Oct. 22 (UPI) — Israel’s Knesset on Wednesday, in a preliminary vote, approved sovereignty in the West Bank for Israel, described as a political ploy by the right-wing opposition during U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the nation.
President Donald Trump said last month that he will not allow Israel to annex the West Bank.
The bill, which is called “Application of Israeli Sovereignty in Judea and Samaria, 2025,” passed 25-24 by the parliament, and was transferred to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. It must still pass three additional votes in the plenum session.
The legislation says that “the laws, judicial system, administration, and sovereignty of the State of Israel shall apply to all areas of settlement in Judea and Samaria.”
A more limited annexation bill passed 32-9, also in a preliminary reading. The bill applies sovereignty to the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim near Jerusalem.
Militant Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip and not the West Bank, said in a statement that the recent bill “reflects the ugly face of the colonial occupation.”
As a “flagrant violation of all relevant international laws and resolution,” Hamas said Israel “insists on continuing its attempts to ‘legitimize’ settlements and impose Zionist ‘sovereignty’ over the occupied Palestinian territories.”
In 2007, the Palestinian territories were split into two separate administrations.
Israel maintains military control of the 2,263 square miles of the West Bank, while the Palestinian Authority, led by the Fatah party, has jurisdiction over civil and security authority in specific zones, based on the 1995 Oslo Accords.
The West Bank has been divided into three zones.
Area C, which makes up about 60% the West Bank, is under full Israeli military and civilian control. Area C includes agricultural land, water springs, quarries and land for future infrastructure for Israelis.
In August, Israel approved final plans for a settlement project in E1 of Area C between East Jerusalem and the Ma’ale Adumim settlement. This arrangement would sever the West Bank for a contiguous Palestinian State, which Israel opposes as a two-state solution.
More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank out of the total population of 4 million.
Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1980 and applies its civil law there, though the international community does not recognize this annexation. About 500,000 Israelis live there.
“By applying sovereignty to Judea and Samaria, we are correcting a historical wrong that is long overdue,” Avi Maoz, head of the far-right Noam party, said. “Since the government has hesitated, it is our duty as members of Knesset to act.”
All but one Likud minister boycotted the vote, with Yuli Edelstein breaking ranks to cast a decisive vote. Likud then removed Edelstein from his seat on the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, a spokesperson for the lawmaker confirmed to The Times of Israel.
Maoz denied a request by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to delay the vote.
Netanyahu’s Likud party said the vote was an attempt to embarrass the government while U.S. Vice President JD Vance visited the country.
“We strengthen settlements every day with actions, budgets, construction, industry, and not with words,” the Times of Israel reported by Likud. “True sovereignty will be achieved not with a show-off law for the protocol, but by working properly on the ground and creating the political conditions appropriate for the recognition of our sovereignty, as was done in the Golan Heights and in Jerusalem.”
The United Arab Emirates said in September that annexation of the West Bank would severely undermine the spirit of the Abraham Accords.
The West Bank was captured during the Six-Day War in 1967, except for East Jerusalem, as a “temporary belligerent occupation.”
The historic city of Bethlehem is in the West Bank and is under Israeli occupation. It has historic ties to the Jewish religion, as well as to Christianity and Islam.
In 2024, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory opinion that Israel’s presence in the West Bank was unlawful under international law because it is no longer temporary.
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are taking the first steps to change the chamber’s rules on Thursday, making it easier to confirm groups of President Trump’s nominees and overcome Democratic delays.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s move is the latest salvo after a dozen years of gradual changes by both parties to weaken the filibuster and make the nominations process more partisan. He has said the Democrats’ obstruction is “unsustainable” as they have drawn out the confirmation process and infuriated Trump as many positions in his administration have remained unfilled.
Opening up the Senate, Thune, a South Dakota Republican, said that the delays have prevented the Senate from spending time on legislative business.
“We’re going to fix this today, and restore the longtime Senate precedent of expeditious confirmation, and the Senate’s role as first and foremost a legislative body,” Thune said.
Republicans are taking a series of procedural votes Thursday on a group of 48 of Trump’s nominees, and are expected to vote to “overturn the chair,” or change the rules, which takes a simple majority vote. If all goes according to their plan, the nominees — undersecretaries and staff positions for various agencies across the government as well as several ambassadors — could be confirmed by next week.
The rules change effort comes as both parties have obstructed the other’s nominees for years, and as both Republicans and Democrats have advocated speeding the process when they are in the majority. The Republican rules change stops short of speeding up votes on high-level Cabinet officials and lifetime judicial appointments, and it is loosely based on a proposal from Democrats under President Biden.
Republicans have been pushing the rules change since early August, when the Senate left for a monthlong recess after a breakdown in bipartisan negotiations over the confirmation process and Trump told Senate Democratic Leader Charles E. Schumer to “GO TO HELL!” on social media.
Democrats have blocked more nominees than ever before as they have struggled to find ways to oppose Trump and the GOP-dominated Congress, and as their voters have pushed them to fight Republicans at every turn. It’s the first time in recent history that the minority party hasn’t allowed at least some quick confirmations.
Schumer has said Democrats are delaying the nominations because Trump’s nominees are “historically bad.”
“If you don’t debate nominees, if you don’t vote on individual nominees, if there’s not some degree of sunlight, what will stop Donald Trump from nominating even worse individuals than we’ve seen to date, knowing this chamber will rubber stamp anything he wishes?” Schumer said Monday.
Schumer told Republicans that they will “come to regret” their action — echoing a similar warning from GOP Leader Mitch McConnell to then-Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2013, when Democrats changed Senate rules for executive branch and lower-court judicial nominees to remove the 60-vote threshold for confirmations. At the time, Republicans were blocking President Obama’s picks.
Republicans took the Senate majority a year later, and McConnell eventually did the same for Supreme Court nominees in 2017 as Democrats tried to block Trump’s nomination of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“I say to my Republican colleagues, think carefully before taking this step,” Schumer said.
The East L.A. Classic, matching high school football rivals Garfield and Roosevelt, is returning to East Los Angeles College on Friday, Oct. 24, the Bulldogs confirmed on Monday. There also will be a JV game and flag football game.
