WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday said the Federal Reserve, unlike any other agency in Washington, has a measure of independence from the presidency and day-to-day politics. But the court didn’t define to what extent.

The case is the latest round in an unprecedented fight between the Fed and President Donald Trump. More political interference at the Fed could upend financial markets around the world, which closely follow its interest rate moves.

Trump has repeatedly demanded that the central bank cut its key interest rate to lower borrowing costs for homeowners, businesses, and even the government itself. Trump sought to fire a Fed governor, Lisa Cook, last August after accusing her of mortgage fraud — a charge she denies. Cook was appointed by former President Joe Biden and removing her would give Trump the opportunity to name a more amenable official in her place.

In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the president cannot fire the seven members of the Fed’s board of governors without a clear cause. The decision endorses the Fed’s independent structure even as the court eliminated such protections for leaders of other agencies, including the Federal Trade Commission, whom the president can fire at-will.

“That’s a big deal,” said Scott Alvarez, the central bank’s former top lawyer. “That’s one of the things that makes the Fed independent.”

While the decision is a boost for the Fed, it does leave Cook vulnerable to further attempts by the Trump administration to fire her. Trump said on his social media site, Truth Social, that “we will take appropriate action immediately” to remove Cook. But for now, she will keep her job while the case is fought in lower courts.

Here is what the court decided, and why the Fed’s independence matters.

In a separate case Monday, the justices ruled 6-3 that the Constitution allows the president to fire the heads of federal agencies that had previously been considered independent. But in the Cook case, the court carved out a clear exemption for the Fed.

The Fed has a “unique historical status and role,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, similar to the First and Second Banks of the United States that existed in the early 1800s and that operated “at a deliberate remove from the ordinary political process.”

If the president could fire a Fed governor for any reason, it would undermine that official’s ability to make decisions independently, Roberts wrote.

“Nothing could be more corrosive of the independence that Congress sought to preserve,” the chief justice’s opinion said.

Still, Kathryn Judge, a law professor at Columbia University, said the justices’ decision to strike down the independence of other agencies erodes the Fed’s standing by leaving it as the only remaining such body in Washington. The principle of independent, non-political judgment has been undercut, she added.

“Fed independence lives on for another day, but is not as robust as it was prior to these decisions,” she said.

And the court did not fully close the door on Trump’s efforts to fire Cook. Trump’s lawyers accepted that Trump could only fire her “for cause,” but they argued that the White House could define the cause and it couldn’t be second-guessed by courts.

The Supreme Court instead said that “for cause” likely involved serious misconduct that wasn’t related to their professional duties, but didn’t provide much detail. More importantly, they also threw out the higher standard that Cook’s lawyers had pushed, which would have allowed governors to only be fired for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance on the job. Since the alleged mortgage fraud occurred before she joined the Fed, such a standard would have likely shut down the case.

The court also said that Cook had to be given formal notice of her firing — the president only announced it last August on Truth Social — and an opportunity to formally respond, though the court did not specify what the process should look like. Indeed, Roberts included a footnote in his opinion noting that nothing forbids Trump from “trying again” to fire her, provided she is given proper notice and a chance to contest it.

Trump could seek to provide a bare-bones procedure while firing Cook again to bolster his case in the lower courts, legal experts said.

“That’s an area of vulnerability still for the Federal Reserve and for Lisa Cook,” Alvarez said.

The court battle will likely further define the boundaries of Fed independence.

The Fed wields extensive power over the U.S. economy. By cutting the short-term interest rate it controls — which it typically does when the economy falters — the Fed can make borrowing cheaper and encourage more spending, accelerating growth and hiring. When it raises the rate — which it does to cool the economy and combat inflation — it can weaken the economy and cause job losses.

Economists have long preferred independent central banks because they can more easily take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates, which makes borrowing to buy a home, car, or appliances more expensive.

The importance of an independent Fed was cemented for most economists after the extended inflation spike of the 1970s and early 1980s. Former Fed Chair Arthur Burns has been widely blamed for allowing the painful inflation of that era to accelerate by succumbing to pressure from President Richard Nixon to keep rates low heading into the 1972 election. Nixon feared higher rates would cost him the election, which he won in a landslide.

