The highest courts in two states ruled differently Monday on efforts by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be removed from their presidential ballots, with a divided North Carolina Supreme Court affirming he should be omitted and the Michigan Supreme Court reversing a lower court decision and keeping him on.

Kennedy suspended his campaign more than two weeks ago and endorsed Republican nominee Donald Trump. The environmentalist and author has tried to get his name removed from ballots in several battleground states where the race between Trump and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris are expected to be close.

In Michigan, Kennedy sued Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, on Aug. 30 in an attempt to remove his name from the ballot so as not to siphon votes away from Trump, who won Michigan by about 10,000 votes in 2016. Monday’s decision reverses an intermediate-level Court of Appeals ruling made Friday. It ensures that Kennedy’s name will appear on voters’ ballots in Michigan despite his withdrawal from the race.

The Michigan Supreme Court said in a brief order that Kennedy “has not shown an entitlement to this extraordinary relief.”

In North Carolina, the state Supreme Court ruled 4-3 to deny efforts by the State Board of Elections to have the justices consider overturning a Court of Appeals decision on Friday directing that Kennedy be removed from ballots. The Court of Appeals order had reversed a trial judge’s ruling the day before that upheld the State Board of Elections’ decision to keep Kennedy and running mate Nicole Shanahan on the ballot.

The Democratic majority on the elections board had rejected the request by We The People party of North Carolina — a recently certified party assembled to collect signatures for Kennedy’s candidacy — to withdraw Kennedy from the ballot. The board’s majority said it was impractical given actions already completed to begin ballot distribution, including printing and coding tabulation machines. Kennedy sued the next day.

A state law had required the first absentee ballots to be mailed or transmitted to voters who have already asked for them no later than 60 days before the general election, or last Friday. If it had occurred on time, North Carolina would have been the first state in the nation to distribute ballots for the Nov. 5 elections.

The North Carolina Supreme Court ruling means elections officials will have to reprint ballots without Kennedy and reassemble absentee ballot packets. Over 136,000 absentee ballot requests had been made as of late last week. More than 2.9 million absentee and in-person ballots with Kennedy’s name on them had already been printed, according to the state board. Counties must pay for reprinting costs.

Monday evening’s order, backed by four of the court’s five Republican justices, said it’s clear Kennedy resigned as a candidate and that a vote for him would not count.

A federal trial is set to begin Monday over claims that supporters of former President Donald Trump threatened and harassed a Biden-Harris campaign bus in Texas four years ago, disrupting the campaign on the last day of early voting.

The civil trial over the so-called “Trump Train” comes as Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris race into the final two months of their head-to-head fight for the White House in November.

Democrats on the bus said they feared for their lives as Trump supporters in dozens of trucks and cars nearly caused collisions, harassing their convoy for more than 90 minutes, hitting a Biden-Harris campaign staffer’s car and forcing the bus driver to repeatedly swerve for safety.

“For at least 90 minutes, defendants terrorized and menaced the driver and passengers,” the lawsuit alleges. “They played a madcap game of highway ‘chicken’ coming within three to four inches of the bus. They tried to run the bus off the road.”

The highway confrontation prompted an FBI investigation, which led then-President Trump to declare that in his opinion, “these patriots did nothing wrong.” Among those suing is former Texas state senator and Democratic nominee for governor Wendy Davis, who was on the bus that day. Davis rose to prominence in 2013 with her 13-hour filibuster of an anti-abortion bill in the state Capitol. The other three plaintiffs are a campaign volunteer, staffer and the bus driver.

The lawsuit names six defendants, accusing them of violating the “Ku Klux Klan Act,” an 1871 federal law to stop political violence and intimidation tactics.

The same law was used in part to indict Trump on federal election interference charges over attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol insurrection. Enacted by Congress during the Reconstruction Era, the law was created to protect Black men’s right to vote by prohibiting political violence.

Videos of the confrontation on Oct. 30, 2020, that were shared on social media, including some recorded by the Trump supporters, show a group of cars and pickup trucks — many adorned with large Trump flags — riding alongside the campaign bus as it traveled from San Antonio to Austin. The Trump supporters at times boxed in the bus, slowed it down, kept it from exiting the highway and repeatedly forced the bus driver to make evasive maneuvers to avoid a collision, the lawsuit says.

On the two previous days, Biden-Harris supporters were subjected to death threats, with some Trump supporters displaying weapons, according to the lawsuit. These threats in combination with the highway confrontation led Democrats to cancel an event later in the day.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified monetary damages, alleges the defendants were members of local groups near San Antonio that coordinated the confrontation.

