Arkansas voters won’t get to weigh in on a ballot initiative to expand medical marijuana after the state Supreme Court ruled the measure didn’t fully explain what it would do, tossing out the initiative just two weeks before the election.

It’s too late to remove the measure from the ballot — early voting began Monday — so the court has ordered election officials not to count any votes cast on it. The proposed constitutional amendment would have broadened the definition of medical professionals who can certify patients for medical cannabis, expanded qualifying conditions and made medical cannabis cards valid for three years.

In Monday’s 4-3 decision, the justices ruled the measure did not fully inform voters that it would have stripped the Legislature’s ability to change the 2016 constitutional amendment that legalized medical marijuana in the state.

“This decision doomed the proposed ballot title, and it is plainly misleading,” Justice Shawn Womack wrote in the majority opinion.

The court also said the measure did not inform voters that, if approved, the amendment would legalize up to an ounce of marijuana possession for any purpose if marijuana becomes legal under federal law.

In court filings, organizers noted the ballot measure had cited the number of the provision that would be repealed. The group argued that past court rulings said measures did not need to summarize the current law being changed.

In a dissent, Justice Cody Hiland said the court was ignoring decades-long precedent by ruling the measure’s wording was misleading.

“Long ago, this court established definitive standards for evaluating the sufficiency of popular names and ballot titles,” Hiland wrote. “This court has not deviated from those standards until today.”

In the same ruling, justices rejected election officials’ reasons for ruling the measure’s organizers fell short of the signatures required for putting the measure on the ballot.

Arkansans for Patient Access, the group behind the measure, said it would keep pushing to expand the medical marijuana program and that the signatures it gathered showed widespread support.

“We are deeply disappointed in the Court’s decision,” the group said in a statement. “It seems politics has triumphed over legal precedent.”

Arkansans for Patient Access sued after Secretary of State John Thurston said the group fell short of the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The issue over the ballot measure’s wording was raised by Protect Arkansas Kids, a group opposed to the measure that had intervened in the case.

Thurston’s office had declined to count some of the signatures submitted, asserting the group had not followed paperwork rules regarding paid signature gatherers.

The state rejected petitions submitted in favor of an anti-abortion ballot measure earlier this year on similar grounds.

The state in July determined the group had fallen short of the required signatures but qualified for 30 additional days to circulate petitions. But the state then told the group that any additional signatures gathered by paid signature gatherers would not be counted if required information was submitted by the canvassing company rather than sponsors of the measure.

The court on Monday said that decision was wrong, saying state law allows a wide range of people to be considered sponsors of the measure.

Groups had already been campaigning against the measure, even though it was uncertain whether it would be put to a vote this November. Family Council Action Committee last week announced it planned to launch a statewide tour against the measure.

“A measure this bad simply has no business being on the ballot or in the constitution,” Jerry Cox, the group’s director, said after Monday’s ruling.

About half of U.S. states allow recreational marijuana and a dozen more have legalized medical marijuana. Those numbers could grow after the November election. Voters in Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota will decide whether to legalize recreational marijuana for adults, and two medical marijuana proposals will be on Nebraska’s ballot.

Prabowo Subianto was inaugurated Sunday as the eighth president of the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, completing his journey from an ex-general accused of rights abuses during the dark days of Indonesia’s military dictatorship to the presidential palace.

The former defense minister, who turned 73 on Thursday, was cheered through the streets by thousands of waving supporters after taking his oath on the Quran in front of lawmakers and foreign dignitaries. Banners and billboards filled the streets of the capital, Jakarta, where tens of thousands gathered for festivities.

Wearing a blue Betawi traditional cloth and a dark baseball cap, Subianto stood up in the sunroof of a white van and waved, occasionally shaking people’s hands, as his motorcade struggled to pass through the thousands of supporters calling his name and chanting “Good luck Prabowo-Gibran,” filling the road leading from the parliament building to the presidential palace.

“I see a firm and patriotic figure in him,” said Atalaric Eka Prayoga, 25. “That’s a figure we need to lead Indonesia.”

Another resident, Silky Putri, said he hopes Subianto “can build Indonesia to be more advanced and improve the current gloomy economic situation.”

Subianto was a longtime rival of the immensely popular President Joko Widodo, who ran against him for the presidency twice and refused to accept his defeat on both occasions, in 2014 and 2019.