Paul Volcker was eventually appointed chair of the Fed in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, and he pushed the Fed’s short-term rate to the stunningly high level of nearly 20%. (It is currently 3.6%.) The eye-popping rates triggered a sharp recession, pushed unemployment to nearly 11%, and spurred widespread protests.

Yet Volcker didn’t flinch. By the mid-1980s, inflation had fallen back into the low single digits. Volcker’s willingness to inflict pain on the economy to throttle inflation is seen by most economists as a key example of the value of an independent Fed.

Most investors prefer an independent Fed, partly because it typically manages inflation better without being influenced by politics, but also because its decisions are more predictable. A Fed swayed by politics would be harder to anticipate, and investors could demand higher yields on Treasurys before buying them. That would raise borrowing costs throughout the economy.

WASHINGTON (AP) — When U.S. health officials meet next month to reconsider a list of controversial peptide drugs, they will hear from a new set of voices: doctors and pharmacists with deep financial ties to the burgeoning industry of unproven chemicals.

The Food and Drug Administration on Monday released its list of participants for an upcoming meeting to reconsider the safety and effectiveness of several popular peptide injections, including some that have been praised by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Previous FDA panels on the topic have been composed of academics and researchers. The agency’s new group mainly includes health professionals who prescribe, produce or promote peptides, which have become a wellness trend among athletes, influencers and celebrities.

The two-day meeting is the latest example of how Kennedy and his deputies are trying to reshape U.S. health policy in the mold of the Make America Healthy Again movement. Some of the biggest supporters of the movement sell peptide formulas, though many pharmaceutical industry experts consider them illegal, unapproved drugs.

The substances are sold online and promoted by wellness clinics as a means to build muscle, heal injuries and look younger, though there’s little evidence behind those claims. Peptide sellers often skirt U.S. regulations by labeling their products as “for research use only,” since the FDA doesn’t regulate research chemicals.

Many of the injectable peptides sold in the U.S. are produced by compounding pharmacies, which mix custom medications that aren’t available from traditional drug manufacturers.

For several years, the FDA has warned Americans about the risks of injecting chemicals with names like BPC-157 and TB-500, which have not been extensively studied in humans. Both drugs are considered doping substances by international sports authorities. They are among seven peptides set for review in July.

Previous versions of the FDA’s panel on drug compounding — the group that will meet next month — have voted against a string of peptide ingredients brought forward by compounding pharmacies, declaring all of them too risky to be offered to patients. Those panels were mostly composed of experts from universities including Duke, Harvard and Johns Hopkins.

The FDA’s new group includes more than a half-dozen panelists who run clinics, online businesses or pharmacies specializing in peptides, which are often given alongside other unapproved therapies, including vitamin infusions.

For example, panel member Dr. Haleem Mohammed runs clinics in Florida that sell injections of peptides, vitamins, testosterone and weight loss medications. The business is part of a national chain of clinics dubbed Gameday Men’s Health. The company’s website states, “compounded medications offered through our services are not FDA-approved, and the FDA does not verify their safety.”

Another panelist, Dr. Gabriel Alizaidy, charges $500 for “peptide and hormone” consultations, including advice on “where to safely get each peptide or compound.” Alizaidy promotes BPC-157, GHK-Cu and other peptides to thousands of followers through his accounts on Instagram and TikTok.

His website contains the disclaimer that each consultation “is educational in nature and does not constitute medical care, diagnosis, or treatment.”

Another member is Bobby Harshbarger, a Tennessee state senator who has multiple connections to the industry. Harshbarger is a pharmacist at his family’s business, Premiere Pharmacy, which sells compounded medications for weight loss, longevity, pain and other conditions.

His mother, Rep. Diana Harshbarger, is also a pharmacist and a Republican member of U.S. Congress from Tennessee. Last year she sent a letter to Kennedy calling on him to relax FDA restrictions on a half-dozen peptides.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly praised Harshbarger’s support of his “Make America Great Again” agenda. Last year, the president pardoned her husband, Robert Harshbarger Jr., who pleaded guilty more than a decade ago to substituting an unapproved drug from China for one used by patients on kidney dialysis. He was stripped of his pharmacy license and sentenced to four years in prison, which he served.

