Current Timberwolves minority owners Alex Rodriguez and Marc Lore made their returns to Target Center on Friday for Minnesota’s bout with Atlanta, marking the duo’s first trip to a home game since the ownership dispute between current majority owner Glen Taylor and the tandem centering on who will own the team moving forward broke out two weeks ago.

While it could be viewed as an awkward distraction, it certainly didn’t carry that aura in the arena. Frankly, Wolves home games over the past two weeks have been void of mention of the ownership dispute, with players seemingly unbothered by it and fans focused far more on the on-court product.

The two entered discreetly, waiting until after the national anthem to walk into the lower bowl. They both sat on the side of the court opposite of Taylor. That’s where Rodriguez usually watches the games, while Lore’s traditional seats are just a few spots down from Taylor.

On Friday, The Athletic reported Lore and Rodriguez did submit financial commitments to the NBA on March 20 needed for their final payment. But that doesn’t necessarily equal payment. So whether the submission of those documents was enough to kick in the automatic 90-day extension to receive NBA approval listed in the purchase agreement remains to be seen.

The legal process will likely play out over several months, with mediation to take place weeks from now and arbitration to follow after.

So it makes sense for Lore and Rodriguez to attend games in the meantime. Any expectation that they’d entirely sit out a playoff run is, frankly, unreasonable. It’s not as though they’re barred from the arena. And, as NBA Commissioner Adam Silver noted this week, the lLeague will not play a role in the legal process.

And, unless it’s a famous person about which they can get excited, the players likely don’t care who’s sitting courtside. So while maybe the owners will feel awkward at times during games if Rodriguez and Lore sit courtside, it’s unlikely anyone in the arena is affected to nearly the level that would be suggested by those opining on social media.

By ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and LINDSAY WHITEHURST (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge in Delaware refused Friday to throw out a federal gun case against Hunter Biden, rejecting the president’s son’s claim that he is being prosecuted for political purposes as well as other arguments.

U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika denied defense efforts to scuttle the prosecution charging Hunter Biden with lying about his drug use in October 2018 on a form to buy a gun that he kept for about 11 days.

Hunter Biden’s lawyers had argued the case was politically motivated and asserted that an immunity provision from an original plea deal that fell apart still holds. They had also challenged the appointment of special counsel David Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware, to lead the prosecution.

Noreika, who was appointed to the bench by former President Donald Trump, has not yet ruled on a challenge to the constitutionality of the gun charges.

Hunter Biden faces separate tax counts in Los Angeles alleging he failed to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes over three years while living an “extravagant lifestyle,” during his days of using drugs. The judge overseeing that case refused to dismiss the charges earlier this month.

Biden has pleaded not guilty in both cases. A representative for his legal team didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The president’s son has acknowledged struggling with an addiction to crack cocaine during that period in 2018, but his lawyers have said he didn’t break the law and another nonviolent, first-time offender would not have been charged.

Defense attorney Abbe Lowell had argued Hunter Biden was “selectively charged” for improper political purposes. They argued that Weiss “buckled under political pressure” to indict the president’s son amid criticism of the plea deal from Trump and other Republicans.

Norieka said in her ruling that Biden’s team provided “nothing concrete” to support a conclusion that anyone actually influenced the special counsel’s team.

“The pressure campaign from Congressional Republicans may have occurred around the time that Special Counsel decided to move forward with indictment instead of pretrial diversion, but the Court has been given nothing credible to suggest that the conduct of those lawmakers (or anyone else) had any impact on Special Counsel,” the judge wrote. “It is all speculation.”