One of the original judges on NBC's "The Voice" has announced that he'll be exiting the show after next season.

Blake Shelton made the announcement on his official Twitter page Tuesday.

"This show has changed my life in every way for the better and it will always feel like home to me," his statement said. "It’s been a hell of a ride over these 12 years of chair turns and I want to thank everyone at The Voice from NBC, every producer, the writers, musicians, crew and catering people, you are the best. It takes a lot of work, passion, and adult beverages (Ha!) to pull off a live show twice a week."

Shelton said he's made lifelong bonds with Carson Daly, host of "The Voice," as well as his fellow coaches over the years, including his wife, Gwen Stefani.

Related video above: Blake Shelton celebrates one year wedding anniversary with Gwen Stefani

"I have to give a huge shoutout to the singers — the 'Voices,' who come on this stage season after season and amaze us with their talent and special thanks to those who chose me to be their coach," Shelton's statement said.

Shelton has been a mainstay since the show's inception in 2011, with eight wins under his belt. He has also coached 15 artists whose songs have hit #1 on the iTunes Top Songs chart.

Shelton can currently be seen on Season 22 of "The Voice," alongside fellow judges Stefani, Camila Cabello and John Legend.

On the same day as Shelton's exit announcement, fans also got a preview of next season, which will be Shelton's last.

Joining Shelton will be first-time coaches Chance the Rapper and former One Direction member Niall Horan, while Kelly Clarkson will round out the coach lineup in the next season, which is set to debut next spring.

Chance the Rapper shared that he is "thrilled" to join the NBC competition series and is "excited to help other artists get to the next level and make the most of this life-changing experience."

CNN contributed to this report.

A federal judge in New York on Thursday temporarily stopped the state's gun ban inside churches.

Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York ruled that a state gun law provision that makes it a felony for anyone to carry a licensed gun inside a church is unconstitutional, Reuters and CNN reported.

The ruling by Sinatra, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Americans could carry guns in public for their self-defense, according to the Associated Press.

The Justice's ruling struck down a state law that required people to demonstrate a clear need before obtaining a concealed carry license, the Associated Press reported.

Earlier this month, another New York judge ruled that the state can't ban people from carrying guns in New York City's subway system, the Associated Press reported.

CNN reported that two church leaders who wanted to carry guns on church property brought the lawsuit to challenge the state's gun law.

File video above: U.S. preps for rising migration when Title 42 ends

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked Title 42 — a controversial rule that's allowed U.S. authorities to expel more than 1 million migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.

Tuesday's court order leaves the Biden administration without one of the key tools it had deployed to address the thousands of migrants arriving at the border on a daily basis and could restore access to asylum for arriving migrants.

While the rule was drafted by the Trump administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Biden administration has relied heavily on it to manage the increase of migrants at the border.

District Judge Emmet Sullivan in Washington, D.C., found the Title 42 order to be "arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act."

Prior to Title 42, all migrants arrested at the border were processed under immigration law. Thousands of migrants sent back to Mexico have been waiting along the border in shelters. Officials have previously raised concerns about what the end of Title 42 may portend, given limited resources and a high number of people trying to enter the country.

CNN has reached out to the White House, Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security for comment.

Sullivan faulted the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which issued the public health order, for "its decision to ignore the harm that could be caused" by issuing the policy. He said the CDC also failed to consider alternative approaches, such as letting migrants self-quarantine in homes of US-based friends, family, or shelters. The agency, he said, should have reexamined its approach when vaccines and tests became widely available.

"With regard to whether defendants could have 'ramped up vaccinations, outdoor processing, and all other available public health measures,'... the court finds the CDC failed to articulate a satisfactory explanation for why such measures were not feasible," Sullivan wrote.

The judge also concluded that the policy did not rationally serve its purpose, given that COVID-19 was already widespread throughout the United States when the policy was rolled out.

"Title 42 was never about public health, and this ruling finally ends the charade of using Title 42 to bar desperate asylum seekers from even getting a hearing," American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt, who argued the case, said in a statement.

The injunction request came from the ACLU, along with other immigrant advocacy groups, and involves all demographics, including single adults and families. Unaccompanied children were already exempt from the order.

The public health authority was invoked at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic and has been criticized by immigrant advocates, attorneys and health experts who argue it has no health basis and puts migrants in harm's way.

Sullivan had previously blocked the Biden administration from expelling migrant families with children apprehended at the US-Mexico border.

Earlier this year, the CDC announced plans to terminate the order. The CDC said at the time it's no longer necessary given current public health conditions and the increased availability of vaccines and treatments for COVID-19.

But in May, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked the Biden administration from ending Title 42.

Since that court order, the administration has continued to rely on Title 42 and most recently, expanding it to include Venezuelan migrants who have arrived at the US southern border in large numbers.

A federal judge in Texas on Friday ordered a hold on U.S. approval of the abortion medication mifepristone, throwing into question access to the nation’s most common method of abortion in a ruling that waved aside decades of scientific approval.

The immediate impact of the ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, which does not go into immediate effect, was unclear.