Mohammed, Alizaidy and Harshbarger did not immediately respond to messages from The Associated Press seeking comment Monday afternoon.

The FDA has more than 30 panels of experts who advise the agency on various drugs, vaccines, food ingredients and other products.

Advisory meetings are subject to strict government transparency rules in terms of panel composition and financial disclosures. Experts who have a financial stake in a company or industry are permitted to serve on the panels, but the relationship must be disclosed and regulators are supposed to explain why the person’s expertise outweighs their potential conflict of interest.

Kennedy and his allies have been highly critical of federal expert panels, often alleging that they are riven with conflicts of interest, despite federal data showing otherwise.

Last year, Kennedy fired the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s entire 17-member vaccine panel and replaced it with a group that includes several anti-vaccine voices. A federal judge later said that action likely violated federal rules.

Kennedy told podcast host Joe Rogan earlier this year that he is “a big fan of peptides,” and described using them to recover from injuries.

Former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — who resigned in May — was also highly critical of FDA advisory panels, complaining that they were expensive, time-consuming and subject to too many financial conflicts.

The number of such meetings plummeted during Makary’s tenure. Instead, the FDA held a number of ad hoc meetings with handpicked experts on topics favored by Kennedy, including the risks of talc powder and antidepressants.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

NEW YORK (AP) — Democrats in 25 states and the District of Columbia on Monday sued the Trump administration over its recent guidance on new Medicaid work requirements, arguing the strict rules will prevent eligible Americans from accessing the care they need.

The attorneys general and governors who filed the lawsuit allege that an interim final rule released earlier this month by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services oversteps the text of the law last summer that set in motion the changes to Medicaid.

They claim the Republican administration’s narrow interpretation of parts of the statute, including new limits to a medical frailty exemption, will create harmful coverage barriers and chaos in states that have been rushing to implement new systems by the January deadline.

“Added administrative burdens will cause individuals who are eligible for Medicaid to lose or be denied coverage,” the plaintiffs write. “People with disabilities, patients in the middle of cancer treatment, or those struggling with another serious or complex health condition, shouldn’t be at risk of losing the care that helps maintain their health.”

Spokespeople for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and CMS, the agencies named in the lawsuit, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has promoted the new rules as commonsense measures to eliminate government freeloading and preserve benefits for those who need them most.

The new Medicaid restrictions, which Democrats have criticized, were part of Trump’s big tax and policy law in 2025. The change affects those covered through an expansion in most states that gave more lower-income people access to the government’s safety net healthcare program.

Starting Jan. 1, expansion enrollees age 19 to 64 will have to show that they work or do community service at least 80 hours a month or are in school at least half the time. There are exceptions for those considered medically frail or in addiction treatment programs, among others.

This month’s announcement from CMS caught states off guard with a new definition of medical frailty. The law had said medically frail people include those who have substance use disorders, disabilities or serious medical conditions. But the CMS rule went further, saying someone’s condition must “significantly impair” their ability to work, volunteer or attend school at the rates required in the law for them to be granted an exemption.

In 2027 and once in 2028, the patient can attest that they meet this definition. But when they try to renew coverage in 2028, they’ll need to prove it. Health analysts and state Medicaid directors have said they aren’t clear on what existing documentation could prove that point.

In the lawsuit, states allege that this change came “contrary to months of regular communications with CMS and preliminary guidance materials upon which Plaintiff States based their implementation plans.” They say CMS has still not provided states with enough clarity on how they can update their systems appropriately.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the Democrats suing the administration, said the new rule puts thousands of her state’s residents at risk.

“New Yorkers who are battling cancer, living with a disability, managing a serious mental health condition, or recovering from addiction should be able to get the health care they need without being buried in paperwork,” she said in a statement.

States that allow mail ballots to be counted after Election Day reacted with relief Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a Republican effort to outlaw the practice.

A decision favoring the state of Mississippi over the Republican National Committee delivered an immediate reprieve to the 14 states with grace periods for regular mail ballots, as well as heading off what was expected to be a scramble to alter the practice and inform voters just months ahead of the midterm elections.

