By GARY FIELDS, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — A partisan battle is playing out in a Washington courtroom that could decide the fate of President Donald Trump’s federal law enforcement intervention in the nation’s capital.

Members of the Ohio National Guard patrol the National Mall, Sunday, Sept. 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

Dozens of states have taken sides in a lawsuit challenging the open-ended National Guard deployment in Washington, with their support falling along party lines. It shows how the law enforcement operation in the nation’s capital remains a flashpoint in the Republican president’s broadening campaign to send the military to cities across the country and underscores the deepening divisions over the move.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 4 by Washington Attorney General Brian Schwalb, challenges the Trump administration’s use of the National Guard in the heavily Democratic city as part of an emergency order issued by Trump to stem what the president called “out of control” crime. Although the order has lapsed, hundreds of troops are still in the city, which is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the deployment.

With legal action launched against deployments to Portland, Oregon, and Chicago, the case will be closely watched, even though Washington’s status as a federal district makes it an outlier. Oral arguments are set to begin Oct. 24.

States’ support is split along party lines

Twenty-three states have aligned with the Trump administration’s stance that the president has the authority to bring in the National Guard, while 22 states back Washington’s position. The 23 states supporting the administration have Republican attorneys general while the other 22 have Democrats.

Related Articles

Both parties pack the ballot for US House special primary in Tennessee

Abortion providers say Missouri’s attorney general is trying to get patient records

Democrats in governors races see political opportunity amid government shutdown

A judge has blocked a Trump administration effort to change teen pregnancy prevention programs

Why Democrats are casting the government shutdown as a health care showdown

For the states joining in the lawsuit — especially those facing their own interventions — supporting Washington was a way to show solidarity against what they said was presidential overreach.

“It is un-American to use the military in any of our cities — absent truly extraordinary circumstances — and a threat against one city is a threat to us all,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, a Democrat, who supports Washington.

The states supporting Washington said in their filing that the deployment of National Guard units without the city’s consent is unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic.

It “sets a chilling precedent that threatens the constitutional rights of Americans everywhere,” they said. “By unlawfully deploying National Guard troops, and by threatening to deploy the Guard to every State at his whim, the President has attacked State sovereignty, harmed local jurisdictions, and made us less safe.”

Those siding with the administration say Trump is in the right with his National Guard deployment in the District of Columbia.

“The District belongs to ‘the People’ as a whole, and its safety is critical to our constitutional republic,” the 23 states said in a Sept. 16 filing, adding that they “have a profound interest in this case to ensure that President Trump can continue to protect our Nation’s capital.”

The reasoning, they say, is for safety not just for residents but for members of Congress and their staffers, as well as administration officials and foreign embassy workers. The filing notes all the groups have been crime victims in Washington in recent years. The states also argue that the Constitution and Congress give presidents enormous authority to protect the district.

“It is concerning to have states so divided and polarized,” said Emory University School of Law professor Mark Nevitt, who noted that it was just Republican-led states that have sent guard troops to Washington. The case filings are “a further representation of that divide.”

Hundreds of troops are still deployed in Washington

The Washington lawsuit emerged from the presidential order in August that led to roughly 2,000 troops from the District of Columbia National Guard and eight states patrolling public areas, including train stations, subway stations, the National Mall and other high pedestrian traffic areas. Some have been armed, unnerving residents, although no incidents have been reported.

Presidents have authority to call up the National Guard under a variety of circumstances, including to repel a rebellion or invasion, but the legal extent of that is debatable.

In the Washington case, states will be looking at what the court says about the president’s authority to deploy the guard, the legality of deploying out-of-state guard units against the wishes of local officials and whether police powers are deemed to have been encroached upon by the federal intervention. Those arguments could be relevant for any future court cases against the deployments.

States on the winning side of the Washington case will likely feel vindicated and may seek to point to it as precedent. But the district’s unique status means the legal arguments may be different for states.

Washington, as a federal district, is distinct from the states

The president has authorities in Washington that he does not have elsewhere. In states, governors control their own National Guards. In Washington, a federal district, the president is already in charge of the National Guard and arguably can legally deploy troops without congressional approval. To deploy the National Guard to a state usually requires the approval of that state’s governor, along with legal reasoning for doing so.

Washington will also be looking to rulings in other cases that may be pertinent for its own. A judge ruled last month that the Trump administration broke the law by sending guard troops to Los Angeles in early June. The 150-year-old Posse Comitatus Act limits the U.S. military’s role in enforcing domestic laws, unless “expressly” authorized by the Constitution or Congress.

