Aggregator

A violent Southern California rock-thrower was slapped with three years behind bars on Friday after assaulting an officer during an anti-ICE riot.

Austrian media have dubbed the case as "Pelicot 2.0," likening it to the horrific case of Frenchwoman Gisèle Pelicot, whose ex-husband, Dominique Pelicot, was convicted of drugging her and inviting dozens of strangers to rape her in their home over nearly a decade.

The pop superstar and her partner were spotted for the first time since Page Six confirmed they recently welcomed their first child.

Page Six confirmed Friday that the singer and her partner recently welcomed their first child.

The BBC's Tom Gerken plays the hotly anticipated superhero game from Spider-Man makers Insomniac.

On the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the baseball world centered around The Bronx, where the Yankees hosted the Mets to open the Subway Series. 

A new generation born after Sept. 11, 2001, read the names of nearly 3,000 victims at Ground Zero to mark the 25th anniversary of the attacks.

ICE Hits Legal Wall On Two Fronts As Denver Targets Polling-Place Enforcement And Appeals Court Curbs Detention Power

The Trump administration's immigration crackdown ran into two separate legal challenges Thursday, as Denver sued to keep armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents away from polling places while a federal appeals court rejected the government's attempt to subject millions of illegal immigrants already living inside the United States to mandatory detention without bond hearings.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents walk outside the Ventura County Government Center in Ventura, California, on July 27, 2026. Blake Fagan/AFP via Getty Images

The disputes involve different statutes and different courts, but the underlying fight is increasingly the same: how far can the executive branch push immigration enforcement under existing federal law before judges conclude that Congress never gave it the authority being claimed?

On one front, Denver and several national advocacy groups filed suit in federal court in Washington seeking to stop ICE officers from carrying out immigration enforcement at voting locations ahead of November's midterm elections.

On the other, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that immigrants who have been living inside the United States for years - even if they originally entered illegally - cannot automatically be placed into mandatory detention under the provision the administration has been invoking.

Together, the cases put fresh judicial pressure on one of the administration's signature second-term policies.

Denver Takes ICE To Court Over The Polls

The City and County of Denver joined the League of United Latin American Citizens, Common Cause and UnidosUS in challenging what the plaintiffs characterize as a federal policy permitting armed ICE officers to conduct enforcement operations at polling locations.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 10 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, invokes a rarely litigated Civil War-era federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 592, that generally prohibits federal officials from bringing "troops or armed men" to places where elections are being conducted, except when needed to repel armed enemies of the United States.

The plaintiffs argue that even the prospect of armed immigration officers appearing at voting sites could deter voters, disrupt election workers and force municipalities to divert resources toward preparing for confrontations with federal agents. Denver officials are already training election personnel on how to identify federal agents, document encounters and de-escalate potential conflicts, according to the complaint.

The complaint also alleges that armed agents have already appeared at polling locations in San Antonio, Ventura County, California, and Syracuse, New York.

The lawsuit follows comments by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who said ICE would not patrol polling places but would not exclude them from normal enforcement activity.

Mullin said agents could enter a voting location if there were a security threat or if officers were serving a warrant on a person they had been tracking, while the administration's position is not that polling places are enforcement targets. It is that they are not automatically enforcement-free zones either.

DHS has similarly said ICE is not planning operations targeting polling sites, while maintaining that officers could make an arrest there if an active public-safety threat or targeted enforcement action required it.

That distinction is now headed for federal court - where the plaintiffs want a judge to declare the policy unlawful and prevent armed federal immigration officers from carrying out enforcement at polling locations and other places where votes are collected. The case arrives as election officials around the country prepare for a midterm season already saturated with litigation over voting rules, federal-state authority and election administration.

Fourth Circuit Rejects ICE Detention Theory

Hours away from the political fight over polling sites, the Fourth Circuit delivered a more immediate legal setback for the administration's detention policy.

In Lopez Garcia v. Guadian, a divided three-judge panel held that two immigrants who had lived in the United States for years could not be mandatorily detained without an opportunity to seek release on bond.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detain an illegal immigrant after a court hearing in Stamford, Conn., on July 3, 2025. John Moore/Getty Images

The dispute centers on two sections of federal immigration law.

