A majority of Americans say that the U.S. Supreme Court is "out of touch," according to a poll released Friday by Monmouth University.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed say that the high court is out of touch with the "values and beliefs" of the public, compared to 34 percent that said the court is in touch.

An overwhelming majority of Democrats polled — 82 percent — said that the Supreme Court is out of touch with the American public. Sixty-two percent of independents said the same.

Just 32 percent of Republicans said that the 6-3 conservative court was out of touch.

The most recent survey results come just days before the court is expected to start a new session and months after the court ended federal protections for abortion by overturning the 1973 landmark case Roe v. Wade.

The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health outraged Democrats are has emerged as a key midterm issue.

“The Supreme Court was not on the radar for many Americans until this summer. Recent decisions have moved some from being on the fence to having a negative opinion of the court,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

According to the Monmouth poll, there has been a sharp climb in negative views of the court in the past few months.

The latest poll showed 54 percent of Americans disapprove of the job the Supreme Court is doing and 37 percent approve. A March poll from Monmouth showed an even split, at 42-42 percent.

Among Democrats, 81 percent said in the most recent poll they disapproved of the court, compared to 54 percent in March. In March, 37 percent of independents disapproved of the court compared to 54 percent disapproval currently.

However, among Republicans, disapproval of the Supreme Court declined since March, from 36 percent to 28 percent.

In addition, 66 percent of the American public is supportive of term limits for Supreme Court justices. As it stands today, justices are appointed by a president for life, or until they decide to step down.

“As it stands, most Americans are uncomfortable with lifetime appointments to the court, but this is not something they are really thinking about. If a term limit proposal actually entered the public debate, I expect Republican opinion would move against it based on the impact it could have on the court’s current ideological leaning,” Murray said.

The Monmouth University poll was conducted between Sept. 21 and Sept. 25 among a 806 adults. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

A federal judge on Thursday denied a challenge to President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).

PLF on Tuesday became the first organization to challenge the Biden administration’s move to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt per borrower, alleging it is illegal because Congress, which holds the power of the purse, did not approve it.

The group filed the suit on behalf of one of its attorneys, alleging he would suffer irreparable harm because the plan would automatically forgive his debt and force him to face state tax liability.

"Nearly 8 million borrowers may be eligible to receive relief automatically because their relevant income data is already available to the Department," read a White House fact sheet cited in the suit.

But the judge on Thursday denied the motion after the Department of Education updated its website to clarify no one would be forced to take part in the debt forgiveness, a clarification that came after the department cast the lawsuit as “baseless” for claiming they would.

“If you would like to opt out of debt relief for any reason, including because you are concerned about a state tax liability, you will be given an opportunity to opt out,” the department’s website reads after Wednesday’s update.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young ruled that the PLF attorney can no longer be irreparably harmed by the policy since he can now opt out, throwing out his motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to halt Biden’s plan.

Young also granted PLF’s request to amend its complaint following the ruling. 

The judge asked PLF to consider in its new filing if it has standing to file a lawsuit. He also noted that the Education Department’s plan is “still evolving” and asked PLF to consider if the case is ready to be adjudicated.

“Since Pacific Legal Foundation filed the case on Tuesday, the government has made two staggeringly large changes to the program via quiet revisions to a Department of Education website, which only serves to underscore the lawless nature of this program,” PLF attorney Caleb Kruckenberg said in a statement. “The government clearly had not considered the implications of the program for people like our plaintiff, Frank Garrison.”

The department’s website was also updated on Thursday to exclude borrowers with privately held federal student loans.

The group promised to continue challenging the debt forgiveness plan.

“None of these on-the-fly changes can remedy the fact that the entire program is brazenly illegal from top to bottom,” said PLF attorney Michael Poon. “At no point has the government made a plausible argument that the underlying policy is legal. So far, they have not challenged our argument that the administration’s ‘lawmaking by press release’ is unconstitutional.”

The Hill has reached out to an Education Department spokesperson for comment.

Meanwhile, six Republican-led states on Thursday filed a separate suit challenging the debt forgiveness plan.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday agreed to dismiss a lawsuit that pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell filed against Dominion Voting System as the voting machine company pursues a $1.3 billion defamation claim against her.

In a three-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols granted Dominion's request to toss the case after finding Powell failed to show that Dominion's defamation suit against her constituted an abuse of justice.

"Powell’s complaint fails to link her abuse-of-process claim to any act that Dominion has taken other than filing and pursuing its lawsuit,” wrote Nichols, a Trump appointee to the federal district court in D.C. “She has thus failed to state a claim for abuse of process."

Developing.

A lawsuit from the New York attorney general is the latest legal headache for former President Trump and arguably the most personal, as it targets both his business and his image as a skilled dealmaker.

The lawsuit has triggered a furious response from Trump, but many Republicans think it could ultimately solidify Republican support as he mulls whether to run for president in 2024.

“They've demeaned me for years with this stuff. And now they find out that I have very little debt — very, very little — a lot of cash,” Trump told Sean Hannity of Fox News this week. “We have a great company, and we have among the best assets anywhere in the world. But I went through, they were demeaning me, you know, constantly these people. There's something wrong with them. I really believe they hate our country.”

Trump has spent days posting criticisms of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) on his Truth Social platform, demeaning her as a “racist” and sharing old videos of James pledging to go after him if elected.

The lawsuit is personal for Trump, who built his political brand largely on the image that he is a successful businessman capable of making savvy deals to build a financial empire. Trump has been protective of the details of his finances in recent years, breaking with decades-long tradition by refusing to release his tax records while campaigning for office.

In a civil suit, James alleges Trump, with the help of his adult children and Trump Organization executives, falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to secure loans on more favorable terms and to gain tax benefits. The suit alleges Trump and his company “knowingly and intentionally created more than 200 false and misleading valuations of assets” from 2011 to 2021.

As punishment, James is seeking a five-year ban on Trump buying commercial real estate in New York or applying for loans and a lifetime ban on Trump and his three oldest children — Don Jr., Ivanka and Eric — from serving on the board of any New York business.

But the allegations did not appear to bother many Republicans the way recent investigations into Trump’s conduct around the 2020 election or his handling of classified documents have.

Many in the GOP view the suit as a political move, pointing to James’s comments during her 2018 campaign in which she made Trump a focal point and vowed to hold him accountable.

One Republican operative with ties to Trump’s orbit dismissed any potential political fallout.