The abortion drug has been widely used in the U.S. since 2000 and there is essentially no precedent for a lone judge overruling the medical decisions of the Food and Drug Administration. Mifepristone is one of two drugs used for medication abortion in the United States, along with misoprostol, which is also used to treat other medical conditions.

Kacsmaryk, a Trump administration appointee in Amarillo, Texas, signed an injunction directing the FDA to stay mifepristone’s approval while a lawsuit challenging the safety and approval of the drug continues. His 67-page order gave the government seven days to appeal.

“Simply put, FDA stonewalled judicial review — until now,” Kacsmaryk wrote.

He didn’t go as far as the plaintiffs wanted by withdrawing or suspending the approval of the chemical abortion drug and removing it from the list of approved drugs. But he put a “stay” or hold on approval of the drug.

Federal lawyers representing the FDA are expected to swiftly appeal.

Clinics and doctors that prescribe the two-drug combination have said that if mifepristone were pulled from the market, they would switch to using only the second drug, misoprostol. That single-drug approach has a slightly lower rate of effectiveness in ending pregnancies, but it is widely used in countries where mifepristone is illegal or unavailable.

Mifepristone is part of a two-drug regimen that has long been the standard for medication abortion in the U.S. Clinics and doctors that prescribe the combination say they plan to switch to using only misoprostol. The single-drug approach is slightly less effective at ending pregnancies.

The lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was also involved in the Mississippi case that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned. At the core of the lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because it did not adequately review its safety risks.

Courts have long deferred to the FDA on issues of drug safety and effectiveness. But the agency’s authority faces new challenges in a post-Roe legal environment in which abortions are banned or unavailable in 14 states, while 16 states have laws specifically targeting abortion medications.

An Idaho judge entered not guilty pleas on behalf of Bryan Kohberger, the man accused of killing four University of Idaho students last fall, during an arraignment in a Latah County Court on Monday.

Judge John Judge read aloud Kohberger’s rights and each of the murder and burglary charges outlined in the indictment. When asked if he understood the charges, Kohberger replied to each, “Yes.”

When asked for his plea to the counts, Kohberger remained silent. His attorney rose and said, “Your honor, we are standing silent,” and the judge then entered not guilty pleas for him.

Kohberger, 28, was indicted last week on four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary for the November 13 killings of Kaylee Goncalves, 21; Madison Mogen, 21; Xana Kernodle, 20; and Ethan Chapin, 20, at a home just outside the university’s main campus in Moscow, Idaho.

The trial was set for Oct. 2 and is expected to last about six weeks. Prosecutors have 60 days from Monday to announce, in writing, whether they plan to seek the death penalty in this case.

Wearing an orange prison outfit, Kohberger smiled and nodded at his attorney upon entering court but otherwise stared straight ahead during the arraignment. Family members of Goncalves also attended the hearing and remained focused on Kohberger as he was arraigned, according to Jordan Smith, a reporter for CNN affiliate KXLY who had a vantage point of the family in court.

The hearing offered few details on a grisly case that remains shrouded in mystery. Authorities say Kohberger, a graduate student in the Department of Criminology at nearby Washington State University, broke into the students’ home and repeatedly stabbed the victims before fleeing the scene. Police have not released a potential motive in the case, and due to a wide-ranging gag order, few details have trickled out so far.

The killings and lengthy investigation rattled the community of Moscow, a city of 25,000 people that hadn’t recorded a murder since 2015. After weeks with little information and heightened anxieties, Kohberger was arrested at his parents’ home in Pennsylvania in late December and identified as the alleged killer.

He has been in police custody since then and is being held without bail.

Also on Monday, the court scheduled two hearings for June 9 to address motions, filed by an attorney representing the family of Goncalves and a media coalition, regarding concerns over the wide-ranging gag order in the case.

As it stands, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and attorneys for victims’ families and witnesses are prohibited from saying anything publicly, aside from what is already in the public record.

How police narrowed in on Kohberger

In the days after the discovery of the grisly crime scene, investigators narrowed in on Kohberger after focusing on a white Hyundai Elantra seen in surveillance footage near the crime scene, according to a probable cause affidavit released in January.

By Nov. 25, area law enforcement officers were notified to look out for the vehicle, the affidavit read. Within days, police at Washington State University in nearby Pullman, Washington, identified a vehicle and found it registered to Kohberger.

His driver’s license information was consistent with the description of a man given to police by the victims’ surviving roommate, the affidavit says, specifically noting his height, weight and bushy eyebrows.

The roommate told investigators she saw a man with a similar description clad in black the morning of the attack. Hours before the killings, Chapin and Kernodle had attended a party on campus, police have said, while Mogen and Goncalves went to a downtown bar before ordering food at a food truck.

Video below: Police body camera video shows officers executing search warrant at Bryan Kohberger's home

Investigators connected Kohberger to the crime scene after DNA on a tan leather knife sheath found lying next to one of the victims was linked to DNA on trash recovered from Kohberger’s family home in Pennsylvania, according to the affidavit.

There, investigators seized a white 2015 Hyundai Elantra an attorney for the suspect previously said he’d used to drive, accompanied by his father, to his parents’ home for the holidays. Court documents show investigators dismantled the vehicle, collecting parts, fiber and swabs for further examination.

