Author

admin

Browsing

Update the Big Dumper dinger counter.

The Seattle Mariners might have lost 10-3 to the New York Yankees in the Bronx on Tuesday, July 8, but Cal Raleigh hit his 36th home run of the season.

Raleigh’s latest tater was noteworthy, particularly for Mariners fans. He passes Ken Griffey Jr. for the most home runs hit by a Mariners player before the All-Star break. Griffey hit 35 before the Midsummer Classic in 1998. Raleigh also continues to close in on Barry Bonds’ mark of 39 home runs before the 2001 All-Star break. Bonds finished with a record 73 home runs that season.

The record for most home runs hit by a catcher over a full season is 48, which the Kansas City Royals’ Salvador Perez accomplished in 2021.

MLB’s home run leaders

  1. Cal Raleigh, Seattle Mariners – 36
  2. Aaron Judge, New York Yankees – 34
  3. Shohei Ohtani, Los Angeles Dodgers – 31
  4. Eugenio Suárez, Arizona Diamondbacks – 28
  5. Kyle Schwarber, Philadelphia Phillies – 27

The biggest stories, every morning. Stay up-to-date on all the key sports developments by subscribing to USA TODAY Sports’ newsletter.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

My book ‘On Her Game: Caitlin Clark and the Revolution in Women’s Sports,’ was published by Scribner on Tuesday. Much is being written and said about the book, but here are three stories in the book you might not have heard. 

Clark’s real reaction to the Olympic snub

During an interview session after the Indiana Fever practice on June 9, 2024, Caitlin Clark was asked about the Olympic team decision. ‘I’m excited for the girls that are on the team,” she said. ‘I know it’s the most competitive team in the world, and I knew it could’ve gone either way — me being on the team, me not being on the team. I’m excited for them, I’m going to be rooting them on to win gold.

‘Honestly, no disappointment,’ she added. ‘I think it just gives you something to work for. It’s a dream; hopefully one day I can be there. I think it’s just a little more motivation, you remember that, and hopefully, when four years comes back around I can be there.”

Fever coach Christie Sides said during her availability with the media that Sunday that she and Clark texted right after she got the call on the bus. ‘She texted me to let me know. I just tried to keep her spirits up. The thing she said was, ‘Hey, Coach, they woke a monster,’ which I thought was awesome.”

Although Clark took the high road in her public comments, Sides said in an interview for this book that the Olympic decision was ‘such a disappointing moment for her. Being an Olympian is a huge dream of hers, and when she realized it wasn’t going to happen, it just lit a fire under her.’

As the team landed in Indianapolis after a game in Washington earlier that evening and got off the plane late at night, Sides said she and Clark “were walking and talking about the decision. She could have gone to practice that night, I mean, that’s where she was, that’s the competitor she is. She didn’t really say much more after that.”

Clark’s ‘big sister’

As Clark’s name was called first in the 2024 WNBA Draft, veteran Fever point guard Erica Wheeler exploded from her courtside seat in Gainbridge Fieldhouse. Giddy with anticipation at the news she knew was coming, Wheeler had placed one hand on the knee of Lexie Hull and the other on the knee of Maya Caldwell, both Fever teammates at the time, and waited to hear Engelbert’s words.

Wheeler—known as “EW” to her teammates—leaped for joy with Hull and Caldwell, then pulled a red Fever No. 22 jersey over her head and ran around the court as the fans stood and roared. “Let’s go!” Wheeler shouted to every corner of the arena.

Her happiness was predictable, but also admirable, for as she danced, she knew she was celebrating the moment that she had lost her starting job. Clark was going to be the starting point guard for the Fever, guaranteed. Wheeler would be her backup, a difficult role, but one she understood, and even relished.

‘You know when you go to a different school,” said the 33-year-old Wheeler, “the first day of school, you don’t know anybody, and you find that one person that says hi to you that becomes your best friend.”

Wheeler became that person for Clark.