William Banks, professor emeritus of law at Syracuse University, said he believes the president is within his authority to call up the National Guard in Washington and then to federalize other guard units in the city even if Americans “don’t like the involvement of the military in civilian activities” because of statute. It is a federal district, not a state, he said.

Experts differ over how they think the case will play out. The court’s rulings could range from saying the president is within his authority in calling up the D.C. National Guard as well as units from other states to calling the deployments an unlawful expansion of presidential authority.

Margaret Hu, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that the court first has to decide if Trump used the law correctly, and, even then, it must decide whether this was an appropriate use of the National Guard.

“Part of what D.C. is arguing when they say this is an illegal deployment is that it violates the spirit of the law the Constitution requires” to give states and jurisdictions autonomy to police their citizens, Hu said. “There are complex questions the court has to answer.”

By KOSTYA MANENKOV and STEFANIE DAZIO, Associated Press

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Scientists Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar M. Yaghi won the Nobel Prize in chemistry on Wednesday for their development of metal–organic frameworks that could play a part in solving some of humanity’s greatest challenges. An expert likened the discovery to Hermione Granger’s enchanted handbag in the fictional “Harry Potter” series.

From left, Chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry Heiner Linke, Secretary General of the Swedish Academy of Sciences Hans Ellegren, and Member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry Olof Ramstrom pose after announcing Susumu Kitagawa, Richard Robson and Omar Yaghi as the recipients the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, at the Nobel Assembly of the Karolinska Institutet, in Stockholm, Sweden, Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2025. (Fredrik Sandberg/TT News Agency via AP)

From capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or sucking water out of dry desert air, the trio’s new form of molecular architecture can absorb and contain gases inside stable metal organic frameworks.

The frameworks can be compared to the timber framework of a house, and Hermione’s famous beaded handbag, in that they are small on the outside but very large on the inside, according to Olof Ramström, a member of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry.

The chemists worked separately but added to each other’s breakthroughs, which began in 1989 with Robson.

“Metal-organic frameworks have enormous potential, bringing previously unforeseen opportunities for custom-made materials with new functions,” Heiner Linke, chair of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, said in a news release.

The committee cited the potential for using the frameworks to separating so-called “forever chemicals” from water.

This undated image provided by the University of California, Berkeley shows Omar Yaghi, who was one of three scientists awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. (Brittany Hosea-Small, University of California, Berkeley via AP)

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are a group of chemicals that have been around for decades and have now spread into the air, water and soil. They are also referred to as “forever chemicals.”

Hans Ellegren, secretary-general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, announced Wednesday’s prize in Stockholm. It was the third prize announced this week.

Robson, 88, is affiliated with the University of Melbourne in Australia. Kitagawa, 74, is with Japan’s Kyoto University and Yaghi, 60, with the University of California, Berkeley.

Kitagawa spoke to the committee, and the press, over the phone Wednesday after his win was announced.

“I’m deeply honored and delighted that my long-standing research has been recognized,” he said.

The 88-year-old Robson, in a phone call with The Associated Press, said he was “very pleased of course and a bit stunned as well.”

Related Articles

Today in History: October 8, Pakistan-India border earthquake kills tens of thousands

Gold demand puts Peru’s Amazon at greater risk from mercury poisoning, bishop warns

Australian woman sentenced to life in prison for mushroom poisonings

Photos of October’s supermoon: A stunning start to a trio of celestial events

US has given at least $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel since war in Gaza began, report says

“This is a major thing that happens late in life when I’m not really in a condition to withstand it all,” he said. “But here we are.”

The 2024 prize was awarded to David Baker, a biochemist at the University of Washington in Seattle, and to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper, computer scientists at Google DeepMind, a British-American artificial intelligence research laboratory based in London.

The three were awarded for discovering powerful techniques to decode and even design novel proteins, the building blocks of life. Their work used advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, and holds the potential to transform how new drugs and other materials are made.

The first Nobel of 2025 was announced Monday. The prize in medicine went to Mary E. Brunkow, Fred Ramsdell and Dr. Shimon Sakaguchi for their discoveries concerning peripheral immune tolerance.

Tuesday’s physics prize went to John Clarke, Michel H. Devoret and John M. Martinis for their research on the weird world of subatomic quantum tunneling that advances the power of everyday digital communications and computing.

This year’s Nobel announcements continue with the literature prize Thursday. The Nobel Peace Prize will be announced Friday and the economics prize next Monday.

The award ceremony will be held Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of Alfred Nobel, who founded the prizes. Nobel was a wealthy Swedish industrialist and the inventor of dynamite. He died in 1896.