But Widodo appointed Subianto as defense chief after his reelection, paving the way for an alliance despite their rival political parties. During the campaign, Subianto ran as the popular outgoing president’s heir, vowing to continue signature policies like the construction of a multibillion-dollar new capital city and limits on exporting raw materials intended to boost domestic industry.

Subianto was sworn in with his new vice president, 37-year-old Surakarta ex-Mayor Gibran Rakabuming Raka. He chose Raka, who is Widodo’s son, as his running mate, with Widodo favoring Subianto over the candidate of his own former party. The former rivals became tacit allies, even though Indonesian presidents don’t typically endorse candidates.

But how he’ll govern the biggest economy in Southeast Asia — where nearly 90% of Indonesia’s 282 million people are Muslims — remains uncertain after a campaign in which he made few concrete promises besides continuity with the popular former president.

After decades of dictatorship under President Suharto, Indonesia was convulsed by political, ethnic and religious unrest in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Since then, it has consolidated its democratic transition as the world’s third-largest democracy, and is home to a rapidly expanding middle class.

Subianto, who comes from one of the country’s wealthiest families, is a sharp contrast to Widodo, the first Indonesian president to emerge from outside the political and military elite.

Backed by Widodo, Subianto swept to a landslide victory in February’s direct presidential election on promises of policy continuity.

The Biden administration is shelling out billions of dollars for clean energy and approving major offshore wind projects as officials race to secure major climate initiatives before President Joe Biden’s term comes to an end.

Biden wants to establish a legacy for climate action that includes locking in a trajectory for reducing the nation’s planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Former President Donald Trump has pledged to rescind unspent funds in Biden’s landmark climate and health care bill and stop offshore wind development if he returns to the White House in January.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told The Associated Press on Friday it would be “political malpractice” to undo clean energy incentives that are benefiting all pockets of America, with most of the investments going to counties with below-average weekly wages and college graduation rates.

“A lot of it is going to parts of America who have felt left behind. And this is giving them opportunity,” she said. “Why would we take that away? And why would we prevent counties and cities and people and families from having future-facing jobs in industries like clean energy, which young people are very excited about being a part of?”

Still, Granholm said, she’s racing to commit funding and get contracts signed.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who became the Democratic nominee after Biden dropped from the race this summer, has said she will pursue a climate agenda similar to Biden’s, focused on reducing emissions, deploying renewables and creating clean energy jobs.

Announcements of major environmental grants and project approvals have speeded up in recent months as White House Deputy Chief of Staff Natalie Quillian said Biden is “sprinting to the finish” and delivering on promises to promote clean energy and slow climate change:

The Environmental Protection Agency made $20 billion from a federal “green bank” available this summer for clean energy projects such as residential heat pumps, electric vehicle charging stations and community cooling centers.

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management approved the nation’s 10th large offshore wind farm, the Maryland Offshore Wind Project, in September, reaching the halfway mark for Biden’s goal of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind energy by 2030. On Oct. 1, the agency gave a key approval to an offshore wind farm project in New Jersey.

In the past month alone, the Energy Department has made six announcements of a billion dollars or more, including more than $3 billion for battery manufacturing projects and a $1.5 billion loan to restart a nuclear plant in Michigan. And just last week, Biden set a 10-year deadline for cities to replace their lead pipes, with $2.6 billion available from the EPA to help communities comply.

Besides the climate law, formally known as the Inflation Reduction Act, Biden is seeking to spend billions in projects approved under the bipartisan infrastructure law in 2021 and the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. The $1 trillion infrastructure law includes cash for roads, bridges, ports and more, while the CHIPS law aims to reinvigorate the computer chip sector in the United States through tens of billions of dollars in government support.

A court in Italy on Friday ruled against the right-wing government’s move to detain 12 migrants at newly opened centers in Albania, highlighting a key hurdle in the administration’s plan to outsource some of its migrant processing to the Balkan country.

The 12 migrants were part of the first batch of 16 migrants to be sent to the two centers that opened last week under a five-year deal to host 3,000 migrants per month picked up by the Italian coast guard, to vet them for possible asylum in Italy or to be sent back to their countries.

However, each migrant’s detention must be reviewed by special migration courts in Italy under Italian law, and on Friday a court in Rome rejected the detention of 12 of the migrants arguing that they cannot be sent back to their countries or origin -- Bangladesh and Egypt -- because the court did not deem the countries to be safe enough.