‘For me as a big sister, I’m going to take the first step, to just let her know, ‘We’re here, we got you. Whatever you need from me as your vet, even in the same position, I got you.’ . . . She’s one of the biggest players in the world right now and she don’t act like that. She’s just like, ‘Help me, in any way you can,’ in a sweet way, there’s no ego at all, she’s not selfish. . . . She wants to learn, she wants to be a family, and I’m like a big sister to her.”

27 minutes — not one mention of Clark

Throughout the WNBA post- and off-season, the league found itself curiously out of step with the nation’s fondness for Clark. On Oct. 10, before Game One of the WNBA Finals in Brooklyn, commissioner Cathy Engelbert spoke for 27 minutes in a press conference about the historic developments in the 2024 season and never once mentioned Clark’s name.

Calling the season ‘the most transformational year in the WNBA’s history,’ Engelbert talked glowingly about the record or near-record levels of viewership, attendance, merchandise sales, and digital engagement. ‘You saw some teams upgrade . . . arenas for certain games this year, and I thought that was a sign and signal as attendance has grown across the league that we can play in bigger arenas. . . . We had our highest-attended game ever, over 20,000, in Washington this year.”

Clark, of course, was the reason for most of those moves to larger arenas, and her presence definitely was the only reason Washington had the biggest crowd in WNBA regular-season history on Sept. 19.

Engelbert sprinkled the names of various WNBA players throughout her press conference, among them: Napheesa Collier, Sabrina Ionescu, Breanna Stewart, Leonie Fiebich, Aliyah Boston, and A’ja Wilson. But no Clark.

Through her spokespeople, Engelbert was asked to be interviewed for this book several times in late 2024 and early 2025. Every request was declined. In March 2025, I asked again, specifically wondering why Engelbert, on Oct. 10, failed to mention Clark’s name when referring to the unprecedented season highlights that happened because of Clark.

On March 10, Engelbert replied in a text message sent through a spokesperson:

‘You’re asking me why I didn’t mention Caitlin Clark during my WNBA Finals press conference? I didn’t mention any players in that press conference other than some of those from the Liberty and the Lynx who were participating in the Finals.’

Engelbert did mention two players who were not participating in the Finals: Aliyah Boston and A’ja Wilson. She talked about them when mentioning WNBA players in commercials: ‘There’s virtually not a sporting event you can turn on where one of our players is not in an ad spot. That was not happening five years ago. Look at Aliyah Boston and Sabrina and A’ja and so many of our players in these ad spots.’

Engelbert’s March 10 text continued: ‘I have stated many times that Caitlin is a generational talent and there is no denying her impact — not only in the WNBA but beyond the world of sports. We have also always stood by the belief that our league is not about any one player but about the collective talent, teamwork, and dedication of all the athletes who continue to elevate the game and inspire generations. Just because Caitlin’s name is not mentioned in every interview or press conference does not mean we do not recognize, celebrate, and fully support her — both as an athlete and, even more importantly, as a person.”

A week and a half before the WNBA Finals, Engelbert, in an interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Jon Wertheim for a piece on Clark and the WNBA, was asked to describe ‘the Caitlin Clark phenomenon.” 

Engelbert replied, ‘She’s clearly an unbelievable player, came in with an unbelievable following, has brought a lot of new fans to the league. If you look at our historic season around our attendance, our viewership, Caitlin — Angel, too, Angel Reese, Rickea Jackson, Cameron Brink — this class of rookies, we will be talking about them a generation from now.’

Wertheim followed up. ‘I notice when you’re asked about Caitlin a lot, you bring up other rookies as well.’

‘No league’s ever about one player,’ Engelbert replied. ‘That player could get hurt or whatever, so I think it’s just to give recognition that in sports, people watch for compelling content and rivalries. And you can’t do that alone as one person.”

By practically any measure, Clark was that one person.

Adapted from ‘On Her Game: Caitlin Clark and the Revolution in Women’s Sports’ by Christine Brennan. Copyright © 2025 by Christine Brennan. Adapted for excerpt with permission from Scribner, a division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Taylor Fritz has made history by reaching the Wimbledon semifinals for the first time, a feat not achieved by an American man in this Grand Slam tournament since John Isner in 2018.