The administration contends that immigrants who entered the country without being legally admitted remain "applicants for admission" under Section 1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and therefore can be detained without bond while removal proceedings play out. The detainees argued - and the Fourth Circuit majority agreed - that immigrants already established inside the United States instead fall under Section 1226, which generally allows for bond consideration.

Judge Nicole Berner, joined by Senior Judge Barbara Keenan, said the latter interpretation better fits the text, structure and historical application of the statute. The court noted that Section 1226 had for decades generally governed detention of noncitizens already inside the country, while Section 1225 had traditionally been associated with people seeking admission at the border. 

Berner warned that accepting the government's interpretation could expose millions of people to mandatory detention without bond and said such a reading would imply Congress quietly authorized an unprecedented expansion of immigration detention when it rewrote immigration law in 1996.

The majority eventually compared the implications to some of the darkest chapters of American detention policy, including the confinement of Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century and the internment of roughly 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry during World War II.

The court ultimately affirmed habeas relief for Oscar Enrique Lopez Garcia and Juan Jose Rivera, ruling that both had to be given an opportunity to argue for release at a bond hearing.

The Dissent: Congress Meant What It Wrote

Judge Allison Jones Rushing rejected the majority's reasoning - with her dissent focusing heavily on the wording Congress adopted in its sweeping 1996 immigration overhaul. Earlier immigration laws explicitly referred to "arriving" immigrants, ports of arrival and people attempting to enter the country. Congress removed much of that language in 1996 and instead defined a broader category of "applicants for admission."

If Congress intended mandatory detention to remain limited to people physically arriving at the border, she argued, lawmakers could simply have retained the older language. Instead, Congress deliberately adopted terminology broad enough to include people physically present in the United States who had never been lawfully admitted. The statute treats anyone present without admission as an applicant for admission, and an applicant is by definition seeking admission, she wrote. "It's that simple."

The majority, she added, "clearly has strong views about what it considers the 'moral implications'" of denying bond, but those views do not rewrite the text.

That statutory disagreement is no longer confined to one court - meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit has now joined the First, Second, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits on the side of bond eligibility for immigrants already living inside the country.

The Fifth and Eighth Circuits have taken the opposite view, concluding that the government's mandatory-detention interpretation is consistent with the statute.

That 9-2 split puts the issue squarely in territory the Supreme Court often steps in to resolve.

ICE's Next Battle May Be At The Supreme Court

The two developments illustrate the rapidly expanding legal front surrounding the administration's immigration agenda. Denver's lawsuit asks whether federal immigration officers can carry their normal enforcement authority into one of the most legally protected environments in American civic life: the polling place.

The Fourth Circuit case asks a different but potentially far larger question - whether the government can automatically detain broad categories of immigrants already living in the country without first giving them access to a bond hearing.

DHS maintains that the administration is enforcing immigration law as Congress wrote it. The Fourth Circuit majority says the government is attempting to extract sweeping detention powers from statutory language that does not clearly provide them.

And Denver is effectively making the same structural argument from another direction: whatever authority ICE may have to execute immigration law, Congress imposed special limits around elections. So while the administration continues expanding immigration enforcement on the ground, the courts are increasingly being asked to define the perimeter.

For ICE, that means the next phase of the immigration fight may be determined less by how many agents Washington deploys - and more by how the Supreme Court ultimately reads statutes Congress wrote decades ago.

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/11/2026 - 20:30

Former Mets prospect and AL Rookie of the Year Michael Fulmer is now a Yankees reliever, aiming for his first career playoff run this October.

Bullet fragments struck an on-duty NYPD officer and a straphanger after a uniformed cop accidentally fired her service weapon inside a Brooklyn subway station on Thursday afternoon, authorities said.

The couple allegedly fled their Montecito home in August so abruptly that their children's school was left in the dark on their move back to the UK.

The couple allegedly fled their Montecito home in August so abruptly that their children's school was left in the dark on their move back to the UK.

The singer, who got engaged to Polansky in 2024, previously spoke about wanting to become a mom someday.

The singer, who got engaged to Polansky in 2024, previously spoke about wanting to become a mom someday.

if it weren’t for self-dealing, New York state would make no deals at all.

