Republicans unveil budget resolution allotting up to $140 billion for ICE, CBP

(The Center Square) – Marilyn Monroe's home is the subject of a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles.

Brinah Milstein and Roy Bank purchased the property in the affluent Brentwood area. It is a 2,300 square foot, Spanish-style colonial home that Monroe lived in for about six months until her death there from a barbiturate overdose on Aug. 4, 1962.

Milstein’s and Bank’s attorneys at the Pacific Legal Foundation said the couple wanted to raze it and do something else with the property.

“The old Marilyn Monroe house has been unoccupied since 2019,” J. David Breemer, senior attorney with the foundation, told The Center Square. “It's not in great shape.”

According to Breemer, the couple got permits from the city to remove the home and clear the property. They also spent money on the project.

“All of a sudden, the city turned around and decided, after 60 years, it wanted to designate the property as a historical cultural monument to Marilyn Monroe, which freezes the property, stops property owners from being able to do anything. And then the city revoked the previous issuance of permits,” said Breemer. 

Breemer said the city's action cost the couple “quite a bit" of money.

They bought this property for $8.5 million at a time when it was not designated as a historical cultural monument. 

“For 60 years, the city treated this property as just a normal residential property,” said Breemer. “They issued permits to 14 other owners to alter, add additions, do all kinds of things to the property since Marilyn Monroe owned it. So when Milstein and Bank bought the property, they just assumed that based on the city's past practices that they would be able to use it like a normal property. And they, in fact, got the permit, so they spent $8.5 million on that at reasonable expectation.”

The couple then spent another $30,000 or more to begin the grading and the demolition process before the city stepped in and said that it was going to designate the property a historical cultural monument.

“So now they're stuck with a property that they can't do much with, if anything, and they are also subject to constant trespassing because of the historical cultural monument to Marilyn Monroe,” said Breemer. “People want to come see it, and to come see it, you have to climb walls and break into the property and trespass.”

That, said Breemer, is happening frequently.

The lawsuit asserts that if the city wants to create a public monument out of private property for what it thinks is the public benefit and enjoyment of keeping it the same forever, then it needs to buy the property and pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's eminent domain clause.

“The Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay compensation when it takes' private property. And so the lawsuit here is that the city has effectively taken this property for its public purposes of preserving it without paying the owner,” said Breemer. “It's created basically a Marilyn Monroe Museum on private property and foisted the costs of that on the private property owners because now they're the ones that have to preserve and maintain it the same way.”

The Center Square sought comment from the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, which did not respond before press time.

Los Angeles City Planning told The Center Square that it does not comment on pending litigation.

The case is Brinah Milstein et al v City of Los Angeles et al. It is filed at the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a second and final time in favor of Texas’ redistricting law, effectively ending all challenges to the state's new congressional maps. This was after the high court chastised district court judges in El Paso for their handling of the case and blocked their ruling from going into effect, The Center Square reported. 

The Supreme Court’s emergency ruling last December allowed Texas’ new congressional maps to remain in effect for the 2026 midterm election. A May 26 runoff election is the partial result of this: new districts and multiple candidates running for open seats led to many races still to be determined. 

Last year, during a second special session, more than 50 House Democrats left the state to prevent the law from being voted on. Fleeing to California, Illinois, New York and elsewhere, they effectively halted legislative business for more than two weeks. The law was eventually passed, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law. 

Several groups then sued and two federal judges in El Paso ruled that Texas’ new redistricting law, which had already been on the books for more than 75 days, couldn’t be used. Instead, Texas must use a 2021 law, they said, even after the legislature repealed the 2021 law.  

The lone dissenting Circuit judge, Jerry Smith, expressed outrage over the process, alleging the chief judge engaged in “judicial misbehavior” and “outrageous conduct,” The Center Square reported. The two majority judges had issued other decisions the U.S. Supreme Court later vacated, Smith said, adding that this ruling was no different. 

After the El Paso ruling, Texas filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting a stay of the lower court ruling. In its 6-3 December ruling, it said the district court “committed at least two serious [legal] errors” and ignored Supreme Court warnings about redistricting lawsuits filed months before an election.

“This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election,” it said. “The District Court violated that rule here. The District Court improperly inserted itself into an active primary campaign, causing much confusion and upsetting the delicate federal-state balance in elections.”

Agreeing with Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court also chastised the two lower court judges for “failing to apply correct legal standards set out in case law,” The Center Square reported.