Dazio reported from Berlin. Christina Larson in Washington and Rod McGuirk in Melbourne, Australia.

By ERIC TUCKER, ALANNA DURKIN RICHER and MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — Former FBI Director James Comey is set to make his first court appearance Wednesday in a Justice Department criminal case accusing him of lying to Congress five years ago.

The arraignment is expected to be brief, but the moment is nonetheless loaded with historical significance given that the case has amplified concerns the Justice Department is being weaponized in pursuit of President Donald Trump’s political enemies and is operating at the behest of a White House determined to seek retribution.

Comey is expected to plead not guilty at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, kick-starting a process of legal wrangling in which defense lawyers will almost certainly move to get the indictment dismissed before trial, possibly by arguing the case amounts to a selective or vindictive prosecution.

The indictment two weeks ago followed an extraordinary chain of events that saw Trump publicly implore Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other perceived adversaries. The Republican president also replaced the veteran attorney who had been overseeing the investigation with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor. Halligan rushed to file charges before a legal deadline lapsed despite warnings from other lawyers in the office that the evidence was insufficient for an indictment.

Related Articles

Both parties pack the ballot for US House special primary in Tennessee

Abortion providers say Missouri’s attorney general is trying to get patient records

Democrats in governors races see political opportunity amid government shutdown

A judge has blocked a Trump administration effort to change teen pregnancy prevention programs

Why Democrats are casting the government shutdown as a health care showdown

The two-count indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020, by denying he had authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source to the news media and that he obstructed a congressional proceeding. Comey has denied any wrongdoing and has said he was looking forward to a trial. The indictment does not identify the associate or say what information may have been discussed with the media, making it challenging to assess the strength of the evidence or to even fully parse the allegations.

Though an indictment is typically just the start of a protracted court process, the Justice Department has trumpeted the development itself as something of a win, regardless of the outcome. Trump administration officials are likely to point to any conviction as proof the case was well-justified, but an acquittal or even dismissal may also be held up as further support for their long-running contention the criminal justice system is stacked against them.

The judge randomly assigned to the case, Michael Nachmanoff, is an appointee of President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and a former chief federal defender. Known for methodical preparation and a cool temperament, the judge and his background have already drawn Trump’s attention, with the president deriding him as a “Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge.”

The indictment was the latest chapter in a long-broken relationship between Trump and Comey.

Trump arrived in office in January 2017 as Comey, appointed to the FBI director job by President Barack Obama four years earlier, was overseeing an investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The dynamic was fraught from the start, with Comey briefing Trump weeks before he took office on the existence of uncorroborated and sexually salacious gossip in a dossier of opposition research compiled by a former British spy.

In their first several private interactions, Comey would later reveal, Trump asked his FBI director to pledge his loyalty to him and to drop an FBI investigation into his administration’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Trump also asked Comey to publicly reveal that Trump himself was not under investigation as part of the broader inquiry into Russian election interference, something Comey opted not to do.

Comey was abruptly fired in May 2017 while at an event in Los Angeles, with Trump later saying he was thinking about “this Russia thing” when he decided to terminate him. The firing was investigated by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller as an act of potential obstruction of justice.

Comey in 2018 published a memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” that painted Trump in deeply unflattering ways, likening him to a mafia don and characterizing him as unethical and “untethered to truth.”

Trump, for his part, continued to angrily vent at Comey as the Russia investigation led by Mueller dominated headlines for the next two years and shadowed his first administration. On social media, he repeatedly claimed Comey should face charges for “treason” — an accusation Comey dismissed as “dumb lies” — and called him an “untruthful slime ball.”

Tucker reported from Washington.

As the Twins’ offseason gets underway, team president of baseball and business operations Derek Falvey, general manager Jeremy Zoll and company have their work cut out for them. There’s a coaching staff to build, starting with a managerial hire, and there’s a roster to reshape after a second consecutive losing season.

While it will still be some time before player movement — that won’t start until after the conclusion of the World Series — there’s still plenty to ponder early, especially after the Twins traded away many of their best players at the July 31 deadline.

Here are five questions facing the Twins this winter:

Who will manage the Twins?

This is likely the first question to be answered.

After seven seasons at the helm, Rocco Baldelli was relieved of his duties last Monday, the day after the Twins wrapped up a 92-loss season. The Twins already had picked up Baldelli’s option for the 2026 season, but after his team missed the playoffs for the fourth time in five years, Falvey said the organization felt it was “the right time for a new voice and a new direction.”

