature craved by so many judges."
Although Ho's speech was peppered with Christian rhetoric, some of which the Times quotes, he emphasized that originalism does not entail interpreting the law according to religious principles. "Being an originalist means following the text and original understanding of the law no matter the outcome, no matter the effect on the judge's standing or reputation in the community," he said. "And if that's truly what you're doing, there actually should not be a Christian interpretation of the text or an atheist interpretation of the text. There would just be a dutiful, faithful interpretation of the text."
If you think Trump honestly cares about judicial methodology, "faithful interpretation of the text," or adherence to the original understanding of the Constitution, you have not been paying attention to his criticism of judges and justices, which is always based on their failure to agree with him. Michael Fragoso, former chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), who was the Senate majority leader when Trump nominated Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett, made exactly that point in an interview with Schwartz.
"One thing the activist class hasn't figured out is that the president doesn't really care about any of those substantive questions," Fragoso said. "He sees this as a loyalty issue."
Given that reality, you might expect that a judge trying to signal "his alignment" with Trump would say something about tariffs, his signature policy. But Ho's criticism of recent Supreme Court rulings did not extend to its decision last February in Learning Resources v. Trump, which rejected Trump's claim to sweeping tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
Of all his judicial setbacks during his current term, Trump was probably angriest about that one—in particular, the role that Gorsuch and Barrett played by joining the majority. Yet Ho, who supposedly was channeling Trump's frustration with such traitors, did not mention that case. Nor did he say anything about the Supreme Court's ruling against Trump's National Guard deployments or its decision constraining his use of the Alien Enemies Act, which were both big losses for him.
Those omissions are puzzling if Ho was mainly interested in boosting his chances at a Supreme Court nomination. Less so if he was simply expressing his honest opinions.
Jaxton Tayte Collins, a 21-year-old from Montana, had been out drinking at a bar in downtown Helena before he allegedly shoved a man of South Asian descent and told him to "go back to his country." Those comments, along with an alleged shove, could land him in jail for up to five years.
According to reporting from the Billings Gazette, "the complainant told officers he was walking with friends when a man in an orange shirt and wearing a large cross necklace approached his friend, who is of Indian descent and wears a head covering." The man in the orange shirt, later identified as Collins, "allegedly shoved the friend with both hands and "told him to go back to his country." Witnesses characterized the August 7th incident as "an attack," and called it "frightening."
Officers then arrived on the scene and located Collins nearby. He told cops that he had been at a bar drinking and told the victim to go back to his own country "because he was angry." However, he denied pushing him.
On Tuesday, Collins was arraigned on one count of misdemeanor assault and one felony charge of malicious intimidation or harassment of civil or human rights. Under Montana law, malicious intimidation or harassment occurs when a person "purposely or knowingly, with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend" causes bodily injury, "reasonable apprehension of bodily injury," or damages property because of another person's "race, creed, religion, color, national origin, or involvement in civil rights or human rights activities." Collins pleaded not guilty on both counts.
It's certainly plausible that Collins' actions could fall under these criteria. But the question that will likely decide Collins' fate pertains to the alleged shove.
In a statement to Reason, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) says, "The First Amendment protects even the most offensive and hateful speech. At the same time, it does not give a free pass to commit assault."
In Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), the Supreme Court upheld an enhanced sentence for a black man who urged his friends to attack a white teenager because of his race, ruling that states can impose harsher penalties for crimes motivated by bias—including racial, religious, and cultural bias—and that someone's words can serve as evidence of that motive.
"So if the defendant assaulted someone because of his race or national origin, the First Amendment likely wouldn't shield him from an enhanced penalty," says FIRE.
Montana's law isn't an outlier, and people have been convicted in other states for less. California,Washington,Michigan, and Illinois all have similar "hate crime" laws that can make it a felony to use force or threaten violence against someone because of their race, religion, or other characteristics.