The operative reasoned that Trump’s base and the GOP as a whole are already inclined to believe Democrats, and James in particular, are out to get the former president. The lawsuit only reinforces that belief.

“The @January6thCmte investigation has stalled. The Mar-a-Lago raid is being exposed as a DOJ/FBI political operation. So now NY AG Letitia James has made a last-ditch effort to salvage attempts to 'get' President Trump. It never works,” tweeted Steven Cheung, a former Trump campaign adviser.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), head of the influential House Republican Study Committee, dismissed James’s lawsuit as “illegitimate” while sharing a video compilation of James calling Trump an “illegitimate president.”

Former Attorney General William Barr, a onetime staunch Trump ally who has been more willing to criticize his old boss in recent months, said he viewed James’s lawsuit as “overreach” that “will make people more sympathetic to Trump.”

“It’s hard for me not to conclude that this is a political hit job,” Barr said on Fox News after the lawsuit was publicized. “I’m not even sure that she has a good case against Trump himself, but what ultimately persuades me that this is a political hit job is that she grossly overreaches when she tries to drag the children into this.”

A New York Times poll conducted before news of James’s lawsuit was released found 44 percent of voters viewed Trump favorably, the same number as a poll conducted in July, underscoring his stable support among Republicans in particular.

Still, Trump’s legal troubles are undeniably piling up.

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot is resuming its public hearings next week, and the panel may submit a final report before the midterms that contains more damaging information about Trump’s inaction that day.

There’s the ongoing investigation in Georgia into an effort to put forward a slate of alternative electors who would have overturned the state’s election results in 2020, which has drawn in several Trump allies.

And perhaps most seriously, there is the investigation into Trump’s handling of classified materials after leaving office in the wake of an FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago home last month. A special master appointed to sift through seized materials in the case has pressed Trump’s legal team to back up the former president’s claims that he declassified the documents he took with him.

The various probes pose not just legal threats to Trump, but political ones as well as voters mull whether to move on to a different candidate for the 2024 election.

“Elections are business decisions at the end of the day,” one former Trump campaign aide said, acknowledging that at a certain point the investigations may become too much of a burden for voters to accept.

A man from Iowa who was among the first rioters to enter the Capitol Building during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection was found guilty on seven charges Friday, including five felonies. 

Doug Jensen was found guilty of all charges he faced, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, including felony charges of assaulting, resisting or impeding a law enforcement officer; obstruction of an official proceeding; interfering with a law enforcement officer during a civil disorder; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds with a dangerous weapon; and disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds with a dangerous weapon.

He was also found guilty of two misdemeanor charges. 

Jensen was arrested two days after the insurrection and pleaded not guilty to all counts, according to the U.S. attorney’s office. He was arrested in Des Moines. 

Jensen received national attention following the riot after a video that appears to show him leading a group of rioters up the stairs inside the Capitol went viral. The group seems to pursue Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman. 

Jensen’s attorney, Christopher Davis, attempted to secure his release from jail in June 2021, with Jensen saying in a court filing that he “feels deceived, recognizing that he bought into a pack of lies.” Jensen said in the filing that he is a victim of conspiracy theories that were fed to him over the internet. 

He said that he came to the Capitol on Jan. 6 to support former President Trump and to show that he was a “true patriot.” 

Prosecutors said in a document charging Jensen that he intentionally placed himself as a leader of the mob. They said Jensen is a supporter of the conspiracy theory QAnon and wanted his shirt seen on video so “’Q’ could get the credit.’” 

USA Today reported that Jensen will be sentenced on Dec. 16.

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection can access the phone records of the Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman, Kelli Ward. 

U.S. District Judge Diane Humetewa ruled against a motion that Ward and her husband, Michael, made in an effort to quash the subpoena in February. Kelli and Michael Ward, who co-own a medical practice, argued in their motion that the subpoena would violate their constitutional rights and their patients’ confidentiality. 

But Humetewa rejected the argument that the subpoena violates their rights, finding that the concerns mentioned in their arguments are “highly speculative.” 

Kelli and Michael Ward argued that the subpoena could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment right to association for them and the entire state Republican party. They also said the people Kelli called or texted could be contacted by the committee and implicated in the “largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.” 

Humetewa said in her ruling that the court must presume the committee will act in a responsible manner and with “due regard” for Wards' rights. She also said that no evidence was provided to prove that turning over the relevant phone numbers would create a chilling effect on their or the Arizona Republican Party's right to association. 

Kelli and Michael Ward also argued that the phone numbers they would provide could be used to identify their patients and violate the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which prevents most health care providers from disclosing health information without a patient’s consent. 

Humetewa encouraged both sides to discuss how to protect possible protected health information but declined to quash the subpoena on that basis. 

Both Wards were reportedly among the members of a slate of alternate electors who sought to declare former President Trump the winner of Arizona in the 2020 presidential election despite President Biden’s victory in the state. 

Kelli Ward did not immediately return a request from The Hill for comment through the Arizona Republican Party.

A jury has ordered the conservative media organization Project Veritas to pay $120,000 after finding it liable for wiretapping and misrepresentation following a yearslong court battle over the outlet’s undercover operation targeting a Democratic consulting firm. 

The 2017 lawsuit from Democracy Partners, its founder Robert Creamer and Strategic Consulting Group, a member of Democracy Partners, alleged that Daniel Sandini, an employee of Project Veritas, met with Creamer in July 2016, identifying himself as “Charles Roth,” a potential donor to a liberal advocacy group. 

Sandini told him that he has a niece named “Angela Brandt” who wanted to volunteer for Democratic candidates or organizations, per the suit.

Democracy Partners eventually chose Brandt to be an intern but later learned after the internship ended that her real name is Allison Maass and she was an employee of Project Veritas, according to the complaint. The firm argued that Maass repeatedly lied to Creamer about her identity and background and her intent in wanting the internship. 

Maass carried a concealed camera and an audio recording device to spy on Democracy Partners and gain information for Project Veritas to use to embarrass the firm and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, according to the complaint. 

Project Veritas then released four videos based on conversations Maass had with Creamer and other Democracy Partners staff that the plaintiffs alleged were “heavily edited” to cause viewers to reach false conclusions about the firm and Clinton. 

The firm said it lost clients as a result of the videos, in which Project Veritas alleged Democracy Partners wanted to incite violence to occur at then-candidate Donald Trump’s rallies. 