In a match filled with suspense and drama, Fritz, the No. 5 seed, overcame a malfunction with Wimbledon’s electronic line calling system to defeat the No. 17-seeded Karen Khachanov in a four-set thriller. The final score of 6-3, 6-4, 1-6, 7-6 (7-4) sealed Fritz’s spot in the semifinals.

Now, the stage is set for an epic showdown as Fritz prepares to face two-time defending champion Carlos Alcaraz, the No. 2 seed, in the grass court semifinal.

In the women’s side of the tournament, another American making headlines is No. 13 seed Amanda Anisimova. She secured her spot in the semifinals by defeating Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 6-1, 7-6 (11-9). Anisimova will face No. 1 seed Aryna Sabalenka on Centre Court in Thursday’s semifinal match. Sabalenka rallied to beat Laura Siegemund 4-6, 6-2, 6-4 in their quarterfinal match.

Anisimova is seeking to become the first American woman to win Wimbledon since Serena Williams won the last of her seven titles there in 2016. Sabalenka, who won Australian Open titles in 2023 and 2024 and the US Open in 2024, is also seeking to win Wimbledon for the first time. Sabalenka lost in the final of the French Open to American Coco Gauff last month.

When does Taylor Fritz play next at Wimbledon?

Fritz’s Wimbledon semifinal matchup against Carlos Alcaraz is scheduled for Friday, July 11 on Centre Court at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

  • Time: TBD
  • Date: Friday, July 11
  • TV: ESPN
  • Stream:ESPN+, Fubo (free trial for new subscribers)
  • Location: All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (Wimbledon, London)

Taylor Fritz’s road to the Wimbledon semifinals

Here are Taylor Fritz’s results through the first five rounds at Wimbledon in 2025:

  • First round: Taylor Fritz defeats Giovanni Mpetshi Perricard 6-7 (6-8), 6-7 (8-10), 6-4, 7-6 (10-8), 6-4
  • Second round: Taylor Fritz defeats Gabriel Diallo 3-6, 6-3, 7-6 (9-7), 4-6, 6-3
  • Third round: Taylor Fritz defeats Alejandro Davidovich Fokina 6-46-3, 6-7 (5-7), 6-1
  • Fourth round: Taylor Fritz defeated Jordan Thompson 6-1, 3-0 (retired)
  • Quarterfinals: Taylor Fritz defeated Karen Khachanov 6-3, 6-4, 1-6, 7-6 (7-4)

Watch Wimbledon semifinals on Fubo

When does Amanda Anisimova play next at Wimbledon?

Amanda Anisimova’s Wimbledon semifinal matchup against No. 1 seed Aryna Sabalenka is scheduled for Thursday, July 10 on Centre Court at the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club.

  • Time: TBD
  • Date: Thursday, July 10
  • TV: ESPN
  • Stream:ESPN+, Fubo (free trial)
  • Location: All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club (Wimbledon, London)

Amanda Anisimova’s road to the Wimbledon semifinals

Here are Amanda Anisimova’s results through the first five rounds at Wimbledon in 2025:

  • First round: Amanda Anisimova defeats Yulia Putintseva 6-0, 6-0
  • Second round: Amanda Anisimova defeats Renata Zarazúa 6-4, 6-3
  • Third round: Amanda Anisimova defeats Dalma Gálfi 6-3, 5-7, 6-3
  • Fourth round: Amanda Anisimova defeats Linda Nosková 6-2, 5-7, 6-4
  • Quarterfinals: Amanda Anisimova defeats Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova 6-1, 7-6 (11-9)

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The Cato Institute is warning that the federal government is testing the outer limits of executive power with President Donald Trump’s use of emergency tariffs, and it wants the courts to put a stop to it.

In a new amicus brief filed in V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump, Cato argues that the president overstepped his legal authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by imposing steep tariffs on imports from countries including China, Mexico and Canada.

The libertarian thinktank argues the move undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and expands executive authority over trade in ways Congress never intended.