The Jets’ veteran offensive line faces an immediate Week 1 test against Titans star Jeffery Simmons, who racked up 11 sacks last season.

Leopold Is Back: Situational Awareness Rerunning Exact Same Trades Which Blew It Up A Month Ago

A few days ago before it became public knowledge that the hilariously misnamed "hedge" fund Situational Awareness, run by a 24-year-old German ultra liberal who was fired by OpenAI, and then launched a new career investing like the most degenerate Korean momentum chaser blew up in explosive supernova fashion as a result of massive leverage in a handful of high beta momentum stocks like Sandisk, AMD and Bloom Energy, we warned that someone was blowing up - as indicated by the surge in Total Return Swap funding rates - and told our followers as much one week before the Leopold Aschenbrenner news hit.

ok Archegos 2.0... you can come out now https://t.co/xtxZL8wNTZ

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 24, 2026

We just didn't know who it was... 

Fast forward a little over a month when earlier this week we pointed out that in a very bizarre case of deja vu, it was as if Leopold had emerged from the career grave and was rerunning his entire high beta momo - with massive leverage - playbook. 

Specifically, in "What's Behind The Market's Sullen Vibe, And What Comes Next" we said that the market appeared to *lean forward*  last Friday and again on Tuesday's post-Labor Day holiday reopening, when as Nomura's Charlie McElligott pointed out, the market saw a string of large Flex Calls trade in many of those same "Concentrated AI"-names which were unwound during the Summer calamity, where the Nomura desk saw this "mystery buyer" spending $315 million of total Options Premium, $1.1B of Delta and $5.8mm of Vega on the buys.

McElligott went on, noting that the “Return of the mystery AI / Tech Vol Buyer” was feeding back into the same “Spot Up, Vol Up” / “Positive Spot / Vol Correlation” dynamic in these single-names that defined much of the pre-July market action, which after the recent single-stock Tech Vol bludgeoning was now acting as a much-needed positive PnL driver for Vol Dispersion (Short Correlation) trades again locally. McElligott listed some examples of this rampant tech vol buying observed in the Friday/Tuesday period, from the Nomura desk:

AMD (+10.9% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 5k Jan 540.01 Calls x $37.42 = $18.7M , $100M delta, $560k vega
• Tue: 3.7k Jan 580.01 Calls for $47.50 = 17.5M, $93M delta, $515k vega

BE (+17.5% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 5k Jan 250.01 Calls for $53.50 = $26.7M , $80M delta, $300k vega.
• Tue: 4k Jan 310.01 Calls for $53.75 = $21.5M, $60M delta, $265k vega

CRWV (+18% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 19k Jan 105.01 Calls for $11.03 = $21M , $80M delta, $400k vega
• Tue: 15k Jan 115.01 calls for 14.88 = 22.3M, $80MM of delta, $370k vega

DRAM (+8.9% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 30k Jan 65.01 Calls for $7.1 = $21.5M , $90M delta, $430k vega
• Tue: 29k Jan 70.01Calls for $7.30 = $21.2M, $83M delta, $425k vega

INTC (+14% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 22k Jan 105.01 Calls for $11.52 = $25.3M , $105M delta, $500k vega
• Tue: 15k Jan 115.01 Calls for $14.88 = $22.3M $80M delta, $370k vega

SKHY (+13.4% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 10k Jan 190.01 Calls for  $22.85 = $22.85M, $92M delta, $420k vega
• Tue: 6.5k Jan 210.01Calls for $24.60 = $16M, $56M delta, $290k vega

SNDK (+11.8% past 2 sessions):

• Fri: 1250 Jan 2040.01 Calls x $230 = $28M of prem, $103M delta, $520k vega
• Tue: 1250 Jan 2200.01 Calls x $231 = $29M of prem, $95M delta, $520k vega

In short: all massively out of the money calls meant to trigger momentum ignition by starting a gamma squeeze, and all in danger of blowing up spectacularly - again - once the momentum flips

Upon reading this, our first thought - of course - was that Leopold had somehow come back from the trading dead, and that someone Prime Broker was allowing him to put on massive leverage yet again, knowing perfectly well how it ended up last time around .. but then we quickly ignored that because if true, it would mean that not only was the 24-year-old rerunning the exact same trade he had put on and which ended in tens of billions in losses for his investors in July, but that he was actively telegraphing to the entire world that he was back by putting on trades that intentionally moved the underlying prices and attracting attention to themselves - thus putting a very clear and palpable bullseye on his back, daring the entire market to stop him out... again.

