CNN

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The November election is still a long way off, but patience is already running thin at the Supreme Court.

An explosive exchange between three conservative justices and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Monday underscored a tension that has developed in voting cases as the court runs headlong into an election-heavy docket that will have far-reaching implications for the midterms.

Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election.

Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling that “insulting.” The conservative justice said Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.

The heated back-and-forth over what amounted to a technical question about Louisiana’s congressional map comes as the high court is already juggling other appeals that could have consequences for this year’s election – not to mention a flood of short-fuse litigation expected this summer and fall.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position,” Jackson wrote in a scathing dissent on Monday. “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito fired back in a concurring opinion joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Within the world of the Supreme Court, those words were unusually harsh, but it’s the latest example of tension behind the curtain slipping into public view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology last month for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day earlier, Jackson spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick-turn cases.

More election decisions incoming

For decades, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against changing the rules of an election at the last minute. The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making late changes to the status quo.

But in the coming weeks, the court will rule on a Republican push to lift caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates – a decision that could benefit Republicans by offsetting the advantage Democrats have typically enjoyed in small-dollar donations.

The court will also decide before June whether states may receive mail ballots that arrive after Election Day – a case inspired by baseless allegations from President Donald Trump about widespread vote-by-mail fraud. In March, the court indicated during oral arguments that it was Read more

By John Fritze, CNN

(CNN) — The November election is still a long way off, but patience is already running thin at the Supreme Court.

An explosive exchange between three conservative justices and liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson late Monday underscored a tension that has developed in voting cases as the court runs headlong into an election-heavy docket that will have far-reaching implications for the midterms.

Jackson accused the court of rolling over its “principles” in pursuit of influencing the November election.

Justice Samuel Alito fired back, calling that “insulting.” The conservative justice said Jackson’s dissent raised “trivial” and “baseless” arguments.

The heated back-and-forth over what amounted to a technical question about Louisiana’s congressional map comes as the high court is already juggling other appeals that could have consequences for this year’s election – not to mention a flood of short-fuse litigation expected this summer and fall.

“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position,” Jackson wrote in a scathing dissent on Monday. “But, today, the court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation.”

“What principle has the court violated?” Alito fired back in a concurring opinion joined by conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. “The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?”

Within the world of the Supreme Court, those words were unusually harsh, but it’s the latest example of tension behind the curtain slipping into public view.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s senior liberal, issued a rare public apology last month for suggesting earlier that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s privileged upbringing influenced his approach to an emergency immigration case last year. A day earlier, Jackson spent more than an hour lambasting the court’s conservative majority for its handling of quick-turn cases.

More election decisions incoming

For decades, the Supreme Court cautioned courts against changing the rules of an election at the last minute. The “Purcell principle,” rooted in a 2006 Supreme Court decision, warns federal courts to avoid making late changes to the status quo.

But in the coming weeks, the court will rule on a Republican push to lift caps on how much money political parties may spend in coordination with candidates – a decision that could benefit Republicans by offsetting the advantage Democrats have typically enjoyed in small-dollar donations.

The court will also decide before June whether states may receive mail ballots that arrive after Election Day – a case inspired by baseless allegations from President Donald Trump about widespread vote-by-mail fraud. In March, the court indicated during oral arguments that it was prepared to side with Republicans in that appeal.

More immediately, the justices are being asked to decide in short order what to do with a request from Alabama to throw out a lower court decision that barred that state fr

By Brian Stelter, CNN

(CNN) — James Murdoch may be the next owner of New York magazine and Vox Media’s podcast network.

Murdoch’s investment company, Lupa Systems, is in talks to acquire the assets for $300 million or more, two people with knowledge of the discussions told CNN. It is unclear if there are active talks with other bidders.

Vox Media has been exploring a sale in whole or in parts in a punishing environment for digital media businesses.

Murdoch may see an opportunity to grow his media holdings, which already include stakes in the Tribeca Film Festival and a major entertainment producer in India.

New York magazine’s portfolio includes the flagship print magazine as well as well-known websites like The Cut, Vulture and Intelligencer.

Vox’s podcast network features dozens of original programs, including “Pivot,” hosted by Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway, and “Today, Explained,” a popular daily news show.

For Murdoch, the brand could give him a significant foothold in the US media market.

Murdoch, 53, is the youngest son of Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media mogul who controls Fox News, the New York Post and other outlets around the world. (The elder Murdoch owned New York magazine from 1976 until 1991.)