Last season, the two schools played at SoFi Stadium. The Coliseum has also hosted a recent game. But East L.A. College has been the site for the majority of a rivalry that serves as a homecoming for both schools and annually attracts the largest fan attendance in the City Section, if not in Southern California.
L.A.’s best football tradition is taking place THIS Friday, October 25 at Sofi Stadium.
The East L.A. Classic between the Roosevelt Roughriders & Garfield Bulldogs has been going on for over 99 years and is the best rivalry in L.A.
WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel has ruled that President Trump cannot use an 18th century wartime law to speed the deportations of people his administration accuses of being in a Venezuelan gang. The decision blocking an administration priority is destined for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two judges on a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the ruling Tuesday, agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not intended to be used against gangs such as Tren de Aragua, which the Republican president had targeted in March.
Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the administration’s use of “a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the majority erred in second-guessing the president.
“The authority to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the President,” Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”
The administration deported people designated as Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador and argued that American courts could not order them freed.
In a deal announced in July, more than 250 of the deported migrants returned to Venezuela.
The Alien Enemies Act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars — in the War of 1812 and the two world wars.
The administration unsuccessfully argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the United States, meriting use of the act.
In a 2-1 ruling, the judges said they granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs because they “found no invasion or predatory incursion” in this case.
The decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. Andrew Oldham, a Trump nominee, dissented.
The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua did not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for the act.
“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.
In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.
“The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented — it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote.
The panel did grant the Trump administration one legal victory, finding the procedures it uses to advise detainees under the Alien Enemies Act of their legal rights were appropriate.
The ruling can be appealed to the full 5th Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court, which is likely to make the ultimate decision on the issue.
The Supreme Court has already gotten involved twice before in the tangled history of the Trump administration’s use of the act. In the initial weeks after Trump’s March declaration, the court ruled that the administration could deport people under the act, but unanimously found that those targeted needed to be given a reasonable chance to argue their case before judges in the areas where they were held.
Then, as the administration moved to rapidly deport more Venezuelans from Texas, the high court stepped in again with an unusual, post-midnight ruling that they couldn’t do so until the 5th Circuit decided whether the administration was providing adequate notice to the immigrants and could weigh in on the broader legal issues of the case. The high court has yet to address whether a gang can be cited as an alien enemy under the act.
Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.
A new study revealed that LGBTQIA+ people in the US want to get married.
In 2015, the queer community achieved a massive victory when same-sex marriage was legalised across all 50 states – following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case.
Over the last decade, thousands of LGBTQIA+ couples have exercised their right to get married, with many more considering the possibility.
According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center, 59% of LGBTQIA+ US adults under 50 who have never been married say they want to get hitched. Comparatively, 63% of non-LGBTQIA+ individuals under the same age bracket say the same thing.
Upon further investigation, researchers found that of the surveyed LGBTQIA+ adults, those between the ages of 18 and 29 were more than likely to say they wanted to get married compared to those aged 30 to 49.
Non queer adults also displayed similar stats, with 79% of 18 to 29-year-olds embracing marriage, while only 49% of 30-49 year olds agreed.
When surveying those who are divorced, widowed or separated, 49% of LGBTQIA+ adults said they were more likely to get married again. The same couldn’t be said for their heterosexual peers, with only 33% expressing an interest.
The study also shed some light on the respective groups’ views about having children.
47% of non-LGBTQIA+ adults under 50, who don’t have kids, were shown to have more of an interest in starting a family, while only 33% of LGBTQIA+ adults shared the same sentiment.
However, a nearly equal portion of LGBTQIA+ adults (28%) and non-LGBTQIA+ adults (29%) were unsure if they wanted to have children.
Lastly, it was revealed that 37% of LGBTQIA+ women and 36% of LGBTQIA+ men want to have kids someday.
There was a bigger disparity between the straight individuals. 54% of non-LGBTQIA+ men were reported to want children, and 39% of non-LGBTQIA+ women shared the same interest.
The recent data comes at a time when marriage equality is facing a new wave of attacks from Republicans and conservative figures.
In July, former Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis – who made headlines in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to LGBTQIA+ couples – filed a petition urging the US Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges.
In the filing, she described the ruling as being “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process” and further claimed that it forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”
For more information about the petition and whether the Court will hear the case, click here.
WASHINGTON — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid.
Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money.
In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid.
After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year.
The appeal court’s majority partially vacated Ali’s order.
Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress’ spending powers.
“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote.
Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held “in no uncertain terms” that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons.
“Yet that is what the majority enables today,” Pan wrote. “The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”
The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals.
Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.
SIX in 10 Gen Zers reckon music gigs are overpriced – but are making financial sacrifices so they don’t miss out.
A study of 2,000 adults found 46 per cent of 21- to 24-year-olds believe concerts are out of reach for most people.
3
One in seven Gen Zers admitted to spending more on a live gig than on their monthly billsCredit: Will Ireland/PinPep
3
Singer-songwriter Sam Ryder surprised fans with a gig at The Anchor in London on SaturdayCredit: Will Ireland/PinPep
Gen Zers are nonetheless determined to make it work, with 67 per cent having been to at least one gig in the past year – and spending an average of £117 on their priciest ticket.
To cover the cost, nearly one in five young adults (18 per cent) cut back on essentials, while 26 per cent scrapped a subscription – and 15 per cent admitted to spending more on a live music event than on their monthly bills.
The study was commissioned by Greene King, which staged the ‘biggest pub gig ever’ – with Sam Ryder giving a surprise performance at the iconic pub The Anchor on London’s South Bank.
As one of 800 acts in Greene King Untapped – a competition to find the next big music talent – Sam performed a 35-minute set, free for fans to watch.
The BRIT-nominated Eurovision star, who has also been appointed the pub chain’s Head of Gigs, said: “Playing in pubs and smaller venues was where it all started for me, with intimate venues, borrowed PA systems, and a handful of pub-goers who might become fans.
“Grassroots music is at the heartbeat of the scene and those early gigs shaped who I am as an artist.
“These spaces allow live music to be an experience available to everyone, that’s why they’re so important, and I’m stoked to be a part of the team helping to keep that alive.”
The study also found that 40 per cent of adults have skipped live music because of high ticket prices – missing an average of three events in the past year.
