This article originally appeared on ABC News at https://abcnews.com/US/caleb-flynn-former-american-idol-contestant-murder-trial-wife-closing-arguments/story?id=136849417 Tue, 29 Sep 2026 20:09:24 +0000

By Andrew Chung Sept 29 (Reuters) - The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face, bolstering a tool his administration has used for rapid expulsions as part of his immigration crackdown. The court granted the Justice Department's emergency request to put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy's ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's policy to remove migrants to so-called third countries is unlawful. The court also agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in December, with a formal ruling on the policy to follow. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the decision to let the deportations immediately resume pending the final outcome of the litigation. Murphy's ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants seeking to prevent the US government from sending them to third countries without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy implemented last year, according to a tally by human rights groups, with the vast majority going to Mexico. The policy is one of a number of measures the administration has taken in its pursuit of Trump's goal of mass deportation. The Republican president has enforced a sweeping crackdown on immigration among his top priorities since returning to office last year. The administration has carried out third-country deportations to politically unstable South Sudan, which the US State Department urges Americans to avoid due to the risks of crime, kidnapping and armed conflict, as well as Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic, and other nations. Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the court's decision. "A bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike," Percival wrote on social media. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the court has "allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they face persecution or torture. That is a devastating result for people who may be put on a plane before they ever have notice or an opportunity to raise a fear claim." In February, Murphy ruled that the policy violates immigration law procedures and due process protections under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Supreme Court, which has allowed a number of Trump's hardline immigration policies, previously sided with the administration in the legal challenge, suspending a preliminary order that Murphy issued earlier in the case halting the removals.In another win for the administration, the Supreme Court subsequently lifted limits the judge had imposed to protect a group of men from being sent to South Sudan. The case began in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security moved to step up deportations of migrants who cannot be returned to any country listed on their deportation orders. SWIFTLY REMOVED The policy provided that migrants could be swiftly removed without notice to third countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurance that they will not persecute or torture the individuals. For countries that have not provided such assurance, deportees would be notified of their destination and US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture only if the individual raises such fear on their own. In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said third-country deportations are "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens." But both Murphy and critics of the administration said the policy is also targeting migrants who had been granted legal protection from being sent back to their home countries. The policy has resulted in deportees being unlawfully transferred by third countries back to their home countries from which the US had already granted them protection, while others have been beaten, sexually assaulted, detained or have disappeared, the plaintiffs said in a court filing. The administration is ignoring "the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime US residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there," the plaintiffs said. The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the judge's ruling on September 18. The case has been hotly contested since it began, and included findings by Murphy that the administration "repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate" his orders. Murphy in 2025 found that the administration had violated another order he issued requiring additional steps before attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham) This article originally appeared on Reuters at https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/supreme-court-lets-trump-resume-190857993.html Tue, 29 Sep 2026 20:02:16 +0000

War Secretary Pete Hegseth will announce plans to reduce by 20% the number of positions reserved for generals and admirals during his State of the Force address on Wednesday.Hegseth approved reduction plans for the Army, Navy, Air Force and the military's joint pool earlier this month, according to memos seen by Fox News Digital. The services were directed to implement the plans and complete the reductions by Jan. 1, 2027.Wednesday's address in Quantico, Va. is expected to lay out Hegseth's priorities for the military in the year ahead, with the reduction in senior leadership positions among the changes he will unveil.The new target doubles the 10% overall reduction in general and flag officer positions Hegseth ordered last year as part of his effort to streamline the military's senior ranks. That earlier directive separately called for a 20% reduction in active-duty four-star positions and a 20% reduction in National Guard general officers.Senate Republican Pushes Merit-based Military Promotions, Targets Biden-era Dei Policies

Hegseth dubbed that effort "less generals, more GIs," arguing that reducing senior headquarters positions would push resources and authority toward troops closer to the fight.Read On The Fox News AppThe latest reductions apply to billets positions designated for generals and admirals rather than an across-the-board removal of 20% of the officers currently serving in those ranks, a War Department source told Fox News Digital.At least some of the positions will be downgraded rather than eliminated altogether. In a Sept. 16 memo approving reductions to the military's joint pool, Hegseth directed officials to establish O-6 requirements for general and flag officer positions identified for downgrade, allowing colonels and Navy captains to fill those jobs.Gop Rep Thomas Massie Introduces 8 Articles Of Impeachment Against War Secretary Pete Hegseth

The announcement comes exactly one year after Hegseth summoned hundreds of generals and admirals from around the world to Quantico, Virginia, for an extraordinary gathering where he laid out his expectations for the military's senior leaders and warned those who did not support his reforms to step aside.Hegseth has argued that reducing the number of generals and admirals would strip away unnecessary layers of bureaucracy and push authority down the chain of command.Sign Up To Get The Politics Newsletter"This is not a slash-and-burn exercise meant to punish high-ranking officers," Hegseth said when he announced the earlier reductions in May 2025. "This has been a deliberative process, working with the Joint Chiefs of Staff with one goal: maximizing strategic readiness and operational effectiveness by making prudent reductions in the general and flag officer ranks."