Investigators also seized knives, a cell phone, black gloves, black masks, laptops, dark-colored clothes and dark shoes, an evidence log shows.

Following his arrest, Kohberger waived extradition and was sent back to Idaho. He was booked into the Latah County Jail on the same counts for which he was indicted.

Many details about the case remain unknown, in part due to a wide-ranging nondissemination order that prevents attorneys for any interested party in the case from commenting beyond the public record, leaving in place a veil of secrecy.

A preliminary hearing had been scheduled for the end of June, with the parties expected to detail evidence collected by the state. But the hearing was canceled after Kohberger’s indictment, Latah County Deputy Court Clerk Tamzen Reeves said, and court records indicate the names of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury are under seal.

Democrats, stung by a series of election-year failures to deliver legislative wins for their most loyal voters, hope they'll be buoyed by the prospect that President Joe Biden will name the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

Justice Stephen Breyer's pending retirement couldn't have come at a better time for a Democratic Party reeling from the collapse of Biden's legislative agenda last week.

Seeing Biden's campaign pledge to appoint the first Black woman to the Supreme Court fulfilled, Democrats hope they will be able to energize a dejected base, particularly Black voters whose support will be crucial in the November midterm elections.

Among the names being circulated as potential nominees are California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, prominent civil rights lawyer Sherrilyn Ifill and U.S. District Judge Michelle Childs — whom Biden has nominated to be an appeals court judge.

Replacing Breyer won't ultimately change the court's 6-3 conservative majority, which has stymied Biden on major priorities including his recent vaccine and testing mandate for large businesses.

If every Senate Republican unites to oppose Biden's nominee, the president would need to secure support from every Democrat in the chamber. That could potentially revive recent fights in which moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona bucked the party and defeated its priorities.

In a letter made public Thursday, Breyer said he plans to retire when the court goes into recess this summer. He added that he hopes his replacement is nominated and confirmed by that time.

Biden said Thursday he plans to name a nominee by the end of next month.

This story was originally published by Newsy. Additional reporting by The Associated Press.

---

Trending stories at Newsy.com

SAN JOSE, Calif —

Lawyers for opposing sides in the trial of former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes are expected to wrap up closing arguments Friday, paving the way for a jury to begin deliberations over criminal charges accusing her of turning her blood-testing startup into a massive scam.

The case revolving around Holmes' meteoric rise to become a self-made billionaire and ensuing downfall has captivated Silicon Valley for the past three months as the long-delayed trial unfolded.

That fixation intensified after Holmes made the risky decision to take the witness stand for seven days in front of the jurors who will determine her fate. The jurors, after attorneys wrap up closing arguments that began Thursday, will then be instructed by U.S. District Judge Edward Davila on how to proceed with deliberations.

Holmes, 37, faces 11 felony counts of fraud and conspiracy. If convicted, she could receive a sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison less than a year after giving birth to her first child.

Federal prosecutors have cast Holmes as a desperate con artist who brazenly lied to get rich. Attorneys representing Holmes say she was a well-meaning entrepreneur who never stopped trying to perfect Theranos' blood-testing technology and deliver on her pledge to improve health care.

The concept was so compelling, Theranos and Holmes were able to raise more than $900 million from billionaire investors such as media magnate Rupert Murdoch. The company struck partnerships with major retailers Walgreens and Safeway and Holmes quickly began to grace the covers of national magazines as a wunderkind.

Unknown to most people outside Theranos, the company's blood-testing technology was flawed, often producing inaccurate results that could have endangered the lives of patients who took the tests.

After the flaws were exposed in 2015 and 2016, Theranos eventually collapsed and the Justice Department filed its criminal case in 2018.

When they begin deliberations, jurors will consider the testimony of 32 witnesses and more than 900 exhibits submitted in a trial that has lasted more than 14 weeks. Besides Holmes, other prominent witnesses that have testified include former U.S. Defense Secretary Gen. James Mattis — a former Theranos board member — and former Safeway CEO Steve Burd, who was negotiating a deal with Holmes to bring Theranos' technology into its supermarkets.

KENOSHA, Wis. —

In the days following the not guilty verdict in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, clerks filed more than 100 pages of letters to the court expressing praise and anger.

Copies of the letters, obtained by sister station WISN, show some of them were written as the jury deliberated Rittenhouse's fate and after the jurors acquitted the now 18-year-old from Illinois.

The letters were from at least 22 states outside Wisconsin and mainly focused on the polarizing circuit judge, Bruce Schroeder.

"If it had not been for you, that precious, intelligent, wholesome, motivated & alltogether [sic] adorable young man would have been a life wasted," a woman from Ohio wrote.

One of the most high-profile letters of support came from a special prosecutor in Louisiana, Hugo Holland, who also had previously been forced to resign in a firearms acquisition scandal.

"I would not have even bothered to take the Rittenhouse case to a grand jury. I would have pronounced it a good shoot and been done with it," Holland wrote to Schroeder.

The judge did receive several letters from critics as well.