At least one state, Ohio, had preemptively changed its law in anticipation of a different result from the high court, and 15 other states have such grace periods specifically for military and overseas voters.

Washington Secretary of State Steve Hobbs said the ruling means “the thousands of voters whose ballots are postmarked on time but received after Election Day still have their voices heard.”

Mail ballots, also called absentee ballots, have been the source of conspiracy theories from President Donald Trump, who groundlessly blames them for his loss in the 2020 election. The RNC and Libertarian Party had sued to overturn a Mississippi law that permits the counting of mail ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and arrive up to five days later, on grounds that it violated federal law.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, wrote for the majority that the practice is legal.

“Nothing in the federal election-day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day,” she wrote, adding that the court considered that very narrow question without wading into more sweeping declarations about absentee voting in general or the authority of Congress versus states over election law.

In Illinois, where mail-in ballots accounted for up to a quarter of this year’s primary vote, the state elections board had budgeted $300,000 for a television and radio ad campaign to educate voters about potential changes to the mail ballot deadline. Spokesman Matt Dietrich said that campaign will be called off after the court’s ruling. Illinois allows mail ballots to be counted if they are postmarked by Election Day and received within 14 days.

“Anytime you have a change in the administration of elections that affects voters, it is a big challenge to us to make sure that voters understand what that change is,” he said.

California, which has a seven-day grace period, has been a regular target of Trump and other Republicans who criticize the state’s slow-counting of late-arriving ballots and have used the gap to spread conspiracy theories about voter fraud.

California Secretary of State Shirley Weber called Monday’s ruling “a win for voters, for the rule of law, and for the future of our democracy.”

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson called the decision a victory for states’ rights, including the ability to set election rules as long as they don’t conflict with federal law.

In addition to California, Illinois and Mississippi, the other states that count regular mail ballots received after Election Day are Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington and West Virginia.

Data shows that mail ballots are popular options across all 50 states for both Republican and Democratic voters.

Although the RNC was party to the case and not the Trump administration itself, national party committees of a sitting president’s party typically operate in concert with the president’s political strategies. Trump also has effectively taken over operations of the RNC, the GOP’s main fundraising and political operation.

Calling Monday’s ruling “a tremendous loss,” Trump used it as a way to push his sweeping election law bill that has stalled on Capitol Hill despite Republican control in both chambers of Congress.

In a Truth Social post, the president declared it “more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT,” his name for legislation that would require voters nationally to document their U.S. citizenship to register to vote, show certain photo identification to cast ballots and limit who can vote with a mail ballot. RNC Chairman Joe Gruters issued a statement aligning with Trump, saying Monday’s ruling was justification to pass the congressional proposal.

Lower federal courts have issued rulings blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to impose new restrictions on mail ballots and to create a national voter list, among other proposed changes. Judges in those cases have consistently said the Constitution vests authority for setting election rules with Congress and the states, not the president.

While Barrett framed Monday’s opinion on the narrower question of the mail ballot deadline, the decision could bolster hopes among Democrats that the high court will look skeptically on the president’s assertion of power over elections if other cases land before it.

Massachusetts Secretary of State Bill Galvin said he was relieved because the ruling was a potential sign that other cases could go Democrats’ way. But he accused the president and RNC of trying to disenfranchise voters and said he was alarmed by the narrow 5-4 decision in the case.

“What’s troubling was that so many of the other justices were willing to sacrifice the rights of voters,” said Galvin, a Democrat.

Perhaps nowhere was the case being watched more closely than Alaska, where Native and rural communities dotted across a vast landscape rely on the state’s grace period to ensure their ballots get counted. Planes are often the only way ballots can get from polling locations to counting locations.

Jacqueline De León, a senior staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, was among the attorneys who filed a brief with the Supreme Court on behalf of Alaska Native and Native American groups. The brief highlighted the challenges they face, in particular where many communities are accessible only by air or water and rely on air service for mail.

“For many Native communities, voting by mail is shaped by long distances to election offices, no home mail delivery, unreliable postal service, lack of access to transportation, and the realities of living in rural and remote areas,” she said. “Ballots cast by election deadlines should not be discarded simply because substandard service or weather delays cause them to arrive after Election Day.”