Half of those surveyed said they’ve wanted to attend a music event but couldn’t because tickets sold out too quickly.
The study also found that 53 per cent believe live music ticket prices are unfair, with 67 per cent saying prices have become unreasonable in recent years.
Oasis mania sweeps Edinburgh as 70,000 fans descend on Murrayfield for mega gig
Meanwhile, 61 per cent claimed they would go to more gigs if tickets cost less.
The research also revealed that 41 per cent feel most alive when attending a gig, while 63 per cent admit the energy of a live performance doesn’t translate the same way digitally.
And 38 per cent have suffered FOMO (a Gen Z term meaning Fear of Missing Out) after seeing concerts on social media they couldn’t attend.
Zoe Bowley, managing director at Greene King Pubs, said: “Pubs have long been the heartland of grassroots music, a place where emerging talent takes root, stars are born, and communities come together.
“It’s where British people do what they do best: connect, celebrate, and create lasting memories.”
A majority of people in five nations – Brazil, Colombia, Greece, South Africa and Spain – believe that weapons companies should stop or reduce trade with Israel as its onslaught on Gaza continues, a poll released on Thursday reveals.
Spain showed the highest support for weapons deals to be halted, with 58 percent of respondents saying they should stop completely, followed by Greece at 57 percent and Colombia at 52 percent. In Brazil, 37 percent of respondents believed arms companies should completely stop sales to Israel, while 22 percent believed they should be reduced. In South Africa, those levels stood at 46 and 20 percent, respectively.
Commissioned by the Global Energy Embargo for Palestine network, endorsed by the left-wing Progressive International organisation, and fielded by the Pollfish platform last month, the survey comes in the wake of a call by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, on countries to slash financial relations with Israel as she decried an “economy of genocide“.
“The people have spoken, and they refuse to be complicit. Across continents, ordinary citizens demand an end to the fuel that powers settler colonialism, apartheid and genocide,” said Ana Sanchez, a campaigner for Global Energy Embargo for Palestine.
“No state that claims to uphold democracy can justify maintaining energy, military, or economic ties with Israel while it commits a genocide in Palestine. This is not just about trade; it’s about people’s power to cut the supply lines of oppression.”
The group said it chose the survey locations because of the countries’ direct involvement in the import and transport of energy to Israel.
More than 1,000 respondents in each nation were asked about governmental and private sector relations with Israel to measure public attitudes on responsibility.
Condemnation of Israel’s action in Gaza as the humanitarian crisis escalates was the highest in Greece and Spain and lowest in Brazil.
Sixty-one percent and 60 percent in Greece and Spain respectively opposed Israel’s current “military actions” in Gaza, while in Colombia, 50 percent opposed them. In Brazil and South Africa, 30 percent were against Israel’s war, while 33 percent and 20 percent, respectively, supported the campaign.
A protester holds a sign during a demonstration demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in Bogota, Colombia, on January 27, 2024 [Luisa Gonzalez/Reuters]
To date, Israel’s genocide in Gaza has killed more than 60,000 people – most of them women and children. Now home to the highest number of child amputees per capita, much of the besieged Strip is in a state of ruin as the population starves. As the crisis worsens, arms dealers and companies that facilitate their deals are facing heightened scrutiny.
In June, as reported by Al Jazeera, Maersk divested from companies linked to Israeli settlements, which are considered illegal under international law, following a campaign accusing the Danish shipping giant of links to Israel’s military and occupation of Palestinian land.
On Tuesday, Norway announced that it would review its sovereign wealth fund’s investments in Israel, after it was revealed that it had a stake in an Israeli firm that supplies fighter jet parts to the Israeli military. In recent months, several wealth and pension funds have distanced themselves from companies linked to Israel’s war on Gaza or its illegal occupation of the West Bank.
Responding to the poll, 41 percent in Spain said they would “strongly” support a state-level decision to reduce trade in weapons, fuel and other goods in an attempt to pressure Israel into stopping the war. This figure stood at 33 percent in Colombia and South Africa, and 28 and 24 percent in Greece and Brazil, respectively.
“The message from the peoples of the world is loud and clear: They want action to end the assault on Gaza – not just words,” said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International. “Across continents, majorities are calling for their governments to halt arms sales and restrain Israel’s occupation.”
TOKYO — Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba on Wednesday vowed to remain in power to oversee the implementation of a new Japan-U.S. tariff agreement, despite media speculation and growing calls for him to resign after a historic defeat of his governing party.
Ishiba met with heavyweights from his Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, and former Prime Ministers Taro Aso, Fumio Kishida and Yoshihide Suga at party headquarters.
He told reporters afterward that they didn’t discuss his resignation or a new party leadership contest, but only the election results, voters’ dissatisfaction and the urgent need to avoid party discord.
Despite his business-as-usual demeanor, Ishiba is under increasing pressure to bow out after the LDP and junior coalition partner Komeito lost their majority in Sunday’s election in the 248-member upper house, the smaller and less powerful of Japan’s two-chamber parliament, shaking his grip on power.
It came after a loss in the more powerful lower house in October, and so his coalition now lacks a majority in both houses of parliament, making it even more difficult for his government to pass policies and worsening Japan’s political instability.
Ishiba says he intends to stay on to tackle pressing challenges, including tariff talks with the U.S., so as not to create a political vacuum despite calls from inside and outside his party for a quick resignation.
Ishiba “keeps saying he is staying on. What was the public’s verdict in the election all about?” said Yuichiro Tamaki, head of the surging Democratic Party for the People, or DPP.
At the LDP, a group of younger lawmakers led by Yasutaka Nakasone started a petition drive seeking Ishiba’s early resignation and renewal of party leadership.
“We all have a sense of crisis and think the election results were ultimatum from the voters,” he said.
Japanese media reported that Ishiba is expected to soon announce plans to step down in August.
The conservative Yomiuri newspaper said in an extra edition on Wednesday that Ishiba had decided to announce his resignation by the end of July after receiving a detailed report from his chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, on the impact of the U.S. tariffs on the Japanese economy, paving the way for a new party leader.
Ishiba denied the report and said that he wants to focus on the U.S. trade deal, which covers more than 4,000 goods affecting many Japanese producers and industries. He welcomed the new agreement, which places tariffs at 15% on Japanese cars and other goods imported into the U.S. from Japan, down from the initial 25%.