The jury ruled that Maass’s primary purpose in using hidden camera recordings was to “commit a breach of fiduciary duty” and that the defendants committed fraudulent misrepresentation against Strategic Consulting Group. 

The $120,000 is for the misrepresentation. The judge will determine damages for the wiretapping. 

Project Veritas has been known for sending employees undercover in media organizations and liberal-leaning groups. It has faced criticism for its tactics in the past. 

Creamer said in a statement after the ruling that he hopes it will discourage James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, and others from conducting “these kinds of political spy operations – and publishing selectively edited, misleading videos in the future.” 

Project Veritas announced its intention to appeal the ruling after the decision came out. 

O’Keefe said that the jury effectively ruled that investigative journalists owe a fiduciary duty to those they are investigating and that they cannot deceive their subjects. 

“Journalism is on trial, and Project Veritas will continue to fight for every journalist’s right to news gather, investigate, and expose wrongdoing – regardless of how powerful the investigated party may be,” he said. “Project Veritas will not be intimidated.” 

The organization said it has continually refused to settle the case out of court because it did not do anything wrong. The jury did rule in favor of Project Veritas on one claim that alleged Maass committed wiretapping in recording oral communications as she was a participant in those conversations.

A federal judge on Thursday denied MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell’s request for a temporary restraining order that would prevent the FBI from accessing his seized cell phone until a hearing occurs in the executive’s case against the seizure.

U.S. District Court Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, wrote in his decision shared by Politico that it would be "far wiser" for the court to hear from the government and Lindell's team on "relevant factual and legal questions" before making a decision regarding his case, noting that a temporary restraining order is an "extraordinary remedy" and that multiple factors must be considered in requests like Lindell's for the return of seized property.

He also wrote that Lindell's team did not "cite any authority the might explain why the cellphone's return is appropriate" under the procedural rule they used as the basis for their request.

The rule, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), authorizes a person to file a motion for the return of seized property.

“The court must receive evidence on any factual issue necessary to decide the motion,” reads the rule.

Tostrud said the plaintiffs failed to provide reasons why the phone should be returned based on Rule 41(g).

“Whether Rule 41(g) requires the cellphone’s return is not obvious, and that’s understating things,” he wrote.

The hearing date for Lindell’s case has not yet been set.

The Hill has reached out to Parker and MyPillow for comment on the decision.

New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) on Wednesday announced a civil lawsuit against former President Trump, the Trump Organization and three of his adult children, alleging over a decade of fraud.  

The attorney general’s lawsuit alleges that the former president’s company falsely inflated and deflated the value of assets in order to pay lower taxes and get better insurance coverage. 

The civil lawsuit is seeking $250 million in financial penalties and asking the State Supreme Court in New York to bar Trump and his children named in the suit from serving as an officer or director of any corporation registered or licensed in the state.  

It also asks the court to bar Trump and the Trump Organization from any real estate acquisition in New York or from applying for loans from any financial institution in the state for five years. 

Here are five things to know amid the lawsuit announcement. 

The lawsuit comes after a three-year civil investigation 

James has been leading a three-year investigation into the former president’s family business and finances in the state.  

James at a press conference Wednesday said her office had interviewed more than 65 witnesses and reviewed millions of documents throughout the probe. 

The attorney general said Trump “falsely inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself and to cheat the system, thereby cheating all of us,” and that he did so with the help of his children and with two named former Trump Organization executives, Allen Weisselberg and Jeffrey McConney. 

The lawsuit alleges that the group engaged in a conspiracy to violate state laws, including falsifying business records, issuing false financial statements and committing insurance fraud, James argued. 

Alleged federal crimes, including bank fraud, are being referred to the federal prosecutors and the IRS. 

For Trump, New York is close to home  

The former president began his career in New York and started building his business empire there in 1976.

The Trump Organization is a real estate development company that owns and operates a number of resorts, hotels, golf clubs and other businesses in New York.

The famed Trump Tower looms on New York City's Fifth Avenue, but toward the end of his four-year White House stint, Trump announced he was switching his primary residence from New York to Florida.

The then-president had retreated often to his private Mar-a-Lago club in Florida during his time in office, and has since made the resort his primary home — a move rumored to have been made for tax purposes.

But even after turning his back on Manhattan, Trump has maintained a large footprint in New York.

Trump's two adult sons now run the Trump Organization, which he turned over in 2017 as he assumed the presidency.

Trump’s children are involved 

The lawsuit names Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump and Eric Trump alongside their father and alleges they engaged in conspiracy to commit the fraud crimes.  

Eric Trump was questioned back in 2020 and reportedly pleaded the Fifth to over 500 questions related to his work within the Trump Organization.  

James subpoenaed Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr. earlier this year, and all three were deposed. Trump sat for questioning last month and invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to all inquiries. 

Trump’s children have played prominent roles in their father’s business orbit. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump both currently serve as executive vice presidents at the Trump Organization.  

When Ivanka Trump served as a White House adviser to her father during his presidential term, her business connections to the Trump Organization raised concerns about conflicts of interest.  

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump decried the lawsuit on social media after the announcement, accusing James of a “witch hunt” and arguing that the lawsuit is politically motivated to boost James’ reelection bid ahead of this year’s midterms.  

“This is all about politics. Weaponizing her office to go after her political opponents!” Donald Trump Jr. said on Twitter after the announcement.

He and Eric Trump both shared video clips of James vowing to go after Trump as attorney general.  

Former Attorney General William Barr on Wednesday critiqued James for trying “to drag the children into this.” 

The fight between James and Trump has been intense

Like his sons, Trump has long dismissed the probe and argued that the investigation was politically motivated against him.  

“Attorney General Letitia 'Peekaboo' James, a total crime fighting disaster in New York, is spending all of her time fighting for very powerful and well represented banks and insurance companies, who were fully paid, made a lot of money, and never had a complaint about me, instead of fighting murder and violent crime, which is killing New York State,” Trump said on Truth Social shortly after the lawsuit was announced. 

"She is a failed A.G. whose lack of talent in the fight against crime is causing record numbers of people and companies to flee New York. Bye, bye!” 

James has been vocal about her inquiry into the former president, a fact that has fueled the Trumps' arguments that her inquiry is politically motivated.  

But the attorney general has consistently hit back at the criticisms, and pressed on with the probe despite attempts from Trump and his team to block its progress.