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow and Sudhin Thanawala in Atlanta, Becky Bohrer in Juneau, Alaska, John Hanna in Topeka, Kansas, Josh Kelety in Phoenix, Ali Swenson in New York and graphic artist Kevin Vineys in Washington contributed to this report.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was gifted concert tickets in Puerto Rico last year as members of the high court continued to accept international teaching gigs and receive royalties for books they have written, according to financial disclosure forms released Monday that provide insight into how the justices spend time off the bench.

Sotomayor’s disclosure form says she and unidentified guests attended the concert last August while she was on a personal trip to Puerto Rico. The paperwork does not identify the performer, but Puerto Rican star Bad Bunny is known to have performed a series of shows on the island that month and the $4,333 gift she disclosed was provided by Rimas Entertainment, Bad Bunny’s record label.

The justices’ ethical practices away from the court have received additional scrutiny in recent years because of media coverage, including by The Associated Press, that has highlighted their lucrative book deals, gifts they have received and travel they have taken. Among the revelations was a series of stories by ProPublica that revealed that Justice Clarence Thomas had failed to report luxury travel paid for by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow.

The forms underscore the extent to which book-writing remains a lucrative source of income for members of the court.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who in 2024 released a memoir titled “Lovely One,” disclosed nearly $1.2 million in book advances, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett reported more than $849,000 in royalties. They both reported more than a dozen book events or discussions at which a combination of food, travel or lodging was provided. Justice Neil Gorsuch also received $300,000 in royalty payments.

Several justices also disclosed paid teaching assignments. Chief Justice John Roberts, for instance, reported $25,000 in teaching income for a brief course at New England Law School, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh received $33,285 for teaching at Notre Dame.

Kavanaugh also delivered a speech last September — his meals, transportation and lodging were provided — at McLennan Community College in Waco, Texas, which the AP earlier reported had invited Thomas to headline a 2017 event.

The court released disclosure forms for eight of the nine current justices. Justice Samuel Alito, as he has previously done, requested a 90-day extension, the court said.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The District of Columbia has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a resident who accused police officers of illegally detaining him for following an Ohio National Guard patrol while playing Darth Vader’s theme song from “Star Wars” on his cellphone, according to a document released Monday.

The plaintiff, Sam O’Hara, sued the district, four Metropolitan Police Department officers and a guard member from Ohio over what he says was his act of protest against President Donald Trump’s federal law enforcement surge in Washington, D.C.

A court filing on Thursday disclosed the settlement but didn’t specify any monetary terms. The amount is included in a copy of the settlement agreement that D.C. Attorney General Brian L. Schwalb’s office provided to The Associated Press.

The $50,000 settlement includes attorney’s fees and costs. O’Hara is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia. In an email on Friday, an ACLU spokesperson referred to the settlement’s financial terms as “a significant amount” that O’Hara “is pleased with” but said they weren’t disclosing the dollar figure to protect his privacy.

O’Hara, an artist who works in the hospitality industry, agreed to drop his claims against the district and the MPD officers within three business days of receiving the settlement payment. The settlement isn’t an admission of wrongdoing by the district, the agreement says.

O’Hara’s settlement with the district doesn’t resolve his related claims against an Ohio National Guard member, Sgt. Devon Beck, who has asked a judge to dismiss O’Hara’s claims against him.

O’Hara said in a statement that he is satisfied with the settlement but conflicted that taxpayers are footing the bill.

“Those who actually violated my constitutional rights should be the ones paying the price, like taking the money from their pensions. That’s what real accountability looks like,” he said. “This settlement is a reminder that our freedoms are worth fighting for, especially when the powerful would rather we suffer in silence.”

O’Hara sued the district in October, claiming police officers violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures and excessive force.

O’Hara played “The Imperial March” theme from “Star Wars” on his phone as he followed several National Guard troops down a public street on Sept. 11, 2025. One of the troops summoned police officers, who stopped O’Hara and kept him handcuffed for 15 to 20 minutes before releasing him without charges, according to the lawsuit.

Trump’s ongoing deployment of guard members in Washington began last August after the Republican president issued an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the nation’s capital. The surge inflamed tensions with residents of the heavily Democratic district. Hundreds of guard members remain deployed in the district nearly a year later, with no clear end in sight.