There’s no telling how long the process might take. The Texas Rangers already filled their manger vacancy, and when the Twins hired Baldelli in 2018, it was late October. If the top candidate is currently with a postseason team, that might extend the process.

Beyond that, there’s no telling what direction the Twins might take; Falvey was vague when asked about traits the club would be looking for in a manager, saying instead that the team is open-minded, and that he didn’t think there was “one size that fits the Twins.”

Once that hiring is in place, the front office and new manager will construct the coaching staff, starting with deciding how much — if any — of the 2025 staff will be retained.

What will the payroll situation look like?

The Twins started 2025 season with a payroll estimated around $142 million by Cot’s Baseball Contracts. They shed a considerable amount from that number at the deadline.

Though they’ll still be on the hook for a portion of Carlos Correa’s salary, getting his contract off the books for the next three seasons frees up money the Twins could theoretically reinvest in players. They could also go in the opposite direction.

The Twins’ payroll reached a franchise-high during the 2023 season, approximately $156 million for a team that won the American League Central and snapped an 18-game postseason losing streak that dated to 2003. While it doesn’t seem likely to return to those levels, this offseason should shed some light on the path the Twins are taking.

Asked about the payroll last week, Falvey said he didn’t “have that direction yet” but added it was a conversation he would need to have with the team-owning Pohlad family.

“I think that’s a conversation we’ll continue to have, certainly with the Pohlads and whatever conversation they’d like me to have with the limited partners,” he said last week.

The Pohlad family, which had been exploring a sale of the franchise, pulled the team off the market in August and announced that they were bringing on two limited partnership groups. Little is known about those groups and how they might affect spending, though bringing them on is expected to help the team reduce its significant debt.

Who will be in the rotation?

Much of this depends on what happens with the payroll, of course.

As it stands, Right-hander Pablo López projects to be the highest-paid player on the 2026 team. His salary — $21.5 million a year— is not unreasonable for a top starter, but if the Twins cut their payroll, he could be a trade candidate. So, too, could Joe Ryan, who will earn far less but could bring back a significant haul if the Twins opt to go that way.

Falvey said last week it was his “hope” and “expectation” that both will be on the team next year but acknowledged that that question “still requires some ongoing conversations with ownership.” If both remain, the Twins have a strong top of the rotation to build around. There’s also hope that an offseason to rest and recover will right-hander help Bailey Ober, who had a rocky 2026 season and will spend this winter trying to regain his velocity.

Beyond those three, the Twins have a number of young arms with varying levels of major league experience, from Taj Bradley and Mick Abel, both acquired at the trade deadline, to Zebby Matthews, Simeon Woods Richardson and David Festa. Festa missed the final two months of the season with a shoulder issue.

What will the Twins do with their position player core?

The Twins left much of their position player group mostly intact at the trade deadline. They dealt three impending free agents in Willi Castro, Harrison Bader and Ty France, but Correa was only player who was under contract for next season that was dealt away.

Much of that remaining group underperformed, and there’s a question as to whether the Twins will try to break up their core or how they might supplement it. If not, what can they do to get the most of their young hitters, many of whom were first-round picks?

Under Baldelli’s watch, the Twins transitioned to a new, more aggressive style of play during the final months of the season, which provided some positive signs. Could the Twins target more athletic players who fit that style of play either in trades or free agency?

How do the Twins build their bullpen?

Jhoan Duran, Caleb Thielbar and Louie Varland are pitching in the playoffs. Brock Stewart would be, too, if not for a shoulder injury. Griffin Jax and Danny Coulombe also were also dealt to teams in playoff contention as the Twins stripped down their bullpen at the trade deadline.

The results were predictable.

The Twins have a club option on Justin Topa that they must make a decision on. Cole Sands should have a role in next year’s bullpen. Left-hander Kody Funderburk pitched well enough down the stretch to warrant a look, too. Beyond that, it’s mostly question marks.

This front office has not invested heavily in free agent relievers but has made some low-cost additions such as lefty Coulombe, who was terrific after signing a one-year, $3 million deal last season. There are also some young, internal arms who should get a look. The Twins have had success in recent years converting starters like Jax and Varland into dependable relievers, and it feels likely that is a path they could follow with some of their prospects.

Related Articles

Will the Twins spend this offseason?

Twins’ next manager needs to be ‘right partner for the whole organization’

After firing Rocco Baldelli, Twins seek ‘a new voice and a new direction’

Shipley: Twins ownership thanks you for your patience

Twins fire manager Rocco Baldelli after seven seasons