"My office will follow the facts of any case, wherever they lead. Make no mistake: No one is above the law, not even the President," James wrote on Twitter back in 2019.

She echoed the same sentiment after the lawsuit was announced Wednesday. “There aren’t two sets of laws for people in this nation: former presidents must be held to the same standards as everyday Americans,” James wrote on Twitter.

It’s not the only legal battle Trump is facing 

As the longstanding New York investigation turns into a lawsuit, Trump continues to face a slate of other legal challenges, including probes and lawsuits over his presidential campaign, his time in office and his business practices.  

The lawsuit comes in the wake of last month’s FBI search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence.  

Agents executing a search warrant at the Palm Beach, Fl., resort found over 100 classified documents and dozens of empty folders marked classified, taken from the White House and stored at Trump’s home after the end of his time in office.

Court records revealed investigators suspected Trump of multiple violations of the Espionage Act for his mishandling of the materials, and Trump's legal team is now engaged in a battle to block the DOJ from reviewing the seized materials.

The Department of Justice and a House select committee also continue to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Members of the House committee have pushed for the DOJ, which has the power to prosecute that the committee lacks, to home their probe in on Trump and criminally investigate the former president.

The Jan. 6's committee's Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who has been the target of much ire from her former party leader for her work on the panel, said the investigation had gathered evidence of “a supreme dereliction of duty.”

In Georgia, a special grand jury is investigating efforts of Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.  

Georgia’s Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) has subpoenaed a number of prominent figures in Trump’s sphere as part of the inquiry, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) and lawyers Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis and Cleta Mitchell.

This story was updated at 5:07 p.m.

The state of Florida filed a petition to the Supreme Court on Wednesday to hear a case against its embattled law regulating how social media platforms moderate content, according to a copy of the document obtained by The Hill.

Florida asked the high court to weigh in after a court of appeals in May blocked major provisions of the law, ruling in favor of tech industry groups that filed a case against it. The groups argued that it infringes on First Amendment rights and could lead to more dangerous content and hate speech online. 

Florida’s law seeks to prohibit tech companies from banning users or moderating content based on political views. It was passed after mounting accusations from members of the GOP that tech platforms are censoring content with anti-conservative biases, an allegation that became more common following Twitter and Facebook's suspensions of former President Trump’s accounts. 

A Texas law similar to the one passed in Florida notched a major win in court last week when the Fifth Circuit court of appeals upheld the measure. The law restricts social media companies from removing users or violative content. The court's decision lifted a previous injunction by the Supreme Court, allowing the measure to take effect.

The brief filed by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) references the Fifth Circuit’s decision last week to uphold the Texas law. The decision by the Eleventh Circuit to block the Florida law “squarely conflicts” with the ruling for Texas, she wrote.

It is widely anticipated for the Supreme Court to hear a case on either the Florida or Texas law, weighing in on the conflicting rulings from the circuit courts.

Matt Schruers, president of the Computers and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) which is suing Florida along with NetChoice, said he agrees that the Supreme Court should hear the case. 

“With state legislatures considering a greater role for governments in online speech, the question of whether a government can compel social media services to disseminate content violating their policies is destined for the Supreme Court,” Schruers said in a statement.

The Hill has reached out to Moody's office for additional information and comment.

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit brought by BuzzFeed News and the outlet's investigative reporter Jason Leopold, who sought documents from U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) related to the directives given on Jan. 6, 2021.

In summary judgement dated Tuesday, D.C. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell concluded that "plaintiffs [BuzzFeed and Leopold] have no right to demand disclosure" of the documents requested, including Office of the Inspector General reports, semiannual disbursement reports and written directives on the day of the Capitol riots.

BuzzFeed had originally requested documents from Capitol Police following the Jan. 6 insurrection, and a representative for the force denied the request.

BuzzFeed and Leopold filed a petition to the D.C. federal court asking for an order that would require Capitol Police to release the documents. The plaintiffs argued that though the Capitol Police is a legislative agency, and is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, its documents should be released to the public.

The Capitol Police however, maintained that the documents requested were "law enforcement sensitive" and, if made public, “would reveal confidential sources and methods, investigative activities and techniques," according to Howell's decision.

The USPC also argued that because officers were sued in their official capacity under a legislative agency, the documents are protected under the federal government's sovereign immunity, meaning the force could not be sued "without the consent of Congress."

Howell ruled that the Capitol Police had no duty to disclose the requested documents and that no exception should be made to the agency's sovereign immunity.

"This case is therefore dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction," Howell concluded.

Former President Trump won a significant victory over investigators Thursday. If it stands, it will slow to a crawl the probe into how sensitive documents at Mar-a-Lago were handled.

Unless an appeal filed by the government on Friday succeeds, major action in the probe now seems all but certain to be postponed past the midterm elections — by which time Trump might plausibly declare himself a 2024 presidential candidate. 

In that scenario, he can be expected to argue with even more gusto that he is being victimized for political reasons by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI. At a recent rally in Pennsylvania, Trump labeled the two organizations “vicious monsters.”

The win for Trump came when Judge Aileen Cannon announced Thursday that she would appoint Raymond Dearie, a semi-retired judge proposed by Trump’s legal team, as a so-called special master in the case that first burst into public view with the Aug. 8 FBI raid on the former president’s Florida club.

Cannon, herself a Trump appointee, favored the former president in other important ways, too. 

The typical role of a special master is to evaluate documents seized in a law enforcement raid to see if any might be privileged attorney-client communications — or private and without evidentiary worth.

Cannon held that Dearie could evaluate all the documents seized, including those marked classified, for this purpose. Around 11,000 documents were taken in the raid, with about 100 bearing classified markings.

The government has argued — including in its Friday appeal — that, even if Cannon insists on going ahead with the appointment of a special master, documents with classified markings should be exempt from the process. 

In essence, the government asserts that such documents cannot, by their nature, be Trump’s personal property and are self-evidently germane to the investigation.

But “the Court does not find it appropriate to accept the Government’s conclusion on these important and disputed issues without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion,” Cannon wrote.

Moving forward, there are two other crucial aspects to Cannon’s latest decision. 

First, she has given the special master until Nov. 30 to complete his work, clogging some lines of investigation for at least six weeks.

Second, Cannon held fast to a controversial view. 

She asserts that it is possible to pause the use of the seized documents in a criminal probe, pending Dearie’s review, while at the same time proceeding with a separate process that would evaluate whether national security interests might be threatened.