A person from Ohio voiced their "displeasure towards Bruce E. Schroeder because of his obvious and blatant ways of favoritism that he has shown towards the defense."

The person added, "I hope this old and senile person who claims to be a man of the law can rest his head at night..."

This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

A man watching the trial from New Mexico took his criticism further, writing, "It is disgraceful to interrupt justice as it appears you are trying to do."

He added, "I am going to write to the board of judicial review and ask that you be seriously reviewed by them."

This content is imported from Twitter.
You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Among the 115 pages filed Nov. 22 and 23 were two letters addressed to Rittenhouse directly.

"If I had been your father, I never would have let you go downtown," a man from New York wrote to Rittenhouse.

He added in the next sentence he thought Rittenhouse's intentions were "laudable and well meaning."

Investigative producer Jennie Fritz contributed to this report.

A federal judge overseeing litigation related to the nation's opioid epidemic ruled Tuesday that lawsuits targeting Purdue Pharma and other drug companies can move to trial even as the OxyContin maker tries to reach a settlement.

The ruling was one of several issued by U.S. District Court Judge Dan Polster, who is preparing for a trial scheduled for Oct. 21 over claims from the Ohio counties of Cuyahoga and Summit.

It would be the first federal trial seeking to hold drug companies, distributors and pharmacies accountable for an overdose and addiction crisis that has killed more than 400,000 Americans since 2000. More than 2,000 local governments have sued the industry, with most of the cases gathered in multidistrict litigation under Polster. The first trial is partly intended to answer legal questions that could arise in others that would follow if a settlement can't be reached.

Polster issued six rulings Tuesday denying motions for summary judgment from various groups of defendants, who had hoped to have at least some claims against them tossed out. While it's not a surprise that Polster denied the requests, the decisions strengthen the plaintiffs' positions with the initial trial less than two months away.

He ruled that civil conspiracy claims against the companies that make, distribute and sell opioids can remain in the case. In his opinion, Polster wrote that it's for a jury to decide whether there is enough evidence to show the companies' actions meet the criteria of a conspiracy claim.

Some of the defendants also sought to have claims tossed out because of conflicts between the underlying state and federal laws; Polster denied those, as well.

Polster also made rulings specific to certain defendants or groups of them. He found that claims should not be dropped against Mallinckrodt, Teva and Actavis, three makers of generic drugs.

They argued that there was no proof they had marketed their generic opioids during certain time periods, but plaintiffs in the case responded that the companies had indeed done marketing. They pointed to their sponsorship of patient advocacy groups that called for more access to pain treatment.

The judge also ruled against a group of smaller drug distributors. They had argued that lawsuits against them should be tossed out because their involvement in the opioids industry was too small to make a difference.

In recent weeks, Polster has ruled against several efforts to keep expert witnesses from testifying on behalf of the local governments.

It's not clear just which defendants might be included when the trial begins. Last month, drugmakers Endo and Allergan settled claims with the two Ohio counties, and more settlements could come in the weeks ahead.

Purdue, a company strongly associated with the opioid epidemic through its OxyContin drug, has proposed settlement terms that would have the Stamford, Connecticut-based company file for a structured bankruptcy and pay $10 billion to $12 billion to settle all claims against it. The Sackler family, which owns Purdue, would pay $3 billion under the proposal and contribute an estimated $1.5 billion more from the sale of another company they own, Mundipharma.

Since details of the deal became public last week, some local officials and state attorneys general have pushed back, saying the amount of money offered is too small. Others have said they want people affected by the opioid epidemic to have a chance to address company executives in court.

Last month, a state judge in Oklahoma ruled that Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries must pay $572 million in the first state-court verdict on the opioid crisis. Purdue and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries settled with the state before the trial began.

Meanwhile, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has sued to stop the trials involving the Ohio local governments' claims, saying the state's lawsuit should go first.

LOS ANGELES —

Vanessa Bryant wants a judge to punish Los Angeles County officials for destroying photos of Kobe Bryant's helicopter crash that were allegedly shared, according to court papers filed by her lawyers.

Related video above: How Vanessa Bryant found out about the deaths of her daughter and husband

"Law enforcement officials whose job is to investigate wrongdoing know that the first step in investigating a complaint is to preserve evidence and that destroying evidence is improper," said the motion, filed on Monday. "Yet that is exactly what Sheriff (Alex) Villanueva himself ordered Department personnel to do after the Department received a citizen's complaint that a Sheriff's deputy was showing photos of the crash site at a bar in Norwalk. That order was highly irregular — unprecedented in deputies' experience — and out of the chain of command."

Photos of the January 2020 helicopter crash that killed the NBA legend, his daughter, and seven others, were allegedly shared with people outside of the investigation. In March 2020, L.A. County Sheriff Villanueva said all of those photos had been deleted. Bryant is suing the county over the alleged photo sharing claiming emotional distress, and a violation of privacy.

"In these circumstances, it is simply unfair to let Defendants argue that the photos were contained and that the risk of trauma is illusory," said Bryant's lawyers in a motion filed Tuesday. Lawyers request summary judgment, trial, and an order precluding defendants from arguing that the photos were not spread electronically.