Surely, he couldn't be that stupid, could he? 

It turns out he was. 

Two days after we first pointed out the bizarre activity in Flex Calls, today the FT reported that Leopold Aschenbrenner’s hedge fund Situational Awareness "has started building relationships with new brokerages as it attempts a rebound from the largest loss in the history of the hedge fund industry."

Not only has it started "rebuilding relationships" (more on that in a second), it has started trading: 

"Now, Aschenbrenner is rebuilding large trading positions in technology stocks such as semiconductor manufacturers AMD, Intel, SK Hynix and Sandisk and AI start-ups including CoreWeave, according to people familiar with the matter. His efforts have been bolstered by new relationships on Wall Street like with Clear Street." 

So all the same names that he blew up on the first time, he is going in for round two.

As for how young master Leopold is planing on handing his now wife another imploded hedge fund sujpernova (if not quite galaxy), why here too we find more of the same: only instead of Total Return Swaps courtesy of Goldman, this time Leopold was going all in using deep out of the money leverage in the form of the abovementioned "flex calls", to wit:

Situational Awareness in recent days has placed large new bets using so-called “flex options”, according to people familiar with the matter. Using fully-paid options reduces the risks a fund takes on because it can only lose the money it has already paid to open the trade and nothing more. 

These specialised options trades, which allow traders to customise the terms of the contract, can only be made through large brokerages.

Right... the same brokerages that were his counterparts on the TRS trades and who decided one day to gang up on him and destroy him on that one beautiful late July morning. Those same brokerages are now his option counterparts, and somehow the outcome is supposed to be different. 

Ok, fine, but the Unawareness fund would surely need some prime broker to vouch for him and hand him the leverage Leopold needed for his 2nd attempt at ramping memory/momentum names. This would be challenging since after July, he was now radioactive on Wall Street where every broker who had worked with him was now being probed by the DOJ.

So where do you go when even JT Marlin, sorry, your former Prime Broker JPMorgan, tells you to fuck off? 

Why you go deep off the grid... to a name nobody has ever heard of: "the investor has recently begun working with specialist brokerage Clear Street, according to people familiar with the matter, as he begins rebuilding a portfolio of aggressive bets on technology companies."

That's the FT's take, and it is dead wrong, because if what Leopold wanted to do was just "rebuild his portfolio" he could certainly do that in quiet fashion - the way most traders do when they hope to accumulate a position without tipping off everyone else - where nobody would have any idea it was him. He did not want to do that.

Instead what he clearly intended to do was bring as much attention to his trades as possible, in hopes of making it clear to the market he was once again rerunning the same doomed play that nearly ended his career a month ago. In short, he is hoping that once it becomes clear he is back, his "followers" will follow him into triggering an other "meme stonk" gamma squeeze, one which allows Leopold to then dump everything to his witless followers. 

Only it won't work, because once again the "Nostradamus of AI" finds himself stuck in extremely illiquid names, and what's worse, instead of sharing risk exposure with his TRS counterparts, this time it is only his P&L that will blow up when his brokers rug pull him, which they will very soon now that it is again clear he is trying to squeeze them all, while the SEC is sniffing around. 

Which is why the only question we have is how to bet - in the cheapest possible way - on the second collapse of Situational Awareness in the coming days (especially now that DeepSeek is making a mockery of the massively overpriced memory space) a trade which even Leopold would profit from, as he prepares to hand his hedge fund over to Ken Griffin for the second time.

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/11/2026 - 20:10

The chase ended near Athens, when Camryn Moore veered her car off the road and into a ditch to avoid a spike strip that troopers had thrown out on the roadway.

Aaron Glenn waited nearly four seconds before answering.