Media reports have suggested that at least one seized document refers to a foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities. Several were categorized as “TS/SCI,” an abbreviation that stands for “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information.” 

Cannon took an undisguised jab at investigators in her Thursday decision, noting that the main national security jeopardy in the case so far emanates from “the unwarranted disclosures [in] leaks to the media after the underlying seizure.”

The government had argued that the two strands being probed — national security implications and possible criminality — cannot be separated.

If the DOJ does not prevail in its appeal, legal experts say investigators face significant problems. 

Investigators cannot for now use the content of any of the seized documents in interviews with potential witnesses. In practical terms, that would seriously neuter the probe.

“How does one investigate issues relating to those documents from an intel standpoint if you still can’t share the contents?” said Mark Zaid, a D.C.-based attorney who specializes in cases related to national security.

“The first question, let’s say to a member of staff at Mar-a-Lago, might be, ‘Where did you see the classified document?’ And they say, ‘Which one?’ And the answer is, ‘We can’t tell you.’ The FBI runs out of steam within two questions.”

Zaid noted, however, that this does not necessarily remove all legal jeopardy faced by Trump or those close to him.

Previous filings have shown that one of the potential crimes being investigated is obstruction.

A case could be made that such a crime had taken place, without reference to the actual contents of the documents.

The chronology of events leading up and including the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago suggests that Trump and the people around him were subpoenaed to produce all documents bearing classified markings and said they had done so, when in fact they had not. 

That could be seen as evidence of a crime, regardless of the specifics of what the documents contain. 

In the real world, however, the DOJ might be reluctant to indict a former president at that stage when it might otherwise wait for the special master’s review to conclude.

Meanwhile, some legal observers are pushing back hard against Cannon's decision.

"Judge Cannon wasn't simply leaning in Trump's direction but falling at his feet," said Harry Litman, a former U.S. Attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Dearie has directed counsel for the respective sides to appear in a federal courthouse in Brooklyn, N.Y., on Tuesday for a “preliminary conference.”

Complicating matters further, Cannon has permitted Dearie to evaluate the documents for whether Trump might justifiably exert executive privilege — not merely attorney-client privilege — over any of them.

The nuances of the legal arguments don’t disguise the underlying realities.

A Trump-appointed judge has placed a significant speed-bump in the way of the investigation.

The obstacle may be cleared on appeal. 

If it is not, prosecutors face a frustratingly slow road ahead.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

The convergence of investigations against former President Trump, led by the FBI’s search of his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida for classified materials, has put Attorney General Merrick Garland at the center of a political storm.

Republicans, led by former President Trump, have attacked Garland’s Justice Department as politically motivated and vowed to investigate his actions if the party retakes the House in November.

Democrats have mostly given Garland the space to do his job, but some liberals have argued there is already clear evidence to indict Trump and questioned why the attorney general is not pressing forward.

For some experts and those who know Garland, the former judge’s demeanor makes him the right man for the job at a time when all eyes are on him.

“I don't think he’s paralyzed and afraid to act,” said Alan Morrison, an associate dean at George Washington University Law School who has known Garland for years. “Getting the search warrant was a big step against the former president. He's shown he’s willing to take significant action. But I think the country is better off having a cautious person there than somebody who would have made a decision just to make a decision.”

After four years of the Trump Justice Department facing political pressure from the president and being accused of tilting the scales to benefit the party in the White House, President Biden pledged to restore a sense of independence to the agency and appointed Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2016 but never got a hearing from Republicans.

Garland was confirmed with a bipartisan vote, 70-30, in March 2021. But efforts to depoliticize the Justice Department have run into a major obstacle with a burst of activity in investigations into Trump, thrusting Garland into the spotlight.

Some Democrats had already been airing frustrations over what they viewed as a glacial pace in probing Trump’s actions around Jan. 6, 2021. Those criticisms bubbled to the surface as a House committee investigating the attack on the Capitol held public hearings with damning new allegations about Trump’s rhetoric before the 6th and inaction on the day of the attack.

The FBI’s August search of Mar-a-Lago to recover highly sensitive government materials that Trump had taken with him has only added to the clamor from some liberals for Garland to take action against the former president. 

Adding to the criticism, James Zirin, a former federal prosecutor who served in former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s (D) administration, wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill that Garland may have made a misstep in the Justice Department's handling of the Mar-a-Lago case after Judge Aileen Cannon ruled a special master should be appointed to sift through seized documents.

Meanwhile, Garland and his agency have taken fire from Republicans who have almost universally rallied around Trump and accused the attorney general and FBI director of leading a political witch hunt.

Some Republican lawmakers have pledged to investigate Garland if the GOP retakes the House majority in November. Others have broadly bemoaned that the attorney general has “weaponized” the Justice Department in approving the search warrant for Mar-a-Lago, even though it followed months of attempts to get the sensitive documents back from Trump.

Trump himself has not directly called out the attorney general, but he has been unrelenting in accusing the FBI and Justice Department more broadly of targeting him out of concern he may run for president again in 2024.

“What they did is terrible,” Trump told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday. “And I don’t think the people are going to stand for it. If you noticed, the poll numbers are the highest they’ve ever been. The people are not going to stand for this stuff. They’ve weaponized the Department of Justice and FBI.”

Garland for his part has steadfastly avoided weighing in publicly unless he believes it is absolutely necessary, as was the case after the FBI conducted its search of Mar-a-Lago.

He has pushed back on the idea that he or his team will be influenced by political considerations or public pressure one way or another.

“The only pressure that I, my prosecutors, or the agents feel is the pressure to do the right thing,” Garland told NBC News in a rare interview in July. “That's the only way we can pursue the rule of law, that's the only way we can keep the confidence of the American people in the rule of law, which is an essential part of our democratic system.”

Biden formally introduced Garland as his pick to lead the Justice Department on Jan. 7, 2021, one day after the riots at the Capitol. Given the timing, and the fact that the Mar-a-Lago case only recently came into public view, experts argued Garland was clearly not chosen with his ability to withstand public pressure about Trump-related probes in mind.

But the former president was always going to hang over much of what the Biden Justice Department did given various investigations into Trump’s finances, his claims about the 2020 election and his conduct on Jan. 6.

“They are clearly tough-minded and not treating Trump as if he’s above the law,” said Matt Bennett, a former staffer in the Clinton White House and co-founder of the think tank Third Way. “But they are also incredibly prudent, sensitive to the charge of politicizing the department. It’s a tough balance, but I think he’s getting it all right.”