"While the County continues to have the deepest sympathy for the grief Ms. Bryant has suffered, the request by her lawyers for sanctions is an attempt to distract attention from the fact that none of the routine investigative photos taken by County employees have ever been publicly disseminated," said Skip Miller, partner of the Miller Barondess law firm and outside counsel for L.A. County.

The matter is expected to be discussed on Nov. 29 in Los Angeles.

CNN —

A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit from Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas and several Arizona Republicans seeking to force Vice President Mike Pence to help throw the election to President Donald Trump next week when Congress meets to count the Electoral College votes.

Judge Jeremy Kernodle of the Eastern District of Texas said on Friday that Gohmert and the others lacked standing to sue. In a filing late Friday, Gohmert and other plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Gohmert's suit was part of the GOP's attempt to overturn the presidential election using unproven allegations of mass voter fraud and charging that multiple states that President-elect Joe Biden won illegally changed their voting rules due to the pandemic.

Those arguments have failed dozens of times in state and federal courts over the past two months.

Gohmert and a slate of would-be Trump electors from Arizona had said only Pence could decide what electoral votes count — a remarkable argument suggesting vice presidents can directly determine who wins a presidential election, regardless of the results.

Kernodle, who was nominated by Trump and confirmed in the Senate by voice vote in 2018, wrote that Gohmert "alleges at most an institutional injury to the House of Representatives. Under well-settled Supreme Court authority, that is insufficient to support standing."

As for the group of Arizona Republicans, who claimed that Biden's electors in the state were unlawfully certified, Kernodle wrote that they "allege an injury that is not fairly traceable to the Defendant, the Vice President of the United States, and is unlikely to be redressed by the requested relief."

Kernodle does not get into the constitutionality of the Electoral Count Act or Pence's ceremonial role overseeing the certification process in his 13-page opinion.

Pence on Thursday asked Kernodle to reject the case, arguing that the legal issues from Gohmert should be directed to the House and Senate, rather than the vice president. Pence's filing did not say if he would entertain the possibility of interfering in the Electoral College count, but there is no public indication that he will.

"(A) suit to establish that the Vice President has discretion over the count, filed against the Vice President, is a walking legal contradiction," Pence said.

"Ironically, Representative Gohmert's position, if adopted by the Court, would actually deprive him of his opportunity as a Member of the House under the Electoral Count Act to raise objections to the counting of electoral votes, and then to debate and vote on them," Pence's filing added.

At least 140 House Republicans are expected to vote against counting the electoral votes on Jan. 6, CNN reported Thursday. Gohmert has said he will be one of them.

There have been no credible allegations of any issues with voting that would have impacted the election, as affirmed by dozens of state and federal courts, governors, state election officials and the departments of Homeland Security and Justice.

Both a House member and senator are required to mount an objection when Congress counts the votes. Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said Wednesday he will object, which will force lawmakers in both the House and Senate to vote on whether to accept the results of Biden's victory.

The Justice Department gave the White House a heads-up earlier this week that the Pence filing was coming, according to a person familiar with the matter. Word was sent to chief of staff Mark Meadows that the department would be asking the judge to reject the lawsuit. White House counsel Pat Cipollone was also aware it was coming.

It's not clear whether Trump, who remains furious at the Justice Department for its perceived inaction on voter fraud, was informed himself. He has taken an interest in Pence's role during the Jan. 6 proceedings, though Pence and others at the White House have tried to explain to him that it's merely a ceremonial post.

House General Counsel Doug Letter filed an amicus brief with the court on Thursday, asking for the Gohmert case to be dismissed, calling it a "radical departure from our constitutional procedures and consistent legislative practices."

"At bottom, this litigation seeks to enlist the federal courts in a belated and meritless assault on longstanding constitutional processes for confirming the results of a national election for President," the House attorney wrote.

The Trump campaign is also continuing its quest at the Supreme Court with the same baseless and unproven voter fraud claims. It twice this week asked the court to overturn Biden's win in Wisconsin. Other cases from the President and his allies looking to throw out Biden's victories in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin and Arizona are pending on the court's docket.

A lawsuit filed by Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert to compel Vice President Mike Pence to alter how the Electoral College votes are counted has been thrown out by a federal judge.

The judge said that Gohmert lacked standing to bring the lawsuit against Pence.

Earlier on Friday, the Justice Department asked a federal judge to dismiss the last-gasp lawsuit that seeks to give Vice President Mike Pence the power to overturn the results of the presidential election won by Joe Biden when Congress formally counts the Electoral College votes next week.

Pence, as president of the Senate, will oversee the Wednesday session and declare the winner of the White House race. The Electoral College this month cemented Biden’s 306-232 victory, and multiple legal efforts by President Donald Trump’s campaign to challenge the results have failed.

The suit names Pence as the defendant and asks the court to throw out the 1887 law that spells out how Congress handles the vote counting.

LOS ANGELES —

Britney Spears said in a court filing Wednesday that she agrees with her father that the conservatorship that has controlled her life and money since 2008 should be terminated.