Click Here To Download The Fox News AppThis year's audience will look different. Military commands have been asked to send top-performing service members who meet fitness and body-composition requirements and maintain "impeccable" grooming and uniform standards, according to published reports on internal Pentagon guidance for the event. Some troops selected to attend are also expected to participate in a workout with Hegseth.
Original article source: EXCLUSIVE: Hegseth to double cuts to generals, admirals in major Pentagon shakeupThis article originally appeared on Fox News at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/exclusive-hegseth-double-cuts-generals-admirals-major-pentagon-shakeup Tue, 29 Sep 2026 13:30:46 +0000

Lindsay Clancy returned to court on Tuesday for the first time since her murder trial ended with a deadlocked jury.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington asked Judge William Sullivan for an acquittal, arguing that there was not enough evidence to prove that the 36-year-old former nurse killed her three young children.

This entire case is based on speculation, Reddington said. Where is the admission? Where does she say that she did this?

Prosecutor Shanan Buckingham called the argument laughable.

Sullivan did not immediately rule. The next hearing in the case is set for Nov. 2.

During the trial, Clancys attorneys did not dispute that she fatally strangled her children Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and 8-month-old Callan with exercise bands at their Duxbury, Mass., home in January 2023. She had been charged with three counts of murder in the first degree.

Her lawyers argued that she could not be held criminally responsible for the killings because she was suffering from the rare mental illness that they said made her unable to understand the wrongfulness of her actions. 

Prosecutors contended that Clancy, who was never formally diagnosed with postpartum psychosis, carefully planned the killings and bears full responsibility for her children's deaths.

The trial hinged largely on discussions of Clancy's mental state. Over nearly five weeks of testimony, a series of family members and medical professionals took the stand to describe the mental and emotional struggles she endured in the months leading up to the killings. 

During deliberations, the 12-member jury informed the judge that the panel was deadlocked: 11 members believed Clancy was not guilty, but one juror refused to apply the legal standard of reasonable doubt, preventing the jury from returning a unanimous not-guilty verdict. 

The case finally ended on Sept. 4 following nearly 40 hours of deliberation after the jury came to the judge for a third time to inform him that they were deadlocked, triggering an automatic mistrial under Massachusetts law. 

Advocacy groups and researchers said the mistrial highlighted how little the medical field knows about postpartum psychosis, a rare illness estimated to affect one to two per 1,000 women after delivery.

Clancy, who is paralyzed from the waist down since jumping from a second-story window after strangling her children, is expected to remain at a psychiatric hospital where she's been held for the last three years until her case is resolved.

Clancy's attorneys have also asked the judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that the holdout juror should have been removed.

Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to retry Clancy, Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy Cruz told reporters after the hearing. They could choose to retry her on first-degree murder charges, seek to try her on lesser charges, negotiate a plea deal or drop the case altogether.

We are going to do what we can for the children, Cruz said. That is what this case is about.

If you or someone you know is experiencing suicidal thoughts, call 911, or call the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline at 988 or 1-800-273-8255 or text HOME to the Crisis Text Line at 741741.This article originally appeared on Yahoo News at https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/article/lindsay-clancys-lawyer-now-says-there-isnt-enough-evidence-to-prove-she-killed-her-children-143656285.html Tue, 29 Sep 2026 19:43:40 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) Former special counsel Jack Smith forcefully defended his prosecutions of President Donald Trump and his investigative tactics, pushing back against repeated Republican efforts to paint him and his team as partisan political operators during a Senate hearing Tuesday that divided along familiar party lines. The hearing came as Republicans have pushed for Smith to himself be prosecuted, and offered a forum for them to assail him anew for what they contend were politicized prosecutions that unfolded during the 2024 presidential race. Democrats rallied to Smith's defense, eliciting testimony about the legal and factual basis for the criminal cases against the-then candidate and decrying the Trump administration's firing of prosecutors involved in the investigations. Smith, for his part, defended his work in an hours-long Senate Judiciary Committee hearing the latest congressional effort to revisit federal cases that accused Trump of conspiring to overturn the results of the 2020 race and of hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Both were abandoned after Trump's 2024 election win. Anybody who has worked with me and knows me during the course of my career knows that I would not let politics play a role. And I would just add that if you knew the people I worked with, they would not either," Smith said. He lamented what he called an unprecedented assault on the rule of law by the Trump administration, along with terminations of his team that he said had deprived the government of crucial expertise and made the country less safe. That has never happened in my career. I have never seen anything remotely like it in any Republican or Democratic administration, he said. The testimony did nothing to appease Smith's Republican critics, who during the hearing described him as dirtbag," foot soldier for the Democratic party and other pejorative characterizations. In a particularly startling moment, one Republican lawmaker, Sen. Eric Schmitt, even accused Smith of perjuring himself about his attendance at a basketball game in what appeared to be a misunderstanding over a team name.