‘This is an important case about whether the president can impose tariffs essentially whenever he wants,’ Cato Institute legal fellow Brent Skorup said in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital. ‘There has to be a limit — and this administration hasn’t offered one.’

‘Tariff rates went up to 145% on some products from China,’ he said. ‘And the president’s lawyers couldn’t offer a limiting principle. That tells you the administration believes there’s no real cap, and that’s a problem.’

Cato’s brief urges the appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling that found the tariffs exceeded the president’s statutory authority. The U.S. Court of International Trade ruled earlier this year that the president’s use of IEEPA in this case was not legally authorized. The court said the law does not permit the use of tariffs as a general tool to fight drug trafficking or trade imbalances.

Skorup said in court the administration was unable to define a clear limit on its authority under IEEPA. 

‘They couldn’t articulate a cap,’ he said. ‘There’s nothing in the law that mentions duties or tariffs. That’s a job for Congress.’

The administration has defended its actions, arguing that IEEPA provides the necessary tools for the president to act swiftly in times of national emergency. Trump officials maintain that both the fentanyl crisis and America’s trade vulnerabilities qualify.

‘There are real emergencies, no one disputes that,’ Skorup said. ‘But declaring an emergency to justify global tariffs or solve domestic trade issues goes far beyond what most Americans would recognize as a legitimate use of emergency powers.’

Skorup acknowledged that the real issue may be how much discretion Congress gave the president in the first place. 

‘It’s a bipartisan problem. Presidents from both parties have taken vague laws and stretched them. Congress bears some of the blame for writing them that way,’ he said, adding that’s why courts should ‘step in and draw the line.’

For small businesses like V.O.S. Selections, the costs go beyond legal fees. Skorup said businesses who rely on imports, like V.O.S., have struggled to plan ahead as tariffs have been paused and reinstated repeatedly.

Skorup said there are several small businesses that rely on global imports and it becomes a ‘matter of survival’ when tariff rates change unexpectedly.

‘V.O.S. Selections imports wine and spirits and when the tariff rates go up unexpectedly, they can’t get products to their distributors as planned,’ he said. ‘And that’s true for others too, like pipe importers and specialized manufacturers. These companies don’t have the flexibility to absorb those costs or adjust overnight.’

If the appeals court sides with the administration, it could mark a major expansion of presidential power over trade policy. Skorup warned that such a ruling would allow future presidents to take similar actions with little oversight.

‘It would bless Congress’ ability to hand over immense economic power to the president,’ he said. ‘That would blur the separation of powers that the Constitution is supposed to protect.’

A decision from the appeals court is expected later this year.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Last December, UCF football addressed its future by turning to its past, bringing in former Knights coach Scott Frost to once again lead the program.

With the benefit of hindsight, Frost would have never left Orlando in the first place.

As he prepares to enter the first season of his second stint at UCF, Frost expressed regrets over departing for Nebraska after the 2017 college football season, claiming he “didn’t really want” to accept the job at his alma mater.

‘I said I wouldn’t leave (UCF) unless it was someplace you could win a national championship,” Frost said in an interview with The Athletic at Big 12 media days on July 8. “I got tugged in a direction to try to help my alma mater and didn’t really want to do it. It wasn’t a good move. I’m lucky to get back to a place where I was a lot happier.’

Frost engineered one of the more remarkable turnarounds in recent college football history during his first stop at UCF. He inherited a Knights program that went winless the season before his arrival and, by his second season at the helm, posted an undefeated season in 2017. That ended with the school claiming a national championship after the Knights were the only undefeated team in college football that season.

That December, one month before UCF finished off its unblemished season with a Peach Bowl victory against Auburn, Frost was hired at Nebraska. It was a homecoming for the Lincoln, Nebraska native: He was the quarterback of the Cornhuskers’ most recent national championship team, which was awarded the Coaches Poll title for the 1997 college football season. (Michigan was awarded the Associated Press title).

A hire that seemed perfect in theory — a native son with an impressive resume and a thorough understanding of the program — was something more disastrous in practice.