The filing in Los Angeles Superior Court from Spears' attorney Mathew Rosen says she "fully consents" to "expeditiously" ending the conservatorship, which her father James Spears, who has controlled it for most of its 13 years, asked for in a Sept. 7 petition.

It's the first time Britney Spears has called for an end to the arrangement in court documents, though she has called for its termination in hearings.

Her filing emphasizes, however, that it is more important to her that her father be removed, calling it "a necessary first — and substantial — step towards Ms. Spears's freedom and ending the Kafkaesque nightmare imposed upon her by her father, so that her dignity and basic liberties can be restored."

It is urgent that James Spears be suspended from his role of conservator of Britney Spears' finances by Sept. 29, the next hearing date in the case, the filing says.

"Mr. Spears cannot be permitted to hold a position of control over his daughter for another day," the document says.

The documents also reveal that Britney Spears is in the process of putting together a pre-nuptial agreement after getting engaged to her longtime boyfriend Sam Asghari earlier this month. That process will mean the intensive involvement of the conservator of her money, a role her father can't be permitted to play, the filing says.

The flurry of major filings means that next week's hearing could be pivotal.

Judge Brenda Penny, who has remained largely neutral in her oversight of the case, will be pressed to decide whether to remove James Spears or to put the conservatorship on a path to termination.

James Spears stepped aside as conservator of his daughter's person in 2019, maintaining only his role as conservator of her money. He and his attorneys have said that renders many of his daughter's complaints about his control meaningless.

Jodi Montgomery, a court-appointed professional, now acts as conservator of Britney Spears' person. Wednesday's filing from Britney Spears says Montgomery also consents to ending the conservatorship,

Spears had said in a dramatic June 23 speech in court that gave a jolt to the case and galvanized support for her that she was being compelled under the conservatorship to take certain medications and to use an intrauterine device for birth control against her will.

James Spears has denied acting in anything but his daughter's best interest, and has declined demands that he resign immediately, though he said in court documents that he does have a plan to eventually step down.

But in a major reversal and possibly strategic move, he said in his Sept. 7 filing that if she "wants to terminate the conservatorship and believes that she can handle her own life, Mr. Spears believes that she should get that chance."

Mathew Rosengart has sought to keep the focus on James Spears removal since his hiring in July and says he will pursue an investigation of his handling of the conservatorship even after any removal.

The conservatorship was established in 2008 when Britney Spears' began to have very public mental struggles as media outlets obsessed over each moment, hordes of paparazzi aggressively followed her everywhere, and she lost custody of her children.

CINCINNATI —

A 40-year-old hiring and promotion policy that helped more women and minorities in the Cincinnati Police Department has been ruled unconstitutional.

The policy was born out of the 1981 consent decree, an effort to improve diversity within the ranks of the Cincinnati police department.

A federal ruling acknowledges that the consent decree has "positively affected the composition of CPD." But a federal judge ruled Thursday that the race-based and sex-based initiative is no longer needed.

The consent decree was signed onto by several parties including the city of Cincinnati, Cincinnati police department and Department of Justice in 1981, at a time women and minorities faced discrimination in hiring and promotion in the department.

The consent decree contains race-based and sex-based hiring and promotional goals for each recruit class and sergeant cohort. Under those goals, the department aimed to make each recruit class 34 percent Black and 23 percent female and to fill 25 percent of sergeant openings with black and female candidates.

According to the federal ruling, in July of 1980, 9.9 percent of the department was Black and 3.4 percent was female.

In January 2021, 28.3 percent of the department was Black and 22.9 percent was female.

The police department has 90 days to confer with the Department of Justice and submit modifications to the consent decree.

"We certainly wish the DOJ did not take this action as the consent decree has been important to our progress," Mayor John Cranley said in a statement. "We are evaluating all options to appeal and will do so if possible. We won't stop pressing our case."

The reconsideration of the hiring and promotion rule was prompted by a lawsuit filed by Erik Kohler, a Cincinnati police sergeant.

"Erik Kohler was promoted, but his promotion was delayed because the city promoted other candidates for sergeant ahead of him simply based on their race, even though they had a lower score on the promotional eligibility list," said his attorney Zachary Gottesman.

The federal ruling Thursday does not apply directly to Kohler's case but Gottesman said it is a win for them.

"Race-based and gender-based promotion and hiring programs can be legal if they meet very strict criteria, and the city has known for years and years that their policy did not comply with those legal requirements," Gottesman said.

CINCINNATI — On Tuesday, a Hamilton County judge vacated his four-week-old court order requiring a man to get the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of his probation.

The defendant, Brandon Rutherford, said he's not going to get vaccinated and that it was a violation of his rights to face the threat of being jailed for not getting the vaccine within 60 days.

"I'm certainly not going to make a martyr out of you by incarcerating you" for not getting vaccinated, Judge Christopher Wagner told Rutherford Tuesday during a court hearing.

Rutherford's attorney, Carl Lewis, argued in court that Wagner didn't have the authority to order anyone to get the vaccine, especially as a condition of community control, another term for probation.