Still, local media are already speculating about possible successors. Among them are ultraconservative former Economic Security Minister Sanae Takaichi, who lost to Ishiba in September. Another conservative ex-minister, Takayuki Kobayashi, and Agriculture Minister Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of former popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, are also seen as potential challengers.
In Sunday’s election, voters frustrated with price increases exceeding the pace of wage hikes, especially younger people who have long felt ignored by the ruling government’s focus on senior voters, rapidly turned to the emerging conservative DPP and right-wing populist Sanseito party.
None of the opposition parties have shown interest in forming a full-fledged alliance with the governing coalition, but they have said they are open to cooperating on policy.
People expressed mixed reaction to Ishiba, as his days seem to be numbered.
Kentaro Nakamura, 53, said that he thought it’s time for Ishiba to go, because he lacked consistency and did poorly in the election.
“The (election) result was so bad and I thought it would not be appropriate for him to stay on,” Nakamura said. “I thought it was just a matter of time.”
But Isamu Kawana, a Tokyo resident in his 70s, was more sympathetic and said if it wasn’t Ishiba who was elected prime minister last year, the result would have been the same.
“I think he got the short end of the stick,” Kawana said.
Yamaguchi writes for the Associated Press. Reeno Hashimoto contributed to this report.
July 20 (UPI) — Japan’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who assumed office in October 2024, could face mounting political pressure as his ruling coalition is projected to lose its majority during elections for the House of Councilors on Sunday.
Ishiba acknowledged Sunday night to public broadcaster NHK that it would be difficult for the ruling coalition, an alliance of his Liberal Democratic Party and the Komeito Party, to secure the 50 seats in the House of Councilors election to maintain a majority.
Before the election, the LDP-Komeito coalition together held 66 of 125 seats up for grabs this cycle, but exit polls conducted by NHK with other national news outlets showed they are expected to only win somewhere between 32 and 51 seats in the upper house.
“The situation is severe, and we must accept it humbly and sincerely,” Ishiba said in remarks to NHK. He added that his party has a “responsibility” to fulfill the promises it made to voters, including raising wages more than inflation and measures to combat population decline.
The country’s national legislature, called the Diet, is comprised of two houses: the House of Councilors, and the more powerful lower house, called the House of Representatives, which is responsible for selecting the prime minister.
Ishiba became Japan’s prime minister last fall after winning the ruling LDP’s internal leadership election, replacing Fumio Kishida, who stepped down amid declining approval and scandal ties.
Because the LDP held a majority in the lower house of parliament at the time, through its longstanding coalition with the Komeito party, Ishiba’s victory secured his elevation to the country’s top office.
Days after taking power, he called a snap general election in October 2024 in an effort to strengthen his mandate. Instead, voters handed his party a historic defeat: the LDP-Komeito coalition lost its majority in the lower chamber for the first time in over a decade, forcing Ishiba to lead a fragile minority government.
Now, Ishiba’s leadership is facing another major test in Sunday’s upper house election, where exit polls suggest the ruling coalition is also on track to lose control of the legislature’s second chamber, which would make it difficult for the government to pass legislation.
Under Japanese law, a minority government can continue to rule as long as it avoids a no-confidence vote in the House of Representatives and because Japan’s opposition is often fragmented, it could be hard to oust a weakened ruling party. Still, it could lead to the possibility that Ishiba may choose to resign less than a year after becoming prime minister.
Masataka Furuya, chairman of the Central Election Management Committee, released a statement before voting Sunday, encouraging the public to participate in the voting process. As of 7:30 p.m. local time, the nationwide voter turnout rote for the election was 29.9%, lower than the previous election three years ago.
The back-to-back losses reflect growing voter dissatisfaction with the LDP under Ishiba, driven by economic stagnation, public frustration over immigration policy, and fatigue with the party’s decades-long grip on power.
“We hope that all voters will fully understand the significance of this regular election of the House of Councilors, actively participate in the voting, and exercise their precious vote with care,” the office of the Minister of Internal Affairs and Communications said in a statement Sunday.
“We also ask that those involved in the voting and counting of the elections take strict and fair action and take the utmost care in managing and executing the elections.”
Exit polls from an election in Japan project the ruling coalition is set to lose its majority, putting the country’s Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba under immense political pressure.
Voters headed to the polls earlier on Sunday for the tightly-contested upper house election, being held amid public frustration over rising prices and the threat of US tariffs.
Having already lost its majority in Japan’s more powerful lower house, defeat for the coalition in the upper house would critically undermine its influence over policymaking and could prompt Ishiba to quit less than a year after he was elected.
The coalition needs 50 seats to retain control of the 248-seat upper chamber – with an exit poll from public broadcaster NHK projecting them to win between 32 and 51.
Earlier polls had indicated that Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its junior partner Komeito were at risk of losing their majority, having already lost their majority in Japan’s more powerful lower house.
On Sunday, NHK projected it “may be difficult for the ruling coalition to maintain their majority”.
Despite the projection his coalition would lose the upper house, Ishiba told a news conference at his party’s headquarters in Tokyo that he intended to remain as prime minister.
“We are engaged in extremely critical tariff negotiations with the United States…we must never ruin these negotiations,” he said.
Half of the seats in the upper chamber were being voted on in Sunday’s election, with members elected for six-year terms.
If the coalition takes home less than 46 seats, it would mark its worst performance since it was formed in 1999.
Ishiba’s centre-right party has governed Japan almost continuously since 1955, albeit with frequent changes of leader.
The expected result underscores voters’ frustration with Ishiba, who has struggled to inspire confidence as Japan struggles against economic headwinds, a cost-of-living crisis and trade negotiations with the United States.
Many are also unhappy about inflation – particularly the price of rice – and a string of political scandals that have beleaguered the LDP in recent years.
The last three LDP premiers who lost a majority in the upper house stepped down within two months, and analysts had predicted that a significant loss in this election would yield a similar outcome.
This would open the field for a potential run at the leadership by other notable LDP members, including Sanae Takaichi, who finished second to Ishiba in last year’s general election; Takayuki Kobayashi, a former economic security minister; and Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
In any case, a change of leadership within the ruling party would almost certainly unleash political drama and destabilise Japan’s government at a pivotal moment in US-Japan trade negotiations.