Finding no need to repeat itself, the Supreme Court on Monday simply stated it reversed the district court’s judgment. It issued two sentences related to the case in an order list noting that justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown-Jackson dissented “from the court’s summary reversal.” The same justices dissented last year.

In response, Abbott Press Secretary Andrew Mahaleris told The Center Square the governor “is pleased that the Supreme Court reversed a poorly reasoned decision that halted Texas’ new congressional maps. The right legal answer was obvious. These maps better represent our constituents and allow more Texans to vote for the candidate of their choice. This is a victory for Texas voters, for common sense, and for the U.S. Constitution."

Attorney General Ken Paxton also said the ruling was “a clear rejection of meritless attacks and a victory for the rule of law. Texas’s congressional map is lawful, constitutional, and reflects the will of our citizens.” 

State Rep. Gene Wu, D-Houston, who leads the Texas Democratic Caucus and led House Democrats fleeing the state last year, disagreed. He said the Supreme Court “did not protect the Constitution” in its ruling.  He again said the new congressional map is “racist,” enables Republicans to steal seats, “weaken Black and Latino voting power,” and creates “a rigged path to keep control of Congress.” 

He also said the ruling was not a victory for Texas Republicans or Republicans in general. “When we broke quorum last year, Texas House Democrats forced his power grab into the open. Now, California and Virginia have answered and leveled the playing field, and Democrats across the country are still fighting back,” Wu said in an emailed statement.

Abbott is still pressing forward with his case before the Texas Supreme Court to have Wu removed from office, arguing he vacated his seat when he absconded. The Texas House has also fined more than 50 members nearly $423,000 for absconding. 

A third suspect pleaded guilty Monday to his role in the New York City murder of DJ Jam Master Jay, a founding member of legendary hip-hop group Run DMC.

Jay Bryant, 52, faces 15 to 20 years in prison for being an accomplice after he "opened a locked fire escape exit door" to a music studio, letting in two men convicted in the musician's "execution style" murder in 2002, federal prosecutors said in a statement.

Jam Master Jay, whose real name was Jason Mizell, was 37.

The crime remained unsolved for nearly two decades, until two people close to the "It's Tricky" star --  longtime friend Ronald Washington and his godson Karl Jordan Jr. -- were indicted in 2020.

Prosecutors said the two men sought revenge after being cut out of a cocaine deal and were convicted based on testimony of two witnesses who came forward after many years.

The two men deny the accusations and were convicted in 2024, but Jordan's conviction was overturned in 2025 after a federal judge ruled the prosecutor had failed to prove the drug-trafficking motive.

The US Attorney's office has appealed that decision.

Bryant, who was identified by DNA testing, did not name his accomplices, media present in the courtroom reported Monday.

One of the early innovators of hip hop in the 1980s in the Queens borough of New York City, Run DMC had success with "My Adidas," "It's Like That," and the genre-bending rap-rock collaboration "Walk this Way" with Aerosmith.

Jam Master Jay's death was a blow to the rap world, years after the murder of Tupac Shakur in Las Vegas in 1996 and The Notorious B.I.G. in Los Angeles in 1997.

pel/eml/sla/jgc

(The Center Square) – Florida's Legislature reconvenes Tuesday for a special called session that will consider new congressional maps.

Republicans could gain as many as four congressional seats in Florida if the redistricting plan is approved, spokeswoman Lauren Guagliardo of the House Democratic Caucus said at a news conference Monday.

“Ron DeSantis called the Legislature back to play politics and redraw maps,” Guagliardo said. “This middecade redistricting is an illegal gerrymander because Donald Trump asked for it. Middecade redistricting is not normal. The Sunshine State has seen population growth for at least a century. It has never caused us to redraw maps in the middle of the decade before.”

The House Redistricting Committee will consider the plan on Tuesday, the state’s Republican House Speaker, Daniel Perez, said in a memo on Monday.

“We currently anticipate consideration of the map by the full House on Wednesday,” Perez wrote in the memo.

New maps are in play for the 2026 elections in California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas. Litigation has also led to changes in Utah and remains ongoing in Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana and New York.

Maryland’s bid died two weeks ago.

California has the potential to flip five seats to Democrats for a 48-4 representation for the party and Utah one to Democrats cutting into Republicans’ 4-0 representation. For Republicans, Missouri (to 7-1) and North Carolina (to 11-3) could gain one seat each; Ohio two (to 12-3); and Texas five (to 30-7).