The hearing focused heavily on subpoenas for lawmakers' phone records

Smith was pressed by Republican senators about his access to the phone records of GOP lawmakers as he investigated Trumps efforts to reverse his loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Prosecutors issued subpoenas for toll records of numerous Republican members of Congress who were contacted by Trump or his aides on Jan. 6, 2021, the day supporters of the president rioted inside the U.S. Capitol. Smith has said such subpoenas are common in investigations and were necessary in this instance to understand the scope of the conspiracy between Trump and his Republican allies. The subpoenas, he said Tuesday, provided corroborating evidence that Trump and his alleged co-conspirators sought to exploit the violence of the day by invoking it to try to further delay the congressional certification of Biden's win. They were taking the fact that law enforcement officers had been brutally assaulted at this institution and using that to seek to delay the proceedings further in violation of the law, Smith said. It was an important part of our investigation. Toll records reveal the date, time and duration of phone calls between two parties but not the content of the communications. There is no legal prohibition against obtaining the toll records of members of Congress, and Democrats noted that the first Trump administration Justice Department had sought records for representatives of their party during an investigation. Nonetheless, the revelation that Smiths team secretly obtained the records has animated Republican lawmakers, who consider it proof of overreach by the Biden administration Justice Department and the hard-charging prosecutor it picked as special counsel. Smith pointed out that he had consulted with and received approval from the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section. In July, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, referred Smith to the Justice Department for potential prosecution on allegations he lied at a previous hearing about the records collection something Smith and his attorneys have vigorously disputed. I stand by my testimony before the House of Representatives, Smith said Tuesday. I will not be silenced by the continued threats of prosecution from the president or others.

Smith faced bitingly personal criticism from Republicans

Smith was appointed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland to lead investigations into Trump's efforts to reverse his election loss and Trump's retention of classified documents. Smith abandoned the prosecutions after Trump's 2024 win, citing Justice Department opinions that sitting presidents cannot be federally indicted. Smith has remained a top target of retribution for Trump and his administration. Republicans on the committee followed that lead, confronting him in a hearing that frequently devolved into partisan sniping and name-calling. They sought to cast the prosecutions as a political fishing expedition, accusing Smith of bending procedures in pursuit of Trump. The Smith election case ultimately wasnt just about Trump, said Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the committee chairman. It was about partisan agents and prosecutors mapping out the Republican apparatus. During one tense exchange, Republican Sen. John Kennedy grew exasperated as he asked whether the Biden White House instructed the Justice Department to prosecute Trump. Smith said he had no idea about that, and that the decision to prosecute Trump was his own. In an effort to show Smith was being evasive, Kennedy asked Smith whether he believed in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny. Smith said no. You make me want to throw up in my mouth, Kennedy said. In another notable moment, Schmitt, of Missouri, accused Smith of traveling to Atlanta and attending a game for the citys NBA team the Hawks in February 2024 while Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis was facing scrutiny for her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor in the Georgia 2020 election case. But it appeared the Missouri senator, who also told Smith that he would go down as a total dirtbag, got his teams confused. After appearing perplexed by the question and denying any travel to Georgia, Smith volunteered that the contest he actually attended was an Iowa Hawkeyes women's basketball game against the University of Maryland. Democrats, by contrast, used the hearing to affirm the legitimacy of the Trump investigations and draw out testimony on the scope of criminal conduct that Smith says he and his team found. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the committee's top Democrat, accused Republicans of spreading baseless conspiracy theories about Smiths investigations in an effort to whitewash the history of Trumps election loss and the subsequent Capitol attack. The aspersions cast on Mr. Smith, nonstop, are petty, personal and political. They are nothing but a smoke screen to distract from the presidents own clear, unlawful conduct," Durbin said.This article originally appeared on Associated Press at https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/ex-trump-prosecutor-smith-tell-102828759.html Tue, 29 Sep 2026 10:28:28 +0000