Frost went just 16-31 in his time at Nebraska, including a 10-26 mark in Big Ten play. Under their former star quarterback, the Cornhuskers never won more than five games. One day after a 45-42 loss to Georgia Southern in 2022, Frost was fired, three games into his fifth season.

After working last season as an analyst for the NFL’s Los Angeles Rams, Frost will look to reignite a UCF program that has struggled in its first two seasons in the Big 12, going 10-15 overall and 5-13 in conference play during that time. He’s one of two first-year Big 12 coaches who’s back at a school he previously led to overwhelming success, with Rich Rodriguez at West Virginia being the other.

Frost returns to the Knights carrying at least one lesson he took from his failure at Nebraska.

‘Don’t take the wrong job,” he said to The Athletic.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Forward Gavin McKenna, the projected No. 1 overall pick in the 2026 NHL Draft, will play for Penn State next season, he announced on ESPN’s ‘SportsCenter’ on July 8.

McKenna, who has the same pre-draft hype as 2023 No. 1 overall pick Connor Bedard, is switching to college hockey after being named the Canadian Hockey League player of the year in 2024-25. The 17-year-old was the third youngest to win the award, behind Sidney Crosby and John Tavares.

The 6-foot, 165-pounder had 41 goals, 88 assists and 129 points last season with the Medicine Hat (Alberta) Tigers and went to the CHL’s Memorial Cup final. He has played three seasons in the Western Hockey League and had 97 points in 2023-24.

A recently approved NCAA rule change allows CHL players to play college hockey for the first time this season. They previously had been prohibited.

Landing McKenna is big news for Penn State, which went to the Frozen Four for the first time last season before falling in the semifinals to Boston University.

If McKenna goes No. 1 as expected, he’d be the third college hockey player in five years to be taken first, following Boston University’s Macklin Celebrini (San Jose Sharks) in 2024 and Michigan’s Owen Power (Buffalo Sabres) in 2021.

‘While the term ‘generational talent’ is thrown around far too loosely these days, if it doesn’t apply to McKenna, then it should never apply to anyone,’ said Kyle Woodlief, publisher and chief scout for Red Line Report. ‘His gifts are so special, it’s hard to find the superlatives to adequately describe them. He is so phenomenal that he might just instantly transform whichever team gets to draft him next June.’

The USA TODAY app gets you to the heart of the news — fastDownload for award-winning coverage, crosswords, audio storytelling, the eNewspaper and more.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

Former President Joe Biden’s persistent use of a teleprompter during public events, including during a fundraiser with just a couple dozen supporters, left donors complaining for months and dashed their expectations of hearing from the 46th president, a new book claims. 

‘For most of the campaign, Biden only ever spoke with the assistance of a teleprompter, even for small private audiences,’ a new book, ‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America,’ reported. ‘The presence of the machine made for extremely awkward interactions in intimate settings, and irked donors who had paid thousands of dollars for a personal view of the president, not expecting a canned speech they could see on TV.’ 

‘He once read from a teleprompter in front of thirty people in the open kitchen of a Palo Alto mansion,’ the book continued. ‘Donors complained for months about the president’s reliance on the machine. Aides defended the teleprompter as a tool to keep the famously garrulous president on schedule.’ 

‘2024: How Trump Retook the White House and the Democrats Lost America’ was released Tuesday and authored by Josh Dawsey of the Wall Street Journal, Tyler Pager of the New York Times and Isaac Arnsdorf of the Washington Post. It details the 2024 presidential campaign cycle, including Biden’s cratering health issues. 

The book detailed that just days after Biden’s disastrous June 2024 debate against President Donald Trump that opened the floodgates to typical Democrat supporters turning their backs on Biden ahead of the election, the president attended a campaign event at Virginia Democrat Rep. Dan Beyers’ house without a teleprompter. The book claims Biden only spoke for about six minutes.

‘At Beyer’s house, the campaign was eager to prove Biden could speak off the cuff. There was no teleprompter to be found. The president blamed his poor debate performance on a heavy travel schedule and said he ‘almost fell asleep onstage.’ He spoke for about six minutes,’ the book detailed. 