In the House of Representatives, at the 2024 election Republicans won a 220-215 majority. Today, it is 217-212 with one independent that was formerly Republican and five vacancies.

DeSantis called the special session on the “false premise” that the U.S. Supreme Court will affirm Louisiana's redistricting plan, Guagliardo said Monday.

“That has not been decided,” she said. “The argument was held in October and no opinion has been issued.”

DeSantis, a Republican, in January called the special session that is scheduled to begin Tuesday.

A reporter Monday asked Guagliardo if Democrats would have also redrawn congressional districts if they controlled a majority in the Florida Legislature. Guagliardo called the question a “leap” and laughed.

“The point of it is that this is an illegal partisan gerrymander," she said. “My God I would love to see us in power one day and have the majority and to be able to represent the issues of the people. But what’s happening right now is what can occur when one party has had control for far too long and has forgotten who it is that they serve.”

Argentine President Javier Milei's government on Monday intensified a standoff with the media by blocking journalists from accessing the presidential palace for a third day running.

The firebrand Milei, a staunch ally of US President Donald Trump, has a turbulent relationship with the media, which he has copiously insulted since taking office in December 2023.

On Thursday and Friday, the government barred journalists accredited to cover events at the Casa Rosada from entering the palace, while investigating claims of "illegal espionage."

Journalists who showed up on Monday again found the gates closed to them.

The presidential security service is investigating two journalists from the Todo Noticias channel for allegedly filming in restricted areas inside the palace without authorization.

The journalists claim they had permission and that the areas filmed were frequently visited by children on school trips.

The Ambito Financiero financial daily has sought an emergency court ruling forcing the government to restore access.

The Argentine media association ADEPA complained that the press ban "directly impacts freedom of expression and the right to information, fundamental pillars of the democratic system."

Milei shrugged off the criticism.

In an X post, he wrote "NOLSALP" -- the Spanish acronym of his slogan "We don't hate journalists enough."

The Catholic Church has offered to mediate in the standoff.

Archbishop Jorge Lozano, a spokesman for the association of Argentine Catholic bishops, said Monday he was "surprised" by the media ban and offered to serve as a go-between on restoring access.

sa/lm/cb/ksb

A proposed emergency tax on California billionaires to help fund the state's cash-strapped healthcare system has gathered enough signatures to trigger a referendum in November, the union behind the measure announced.

The proposal gathered 1.5 million signatures -- nearly twice the number required to get on the ballot.

"Most Californians and most billionaires recognize how reasonable and necessary this proposal is -- both to keep emergency rooms open and to save California businesses from closing," Suzanne Jimenez of the Services Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), the measure's lead sponsor, said late Sunday.

Under the California Billionaire Tax Act, the state's wealthiest residents would be hit with a one-time tax of five percent of their net worth.

Some 90 percent of the tens of billions of dollars in expected revenue would be used to fund the state healthcare system for five years to offset the massive federal cuts imposed by President Donald Trump's budget law.

While the tax would be a one-off, the proposal has sparked controversy in the most populous state and across the nation.

Opponents fear it will scare off Silicon Valley and trigger an exodus of the ultra-wealthy, which would hurt tax revenue. California is home to more than 250 billionaires, more than any other US state.

The American left has been divided on the issue. Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who is considered a potential 2028 presidential hopeful, opposes it, while progressive Senator Bernie Sanders is its chief supporter in Congress.

High-profile entrepreneurs are against it. According to US media, Google co-founder Larry Page, Oracle's Larry Ellison, and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel have all taken steps to reduce their footprint in California.

And the cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence communities are funding ad campaigns against it.

Jimenez, the union leader, described the measure's wealthy opponents as "a very small group of the most controversial billionaires on the planet."

"Healthcare workers and our allies won't quit until we fully protect our patients from the looming healthcare disaster that will be caused by $100 billion in cuts to California healthcare," she added.

In the face of growing wealth inequality worldwide, taxation of the ultra-rich has become a flashpoint of debate in recent years.

Brazil put the idea of a billionaire tax on the G20 agenda when it hosted the forum's annual leaders' summit in 2024.

Last year France's parliament rejected the proposed 'Zucman tax,' a measure that would have taxed the ultra-wealthy at an annual rate of two percent.

rfo-mlm/ksb

(The Center Square) – Trump administration officials on Monday detailed charges against the suspected attacker of the White House Correspondents' Association's Dinner in Washington, D.C.