Lock And [Re-]Loaded: Third Circuit Greenlights Major Challenge To New Jersey Gun Liability Law

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

Some of us have been closely following challenges to A1765, New Jersey's gun industry liability law. In my view, the law is facially invalid and preempted under federal law, and we may now find out after the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit greenlit a challenge from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) yesterday. The court found that the NSSF has standing to bring the lawsuit, which could reach the United States Supreme Court.

In 2022, New Jersey enacted A1765 to expose "gun industry members" - gun sellers, manufacturers, distributors, importers, and marketers - to lawsuits as a "public nuisance." This is a common effort among blue states to circumvent Second Amendment cases that reinforce the right to bear arms.

These laws are designed to achieve indirectly what the Court denied directly to the states: to effectively suppress the availability of guns. Indeed, the law effectively requires manufacturers to self-regulate after the state was prevented from direct regulations, mandating that these companies "shall establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls regarding its manufacture, sale, distribution, importing, and marketing of gun-related products." Id. § 2C:58-35(a)(2).

The problem is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ("PLCAA") which was passed to "prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended." 15 U.S.C. § 7901(b)(1).

PLCAA does have exceptions, including negligence per se. Id. § 7903(5)(A)(ii). The predicate exception requires proof that the manufacturer or seller "knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product," and that "the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought." Id. § 7903(5)(A)(iii).

However, in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 299 (2025), the Supreme Court stressed that this exception applies only to those cases where the "plaintiff makes a plausible allegation that a gun manufacturer participated in a firearms violation as in something that it wished to bring about and sought to make succeed." Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 299 (2025) (citation modified).

In the case, the Government of Mexico sued seven American gun manufacturers, alleging that the companies aided and abetted unlawful gun sales that routed firearms to Mexican drug cartels under the predicate exception. It argued that the companies failed to exercise "reasonable care" to prevent trafficking of their guns into Mexico, and so are responsible for the harms arising there from the weapons' misuse as "willful accessories." As some of us predicted, it failed spectacularly in a unanimous decision.

Nuisance is not negligence per se, and gun control advocates have tried to use product liability and nuisance laws to curtail gun sales for years as an alternative to legislative gun bans, which would be struck down. (There are a couple of gun ban cases going before the Court this term).

As previously discussed, public nuisance was originally addressed in England by criminal laws against such offenses as obstructing "the King's highways." It evolved into a common-law tort to address a broader range of "interests of the community at large - interests that were recognized as rights of the general public entitled to protection," in the words of the American Law Institute's Second Restatement of Torts (1965-79).

Those cases collapsed, and rightly so. In Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. (2004), the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the claim while acknowledging that "the tragic personal consequences of gun violence are inestimable." The court found no interference with a legal public right. It held that such theories "would permit nuisance liability to be imposed on an endless list of manufacturers, distributors, and retailers of manufactured products." The opioid claims are similar. Neither product was defective; both worked - all too well in some cases. The claims were based on third parties' illegal or harmful use.

The same result appeared in nuisance claims involving lead paint. In State v. Lead Industries Association (2008), the Rhode Island Supreme Court rejected an effort to use nuisance as a substitute for product liability. The court recognized the huge toll from the product while insisting that if it is defective, that should be addressed by product liability: "Our hearts go out to those children whose lives forever have been changed by the poisonous presence of lead. But, however grave the problem of lead poisoning is in Rhode Island, public nuisance law simply does not provide a remedy for this harm."

Consideration of the merits of the challenge in this case, however, was stymied by that state challenging standing. First filed in February 2025, the lawsuit was dismissed because it was filed before the law was enforced against any industry member companies. The state, under New Jersey's then-AG Matthew Platkin, sued several industry members, including GLOCK, Inc. NSSF promptly moved to reopen its lawsuit against New Jersey's gun control law.

The Third Circuit held, "NSSF's members' intended actions are arguably precluded by A1765 and affected with constitutional interests. NSSF argues A1765 enforcement actions against its members for otherwise lawful commerce would be an attempt to 'hold [its members] liable for the acts of third parties who use their legal products to commit heinous crimes.'"

Unless the standing decision is reversed, New Jersey will now face review (and a possible reckoning) over its latest effort to use civil liability as an alternative avenue for gun control.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/11/2026 - 20:05