The word ‘teleprompter’ appears in the new book a dozen times, mostly referencing the president’s reliance on the machine, as well as concern among some staffers that using a teleprompter was crucial to the president avoiding the unexpected as his health deteriorated. 

‘The officials who planned events at the White House tried to avoid any surprises or unpredictable situations. If the president was going to speak, he would go to the podium, deliver remarks from a teleprompter, and leave. There was no room for creativity or spontaneity,’ the book states in a section on how Biden had fallen during a commencement in 2023 and staff devised plans to prevent another public fall in the future. 

‘Everyone could see the president was aging. He sometimes failed to recognize former staff at functions. Still, current aides insisted his decline was strictly physical, and even then they acknowledged it only by trying to Bubble Wrap the president and avoid any more catastrophes. Staff limited direct access to the president, keeping meetings with him small,’ the book continued.

Biden entered his 2024 reelection cycle already racked by claims and concerns that his mental acuity had slipped and he was not mentally fit to continue serving as president, which was underscored by special counsel Robert Hur’s report in February 2024 that rejected criminal charges against Biden for possessing classified materials, citing he was ‘a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.’ Fox News has been reporting on Biden’s apparent health decline since at least 2020. 

Biden brushed off the claims throughout 2024, until his debate against Trump in June of that year, when he was seen tripping over his words, speaking in a far more subdued tenor than during his vice presidency, and losing his train of thought at times. The debate opened the floodgates to criticism among Democrats that Biden should step aside and pass the mantle to a younger generation of Democrats. 

After weeks of the White House and campaign staffers vowing Biden would stay in the race and to ‘keep the faith,’ Biden announced in a social media post on a Sunday afternoon in July 2024 that he dropped out of the race. He endorsed then-Vice President Kamala Harris to run for the Oval Office, giving her just over 100 days to launch her own campaign that failed to rally enough support when up against Trump. 

Fox News Digital reached out to Biden’s office regarding the claims in the new book, but did not immediately receive a reply.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

The recent $2.8 billion settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences is set to face seven appeals to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based on filings made by a deadline that passed the night of Monday, July 7.

None of the appeal notices were accompanied by a motion seeking to put at least a temporary stop to the going-forward aspects of the agreement, which included schools being allowed to pay athletes directly for the use of their name, image and likeness, beginning July 1.

Also, beginning July 1, schools that choose to make NIL deals with their athletes are no longer subject to sport-by-sport scholarship limits. But those restrictions have been replaced by roster limits, subject to exceptions for certain athletes who were on teams during the 2024-25 school year and recruits who had been assured of roster spots for the 2025-26 school year.

There were 73 valid, timely objections filed out of nearly 390,000 current and former athletes covered by the litigation while U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken considered whether to grant final approval to the settlement. She granted that approval on June 6.

Among the athletes being represented in appeals are current Florida State quarterback Thomas Castellanos, who is involved with two appeal efforts; former two-time national women’s lacrosse player of the year Charlotte North; former wrestler Sebastian Rivera, who won a bronze medal at the Paris Olympics and now is an assistant coach at Columbia; and former men’s basketball player Braeden Anderson, who now works as an attorney.

The full range of issues that will be argued in the appeals remains to be seen because the appeal notices followed a standard format and were not accompanied by a legal argument. But based on the objections that the appealing parties made to Wilken previously, they are likely to include:

▶The applicability of Title IX, the federal gender-equity law, to the settlement’s sport-by-sport allocations of damages money that heavily favors football and men’s basketball players.

▶Whether the settlement’s annual per-school cap on new benefits that can be provided to athletes, including the NIL money paid directly from the schools to the athletes, constitutes another illegal limit on athlete compensation.

▶The fairness of the damages allocations to walk-on athletes who sometimes ended up becoming more prominent than their teammates on scholarship, and to some athletes in lower-revenue sports.

▶The adequacy of the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ representation of the interests of athletes other than football and men’s basketball players and the adequacy of the notice and claims submissions process for athletes.

Other than the lawyers who filed the first notice of appeal on June 11, many of the lawyers for the appealing parties have either been willing to provide only brief and general comments about their planned arguments to USA TODAY Sports, or they have been unavailable for comment.