James Murdoch, who served as CEO of 21st Century Fox until 2019, broke with his family’s media empire in 2020, resigning from the board of Fox Corp amid disagreements — and in some cases disgust — with the editorial bent of the family’s brands.

James has also been a prominent Democratic donor, reflecting deep concern about President Donald Trump’s takeover of the GOP. His politics are widely viewed as more moderate than his father’s.

The deal talks with Murdoch were first reported by The Wall Street Journal. Vox did not respond to a request for comment.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2026 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.

The post James Murdoch in talks to buy New York magazine and Vox podcasts for $300M or more appeared first on News Channel 3-12.

Análisis por Maria Santana, CNN en Español

La decisión de Estados Unidos de autorizar que el Gobierno venezolano financie la defensa legal del derrocado presidente Nicolás Maduro no es un gesto político a su favor, sino, según expertos legales, una maniobra para proteger la integridad del proceso judicial.

Las sanciones estadounidenses al gobierno, así como varios funcionarios y empresas estatales venezolanas habían bloqueado el acceso a fondos vinculados al Estado venezolano, lo que complicaba la capacidad de Maduro de pagar a sus abogados.

Maduro enfrenta cargos en Estados Unidos de narcoterrorismo, conspiración para importar cocaína y delitos relacionados con armas, de los que se declaró inocente en enero.

Su abogado, Barry Pollack, pidió en febrero al juez federal, Alvin Hellerstein, desestimar el caso, alegando que las restricciones de la Oficina de Control de Activos Extranjeros (OFAC) impedían cubrir los honorarios legales y violaban su derecho a un abogado bajo la Sexta Enmienda de la Constitución de EE.UU.

Hellerstein expresó en una audiencia su escepticismo frente a esa limitación y subrayó que el derecho a la defensa es fundamental, sugiriendo que restringir los recursos legales del acusado podría poner en riesgo la validez del caso.

“La Sexta Enmienda garantiza el derecho a un abogado, y quienes contratan uno tienen derecho, con excepciones limitadas, a elegirlo. De lo contrario, una condena podría ser anulada y el caso tendría que repetirse”, advirtió el abogado y analista de CNN Joey Jackson.

Jackson subrayó, además, que los casos de esta magnitud requieren tiempo y recursos, y que una defensa bien financiada es clave para someter las pruebas de la Fiscalía a un escrutinio riguroso.

“Sin esas condiciones, los fiscales se arriesgan a enfrentar reclamos por ‘asistencia ineficaz de abogado’, otra vía que podría revertir una condena”, dijo Jackson.

Ante ese escenario, Washington acordó a finales de abril permitir que el Estado venezolano cubra los honorarios legales de Maduro bajo ciertas condiciones, en lo que representa una de las primeras victorias legales importantes para su defensa.

“Esto termina siendo una solución práctica y razonable para ambas partes. Para la Fiscalía, insistir en bloquear los fondos podía significar retrasar aún más un caso que ya avanza lentamente, incluso obligando a reiniciar parte del proceso si la defensa cambiaba de abogado,” dijo el exfiscal federal y analista de CNN, Elie Honig.

“Al mismo tiempo, los jueces no tienen la facultad de anular sanciones, que son decisiones de los poderes ejecutivo y legislativo. En ese contexto, permitir el financiamiento evita un choque innecesario y mantiene el caso en curso”.

Más allá de los tribunales, la decisión también tiene eco en Venezuela, donde algunos la ven como una injusticia en medio de la crisis económica que atraviesa el país.

“Nosotros realmente ahorita no tenemos esa capacidad adquisitiva. Yo creo que él tiene que pagar”, dijo Jorge Castro durante una protesta laboral el viernes en Caracas.

Ese sentimiento se repite entre quienes cuestionan el uso de recursos del Estado para financiar la defensa de Maduro.

El costo total exacto de la defensa legal de Maduro se desconoce, pero casos complejos como este pueden costar millones de dólares. Algunos abogados, especialmente los de primer nivel en Estados Unidos, llegan a cobrar hasta miles de dólares por hora.

“Hay una crisis humanitaria… y, aun así, del erario público van a salir millones de dólares para defender a (Maduro)”, opinó Estela Romero, otra ciudadana venezolana.

Sea cual sea el costo, no es que pagarlo resuelva los problemas de la población Venezuela. Varios analistas y organismos internacionales coinciden en que la recuperación de los

The post Santa Clarita Valley Tax Preparer Pleads Guilty to Filing False Returns and Fraudulently Obtaining COVID Benefits appeared first on edhat.