A judge has set April 5 as the start date for the retrial of disgraced ex-lawyer Alex Murdaugh on two counts of murder in the shooting deaths of his wife and son. The South Carolina Supreme Court overturned the murder convictions in May, ruling the court clerk at the trial “egregiously attacked Murdaugh’s credibility” by suggesting to jurors his testimony could not be trusted.

The once-prominent lawyer was known for his family lineage and million-dollar judgments in rural South Carolina. He worked for his family’s century-old law firm and his father, grandfather and great-grandfather were elected county prosecutors. Murdaugh, the subject of numerous documentaries and true crime podcasts, will remain imprisoned on federal convictions for stealing millions from clients.

Here is a look at the events leading up to Murdaugh’s retrial:

June 7, 2021: Murdaugh calls police to report his wife Maggie, 52, and their son Paul, 22, have been fatally shot near dog kennels on their property.

Sept. 4, 2021: Alex Murdaugh attempts to arrange his own death in a plan to secure his surviving son a $10 million life insurance payment, officials say. The plot fails when the gunshot by a Murdaugh associate only grazes Murdaugh’s head.

Oct. 14, 2021: Police arrest Murdaugh at a drug rehab facility in Florida on charges he stole insurance settlements totaling more than $4 million intended for the sons of his late housekeeper.

Nov. 17, 2021: Prosecutors reveal 27 new charges against Murdaugh, saying he stole nearly $5 million in settlement money. Prosecutors allege Murdaugh was hiding money from lawyers who sued him over the death of a teenager killed when authorities say an intoxicated Paul Murdaugh wrecked the boat he was driving.

Jan. 18, 2022: Additional indictments mean Murdaugh now faces 71 charges that he stole nearly $8.5 million in wrongful death and wreck settlements from more than a dozen people.

May 4, 2022: Russell Laffitte, the former CEO of Palmetto State Bank before his firing earlier that year, is indicted on charges that he conspired with Murdaugh to defraud victims of $1.8 million.

June 28, 2022: Prosecutors outline an eight-year money laundering and painkiller ring in new indictments.

July 14, 2022: Murdaugh is charged with murder in the deaths of his wife and son. The indictments issued by the grand jury contend Murdaugh killed his wife with a rifle and his son with a shotgun.

Jan. 23, 2023: Murdaugh goes on trial for double murder in the killings of his wife and son.

Feb. 23, 2023: Murdaugh denies killing them after taking the witness stand at his murder trial. But he admits lying to investigators about when he last saw them alive.

March 2, 2023: A jury convicts Murdaugh on two counts of murder after a six-week trial. The jury deliberated for less than three hours.

March 3, 2023: A judge sentences Murdaugh to life in prison.

Jan. 29, 2024: A South Carolina judge denies Murdaugh’s bid for a new trial after his defense team accused a clerk of court of tampering with a jury.

April 2, 2024: Murdaugh is sentenced to 40 years in federal prison for stealing from clients and his law firm.

Feb. 11, 2026: Murdaugh asks the South Carolina Supreme Court to throw out his murder convictions.

May 13, 2026: The South Carolina Supreme Court overturns Murdaugh’s murder convictions and life sentence. In a unanimous ruling, the justices said the conduct by the court clerk “egregiously attacked Murdaugh’s credibility” by suggesting to jurors his testimony could not be trusted.

June 29, 2026: Newly appointed Judge Debra McCaslin sets an April 5 date for the start of jury selection in Murdaugh’s retrial on the two murder charges as well as an August 14 date to hear pretrial motions. The defense has requested Murdaugh be allowed to wear regular clothes in court, not an orange prison jumpsuit and shackles. They also want to move the trial out of Colleton County, where the killings and the first trial took place.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court held Monday that constitutional privacy protections extend to cellphone location information, ruling in the case of a bank robber whose identity was discovered through a geofence warrant.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 court that people don’t forfeit expectations of privacy even when they opt into Google’s location history.

“A cellphone user is not to be viewed as sharing private information with third parties—which then can be freely passed on to the government—just by doing the ordinary things cellphone users do,” Kagan wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent that Okello Chatrie had no expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turned over to Google.

