SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Outdoor hockey is coming to Utah.

The Utah Mammoth will host the 2027 Winter Classic at Rice-Eccles Stadium against the Colorado Avalanche. The date has not been announced for the game at the home of the University of Utah football team.

It’s set to be the first outdoor game for the franchise formerly known as the Phoenix and Arizona Coyotes and before that the Winnipeg Jets. The other 31 active teams had all taken part, making Utah the last to participate.

Owners Ryan and Ashley Smith have been praised by Commissioner Gary Bettman for just about everything they’ve done since buying the team and relocating it to Salt Lake City in 2024.

“This is a dream,” Ryan Smith said. “We actually came up here early in the process of even getting the team because we said this is what we want. We wanted our players to be able to have it.”

Rice-Eccles Stadium hosted the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2002 Winter Olympics and is scheduled to do so again when the Games return to Salt Lake City in 2034. It has a seating capacity of 51,444.

“This stadium sets up very well from a sight line perspective,” Bettman said. “There’s an intimacy here. We expect to have 50,000-plus here.”

Colorado is making its fourth outdoor appearance. The Avalanche are 1-2-0 in previous outdoor contests.

“The Avalanche organization is always proud to be in consideration for marquee events like this,” Colorado president of hockey operations Joe Sakic said in a news release. “We’re looking forward to being matched up with a great team and represent the Rocky Mountain region in a game that appeals to these two markets in this part of the country.”

Utah’s legacy as a winter sports destination makes the Winter Classic a natural fit for the state and a natural draw for the community, according to Ryan and Ashley Smith.

“We don’t hide from the winter here. Ashley Smith said. “We live in the mountains. It’s what we breathe. It’s very authentic to us and all of Utah.”

Alcohol sales will be permitted in the stadium during the Winter Classic because it is considered a private event. Athletic events involving the University of Utah prohibit alcohol from being sold inside the stadium during those events.

Related Articles

World Juniors title a big deal for Wild’s Swedes

Kings stave off Wild comeback bid

Sweden holds off Czechia to win World Junior Championship

With Zach Bogosian out, Matt Kiersted gets another shot on Wild blue line

Even in rainy SoCal, the Wild are feeling at home on the road

Videos circulating on social media and verified by The New York Times show the shooting of a woman by a federal agent in Minneapolis on Wednesday, as well as the moments immediately before and after.

A maroon Honda Pilot is stopped on Portland Avenue, apparently blocking one lane of the snowy residential street. The driver rolls forward slightly, then stops and waves at approaching vehicles, signaling that they should drive past.

The videos show the driver wave one vehicle by. When a truck with flashing lights approaches, she waves again, but the truck stops and federal agents emerge.

Two step out and move toward the driver’s side. The agents tell the driver to get out.

One of the agents tries to open the driver’s side door and reaches through the window. A third agent crosses in front of the Honda, as the driver begins to reverse, turning to drive away from the agents.

Immediately after the Honda shifts from reverse into drive and begins to move ahead, that agent at the front of the vehicle, standing near the driver’s side headlight, pulls out a gun and aims at the driver.

The Honda moves forward, turning to the right. The agent aiming the gun fires, and continues to shoot as the vehicle moves past him.

The Honda accelerates, colliding with two parked vehicles and a light post. The agent who fired approaches the vehicle, then walks away and tells other agents to call 911.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump abruptly changed his tone Wednesday about his Colombian counterpart, Gustavo Petro, saying the two had exchanged a friendly phone call and that he’d invited the leader of the South American country to the White House.

Related Articles

Trump seeks $6.2 million in legal fees from Fani Willis’ office over election interference case

House takes step toward extending Affordable Care Act subsidies, overpowering GOP leadership

California loses $160M for delaying revocation of 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses for immigrants

US will exit 66 international organizations as it further retreats from global cooperation

Trump immigration policies and a lower fertility rate slow US growth projection, budget office says

“It was a Great Honor to speak with the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who called to explain the situation of drugs and other disagreements that we have had,” Trump posted on his social media site Wednesday night. “I appreciated his call and tone, and look forward to meeting him in the near future.” He said that meeting would take place at the White House.

That came mere days after Trump said in the wake of the U.S. operation in Venezuela over the weekend that “Colombia is very sick too” and accused Petro of ”making cocaine and selling it to the United States” before adding: “He’s not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you.” Asked whether U.S intervention was possible, Trump responded, ”Sounds good to me.”

An official with the Department of Homeland Security recently suggested that following or recording federal law enforcement officers “sure sounds like obstruction of justice.” The statement was given to Reason magazine in response to a direct question, was confirmed in writing and followed by a warning that DHS will prosecute such conduct “to the fullest extent of the law.”

It’s also ridiculous and an affront to First Amendment case law.

As Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella observes, the issue is not whether officers deserve protection from real interference or danger. They do. The issue is that recording or observing officers in public is not — in and of itself — an act of interference. It is a protected form of gathering information about how the government exercises its authority.

Seven federal circuit courts have upheld the public’s right to record police or federal agents, as long as the person filming is not physically obstructing the officers. In one 2017 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “a First Amendment right to record the police does exist,” subject to reasonable limits. The 10th Circuit echoed that view in 2022 when it allowed a First Amendment claim to proceed after a man was barred from filming a traffic stop. Courts have also protected the public’s right to alert others to police activity, recognizing it as part of public discourse and not a crime.

This principle is not new. In 1987, the Supreme Court struck down a Houston ordinance that made it a crime to interrupt or challenge an officer. Justice William Brennan wrote that the freedom to oppose police action without risking arrest helps distinguish a free country from a police state. Recording officers is simply a modern way of maintaining that freedom.

State attempts to limit filming have largely failed. Mr. Ciaramella points out that Arizona’s 2022 law restricting filming within 8 feet of police was blocked by a federal judge. Other states have passed distance requirements, but these measures face challenges because of vague language and concerns about arbitrary enforcement.

Simply recording officers is not an act of aggression. It is a method of ensuring transparency, reinforcing public trust and creating an independent record of government conduct. It is central to accountability in a democratic society. As Mr. Ciaramella points out, some of the most serious allegations against federal officers in recent years have surfaced only because bystanders had the courage to hit “record.”

DHS officials must be free to go about their business. But bystanders must also be free to document their activities as long as they do not willfully obstruct the administration of justice. The Constitution has already answered the question. The right to observe government power is not subject to the whims of those who carry badges.

— The Las Vegas Review-Journal