Cole Tomas Allen faced three charges on Monday, including attempted assassination of President Donald Trump. Allen was also charged with transporting firearms across state lines and with discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence. 

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the charge of attempting to assassinate a sitting U.S. president carries as much as life in prison. Discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence and interstate transmission of a firearm both carry as much as a 10 year prison sentence, each, if convicted. 

Officials said Allen boarded a train in California on April 21 bound for Chicago and later arrived in Washington, D.C. Allen arrived in Washington, D.C., at about 1 p.m. Eastern on April 24 and checked into the Washington Hilton Hotel. 

He approached a security checkpoint at 8:40 p.m. on April 25 on the terrace level of the hotel, which is a floor above where the dinner was taking place, authorities said. 

Jeanine Pirro, U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, said Allen made it clear that he intended to assassinate Trump. She said Allen made his reservation at the dinner on April 6, a month after Trump announced he would be attending on March 2. 

"He is very much aware that the president and the first lady entered the ballroom at 8:00 p.m," Pirro said. "It was 8:40 that he made the decision to rush the ballroom." 

Pirro said Allen had a pump-action shotgun, a semi-automatic gun and at least three knives when he approached the security checkpoint in the hotel. 

"The Constitution and the laws of the United States permit us to register our views through our voices and our votes," Pirro said. "What they don't permit is making your views known through violence, especially violence directed at the President of the United States. That is anti-democratic at its core."

FBI director Kash Patel said agents were dispatched to Allen's home in California. He also said agents were dispatched to New London, Connecticut, to conduct further interviews during the process. 

"In less than 48 hours, you know almost every single thing we know," Patel said. "What we have not told you yet, we will tell you in short order."

Blanche criticized elected officials and members of the media for what he called contributions to the rhetoric that led to the Allen's alleged actions. 

"When you have media just being overly critical and calling the president horrible names for no reason and without proof it shouldn't surprise us that this type of rhetoric takes place," Blanche said. 

Blanche said law enforcement fired five shots responding to the attacker. He also said that authorities believe Allen fired a shot from the shotgun in his possession.

"As far as getting into exacting ballistics, um, I'm not going to do that today because it's still being looked at and finalized," Blanche said. 

Blanche also expressed support for Trump's planned White House ballroom. He said it would allow for a space in Washington, D.C., to host future events similar to the White House Correspondents' Association dinner. 

"Violence has no place in civic life," Blanche said. "It cannot and will not be used to disrupt democratic institutions or intimidate those to serve them and it certainly cannot continue to be used against the president of the United States."

(The Center Square) – Virginia Supreme Court justices zeroed in Monday on one question: Did lawmakers follow the rules when they put a redistricting amendment on the ballot?

The case is not about how people voted. Rather, according to justices, it is about whether the process used to get the amendment there met the requirements in Virginia’s constitution.

That process is laid out in Article XII. Lawmakers must pass an amendment, wait for an election, pass it again, and then send it to voters.

Justices spent much of the hearing asking whether that sequence happened the way the constitution requires.

One issue is what counts as the required “intervening election.” Attorneys disagreed on whether that means Election Day itself or the broader voting period.

Another issue is the special session lawmakers used. Republican challengers say that session was called for budget work, not redistricting.

They told the court there is no clear example of lawmakers using a special session that way.

Justices pushed on that point, asking whether the Legislature can expand the scope of a session once it starts.

A justice pressed attorneys on whether lawmakers followed the rules for expanding the special session, at one point asking whether it was “irrelevant” if those requirements were not followed.

Attorneys for the commonwealth said the process was valid and warned against overturning a vote after it already happened.

Virginia Solicitor General Tillman J. Breckenridge told the court it would be “patently unfair” to throw out the result based on process questions after voters had already weighed in.

Justices also examined the purpose behind those rules, including giving voters time to understand proposals and allowing accountability between legislative approvals.

They questioned whether technical issues, like timing or publication rules, should outweigh the outcome of a statewide vote.

Some justices raised concerns about setting a precedent where procedural missteps could undo election results.

Others questioned whether courts should step in at all when it comes to the Legislature’s internal rules.

The case is one of several legal fights tied to the new maps.

Breckenridge told the court there are at least two other separate lawsuits still moving. One focuses on whether the districts meet constitutional compactness standards.

A Circuit Court ruled Sunday against a Republican effort to block the maps on those grounds, though that decision is expected to be appealed.

The state is also trying to move parts of the case faster through the courts.