The decision is the court’s latest effort to apply a constitutional provision ratified in 1791 to technology the nation’s founders could not have envisioned.

Police obtained a geofence warrant after a bank robbery in a suburb of Richmond, Virginia, and used it to locate cellphones that were near the bank around the time it was robbed in May 2019.

One of those phones belonged to Chatrie, who had eluded the police until they turned to the powerful technological tool.

The warrant kick-started the investigation. After determining that Chatrie was among those near the Call Federal Credit Union in Midlothian at the time, police obtained a search warrant for his home. They found nearly $100,000 in cash, including bills wrapped in bands signed by the bank teller.

Chatrie pleaded guilty to robbing the bank and was sentenced to nearly 12 years in prison. His lawyers argued on appeal that none of the evidence should have been used against him.

They challenged the warrant as a violation of his privacy because it allowed authorities to gather the location history of people near the bank without having any evidence they had anything to do with the robbery. Prosecutors argued that Chatrie had no expectation of privacy because he voluntarily opted into Google’s location history.

The Supreme Court did not decide Monday whether the search complied with the Fourth Amendment, which bans unreasonable searches and seizures. It sent the case back to a lower court for more work.

A federal judge had ruled that the search violated Chatrie’s rights, but allowed the evidence to be used because the officer who applied for the warrant reasonably believed he was acting properly.

The federal appeals court in Richmond upheld the conviction in a fractured ruling. In a separate case, the federal appeals court in New Orleans ruled that geofence warrants “are general warrants categorically prohibited by the Fourth Amendment.”

WINDSOR, N.C. (AP) — Inmates seized control of parts of a regional jail in eastern North Carolina on Monday after overpowering correctional staff, authorities said.

Three guards and 88 inmates were inside the Bertie-Martin Regional Detention Center in Windsor when the takeover began at about 5 a.m., prompting an immediate response from local, state and federal authorities, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation said in a statement posted on social media.

There was no immediate threat to the general public, Bertie County Sheriff Tyrone Ruffin said in the statement. Windsor is about 120 miles (190 kilometers) east of Raleigh.

Inmates took two guards captive and the third guard escaped. Negotiations led to the release of the two guards along with 80 inmates, leaving only eight inmates inside, Ruffin said later at a news conference. By early afternoon, the Bureau of Investigation had entered the facility and was working to take the remaining inmates into custody, Ruffin said.

Ruffin said without elaborating that the inmates who were released were taken to a “secure place.” He said the two guards who were released are undergoing medical treatment but he had no details about their injuries.

Authorities also did not address why there were only three guards overseeing the entire jail population at the time.

A secure perimeter was established around the detention center and the public was asked to avoid the immediate area, Ruffin said. More than 20 law enforcement agencies responded to the scene.

Ruffin did not indicate what caused the takeover.

“Right now we have a lot going on that we’re trying to get under control,” he said. “I will release that information to the public as soon as I can.”

By Jasper Ward and Allison Lampert

WASHINGTON, June 29 (Reuters) – The Federal Aviation Administration said it has launched an investigation after a JetBlue flight reported hitting a drone while approaching New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport on Monday.

The pilot of the Airbus A321, which had departed from Las Vegas, reported the strike at approximately 3,000 feet altitude while on final approach, the FAA said.

The incident happened around 7:15 a.m. EDT, according to the agency.

“The flight landed without incident, customers deplaned normally, and the plane was removed from service for a post-flight inspection, which found no damage or evidence of a collision,” the airline said.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which manages John F. Kennedy International Airport, was not immediately available for comment.

Monday’s incident comes days after a United Airlines flight encountered a drone during its descent into Newark Liberty International Airport — another New York City-area airport — on Friday, according to media reports.

Drones should not fly near airports, according to an FAA advisory, which warns that it would be difficult for pilots to see and avoid drones while flying.

The FAA said it receives more than 100 drone-sighting reports near airports monthly. It warned that unauthorized drone operators could face fines or jail time.

“We want to send a clear message that operating drones around airplanes, helicopters, and airports is dangerous and illegal,” the FAA said.

(Reporting by Jasper Ward and Allison Lampert; Editing by Bill Berkrot)