In 2019, Reason reported on Timothy Trybus, who was convicted of two felony hate crimes in Chicago after drunkenly harassing a woman who was wearing a shirt with a Puerto Rican flag on it. He told her, "You shouldn't be wearing that in America." Tybrus never laid a hand on her, yet his comments upgraded a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge into two felonies. He was sentenced to two years of probation and 200 hours of community service.
Collins' next hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2027. If convicted, he could face up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Collins' words that night reflect a condemnable kind of nativism that is fundamentally un-American. But so is punishing someone for the content of their beliefs. If Collins did in fact shove the man, that could very well constitute a felony under Montana law. But if he's being prosecuted simply for his words, "that would obviously raise serious First Amendment concerns," says FIRE.
Three men who were part of a self-styled terrorist organisation that planned to blow up a mosque in Galway last year have been jailed at the Special Criminal Court as the presiding judge told them they have "brought shame on us all."
Death row inmate Christa Pike is speaking out one month after surviving Tennessee's attempt to execute her, saying she remains in constant pain and had never contemplated a life beyond the night she expected to die.
Pike, 50, described her condition in a statement dictated to her legal team and released Friday.
"One month ago on September 30, I walked into the execution chamber at Riverbend men’s prison prepared to die," Pike said. "I had made my peace."
Pike said she thanked those who had supported her through the years and told those who were there to witness her execution that she was "leaving them in loving kindness."
"Several days later I woke up alone in a hospital confused and in pain," Pike said. "There hasn't been a moment since that night when I haven't been in pain. My body hurts. My arms hurt. My hands hurt. My throat hurts. I still struggle to speak. And the pain isn't just physical. There is pain in my mind and in my soul."
Pike said she had never considered what her life would look like if she survived the execution.
"I had not contemplated life beyond that night, and I’m deeply hurt by the incompetence that has put so many people in this terrible position," she said. "I continue to think about my victim’s family and the terrible pain and loss they have endured."
Pike was sentenced to death for the 1995 murder of 19-year-old Colleen Slemmer, a fellow participant in a federal Job Corps program in Knoxville.
Her statement comes two days after Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said Pike remains incarcerated under state law and signaled that her death sentence is unlikely to change.
Pike's attorneys have called on Lee to commute her death sentence to life without parole after the failed execution.
Pike said Friday that she is recovering but remains in the infirmary at the Debra K. Johnson Rehabilitation Center, where she has been largely isolated from other people.
"I am recovering, and I know that I am getting stronger," Pike said. "But healing is not the same as being okay."
"Since that night, I have been largely isolated in the prison’s medical ward, away from other people and the human connections that mean so much to me," she continued. "That isolation brings its own kind of pain. I spent 28 years in solitary confinement and much of what I am experiencing today is a repeat of that condition."
Pike survived Tennessee's attempt to execute her by lethal injection on Sept. 30 after receiving two doses of pentobarbital and was rushed to a hospital.
She remained unconscious for days, and her attorneys at one point believed she was brain-dead and expected her to be taken off life support. Pike later regained consciousness and was discharged from the hospital before being returned to prison.
She was 18 when she, her 17-year-old boyfriend, Tadaryl Shipp, and 19-year-old Shadolla Peterson were charged in Slemmer's killing. All four were participating in Job Corps at the time.
The three took Slemmer to a secluded area on the University of Tennessee's Knoxville campus, where her throat was cut multiple times, she was struck in the head with a large piece of asphalt and a pentagram was carved into her chest.
Pike later confessed to her role in the killing. She was convicted and sentenced to death in 1996, and the Tennessee Supreme Court later affirmed her convictions and sentence.
"I don't know why I survived that night. I don't know what comes next," she said. "Some days, finding hope is harder than others. For now, I am trying to heal, one day at a time. And I am holding on to the love and kindness of so many people who have reminded me that I am not alone."
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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."
"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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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 hadspecifically 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 innew 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 justicesagreed 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 courtordered 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 underSection 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 theLaken 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 objectionthat 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 accuratelydescribed 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.
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 theDeadline: Legal newsletterfor 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Login