The newly appointed special master who will review the documents recovered from Mar-a-Lago directed lawyers for former President Trump and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to meet with him in New York on Tuesday for their first conference.

Judge Raymond Dearie, who was appointed as special master in the case on Thursday, called on Friday for a meeting and invited the two parties to suggest items for discussion, according to a court filing.

Dearie has until Nov. 30 to complete his review of the documents.

As the special master process moves forward, the Justice Department is continuing its legal battle to gain access to the classified documents seized from Trump’s Florida home last month. U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, earlier this month blocked prosecutors from accessing the documents until the special master finishes his review and on Thursday rejected the DOJ's motion to regain access.

On Friday night, the DOJ appealed the decision in a new motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

The DOJ argued that it needs to review the sensitive documents due to national security concerns. The Washington Post reported earlier this month that the FBI found a document detailing an unnamed foreign nation’s nuclear capabilities in its search of Mar-a-Lago, along with roughly 100 other documents labeled as confidential.

Dearie, the one special master candidate agreed upon by both Trump's legal team and the DOJ, announced his full retirement from the U.S. District Court for Eastern New York in late August after serving as a senior judge since 2011 and previously as a chief judge of the court from 2007 to 2011. He was appointed to the court by former President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate in 1986.

Dearie also served on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA court, for seven years, during which time he was one of the judges who approved the 2016 warrant the FBI used to surveil Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page amid the DOJ's investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election. From 1982 to 1986, Dearie served as the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York.

The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal court for access to classified documents seized last month from Mar-a-Lago, appealing a lower court ruling that’s barred prosecutors from using those materials while investigating former President Trump's handling of government records.

In a new motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, DOJ officials said the materials taken from Trump’s South Florida estate include highly sensitive documents, and that denying prosecutors immediate access to those records would delay their investigation at a heightened risk to national security.

"By enjoining the review and use of the records bearing classification markings for criminal-investigative purposes, the district court’s order impedes the government’s efforts to protect the Nation’s security," the filing reads.  

The move was no surprise.

After a Trump-appointed federal judge had ruled in favor of the former-president earlier in the month, blocking the DOJ’s access to the disputed documents, the department said it would appeal to a higher court if the decision was not partially reversed. The judge, Aileen Cannon, denied the motion on Thursday evening, triggering the DOJ’s appeal to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta, where six of the 11 justices were nominated by Trump.

While the DOJ’s arguments to the appellate court are nearly identical to those presented to Cannon, prosecutors are hoping for a different outcome from a different audience. Their reasoning leans heavily on the idea — supported by legal precedents and federal law — that virtually all presidential records are the property of the government, to be turned over to the National Archives at the end of one’s tenure. 

"The records are not subject to any possible claim of personal attorney-client privilege. And neither Plaintiff nor the court has cited any authority suggesting that a former President could successfully invoke executive privilege to prevent the Executive Branch from reviewing its own records," prosecutors wrote. 

The appeal is the latest legal salvo in a weeks-long battle between Trump and the Biden administration over which party — the government or the former president — has lawful rights to more than 11,000 documents the FBI seized from Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8. Roughly 100 of those were labeled confidential, to some degree, and one was related to the military capacity of an unnamed foreign government, including its nuclear defenses, according to The Washington Post.

The extraordinary search followed months of fragile negotiations between the two sides, as well as assurances from Trump’s lawyers that any government materials stored at the Florida compound had been returned to the Archives earlier in the year. 

The process is a delicate one for the DOJ, not only because the investigation targets a former president, but also because Trump is eyeing another run at the White House in 2024. He and his supporters say the Biden administration is simply conducting a political witch hunt to damage his prospects. 

With its new filing, the DOJ is seeking to overturn a series of decisions passed down this month by Cannon, who was among the last of Trump’s judicial nominees to be confirmed, following his election defeat. 

In her initial ruling on Sept. 5, Cannon had granted Trump’s request for an independent arbiter, known as a special master, to sift through the seized materials. Until that review is complete, Cannon ruled, federal prosecutors may not use the sensitive documents in their criminal probe. She said the government’s central argument — that Trump, as a former president, has no right to claim executive privilege — “arguably overstates the law.”

Three days later, the DOJ had requested a partial reversal of that decision, asking Cannon to allow the agency access to the roughly 100 confidential documents to guide the most urgent part of its investigation. The special master could remain, the department proposed, but with access only to the unclassified materials. 

"[Trump] does not and could not assert that he owns or has any possessory interest in classified records," the DOJ wrote in that Sept. 8 filing. 

In denying that request, Cannon said she had no way of knowing if the classified documents were indeed classified, as the DOJ asserted. She also rejected the idea that Trump has no legal right to executive privilege. 

“The court does not find it appropriate to accept the government’s conclusions on these important and disputed issues,” she wrote Thursday, “without further review by a neutral third party in an expedited and orderly fashion.”

In a carve out, Cannon had allowed federal intelligence agencies to have continued access to the documents to conduct a separate damage assessment. But the DOJ said the two parallel probes were “inextricably linked.” As a result, even the security assessment is on hold “temporarily” while the court fight plays out. 

How long that takes remains unclear.

Cannon’s ruling on Thursday stipulated that the special master would have until Nov. 30 to complete the job — a shorter window than Trump had requested, but much longer than the mid-October deadline the DOJ had proposed. 

That could push any final resolution until after the midterm elections, although many legal experts critical of Cannon’s reasoning — including Trump’s former Attorney General Bill Barr — are predicting the 11th Circuit would move swiftly in siding with the DOJ. 

“I don't think it's going to take very much to overturn it," George Conway, a prominent conservative attorney, told CNN Thursday night, referring to Cannon’s latest ruling. "This opinion is absolutely atrocious.”

Cannon’s latest ruling also named the figure who will assume the special master role: Raymond Dearie, a New York-based federal district judge, appointed by President Reagan, who still serves in that role on a limited basis. Dearie also served for seven years on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as FISA, which oversees wiretapping and other highly secret government programs targeting subjects overseas. 

Proposed by Trump’s team, Dearie was the sole figure, among four candidates, both sides had endorsed. 