Support for the ruling coalition appears to have been eroded by candidates from the small, right-leaning Sanseito party, which drew conservative votes with its “Japanese First”, anti-immigration rhetoric.
Sanseito first gained prominence on YouTube during the Covid-19 pandemic, spreading conspiracy theories about vaccinations and a cabal of global elites.
The fringe party’s nativist rhetoric widened its appeal ahead of Sunday’s vote, as policies regarding foreign residents and immigration became a focal point of many parties’ campaigns.
Going off the NHK exit polls, it is on course to win seven seats.
Famous for its isolationist culture and strict immigration policies, the island nation has experienced a record surge in both tourists and foreign residents in recent years.
The influx has further driven up prices for Japanese people and fuelled a sentiment among some that foreigners are taking advantage of the country, aggravating discontent.
Against that same backdrop, Ishiba last week launched a task force aimed at tackling “crimes or nuisance behaviours committed by some foreign nationals”, including those relating to immigration, land acquisitions and unpaid social insurance.
Japan’s ruling coalition is likely to lose its majority in the upper house, according to an exit poll by local media, potentially fuelling political instability in the world’s fourth largest economy.
Voters in Japan cast their ballots on Sunday in an upper house election which was seen as a test of the popularity of Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and his ruling coalition.
Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and coalition partner Komeito needed 50 seats to retain control of the 248-seat upper chamber in an election where half the seats are up for grabs.
They are forecast to secure 32 to 51 seats, the exit poll by public broadcaster NHK showed on Sunday.
Voters look at posters of candidates for the upper house election outside a polling station in Tokyo, Japan on Sunday [Manami Yamada/Reuters]
While the ballot does not directly determine whether Ishiba’s shaky minority government falls, it heaps pressure on the embattled leader who also lost control of the more-powerful lower house in October.
Ishiba’s poor performance does not immediately trigger a change of government because the upper house lacks the power to file a no-confidence motion against a leader. However, Ishiba could now face calls from within the LDP to resign or to find another coalition partner.
Polling stations opened nationwide at 7am on Sunday (22:00 GMT, Saturday) and voted continued until 8pm (11:00 GMT, Sunday) in most places, according to NHK.
The rising cost of living, especially for the staple food of rice, is a key issue for many voters, with population decline and foreign policy also on the agenda, NHK reported.
Opinion polls earlier also suggested smaller opposition parties pushing for tax cuts and increased public spending were set to gain.
These parties include right-wing Sanseito, which has promised to curb immigration, oppose foreign capital inflows and reverse gender equality moves. The exit poll projected the party has made strong gains.
“I am attending graduate school, but there are no Japanese [people] around me. All of them are foreigners,” said Yu Nagai, a 25-year-old student who said he voted for Sanseito.
“When I look at the way compensation and money are spent on foreigners, I think that Japanese people are a bit disrespected,” Nagai told the Reuters news agency.
Other voters, meanwhile, voiced concern about escalating xenophobia.
Yuko Tsuji, a 43-year-old consultant, who came to a polling station inside a downtown Tokyo gymnasium with her husband, said they support the LDP for stability and unity and voted “for candidates who won’t fuel division”.
“If the ruling party doesn’t govern properly, the conservative base will drift toward extremes. So I voted with the hope that the ruling party would tighten things up,” she told The Associated Press news agency.
Self-employed Daiichi Nasu, 57, said he hopes for a change towards a more inclusive and diverse society, with more open immigration and gender policies such as allowing married couples to keep separate surnames. “That’s why I voted for the CDPJ,” he said, referring to the opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan. “I want to see progress on those fronts.”
More than 20 percent of registered voters, some 21 million people, voted early, significantly more than three years ago, NHK reported.
Ishiba, 68, a self-avowed defence “geek” and train enthusiast, became prime minister on his fifth attempt last September before immediately calling snap elections for late October.
Those polls marked a significant defeat for the new prime minister’s ruling coalition, which won just 209 seats in the lower house of parliament, down from the 279 it previously held.
In April, Ishiba announced emergency economic measures to alleviate any impact on industries and households affected by new tariffs imposed by the United States on Japanese exports.
The country is still frantically seeking to secure a reprieve from US President Donald Trump’s proposed 25 percent tariffs before a new August 1 deadline touted by Washington.
Ishiba’s centre-right LDP has governed Japan almost continuously since 1955, albeit with frequent changes of leader.
He is the third prime minister to lead the country since former leader Shinzo Abe resigned in September 2020.
The 46-year old’s comeback bid for 13th world title falls short with a draw against WBC welterweight champion Mario Barrios.
Manny Pacquiao’s bid to become the oldest welterweight champion in boxing history fell short as he failed to beat Mario Barrios at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.
But he did not lose, either.
Instead, the 46-year-old Pacquiao and the 30-year-old Barrios fought to a majority draw on Saturday, with one judge giving Barrios a 115-113 win and the other two judges scoring it a 114-114 draw.
The result allowed Barrios (29-2-2, 18 knockouts) to retain his WBC welterweight belt.
“I thought I won the fight,” Pacquiao said afterwards.
“I mean, it was a close fight. My opponent was very tough. It was a wonderful fight. It was good.”
Pacquiao (62-8-3, 39 KOs) already holds the record for the oldest welterweight champion, winning the belt via split-decision over Keith Thurman in 2019.
The Filipino legend was enshrined in the International Boxing Hall of Fame last month. Pacquiao dominated Saturday’s fight early on, showing energy against his younger foe.
Ultimately, though, CompuBox stats had Barrios landing more punches (120-101) and more jabs (45-20), though Pacquiao landed 81 power punches to Barrios’s 75.
Barrios, right, throws a right at Pacquiao in the third round [Ethan Miller/Getty Images via AFP]
Pacquiao held the lead on all three cards after 10 rounds, but Barrios took all three rounds on all three scorecards to avoid the upset. Age and stamina were definitely on Pacquiao’s mind after the fight.