But Patrick Bradford, an attorney representing Castellanos and Anderson, said in an interview July 8: ‘This is a settlement that will pay kids less than the market would bear and say, ‘That’s OK.’ ‘ Bradford raised the possibility of pursuing the matter to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

Steve Berman, one of the lead lawyers for the plaintiffs, said in an email July 8: “We remain 100 percent optimistic of our chances of success and are disappointed that these objectors are appealing given the thoroughness and soundness of Judge Wilken’s decision. Most of the objectors have not appealed and we thank them for not joining in any effort to hold up payments to the student (a)thletes which is what the appealing objectors are doing.”

The appeals could significantly delay the start of payments of damages money to tens of thousands of athletes and to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, who have requested that they be awarded hundreds of millions of dollars from the total settlement pool. These payments are set to occur over a 10-year period.

As approved by Wilken, the settlement says that in the event of appeals of this nature, the NCAA and the conferences would begin making damages payments, but the money would be held in escrow — not paid to athletes or lawyers — until appeals are completed.

Initial scheduling instructions from the 9th Circuit for five of the appeals that were filed called for written arguments to be filed by various dates in September by those appealing and for responses to be filed by various dates in October. However, no scheduling instructions have been issued yet for two appeals.

Berman said plaintiffs will ask the 9th Circuit to consolidate the appeals, so they follow a single calendar.

According to the 9th Circuit’s website, oral arguments in appeals of civil cases occur approximately six to 12 months from the notice of appeal date, or approximately four months from completion of briefing.

The site said “most cases are decided within 3 months to a year after submission,” so even if the 9th Circuit chooses not to hold oral argument in this case, it’s unlikely a ruling will be issued before early 2026.

This post appeared first on USA TODAY

The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court’s injunction against the administration’s executive order.

In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court.

The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. 

It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to ‘streamline government and eliminate waste.’ Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal government.

A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself.

‘Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application,’ the Court wrote. ‘We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court.’

The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court’s unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is ‘likely to succeed’ in defending the legality of the order.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that ‘this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.’ She warned that the executive action represents a ‘structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives’ and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts.

‘This unilateral decision to ‘transform’ the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court,’ she wrote. ‘The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.’

The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed ‘non-critical’ or ‘not statutorily mandated.’ The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain ‘thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service… is not in the government and public interest.’

Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees.

‘Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration,’ wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. ‘It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Waymo announced Tuesday that it is offering accounts for teens ages 14 to 17, starting in Phoenix.

The Alphabet-owned company said that, beginning Tuesday, parents in Phoenix can use their Waymo accounts “to invite their teen into the program, pairing them together.” Once their account is activated, teens can hail fully autonomous rides.

Previously, users were required to be at least 18 years old to sign up for a Waymo account, but the age range expansion comes as the company seeks to increase ridership amid a broader expansion of its ride-hailing service across U.S. cities. Alphabet has also been under pressure to monetize AI products amid increased competition and economic headwinds.

Waymo said it will offer “specially-trained Rider Support agents” during rides hailed by teens and loop in parents if needed. Teens can also share their trip status with their parents for real-time updates on their progress, and parents receive all ride receipts.

Teen accounts are initially only being offered to riders in the metro Phoenix area. Teen accounts will expand to more markets outside California where the Waymo app is available in the future, a spokesperson said.

Waymo’s expansion to teens follows a similar move by Uber, which launched teen accounts in 2023. Waymo, which has partnerships with Uber in multiple markets, said it “may consider enabling access for teens through our network partners in the future.”

Already, Waymo provides more than 250,000 paid trips each week across Phoenix, the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Austin, Texas, and the company is preparing to bring autonomous rides to Miami and Washington, D.C., in 2026.

In June, Waymo announced that it plans to manually drive vehicles in New York, marking the first step toward potentially cracking the largest U.S. city. Waymo said it applied for a permit with the New York City Department of Transportation to operate autonomously with a trained specialist behind the wheel in Manhattan.

This post appeared first on NBC NEWS