Cannon has instructed Dearie to prioritize the confidential materials and then “consider prompt adjustments to the court’s orders as necessary.” That stipulation was a potential, if rare, victory for the DOJ in its fight with Cannon, seeming to empower Dearie to clear those 100 documents for the FBI’s use immediately after his review. 
Dearie has asked lawyers for both camps to meet with him on Tuesday in New York to launch the process.   

— Updated at 9:47 p.m.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a controversial Texas law that restricts companies' ability to remove users or violative content on Friday. 

The court’s decision lifts a previous injunction put in place by the Supreme Court, allowing the embattled law to go into effect. 

“Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Because the district court held otherwise, we reverse its injunction and remand for further proceedings,” the court said in its decision. 

The court had previously lifted an injunction in place as the case was being weighed, but tech industry groups and civil society groups joined forces in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the order take action to temporarily block the case again as it made its way forward. The Supreme Court issued a rare 5-4 decision to put the block back on the law in May.

The case may end up back before the Supreme Court based on its merits. 

The Computers and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice filed the lawsuit against Texas, arguing the law is unconstitutional and would undermine platforms’ ability to ban language such as pro-Nazi speech, terrorist propaganda and medical misinformation. 

CCIA President Matt Schruers slammed the court’s decision Friday. 

“Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk. ‘God Bless America’ and ‘Death to America’ are both viewpoints, and it is unwise and unconstitutional for the State of Texas to compel a private business to treat those the same,” Schruers said in a statement. 

Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich said the law could lead to more hate speech, harassment and misinformation online. 

“Not only is that dangerous, but it throws out years of legal precedent affirming that online platforms have a First Amendment right to decide what appears on their sites,” he said in a statement. 

The outcome of the case could have broader implications as other Republican-controlled states weigh action on addressing online content moderation. A similar Florida law is being challenged by the tech trade groups, as well.

NBA commissioner Adam Silver responded to criticism the league has received over its year-long suspension of Robert Sarver, who owns the Phoenix Suns and the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, following its investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct against him and his organization. 

During a press conference on Wednesday, Silver, who succeeded David Stern as NBA commissioner in 2014, said that Sarver's conduct as found in the league’s investigation was “indefensible” but that he felt the league handled Sarver’s punishment in a “fair manner.” 

The league’s hired law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, found in its investigation that Sarver, who purchased the Phoenix, Ariz.-based NBA franchise in 2004, used the N-word on at least five occasions, engaged in inappropriate conduct with female and male employees and publicly berated employees on multiple occasions. 

“The conduct is indefensible,” Silver said during the league press conference, “but I felt we dealt with it in a fair manner in both taking into account the totality of the circumstances, not just those particular allegations, but the 18 years in which Mr. Sarver has owned the Suns and the Mercury.” 

When a reporter asked about the league’s punishment of Sarver in comparison with that levied against former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who was banned from the NBA for life and fined $2.5 million for making racist comments, Silver replied that while Sarver's language were "beyond the pale" the situation wasn’t comparable to that involving Sterling, who the commissioner said was guilty of "blatant racist conduct directed at a select group of people.” 

Sterling's ban came after audio surfaced of him making racist remarks about several Black people, including NBA Hall of Famer Earvin “Magic” Johnson, during a phone conversation with his ex-girlfriend. 

“Ultimately, we made a judgment, I made the judgment, that the circumstances in which he had used that language and that behavior that while as I said it was indefensible is … not strong enough,” Silver said of Sarver. “It's beyond the pale in every possible way to use language and behave that way, but that it was wholly of a different kind than what we saw in that earlier case.” 

Silver added that he did not discuss with Sarver the possibility of him selling his stake in the Suns due to the league’s investigation. 

This comes as the league launched its investigation last year after sports media outlet ESPN published a story in which dozens of sources alleged Sarver had engaged in racist and misogynistic behavior during a 17-year span. 

The Suns Legacy Partners LLC said in a statement following the punishment that Sarver will take full responsibility for actions noted in the league’s findings. 

In separate statements, the NAACP and Rev. Al Sharpton called out the league for its initial punishment toward Sarver, saying that it is not enough. 

“I encourage the Board of Governors to hold Mr. Sarver fully accountable for his actions, and to vote for his removal from the league in recognition that his behavior does not represent the values of the NBA,” Sharpton said in his statement. “I look forward to continuing to work with Commissioner Silver and the leadership of the league to fight racism and abuse at all levels, and to lead the American sports community in support of these principles.”

Google will have to face most of the Texas-led antitrust case over the tech giant’s ad dominance, a judge ruled Tuesday. 

U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel ruled against Google’s motion to dismiss the case filed by 16 states and Puerto Rico, though he did toss one count alleging Google and Facebook colluded on an advertising agreement.

“Here, the court is absolutely right to reject Google’s attempt to throw out our case. We look forward to a jury hearing how this Big Tech giant abused its monopoly power by harming consumers to reap billions in monopoly profits. This is a major step in the right direction to make our free market truly free,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) said in a statement. 

Google touted the judge’s decision to strike down the portion of the case aimed at the advertising deal with Meta, Facebook's parent company. 

“Today's decision underscores how AG Paxton's case is deeply flawed,” Google said in a blog post. “As we’ve long said, advertising technology is a fiercely competitive industry — and our products increase choice for publishers, advertisers and consumers while enabling small businesses to affordably find new customers. We look forward to setting the record straight about the remaining claims.”

Texas and other states filed the lawsuit in December 2020, alleging Google has stifled competition in the advertising market. More states joined the case later that year. 

It is just one antitrust case the tech giant is facing. 

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) filed a case against Google the same week as Paxton’s. The other multi-state led case takes aim at Google’s market power in the search market, alleging the company has engaged in anticompetitive conduct. 

The Department of Justice sued Google over allegations of anticompetitive conduct in the search market, as well. 

Google had denied the allegations in those cases.

The NBA announced on Tuesday that Robert Sarver, who owns the Phoenix Suns and the WNBA's Phoenix Mercury, has been suspended for a year amid the league’s investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct against him and his organization. 

In a news release, the league said that Sarver cannot be present at any NBA or WNBA team facility, which includes any office, arena, or practice facility, and will be prohibited from attending any NBA or WNBA events, which includes games, practices, or business partner activity. 

Sarver will also be barred from representing the Suns or Mercury in any public or private capacity and from any involvement with the business or basketball operations with both clubs. 

The league also handed down a $10 million fine to Sarver, noting that it plans to donate those funds to organizations that are committed to addressing race and gender-based issues in and outside the workplace. 

