<!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–> <!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [–><!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> –><!–> –>Police Use of Excessive Force<!–> –><!–> [!–> Barnes v. Felix <!–> –> <!–> –> <!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [!–> 9-0 ruling on May 15 <!–> –> <!–> –><!–> [!–> <!–> Liberal bloc Sotomayor Jackson Kagan Conservative bloc Roberts Kavanaugh Barrett […] More
Stephen A. Smith has had something on his mind for a while now.“Let me switch to a subject near and dear to my heart,” he said on his podcast recently. “Me.”Mr. Smith, 57, is the terminally expressive face of sports media, ESPN’s $100 million opinion-haver. Each day, and on many nights, he is beamed into living rooms, bars and airport lounges to sling hours of sports-debate chum, whether or not there are hours’ worth of viable material.And for the industry’s most inescapable voice, its high priest of the big fat adjective — ludicrous officiating, preposterous coaching, blasphemous choke-jobs — “Stephen A. Smith” is perhaps the sole matter on which all parties can agree that Stephen A. Smith is an expert.He is a first-person thinker (“When I think about me. …” he said, twice, on the podcast, “The Stephen A. Smith Show”), third-person talker (“Stephen A. Smith is in the news”) and occasional simultaneous first-and-third-person thinker-talker. “Calling things like I see them,” he wrote in his memoir, “is who Stephen A. Smith has been my entire life.”So it has been striking lately, friends allowed, to find Mr. Smith lamenting the chaos of federal tariff policy (“utterly ridiculous!”) and floating a flat-tax plan.He has applied the signature cadence once reserved for segments on LeBron James and the Dallas Cowboys — the hushed windup, the all-caps name-dropping, the yada-yada of certain details — to geopolitical discussions for which he prepares diligently.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
As the 17 young men preparing to be ordained as Catholic priests entered the sanctuary at St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church in Chicago, they each pinned a tiny light-blue ribbon to their white robes. The gesture was small but explosive: It signified their belief that women, too, should be allowed into the priesthood.It was April 1981, and the men were students at Catholic Theological Union, a divinity school founded in the 1960s and still on fire with the era’s radical spirit. Women’s ordination as Catholic priests was one of the most urgent topics for men and women on campus, the subject of constant discussion, organizing and, for many, optimism.One of their classmates was Robert Prevost, who was named pope last week. As Leo XIV, he now leads a global church that has firmly closed the door on the question of women as priests, but has left open the possibility that women could someday be ordained as deacons, the step before the priesthood. Robert Prevost as a student at Catholic Theological Union.Catholic Theological UnionThe men at St. Thomas in 1981 were there to be ordained as deacons. Many in the sanctuary that day recall it vividly decades later. First, the prelate presiding over the ceremony, Bishop Alfred Abramowicz of Chicago, refused to continue unless the men removed their ribbons. (At least one quietly refused, moving his ribbon to a less visible placement.)A woman in the choir joined the protesters halfway through the ceremony, her high heels clicking down the center aisle of the sanctuary. Then, as part of the proceedings, the bishop asked the men individually by name if they were “ready and willing” to serve.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Judge Hannah C. Dugan claimed judicial immunity this week after a federal grand jury indicted her.The Wisconsin state judge accused of impeding immigration agents at a Milwaukee courthouse last month pleaded not guilty on Thursday morning during a brief appearance in federal court.Prosecutors have said that the judge, Hannah C. Dugan, violated federal law when she directed an undocumented defendant who was being sought by immigration agents through an alternate exit from her courtroom. Judge Dugan, who was indicted by a grand jury on Tuesday, is seeking the dismissal of the charges against her and has asserted that her actions were protected by judicial immunity.A lawyer entered the plea on behalf of Judge Dugan, who was seated next to him in the federal courtroom on Thursday.The Justice Department’s decision to arrest and charge a sitting state judge has drawn sharp criticism from many Democrats, lawyers and former judges, who have described the case as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary. Top Trump administration officials have defended the prosecution.“It doesn’t matter what line of work you are in, if you break the law, we will follow the facts and we will prosecute you,” Attorney General Pam Bondi has said about the case.The prosecution of Judge Dugan quickly became synonymous with the Trump administration’s broader immigration crackdown, and its warnings to local officials that they must not stand in the way of deportation efforts. Since President Trump returned to office, the Justice Department has sued state and local governments that limit cooperation with immigration agents and has announced investigations of some elected Democrats over their immigration policies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
A Nassau County listing is so grandiose in style and stature that it must be out of a Nelson DeMille novel.Fitting, as it was the famed author’s former home.Mr. DeMille, who died in September at 81, bought the 0.7-acre property in 2001 for $2.9 million. He tore the existing house down and replaced it with a 9,731-square-foot Tudor-style manse. It’s now for sale by his estate for $5.5 million.The author, who was raised in nearby Elmont, N.Y., always wanted a house on the Hill, a ritzy neighborhood in Garden City, and jumped at the opportunity to buy the property, said his son, the writer and director Alexander DeMille.Mr. DeMille, who grew up in Elmont, N.Y., always wanted a house on the Hill, a ritzy neighborhood in Garden City.Robert Wright for The New York TimesThe house, which took two years to build, features a mahogany staircase leading up from the double-height foyer.Tyler Sands/Sands Media House
The home’s architecture was inspired by Nelson DeMille’s novels “The Gate House” and “The Gold Coast,” both set on Long Island’s North Shore. But it also reflects the medieval timber frame architecture the elder author admired in Germany and other European countries, Alexander DeMille said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