"Your authority, Your Honor, is not unlimited," Lewis told Wagner. "The community control condition must reasonably relate to doing justice, rehabilitating the offender and ensuring good behavior. Mr. Rutherford's argument is this honorable court does not have the power, the authority or the discretion to order him to be vaccinated."

On Tuesday, Wagner continued questioning why Rutherford refused to get vaccinated and implied Rutherford showed poor judgment sharing his concerns about Wagner's court order with the WCPO 9 I-Team and other news media.

"Quite frankly, Mr. Rutherford, as I said, it's (the court order) not to make an example out of anybody," Wagner told Rutherford. "Certainly it's not to put the scarlet letter on anybody either, but you kind of did this one on your own."

Rutherford, who is on probation for felony drug possession, insisted that he will take advantage of opportunities to find work and not violate the conditions of his community control.

"I'm happy now," Rutherford told the I-Team Tuesday after his court hearing. "I don't have to live with that over my back or in fear anymore."

Video above: Florida school district defies Gov. Ron Desantis' order to ban mask mandates

School districts in Florida may impose mask mandates, a judge said Friday, ruling that Gov. Ron DeSantis overstepped his authority by issuing an executive order banning the mandates.

Leon County Circuit Judge John C. Cooper agreed with a group of parents who claimed in a lawsuit that DeSantis' order is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced. The governor's order gave parents the sole right to decide if their child wears a mask at school.

Cooper said DeSantis’ order “is without legal authority.”

His decision came after a three-day virtual hearing, and after at least 10 Florida school boards voted to defy DeSantis and impose mask requirements with no parental opt-out.

Cooper said that while the governor and others have argued that a new Florida law gives parents the ultimate authority to oversee health issues for their children, it also exempts government actions that are needed to protect public health and are reasonable and limited in scope. He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.

The judge also noted that two Florida Supreme Court decisions from 1914 and 1939 found that individual rights are limited by their impact on the rights of others. For example, he said, adults have the right to drink alcohol but not to drive drunk. There is a right to free speech, but not to harass or threaten others or yell “fire” in a crowded theater, he said.

“We don’t have that right because exercising the right in that way is harmful or potentially harmful to other people," Cooper said. He added that the law "is full of examples of rights that are limited (when) the good of others ... would be adversely affected by those rights.”

DeSantis has dismissed the masking recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as not applicable to Florida, but Cooper cited numerous Florida laws and statutes covering health care in nursing homes, prisons and elsewhere that say state decision-makers should give great weight to CDC guidelines.

The school districts that have defied Santis' order represent slightly more than half of the 2.8 million Florida public school students enrolled this year. DeSantis, a Republican who is eyeing a possible presidential run in 2024, had threatened to impose financial penalties on school boards that vote for strict mask mandates. Democratic President Joe Biden has said if that happens, federal money will be used to cover any costs.

Orange County, home to the city of Orlando and Disney World, on Tuesday, became the latest large district to impose a mask mandate after positive tests for COVID-19 disrupted classes. Through Tuesday, the district reported 1,968 positive cases among students since school began, with 1,491 people under active quarantine, according to the district’s dashboard.

In Fort Lauderdale on Tuesday, the Broward County School Board told the Department of Education that it won’t back down on its requirement that students wear masks. Its policy, like that of most other districts, gives parents a medical opt-out for students. The board said giving parents the unlimited right to send their kids to school without a mask would infringe on the rights of other parents who want their children to be safe.

The state had given Broward and Alachua counties until Tuesday to end their mask mandates. Broward’s students began school a week ago with a mask policy in place.

"We believe that the district is in compliance. We don’t believe that we have done anything inappropriate as it relates to the executive order and the rule of the Department of Education,” Rosalind Osgood, chairwoman of the Broward School Board, said Tuesday.

The highly contagious delta variant led to an acceleration in cases around Florida and record-high hospitalizations just as schools prepared to reopen classrooms this month. By mid-August, more than 21,000 new cases were being added per day, compared with about 8,500 a month earlier. The state said 16,820 people were hospitalized on Tuesday, down from a record of more than 17,000 last week.

About 6 in 10 Americans say students and teachers should be required to wear face masks while in school, according to a poll conducted this month by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden’s nominee for attorney general, Merrick Garland, is set for his confirmation hearing on Monday.

Garland is vowing to prioritize civil rights, combat extremist attacks and ensure the Justice Department remains politically independent.

When the 68-year-old appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he's likely to face questions about the investigation of Biden’s son Hunter as well as the fallout from the U.S. Capitol riot.

Garland focuses in his prepared remarks on prioritizing policing and civil rights to combat racial discrimination and says America doesn’t “yet have equal justice.”

If confirmed as attorney general, Garland says it “will be the culmination of a career I have dedicated to ensuring that the laws of our country are fairly and faithfully enforced, and that the rights of all Americans are protected.

Many became familiar with Garland in 2016 when the federal appeals court judge was snubbed by Republicans for a seat on the Supreme Court and denied a hearing.

WAYNE COUNTY, Mich. —

It was a Friday afternoon when Edward Martell, dressed in a dark purple suit and bow tie, stood in front of Judge Bruce Morrow's courtroom. With one hand raised, the new lawyer was sworn into the State Bar of Michigan.