“I need to continue my training for longer going into a championship fight,” said Pacquiao, who lost his senatorial bid in the Philippines in May. “Because of the election, I started late, but it’s OK. Of course, I’d like a rematch. I want to leave a legacy and make the Filipino people proud.
“Don’t tell that to Barrios.
“His stamina is crazy,” the champion said. “He’s still strong as hell, and his timing is real. He’s still a very awkward fighter to try to figure out.”
As for a rematch, Barrios is ready.
“I’ll do the rematch. Absolutely. This was huge for boxing. I’d love to do it again.”
Barrios, left, and Pacquiao react after fighting to a majority draw in their welterweight title bout [John Locher/AP Photo]
Florida’s Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state’s congressional redistricting map, rejecting a challenge over the elimination of a majority-Black district in north Florida that was pushed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The court, dominated by DeSantis appointees, ruled that restoration of the district that previously united Black communities from Jacksonville to west of Tallahassee, or across 200 miles, would amount to impermissible racial gerrymandering. That, the majority ruled, violates the Constitution’s equal protection guarantees.
“The record leaves no doubt that such a district would be race-predominant. The record also gives us no reasonable basis to think that further litigation would uncover a potentially viable remedy,” said Chief Justice Carlos Muniz in the court’s majority opinion.
The decision means Florida’s current congressional districts that give Republicans a 20-8 advantage over Democrats will remain in place for the 2026 midterm elections and beyond. The former north Florida district was most recently represented by a Black Democrat, former Rep. Al Lawson. The new districts divide that area among three Republicans.
A panel of three federal judges previously upheld the current congressional districts.
“This was always the constitutionally correct map — and now both the federal courts and the FL Supreme Court have upheld it,” DeSantis said on X.
One of the plaintiffs, the National Redistricting Foundation, called the new ruling “alarming” because it “diminishes the voting power of Black Floridians” by upholding the GOP-drawn map.
“The court is abandoning the most basic role of the judiciary: to provide justice for the people,” said Marina Jenkins, executive director of the foundation.
Earlier redistricting efforts by the state Legislature included versions of the north Florida district that preserved Black voting power. But after a veto by DeSantis, the governor pushed through the current map that eliminated it.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said one problem for the plaintiffs was they did not propose a viable alternative map but only pointed out potential problems with the current one.
“It is not enough in the redistricting context for challengers to identify a flaw in an enacted districting plan and demand that the court send the Legislature back to the drawing board,” the decision said.
Justice Jorge Labarga was the lone dissenter, contending the lawsuit should be sent back to a lower court for further proceedings to allow the challengers a chance to produce different districts.
“By foreclosing further litigation, the majority’s decision now allows to remain in place a congressional redistricting plan that is unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution,” Labarga wrote.
The Ultra-Orthodox Shas party says it will leave the government in response to dispute over mandatory military service.
A key partner in Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition says it is quitting, leaving the Israeli prime minister with a minority in parliament.
The Ultra-Orthodox Shas party said on Wednesday that it was leaving the coalition in protest against lawmakers’ failure to guarantee future exemption from military conscription for religious students.
“Shas representatives … find with a heavy heart that they cannot stay in the government and be a part of it,” the group said in a statement.
Leading a minority government would make governing a challenge for Netanyahu. But Shas said it wouldn’t work to undermine the coalition once outside it and could vote with it on some laws. It also wouldn’t support its collapse.
The departure of Shas comes one day after another ultra-Orthodox party, United Torah Judaism (UTJ), resigned from the government over the same issue, which has sparked an explosive debate in the country after more than 21 months of war with Hamas in Gaza.
While ultra-Orthodox seminary students have long been exempt from mandatory military service, many Israelis are angered by what they see as an unfair burden carried by the mainstream who serve.
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders say full-time devotion to holy scriptures study is sacrosanct and fear their young men will steer away from religious life if they are drafted into the military.
Last year the Supreme Court ordered an end to the exemption. Parliament has been trying to work out a new conscription bill, which has so far failed to meet the demands of both Shas and UTJ.
Their joint move leaves Netanyahu with a minority government but is not expected to usher in immediate elections or undermine efforts to secure a possible Gaza ceasefire.
However, the Israeli leader will be more susceptible to the demands of his far-right coalition partners, who oppose ending the war while Hamas remains intact.
People have been left scratching their heads after trying this tricky brainteaser that only 1% of people can answer successfully – do you have what it takes to solve it?
The brainteaser was featured on ITV’s The 1% Club(Image: ITV)
If you can solve this baffling riddle, you could be able to consider yourself among the top 1% of brains in the country – as a staggering 99% will fail to get the answer correct.
Solving brainteasers is a fantastic way to boost your cognitive function and give your brain a much-needed workout, which is as important for your body as regular exercise is for keeping you physically fit. Puzzles can improve your problem-solving skills, improve your pattern recognition, and can even help to stave off the onset of some degenerative diseases such as dementia – so they’re definitely worth a go if you have a spare couple of minutes.
This particular puzzle was set by the question writers on the ITV game show The 1% Club. In the show, the questions start off easy, with ones that 90% of people can solve, and go all the way down to the dreaded 1% question that’s deemed so difficult that 99% of people fail to get it right.
And one recent 1% question that was asked on the show was later shared on TikTok, where it left people scratching their heads as they struggled to solve it.
The question was this: What new word links the capitalised words below?
“My SON TED ate raw FOOD and got SICK, then went to BED with me by his SIDE.”
Content cannot be displayed without consent
You’ll need to think outside the box for this one. There are numerous ways the words could be “linked”, and you’ll need to work out what the connection is. Do they all have something in common? Can they all have letters added to the beginning or the end to create new words?
Don’t worry if it looks confusing. The puzzle is designed to be complicated, and there’s no shame in not being able to solve this one. Part of the fun of completing these brainteasers is learning what the pattern is, so that the next time you take one of these on, you’ll know what to look for!
If you think you can give this one a crack, though, keep studying it for as long as you need. Contestants on the show only get a short 30 seconds to solve each question, but you don’t have to be that strict with yourself unless you really want to show your skills.
Whenever you’re ready to see the answer, scroll down to find out if you were right.
Answer
The answer is the word “sea”. Each capitalised word in the sentence can be preceded by the word “sea” to make a new word, such as season, seated, seafood, seasick, seabed, and seaside.