Both organizations were also asked to fulfill a series of requirements for workplace improvements created by the league, including “conducting regular and anonymous workplace culture surveys and responding to survey results with specific action plans,” the news release said. 

This comes nearly a year after the league initially launched its investigation into the Suns organization after sports media outlet ESPN published a story that alleges Sarver has engaged in racist and misogynistic behavior for 17 years. 

ESPN interviewed up to 70 current and former employees of the Suns who have described a “toxic and sometimes hostile workplace” under Sarver’s leadership. 

For its own investigation, the league's hired law firm, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, gathered interviews from 320 individuals, including current and former staffers who worked for the teams during Sarver’s 18-year tenure as owner, and obtained more than 80,000 documents and other materials, including emails, text messages, and videos. 

The league’s report found that Sarver “repeated or purported to repeat the N-word on at least five occasions” during the 18-year period, noting that it did not find that Server used the “racially insensitive language with the intent to demean or denigrate.” 

Among its key findings, Sarver engaged in inappropriate conduct with female employees, using demeaning language such as telling one pregnant female employee that she would be unable to do her job upon becoming a mother, making jokes about sex and sex-related anatomy, and publicly berating employees on multiple occasions. 

Sarver also engaged in inappropriate physical conduct with male employees on several occasions, the report said. 

In a statement, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said while the findings of their investigation into Sarver and his organizations were “troubling and disappointing,” he hopes the league will use these findings to improve and uphold “proper standards” in league workplaces. 

“I am hopeful that the NBA community will use this opportunity to reflect on what this great game means to people everywhere and the values of equality, respect and inclusion that it strives to represent. Regardless of position, power or intent, we all need to recognize the corrosive and hurtful impact of racially insensitive and demeaning language and behavior,” Silver said in his statement. “On behalf of the entire NBA, I apologize to all of those impacted by the misconduct outlined in the investigators’ report.  We must do better.”

In a statement, the Suns Legacy Partners LLC said that Sarver will take full responsibility for actions noted in the league’s findings. 

Recently, both the Suns and Mercury reached their respective league's Finals last year, eventually losing to the Milwaukee Bucks and Chicago Sky.

“He recognizes that at times during his eighteen years of ownership, his conduct did not reflect his, or the Suns’ values, and was inconsistent with the advancements the management team has taken with Robert’s full support,” the organization said. “We are proud of the progress we’ve already made, and moving forward, our organization will continue to build a best-in-class workplace.”

In response to Sarver’s suspension, the Rev. Al Sharpton said in a statement that he hopes the league’s board of governors removes Sarver from his ownership role.

“I encourage the Board of Governors to hold Mr. Sarver fully accountable for his actions, and to vote for his removal from the league in recognition that his behavior does not represent the values of the NBA,” Sharpton said. “I look forward to continuing to work with Commissioner Silver and the leadership of the league to fight racism and abuse at all levels, and to lead the American sports community in support of these principles.”

It's not the first time Sharpton has demanded an organization or company cut ties with Sarver, last month Sharpton called on PayPal to cut ties with him.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a proposal on Tuesday to place tricolored bats on its endangered species list, as the animals struggle to contend with a deadly fungus in their dark and damp abodes.

The species is on the brink of extinction due primarily to the impacts of “white-nose syndrome,” a disease caused by the growth of a fungus that looks like white fuzz on their muzzles and wings, according to FWS.

The fungus thrives in cold, dark, damp caverns and typically targets bats during hibernation. Those animals infected wake up more frequently, often succumbing to dehydration and starvation before spring comes, the FWS explained.

“White-nose syndrome is decimating hibernating bat species like the tricolored bat at unprecedented rates,” FWS Director Martha Williams said in a statement.

“Bats play such an important role in ensuring a healthy ecosystem, Williams continued. “The Service is deeply committed to continuing our vital research and collaborative efforts with partners to mitigate further impacts and recover tricolored bat populations.”

Bats contribute at least $3 billion each year to the U.S. agricultural economy by means of pest control and pollination, according to the FWS.

Tricolored bats are found east of the Rocky Mountains in 39 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, in four Canadian provinces from the Atlantic Coast to the Great Lakes and in parts of eastern Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Belize and Nicaragua, FWS said.

The proposal to classify tricolored bats as endangered arose following a comprehensive review tracking the decline of the species, according to FWS.

Population numbers have plunged so dramatically across the range of the species that it now meets the definition of endangered under the Endangered Species Act, per the review.

While white-nose syndrome is the most serious danger to the tricolored bat, other threats are gaining traction as climate change exacerbates a wide range of variables, FWS stated.

Some such variables include changes in temperature and precipitation, mortality at wind energy facilities and disturbances in roosting, foraging, commuting and wintering.

FWS said that it has plans in place to work with stakeholders to conserve bats while allowing economic activities within their range to continue to occur.

For example, habitat conservation plans could help wind projects advance after properly minimizing and mitigating impacts to bats, FWS explained.

Tuesday’s proposal follows a March 2022 announcement of a similar finding related to northern long-eared bats, which FWS recommended to be reclassified from threatened to endangered.

When a species is listed under the Endangered Species Act, FWS said it works with industry and others to pinpoint strategies that can help reduce the harm, harassment and killing of the animals, while deploying a wealth of conservation tools.

The ongoing crisis affecting tricolored bats is a testament to the importance of the Endangered Species Act and efforts to protect species before population declines become irreversible, a statement from FWS said.

In July, FWS announced the repeal of the last remaining Trump-era shifts to the Endangered Species Act, as The Hill reported.

Trump’s changes had required FWS to accept private landowners’ claims that making an area a protected habitat would bring economic harm. By restoring the pre-Trump status quo, such exclusions are now again at the discretion of the Interior secretary. 

The July declaration came weeks after a federal judge vacated another related Trump rule, which had said that equal protections did not apply to those species classified as endangered and those considered threatened.

Prior to that announcement, another Trump-era rule was revoked that had imposed stricter constraints on which areas qualified as critical habitats.

As far as tricolored bats are concerned, however, FWS determined that designating critical habitats would not be advisable because current or threatened modifications of the bats’ habitat or range is not bringing range-wide improvements to the species.

In addition, FWS warned that identifying the locations of bat roosts could increase direct harm to the animals or vandalism of their habitats.

Members of the public can comment on the proposed rule through November 14, by searching for docket number FWS-R5-ES-2021-0163 on the federal rulemaking portal.