Sixteen years ago in that same Wayne County courtroom, Martell stood in front of Morrow and pleaded guilty to selling and manufacturing crack cocaine.

After being caught in a drug sting, the 27-year-old had gone into court prepared to hear the worst -- possibly 20 years in prison. Instead, he left with just a three-year probation sentence and words of encouragement that he says changed his life.

"I noticed right away Morrow was a unique guy," Martell told CNN. "I walked in his courtroom and I'm watching him and I realize he treats the defendants like real people. I was like 'Whoa, this judge is different.'"

"I will never forget what he told me. He said 'Mr. Martell, you don't have to be out here selling drugs. You have greatness within you. I challenge you, be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company."

When he stepped out of the building, Martell, now 43, told himself he was ready to change. He was ready, he said, for a happier chapter in his life.

While Martell says he was ready to face the upcoming challenges alone, Morrow stayed by his side since the day he left that courtroom.

"I told Ed, my door is always open for you, here's my number, I want to know what you're doing, I want you to keep me in your life," Morrow told CNN. "I gave Ed an opportunity. Everybody deserves to be treated with a great sense of humanity and importance."

Martell became a regular visitor in Morrow's courtroom, sitting quietly in the back as the judge navigated through his docket. The two had lunch, spending hours in conversations that taught them everything they needed to know about one another.

Finding the strength to grow

Martell, a Mexican American and the son of a single mother, was used to struggling.

He grew up in low-income housing, relying on government assistance to survive every day.

"Growing up I didn't realize how hard we had it until I got older and fell victim to a lot of temptations that are out here for young people," he said.

Martell said he received his first juvenile felony conviction when he was 13 years old. Two years later, he was convicted of another felony. He then dropped out of high school and left home, he said.

His whole life involved drug trafficking, up until the moment he met Morrow.

"I've been in front of so many judges, at least 20," Martell said. "I pretty much have had an infraction in most Wayne County cities. I knew I was on my way to prison. I guess all I needed was some love."

For years, the judge got to watch Martell's growth, beginning with his enrollment in a community college, to winning a full academic scholarship to the University of Detroit Mercy, to graduating at the top of his class.

Martell was then accepted to the university's law school, where he received another full scholarship. The hard part, he said, was passing the character and fitness application to prove he was morally fit to practice law.

"We had to have a hearing, he had to hire a lawyer, I testified to his character and fitness," Morrow said. "That was the big deal, these people looking at him and making a decision on whether or not he was fit when they didn't walk one day in his shoes."

After weeks of worrying, finding people to back him up, and writing a 1,200-word application to support his belief that he was competent to become a lawyer, Martell received a favorable result.

"I just cried like a baby," he said.

After passing the bar exam on his second try, Martell was close to the finish line.

The day he became a newly sworn lawyer

It was a sunny day -- blue skies, no clouds -- when Martell prepared to officially become a lawyer. He worked hard to keep his hands steady as he buttoned up his shirt.

It was the moment he'd been waiting for since the day he decided to become a new person.

"I was nervous. I was excited. It was surreal," Martell said. "I still have to pinch myself sometimes."

When he walked into Morrow's courtroom, followed by his mother, siblings, and his own children, he tried to hold in the overwhelming emotions of the moment.

"We were both so happy, so excited, but we tried to stay low-key, like it's no big deal, so we wouldn't look all giddy and silly," Morrow said. "If Ed was wearing lipstick, you would have been able to see lipstick smudges on both his ears because that's how big that smile was on him. It was a look I'd never forget."

After a brief speech, Martell was sworn in. The judge and the former convict shared a hug, both in tears.

"I see him as my son," Morrow said. "It was like walking your daughter down the aisle. It was one of the moments where I just felt so happy. My joy was for him."

While the story had a happy ending, it's not the end. Both men said they taught each other lessons they will carry for the remainder of their lives.

The experience "reinforced" Morrow's commitment to not judge others, especially those who stand before him, not by "where they came from, how they speak, their lack of good decisions," he said.

"You might think 'Oh, what a crazy choice' but if you knew what they had to choose from you'd say 'You know what, I'd have chosen that, too.'"

"Love changes people," he added. "That's the most important lesson we all should learn from this story."

While Martell taught him to be slow to judge, Morrow taught Martell the importance of dedicating yourself to change. Not just for yourself -- but for those around you.

"It's my duty to change the system," Martell said. "I don't want to be the exception; I should be the norm. For that to happen, I can't use this story to further my career, I have to use it to pave the path for others who stand where I did all those years ago."

After three years as a criminal law clerk at the Perkins Law Group, Martell has joined the team as a criminal defense lawyer. Now a father of four, his goal is no longer about bettering his own life, but to better the lives of his children and the generations after.

With every step he takes, Morrow promises to stay by Martell's side, holding him up when he feels like he's going to fall and reminding him to celebrate every accomplishment.

"Morrow cracked that door open for me and pointed me in the right direction but he never left me," Martell said. "I felt like I was his son and he was proud of me. It was everything I dreamed of."