Several people in the comments of the TikTok video were tripped up by the confusing question, with some coming up with strange answers that were far from accurate.
One person said: “Son and Ted are both human (they can get sick), Food and Sick (also connect because bad food can cause sickness, Bed and Side (can also be connected with health), the issue is Sickness is not a new word!”
Another simply responded: “Bedside.”
However, many others believed the answer was “obvious”, with some even saying they couldn’t see why the question was deemed too difficult for all but 1% of people.
MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s liberal majority struck down the state’s 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalize abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb.
The ruling came as no surprise given that liberal justices control the court. One of them went so far as promising to uphold abortion rights during her campaign two years ago, and they blasted the ban during oral arguments in November.
The statute Wisconsin legislators adopted in 1849, widely interpreted as a near-total ban on abortions, made it a felony for anyone other than the mother or a doctor in a medical emergency to destroy “an unborn child.”
The ban was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed it, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it.
Wisconsin Atty. Gen. Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that abortion restrictions Republican legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect trumped the ban. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.
Lawmakers also enacted abortion restrictions under Roe requiring women undergo ultrasounds, wait 24 hours before having the procedure and provide written consent, and receive abortion-inducing drugs only from doctors during an in-person visit.
“That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion,” Justice Rebeca Dallet wrote for the majority.
Sheboygan County Dist. Atty. Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that it can coexist with the newer abortion restrictions.
Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling, but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin.
Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court.
The liberal justices all but telegraphed how they would rule. Justice Janet Protasiewicz stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. During oral arguments, Dallet declared that the ban was authored by white men who held all the power in the 19th century. Justice Jill Karofsky likened the ban to a “death warrant” for women and children who need medical care.
A solid majority of Wisconsin voters in the 2024 election, 62%, said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast. About one-third said abortion should be illegal in most cases, and only 5% said it should be illegal in all cases.
In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling “a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will.” She said the liberal justices caved in to their Democratic constituencies.
“Put bluntly, our court has no business usurping the role of the legislature, inventing legal theories on the fly in order to make four justices’ personal preference the law,” Ziegler said.
Urmanski’s attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn’t respond to an email. Kaul told reporters during a news conference that the ruling is a “major victory” for reproductive rights.
Heather Weininger, executive director of Wisconsin Right to Life, called the ruling “deeply disappointing.” She said that the liberals failed to point to any statute that explicitly repealed the 1849 ban.
“To assert that a repeal is implied is to legislate from the bench,” she said.
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin asked the Supreme Court in February 2024 to decide whether the ban was constitutional. The court dismissed that case with no explanation Wednesday.
Michelle Velasquez, chief strategy officer for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said Wednesday’s ruling creates stability for abortion providers and patients, but she was disappointed that the justices dismissed the constitutional challenge. She hinted that the organization might look next to challenge the state’s remaining abortion restrictions.
Kaul said he has no plans to challenge the remaining restrictions, saying the Legislature should instead revisit abortion policy.
Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday’s ruling.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday put off ruling on a second Black majority congressional district in Louisiana, instead ordering new arguments in the fall.
The case is being closely watched because at arguments in March several of the court’s conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a brief dissent from Friday’s order that he would have decided the case now and imposed limits on “race-based redistricting.”
The order keeps alive a fight over political power stemming from the 2020 census halfway to the next one. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court intervened twice. Last year, the justices ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 elections, while the legal case proceeded.
The call for new arguments probably means that the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields probably will remain intact for the 2026 elections because the high court has separately been reluctant to upend districts as elections draw near.
The state has changed its election process to replace its so-called jungle primary with partisan primary elections in the spring, followed by a November showdown between the party nominees.
The change means candidates can start gathering signatures in September to get on the primary ballot for 2026.
The state’s Republican-dominated legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority Black district in a state in which Black people make up a third of the population.
Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.
The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold while it took a similar case from Alabama. The justices allowed both states to use congressional maps in the 2022 elections even though both had been ruled likely discriminatory by federal judges.
The high court eventually affirmed the ruling from Alabama, which led to a new map and a second district that could elect a Black lawmaker. The justices returned the Louisiana case to federal court, with the expectation that new maps would be in place for the 2024 elections.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave lawmakers in Louisiana a deadline of early 2024 to draw a new map or face the possibility of a court-imposed map.
The state complied and drew a new map, with two Black majority districts.
But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit challenging the new districts that race was the predominant factor driving the new map. A three-judge court agreed.
Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Pride Puppy” into the staid public record of the nation’s highest court.
The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must “notify them in advance” when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child’s class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court’s three liberals dissented.
As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County’s new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in its entirety.
Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case:
Pride Puppy Author: Robin Stevenson Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin
Book “Pride Puppy” published by Orca Book Publishers.
(Orca Book Publishers)
“Pride Puppy,” a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade.
Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the “invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ ‘lip ring,’ ‘[drag] king’ and ‘[drag] queen,’ and ‘Marsha P. Johnson,’ a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.”
The “leather” in question refers to a mother’s jacket, and the “underwear” to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit.
Love, Violet Author: Charlotte Sullivan Wild Illustrator: Charlene Chua
Book “Love Violet” published by macmillan publishers.
(macmillan)
The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who “had a leaping laugh” and “made Violet’s heart skip.” But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet.
On Valentine’s Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together.
Lawyers for the parents describe “Love, Violet” as a book about “two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.” They wrote in that “teachers are encouraged to have a ‘think aloud’ moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just ‘like’ but ‘like like’ someone.”
Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope Author: Jodie Patterson Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow
Book “Born Ready” published by Random House.
(Random House)
In “Born Ready,” 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy.
“I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,” Penelope tells their mom. “We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,” Penelope’s mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate.
In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, “When Penelope’s brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, ‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’ ”
In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that “teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people ‘guess about our gender,’ but ‘we know ourselves best.’ ”
Prince and Knight Author: Daniel Haack Illustrator: Stevie Lewis
“Prince and Knight” is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback.
When the king and queen find out of their love, they “were overwhelmed with joy. ‘We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!’ ” A great wedding is held, and “the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.”
“The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,” said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong.
“For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,” Alito wrote. “If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn’t that mean it is in every respect a good thing?”