The four other migrants already had been rejected by center staff as vulnerable after undergoing health and other screenings.

The verdict represents an early stumbling block in the arrangement between Italy and Albania that the government of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has hailed as a new “model” to handle illegal migration.

Meloni slammed the judges following the ruling, and said that deeming countries such as Bangladesh and Egypt unsafe means that virtually all migrants would be barred from the Albania program, making it unworkable. Her interior minister, Matteo Piantedosi, said the government would appeal the ruling.

Speaking to reporters during a trip to Lebanon, Meloni said she would convene a Cabinet meeting Monday to discuss the issue.

“We’ll meet to approve some norms that will allow us to overcome this obstacle,” Meloni said. “I believe it’s up to the government and not magistrates to establish which countries can be considered safe.”

Although Bangladesh and Egypt are not at war or facing any large refugee crises, the Rome judges said their decision to deem them unsafe was based on recent international rulings that consider discrimination or persecution in even a part of a country as grounds for such a determination.

The anti-migration League party — part of Meloni’s coalition government — accused the judges of being activists issuing politically motivated decisions.

The Italian center-left opposition responded by stressing that the current scheme is expensive, complicated and damaging to migrants’ rights.

The 16 migrants — 10 Bangladeshis and six Egyptians — were transferred on government orders to Albania by an Italian navy vessel on Wednesday to undergo what is referred to as accelerated border procedures under the Italy-Albania deal.

However, now all of them must be transferred to Italy.

The centers will cost Italy 670 million euros ($730 million) over five years. The facilities are run by Italy and are under Italian jurisdiction, while Albanian guards provide external security.

Italy has agreed to welcome those migrants who are granted asylum, while those whose applications are rejected face deportation directly from Albania. The controversial agreement to outsource the housing of asylum-seekers to a non-EU member country has been hailed by some countries that, like Italy, are experiencing a high level of migrant arrivals.

The agreement was endorsed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as an example of “out-of-box thinking” in tackling the issue of migration into the European Union.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot pledged his support for Ukraine’s plan for ending the 2 1/2-year war with Russia, telling reporters in Kyiv on Saturday that he will work with Ukrainian officials to secure other nations’ backing for the proposal.

Unveiled by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy earlier this week, Kyiv’s so-called “victory plan” hopes to compel Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine through negotiations.

The proposal is being considered by Ukraine’s Western partners, whose help is vital for Kyiv to resist its bigger neighbor. A key element would be a formal invitation into NATO, which Western backers have been reluctant to consider until after the war ends.

“A Russian victory would be a consecration for the law of the strongest and would push the international order toward chaos,” Barrot said at a joint press conference with his Ukrainian counterpart, Andrii Sybiha. “That is why our exchanges should allow us to make progress on President Zelenskyy’s victory plan and rally the greatest number possible of countries around it.”

Since the 2022 invasion, France has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest military, diplomatic and economic supporters in Europe. It is currently training and equipping what will become a full new brigade of Ukrainian soldiers for front-line deployment.

French President Emmanuel Macron has also previously pushed for a policy shift from Ukraine’s Western allies that could change the complexion of the war — allowing Kyiv to strike military bases inside Russia with sophisticated long-range weapons provided by Western partners, which include missiles from France.

Long-range strikes are a key part of Zelenskyy’s five-point plan but have been met with reluctance by Kyiv’s allies so far.

Barrot also announced that France would deliver the first batch of Mirage 2000 combat jets to Ukraine in the first three months of 2025, with Ukrainian pilots and mechanics also trained to fly and maintain them.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a Biden administration regulation aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants to remain in place as legal challenges play out.

The justices rejected a push from Republican-led states and industry groups to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule, marking the third time this month the conservative majority has left an environmental regulation in place for now.

One justice, Clarence Thomas, publicly dissented.

Two other conservative justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, said in a brief order they thought the challengers would likely win on at least some of their claims eventually. But the rule doesn’t need to be blocked now because compliance work wouldn’t have to begin until June 2025 and the case could end up back before the high court relatively quickly, Kavanaugh wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito did not take part, likely due to his personal investment in one of the companies challenging the rule, Oklahoma Gas and Electric.

The rule requires many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years, though deadlines do not take effect for several years. The challengers argued that the EPA overstepped and imposed unattainable standards.

Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said his group would continue to fight the rule. He said it would require power plants to use unaffordable technology or shut down at a time when the nation’s electricity demand is forecast to double. “If this rule is allowed to stand the results for the American people and economy will be catastrophic,” he said,

The power industry is the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change, and the rule is a key part of President Joe Biden’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.

The Natural Resources Defense Council said the new standards are modest but vital, and the court’s decision to leave them in place is a win for common sense. “This warrants a sigh of relief from the millions of Americans experiencing the impact of the climate crisis,” said attorney Meredith Hankins. An appeals court had allowed the EPA’s new power plant rule to go into effect.

The Supreme Court earlier this month also left two other regulations aimed at reducing industry emissions of planet-warming methane and toxic mercury in place for now.

Other environmental regulations have not fared well before the conservative-majority court in recent years. In 2022, the justices limited the EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants with a landmark decision. In June, the court halted the agency’s air-pollution-fighting “good neighbor” rule.

Another ruling in June, overturning a decades-old decision known colloquially as Chevron, is also expected to make environmental regulations more difficult to set and keep, along with other federal agency actions. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce cited that ruling in court papers supporting the challenge in the coal plant case.

Earlier Wednesday, the justices heard arguments in another environmental case that could limit the EPA’s ability to enforce clean water standards. The case involves an unusual dispute between the agency and liberal San Francisco over what the city says are impossibly vague rules for the discharge of untreated sewage into San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The city could face fines of between $10 million, in the Biden administration’s view, to $10 billion, in San Francisco’s estimation. The court seemed divided with several conservative justices appearing favorable to San Francisco.

A panel of three judges — two nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama and one by Republican President Donald Trump — found that the states were not at risk of immediate harm because compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.

The EPA projects the rule would yield up to $370 billion in climate and health net benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to preventing annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.

Hamas confirmed Friday that its leader, Yahya Sinwar, was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza and reiterated its stance that hostages the militant group took from Israel a year ago will not be released until there is a cease-fire in Gaza and a withdrawal of Israeli troops.

The group’s staunch position pushed back against a statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin a day earlier that his country’s military will keep fighting until the hostages are released and will remain in Gaza to prevent a severely weakened Hamas from rearming.

The conflicting stands signal continued deep resistance on both sides to ending the war, even as President Joe Biden and other world leaders press the case that Sinwar’s death is a turning point that should be used to unlock stalled cease-fire negotiations.

The standoff comes as Israel’s war with Lebanon’s Hezbollah — a Hamas ally backed by Iran — has intensified in recent weeks. Hezbollah said Friday it planned to launch a new phase of fighting by sending more guided missiles and exploding drones into Israel. The militant group’s longtime leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was killed in an Israeli airstrike late last month, and Israel sent ground troops into Lebanon earlier this month.

Sinwar, the former lead of Hamas, died “confronting the occupation army until the last moment of his life,” said his Qatar-based deputy, Khalil al-Hayya, who represented Hamas during several rounds of cease-fire negotiations. Hamas will not return any of the hostages, al-Hayya said, “before the end of the aggression on Gaza and the withdrawal from Gaza.”

Hamas heralded Sinwar in a statement, calling him a hero for “not retreating, brandishing his weapon, engaging and confronting the occupation army at the forefront of the ranks.”

The statement appeared to refer to a video the Israeli military circulated of Sinwar’s apparent last moments in which a man sits on a chair in severely damaged building, badly wounded and covered in dust. In the video, the man raises his hand and flings a stick at an approaching Israeli drone.

Sinwar was the chief architect of the Hamas raid on Israel last year that killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and kidnapped another 250. Israel’s retaliatory offensive in Gaza has killed over 42,000 Palestinians, according to local health authorities, who do not distinguish combatants from civilians but say more than half the dead are women and children.

The war has destroyed vast swaths of Gaza, displaced about 90% of its population of 2.3 million people and has left them struggling to find food, water, medicine and fuel.

Sinwar’s killing appeared to be a chance front-line encounter with Israeli troops on Wednesday, and it could shift the dynamics of the Gaza war even as Israel presses its offensive against Hezbollah with ground troops in southern Lebanon and airstrikes in other areas of the country.

Hezbollah has fired rockets into Israel nearly every day since the Israel-Hamas war began, displacing tens of thousands of Israelis from their homes in the country’s north. More than 1 million people in Lebanon have been displaced by Israel’s aerial bombardment and ground offensive.