The cable channel, which is set to be spun off from NBC, is starting its first stand-alone D.C. office with Sudeep Reddy at the helm. It also plans to hire 100 new journalists.As MSNBC prepares to formally break away from its corporate sibling NBC, it’s leaving behind more than just the Art Deco hallways of 30 Rockefeller Plaza.Although the 24-hour cable channel is best-known for opinionated stars like Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s midday hours and breaking news coverage have long relied on the journalistic muscle of NBC News, with its sprawling bureaus and amply-staffed Washington office.That resource will be cut off later this year, when Comcast, MSNBC’s owner, spins it out along with a batch of other cable networks into a separate company, unaffiliated with the rest of the NBCUniversal family. The usual NBC correspondents who pop up on MSNBC’s air with updates on, say, the latest fight in Congress, will no longer be available.One option would be to convert MSNBC’s lineup to progressive talk shows, but the channel’s president, Rebecca Kutler, is leaning in a different direction. On Thursday, Ms. Kutler was set to announce the channel’s first-ever Washington bureau chief: not a left-leaning partisan, but a down-the-middle print reporter with long stints at Politico and The Wall Street Journal.Her choice, Sudeep Reddy, was most recently a senior managing editor at Politico, and his résumé is heavy with economics and Washington policy coverage. “The MSNBC audience is cerebral and appreciates analytical, contextual reporting,” she said in an interview. “He is going to build and run a significant Washington reporting team, that to me matches with the moment — a serious moment — where real reporting will matter.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
Across the ideological spectrum, justices have been troubled by rulings that touch everyone affected by a challenged law, regulation or executive action.Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum have said they are troubled by at least some nationwide injunctions, and several have long called for the court to address their proper scope.“It just can’t be right,” Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022 at Northwestern University’s law school, “that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.”It is one thing for federal trial judges to resolve the dispute before them in rulings that are binding on the parties to the case, several justices have said. It is another to issue nationwide injunctions — sometimes called “universal” injunctions — that apply to everyone affected by the challenged law, regulation or executive action.In 2018, in a concurring opinion in a decision upholding President Trump’s ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious.” He added that “if federal courts continue to issue them, this court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”In 2020, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, joined by Justice Thomas, urged his colleagues to give lower courts guidance on when such injunctions were appropriate.“The routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable,” Justice Gorsuch wrote, “sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts and all those affected by these conflicting decisions.”In 2023, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh issued a statement joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett when the court refused to revive a Florida law barring children from drag performances.“The question of whether a district court, after holding that a law violates the Constitution, may nonetheless enjoin the government from enforcing that law against nonparties to the litigation is an important question that could warrant our review in the future,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote.Justices Kagan, Thomas and Gorsuch all said that the availability of nationwide injunctions can spur forum shopping, the practice of filing lawsuits in friendly jurisdictions, as it takes only one judge to block a program even if several others reject similar challenges.“In the Trump years,” Justice Kagan said in 2022, “people used to go to the Northern District of California, and in the Biden years, they go to Texas.”Challengers in the birthright citizenship cases said that some issues, like school segregation and racial gerrymandering, required universal relief rather than case-by-case litigation. Birthright citizenship, they wrote, is also such an issue.“The universal injunction in this case preserves the uniformity of United States citizenship, an area in which nationwide consistency is vitally important,” lawyers for the challenger wrote. “Whether a child is a citizen of our nation should not depend on the state where she is born.”A nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Trump’s order, they wrote, “serves the public interest by preventing chaos and confusion.” More
During a daylong hearing in Albany, state lawmakers heard from family members of men who died in New York State prisons in recent years.Family members and friends of men who died in New York State prisons in recent years denounced a system in turmoil and longstanding tolerance of brutality by guards on Wednesday at a joint legislative committee hearing.One who testified was a mentor of a 22-year-old man who the authorities said was beaten to death by corrections officers at the Mid-State Correctional Facility in Central New York in March.Another was the father of a man who officials said was fatally beaten by guards at the prison across the street, Marcy Correctional Facility. He demanded to know why officers who had repeatedly been accused of abuse were allowed to remain on the job.A third was the daughter of man who died in late 2023 after he was beaten by corrections officers at Green Haven Correctional Facility and then denied medical care, she said.Their stories were aired during the public hearing held by State Senator Julia Salazar and Assemblyman Erik M. Dilan, both Brooklyn Democrats, during a period of particular strife across New York’s 42 prisons.Earlier this year, thousands of prison guards walked off their assigned posts in a series of unsanctioned strikes that they said were in protest of hazardous working conditions. The wildcat strikes prompted deployment of 7,000 National Guard members and, eventually, mass firings of guards.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More