Uncle Bobby’s Wedding Author: Sarah S. Brannen Illustrator: Lucia Soto
In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union.
In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that “two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they ‘love each other.’ ” That viewpoint is “directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.” Parents ability to “present a different moral message” to their children, he said, “is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”
In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, “Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.”
The majority’s analysis, she writes, “reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.”
Jacob’s Room to Choose Author: Sarah Hoffman and Ian Hoffman Illustrator: Chris Case
Book “Jacob’s Room To Choose” published by Magination Press.
(Magination Press)
“Jacob’s Room to Choose” is a follow-up to “Jacob’s New Dress,” a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.‘s top 100 banned books of the last decade.
Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy’s bathroom, two little boys “stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.” The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl’s bathroom.
Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors.
“After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim ‘Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny’ and ‘[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,’ ” lawyers for the parents wrote.
IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith
Book “IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All” published by Dottir Press.
(Dottir Press)
“IntersectionAllies,” written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, “My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.”
In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: “When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.” The guide asks readers, “What pronouns fit you best?” Alito wrote.
What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns Author: Katherine Locke Illustrator: Anne Passchier
“What Are Your Words” is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are “like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that’s ok, because they’re my words.” Ari’s Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them.
“The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,” the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, “My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.”
My Rainbow Author: DeShanna Neal and Trinity Neal Illustrator: Art Twink
“My Rainbow” tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. “The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,” lawyers for the parents wrote.
This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
The Los Angeles Lakers, a family-run business since Jerry Buss purchased the franchise in 1979, will be sold to Dodgers controlling owner Mark Walter and TWG Global, according to multiple people briefed on the deal.
The deal is expected to occur with the Lakers’ valuation being about $10 billion — a record for a professional sports franchise.
Walter will now lead the city’s two premier professional sports teams.
Control of the Lakers went into a family trust after Buss died in 2013, with daughter Jeanie Buss operating as the team’s governor. The structure of the trust meant the majority of Buss’ six children — Johnny, Jim, Jeanie, Janie, Joey and Jess — would need to agree for a sale to occur.
The Lakers didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The sale was viewed as a massive surprise in NBA circles.
Jeanie Buss reportedly will remain governor under the terms of the sale. All controlling governors representing teams in league meetings need to own at least 15% of the franchise to serve. The Buss family owned 66%.
The sale will end family-run control of the Lakers, who have achieved incredible success — 11 NBA championships earned by some of the league’s most iconic figures, including Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal, Kobe Bryant and LeBron James — under Buss and his children’s leadership.
“I know that my sister Jeanie would have only considered selling the Lakers organization to someone she knows and trusts would carry on the Buss legacy, started by her father Dr. Buss. Now she can comfortably pass the baton to Mark Walter, with whom she has a real friendship and can trust,” Magic Johnson wrote in a post on X.
“She’s witnessed him build a winning team with the Dodgers and knows that Mark will do right by the Lakers team, organization, and fans! Both are extremely intelligent, visionaries, great leaders, and have positively impacted the greater Los Angeles community! I love both my sister @JeanieBuss and my business partner Mark Walter.”
In March, Bill Chisholm purchased the Boston Celtics from Wyc Grousbeck for $6.1 billion. Mark Cuban sold his control of the Dallas Mavericks late in 2023 for $3.5 billion.
And earlier that year, Marc Lasry sold the Milwaukee Bucks for $3.5 billion. Grousbeck and Cuban were two of Jeanie Buss’ closest confidantes among league ownership.
Walter and Todd Boehly became the Lakers’ largest minority shareholders in 2021 when they bought 27% of the franchise — a stake previously held by Phil Anschutz.
“The Los Angeles Lakers are one of the most successful and admired franchises in sports history,” Walter said in a news release at the time. “I have watched the organization grow under Jeanie’s leadership and couldn’t be more excited to partner with her and the entire management team. I am committed to supporting the franchise’s iconic status by continuing to bring together culture, community and entertainment to Lakers’ fans.”
Walter was a relatively anonymous billionaire in 2012, when Johnson and Stan Kasten were the marquee partners in the purchase of of the Dodgers for $2 billion, then the largest price paid for a Major League Baseball team.
Critics scoffed at the purchase price, but Walter and Boehly then negotiated a record $8.35-billion local television deal with Time Warner Cable. Sportico this year valued the Dodgers at $7.73 billion and estimated that they generated $1 billion in revenue last year, highlighted by the global economic boost they gained from signing Shohei Ohtani to a record $700-million contract.
The Dodgers also won the World Series last year, their second championship and fourth World Series appearance in the last eight years. In the 13 seasons since Walter and his group bought the Dodgers, the team has posted a winning record every year. In that same 13-season span, the Lakers have one championship, one NBA Finals appearance and six winning records.
After buying the Dodgers, Walter and Boehly explored buying AEG, the entertainment giant that owns the Kings and Crypto.com Arena. Walter subsequently bought the Sparks, invested in the Lakers and launched a professional women’s hockey league in which the championship trophy is called the Walter Cup.
If the Dodgers’ purchase is any indication, Walter might not make an immediate flurry of changes with the Lakers. After he bought the Dodgers, he retained general manager Ned Colletti through the 2014 season before replacing him with Andrew Friedman.
The beloved O’Malley family sold the Dodgers before the turn of the century, saying the economics of professional sports had exploded beyond the means of families with no other significant source of income.
Under Walter, the Dodgers have not only raised their payroll to record levels but invested heavily in areas that they believe help deliver a winner, from a vaunted analytics department to dietitians for their major and minor league players and expanded clubhouses with the latest in hydrotherapy. The owners also have invested more than $500 million into renovating Dodger Stadium, adding modern amenities to a 63-year-old ballpark.
The Lakers, whose minority owners include Los Angeles Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, are entering a critical moment in the franchise’s history. James, the NBA’s all-time leading scorer, has a $53-million player option that he needs to either accept or decline by June 29. If he declines, he’d be an unrestricted free agent.
The team also is trying to sign Luka Doncic, who it acquired in a shocking trade last February, to a massive contract extension functionally making him the future face of the franchise. He’s eligible to sign an extension on Aug. 2.
Times staff writer Jack Harris contributed to this report.