The court had not issued a ruling as of publication. Candidate filing for Virginia’s August congressional primaries closes in late May, creating urgency for campaigns and election officials who need to know which district lines will apply.

Throughout the hearing, justices did not signal how they will rule, but their questions stayed focused on whether lawmakers followed the constitution step by step.

The outcome will determine whether the amendment stands or whether the process has to start over.

The US Supreme Court heard a bid on Monday by German agrichemical giant Bayer to put an end to a wave of lawsuits over the weedkiller Roundup.

Bayer has spent more than $10 billion settling litigation linked to Roundup since it acquired its producer, the US agrochemical group Monsanto, in 2018.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) considers glyphosate, one of Roundup's ingredients, a probable human carcinogen, but Bayer says scientific studies and regulatory approvals show the widely used weedkiller is safe.

The top US court agreed to hear Bayer's appeal of a $1.25 million Missouri jury award to a man, John Durnell, who claimed Roundup was responsible for his cancer -- one of thousands of similar "failure-to-warn" lawsuits facing the company.

Bayer is arguing that it should be shielded from state lawsuits since the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the sale of Roundup to consumers and farmers without any warnings.

"Every agency around the globe -- New Zealand, Japan, Australia, the European Union, Canada -- they've looked at glyphosate," Paul Clement, an attorney for Bayer, told the justices.

"It's probably the most like studied herbicide in the history of man and they've all reached the conclusion based on more data and the kind of expert analysis they can do that there isn't a risk here," Clement said. "You shouldn't let a single Missouri jury second-guess that judgment."

The Trump administration has backed Bayer's stance that a federal statute on pesticide labels preempts state laws requiring warnings on products that may be carcinogenic.

It's not feasible to have 50 different states coming out with their own determinations, Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris said.

"Iowa says maybe this causes cancer. California says absolutely causes cancer. Some other state says this doesn't cause cancer at all, so put that on your label too," Harris said. "It completely undermines the uniformity of the labeling."

Clement, the Bayer lawyer, also stressed a need for maintaining uniformity.

Failure to do so would "open the door for crippling liability and undermine the interest of farmers who depend on federally registered pesticides for their livelihood," he said.

Ashley Keller, a lawyer representing Durnell, who blames his non-Hodgkin lymphoma on exposure to Roundup, said the EPA's analysis of the weedkiller should not be the final word.  

"I think there are a lot of conscientious people working at that agency," Keller told the court. "I think we should also all agree that things slip through the cracks with that agency."

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by June or early July.

cl/md

(The Center Square) – The company that makes one of America’s most popular whiskey brands is receiving interest from both foreign and domestic buyers.

Louisville-based Brown-Forman, which makes Jack Daniel’s, is in talks with France-based Pernod Ricard while also receiving a competing bid from Sazerac Company, an American company.

A foreign deal would likely be reviewed by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which looks at national security risks.

President Donald Trump has previously moved to block foreign acquisitions of American companies.

“There is credible evidence that leads me to believe that HieFo Corporation, a company organized under the laws of Delaware (HieFo) and controlled by a citizen of the People’s Republic of China … might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” Trump said in a January 2026 executive order.

Trump also previously said he would stop the sale of U.S. Steel to a Japanese company, before supporting a partnership between the two companies.

“I am totally against the once great and powerful U.S. Steel being bought by a foreign company,” Trump said.

Pernod Ricard confirmed it is exploring a deal.

“Following recent speculation in the press, Pernod Ricard confirms that it is in discussions regarding a potential business combination with Brown-Forman,” the company said.

It added that the deal would be “a merger of equals” and said a combined company would have “enhanced scale” and a “powerful brand portfolio.”

Meanwhile, Sazerac has offered about $15 billion to buy Brown-Forman, reports say. The company reportedly offered about $32 per share. 

The competing bids come as alcohol companies deal with lower demand as younger Americans drink less. 

Brown-Forman was founded in 1870 and owns several American whiskey brands, including Woodford Reserve and Old Forester. The Jack Daniel’s distillery in Lynchburg, Tennessee, is the first registered distillery in the United States.

Pernod Ricard operates globally and sells brands including Absolut Vodka and Jameson Irish Whiskey. 

Sazerac already has ties to the Kentucky bourbon industry. It owns Buffalo Trace and other spirits brands.

Brown-Forman, Pernod Ricard, and Sazerac have not publicly detailed next steps. Any deal would likely face regulatory review and questions about who controls the company.