Francisco Canseco, an attorney for three of the defendants, said his clients acted lawfully and did not infringe on the free speech rights of those on the bus.  “It’s more of a constitutional issue,” Canseco said. “It’s more of who has the greater right to speak behind their candidate.”

Judge Robert Pitman, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, is set to preside over Monday’s trial. He denied the defendants’ pretrial motion for a summary judgment in their favor, ruling last month that the KKK Act prohibits the physical intimidation of people traveling to political rallies, even when racial bias isn’t a factor.

While one of the defendants, Eliazar Cisneros, argued his group had a First Amendment right to demonstrate support for their candidate, the judge wrote that “assaulting, intimidating, or imminently threatening others with force is not protected expression.”

“Just as the First Amendment does not protect a driver waving a political flag from running a red light, it does not protect Defendants from allegedly threatening Plaintiffs with reckless driving,” Pitman wrote.

A prior lawsuit filed over the “Trump Train” alleged the San Marcos Police Department violated the Ku Klux Klan Act by failing to send a police escort after multiple 911 calls were made and a bus rider said his life was threatened. It accused officers of privately laughing and joking about the emergency calls. San Marcos settled the lawsuit in 2023 for $175,000 and a requirement that law enforcement get training on responding to political violence.

One month after a judge declared Google’s search engine an illegal monopoly, the tech giant faces another antitrust lawsuit that threatens to break up the company, this time over its advertising technology.

The Justice Department, joined by a coalition of states, and Google each made opening statements Monday to a federal judge who will decide whether Google holds a monopoly over online advertising technology.

The regulators contend that Google built, acquired and maintains a monopoly over the technology that matches online publishers to advertisers. Dominance over the software on both the buy side and the sell side of the transaction enables Google to keep as much as 36 cents on the dollar when it brokers sales between publishers and advertisers, the government contends in court papers.

They allege that Google also controls the ad exchange market, which matches the buy side to the sell side.

“It’s worth saying the quiet part out loud,” Justice Department lawyer Julia Tarver Wood said during her opening statement. “One monopoly is bad enough. But a trifecta of monopolies is what we have here.”

Google says the government’s case is based on an internet of yesteryear, when desktop computers ruled and internet users carefully typed precise World Wide Web addresses into URL fields. Advertisers now are more likely to turn to social media companies like TikTok or streaming TV services like Peacock to reach audiences.

In her opening statement, Google lawyer Karen Dunn likened the government’s case to a “time capsule with with a Blackberry, an iPod and a Blockbuster video card.”

Dunn said Supreme Court precedents warn judges about “the serious risk of error or unintended consequences” when dealing with rapidly emerging technology and considering whether antitrust law requires intervention. She also warned that any action taken against Google won’t benefit small businesses but will simply allow other tech behemoths like Amazon, Microsoft and TikTok to fill the void.

According to Google’s annual reports, revenue has actually declined in recent years for Google Networks, the division of the Mountain View, California-based tech giant that includes such services as AdSense and Google Ad Manager that are at the heart of the case, from $31.7 billion in 2021 to $31.3 billion in 2023,

The trial that began Monday in Alexandria, Virginia, over the alleged ad tech monopoly was initially going to be a jury trial, but Google maneuvered to force a bench trial, writing a check to the federal government for more than $2 million to moot the only claim brought by the government that required a jury.

The case will now be decided by U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema, who was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton and is best known for high-profile terrorism trials including that of Sept. 11 defendant Zacarias Moussaoui. Brinkema, though, also has experience with highly technical civil trials, working in a courthouse that sees an outsize number of patent infringement cases.

The Virginia case comes on the heels of a major defeat for Google over its search engine, which generates the majority of the company’s $307 billion in annual revenue. A judge in the District of Columbia declared the search engine a monopoly, maintained in part by tens of billions of dollars Google pays each year to companies like Apple to lock in Google as the default search engine presented to consumers when they buy iPhones and other gadgets.

Veering from the campaign trail to a courtroom, Donald Trump quietly observed Friday as his lawyer fought to overturn a verdict finding the former president liable for sexual abuse and defamation.

The Republican nominee and his accuser, E. Jean Carroll, a writer, sat at tables about 15 feet (4.5 meters) apart, in a Manhattan federal appeals court. Trump didn’t acknowledge or look at Carroll as he passed directly in front of her on the way in and out, but he sometimes shook his head, including when Carroll’s attorney said he sexually attacked her.

Trump attorney D. John Sauer told three 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges that the civil trial in Carroll’s lawsuit was muddied by improper evidence.

“This case is a textbook example of implausible allegations being propped up by highly inflammatory, inadmissible” evidence, Sauer said, noting that jurors saw the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump boasted in 2005 about grabbing women’s genitals because when someone is a star, “you can do anything.”

Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, told judges the evidence in question was proper, and that there was plenty of proof in the nearly two-week-long trial of Carroll’s claim that Trump attacked her in a luxury department store dressing room decades ago. She said the “Access Hollywood” tape, as the trial judge had noted, could be viewed as a confession.

“E. Jean Carroll brought this case because Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in 1996, in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman, and then defamed her in 2022 by claiming that she was crazy and made the whole thing up,” Kaplan said.

Carroll, standing with Kaplan outside the courthouse afterward, declined to comment.

Trump left court in a motorcade, then delivered a lengthy diatribe against the case at Trump Tower, where he said again that Carroll — and other women who had accused him of sexual assault — were making everything up.

“It’s so false. It’s a made up, fabricated story by somebody, I think, initially, just looking to promote a book,” Trump said. Carroll first spoke publicly about her encounter with Trump in a newly published memoir in 2019.

In remarks to reporters Friday, Trump repeated many claims about Carroll that a jury has already deemed defamatory, and added some new ones, like suggesting that a photograph of him and Carroll together in 1987 was produced by artificial intelligence. It was unclear whether his comments could lead to a new defamation lawsuit by Carroll.

“I’ve said before and I’ll say it again: all options are on the table,” Kaplan said after Trump’s news conference.

The three-judge panel, if it follows the pattern of other appeals, would be unlikely to rule for weeks, if not months.

A jury found in May 2023 that Trump sexually abused Carroll. He denies it. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million.

Trump did not attend the trial and has expressed regret that he was not there.

The civil case has political and financial implications for Trump.

Hawaii can enforce a law banning firearms on its world-famous beaches, a U.S. appeals court panel ruled Friday.

Three Maui residents sued to block a 2023 state law prohibiting carrying a firearm on the sand and in other places deemed sensitive, including banks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. They argued that Hawaii went too far with its wide-ranging ban.

A U.S. district court judge in Honolulu granted a preliminary injunction against the rule last year and Hawaii appealed. On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals published an opinion reversing the lower court ruling on beaches, parks, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. The panel affirmed the ruling for banks and certain parking lots.

“The record supports the conclusion that modern-day beaches in Hawaii, particularly in urban or resort areas, often resemble modern-day parks,” more so than beaches at the founding of the nation, the unanimous ruling said.

Hawaii, which has long had some of the nation’s toughest firearm restrictions and lowest rates of gun violence, has been wrestling with how to square its gun laws with a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling expanding the right to bear arms. The high court found that people have a constitutional right to carry weapons in public and that measures to restrict that right must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

“I’m disappointed that the 9th Circuit did not look at our ... challenge to rural parks and beaches,” which can be dangerous and require people to protect themselves, said Alan Beck, an attorney representing the Maui residents and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. He plans to ask for a review by a fuller panel of judges, he said.

The Hawaii attorney general’s office issued a statement noting that the 9th Circuit also upheld a rule prohibiting the carrying of firearms on private property owned by another without their consent.

“This is a significant decision recognizing that the state’s public safety measures are consistent with our nation’s historical tradition,” Hawaii Solicitor General Kalikoʻonālani Fernandes said in the statement.

The ruling also applies to a similar challenge to a California ban on carrying guns in certain public places, upholding an injunction on enforcing restrictions on firearms at hospitals, similar medical facilities, public transit, gatherings that require a permit, places of worship, financial institutions, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places.

As in Hawaii, the ruling allows California to enforce bans in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and in parks. It also allows California bans for other places including casinos, stadiums and amusement parks.

The California attorney general’s office said it was reviewing the decision.

Residents carrying guns in public is still fairly new to Hawaii. Before the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision expanded gun rights nationwide, Hawaii’s county police chiefs made it virtually impossible to carry a gun by rarely issuing permits to do so — either for open carry or concealed carry. Gun owners were only allowed to keep firearms in their homes or to bring them — unloaded and locked up — to shooting ranges, hunting areas and places such as repair shops.

That ruling prompted the state to retool its gun laws, with Democratic Gov. Josh Green signing legislation to allow more people to carry concealed firearms.

It also prompted Hawaii and California to pass laws restricting guns in places that are deemed sensitive.

A man whose courtroom attack on a judge in Las Vegas was recorded on video has pleaded guilty but mentally ill to attempted murder and other charges.

Deobra Delone Redden ended his trial Thursday after Clark County District Court Judge Mary Kay Holthus testified that she feared for her life when Redden vaulted over her bench and desk and landed on her. The attack happened Jan. 3 as Holthus was about to deliver Redden’s sentence in a separate felony attempted battery case.

Redden’s defense attorney, Carl Arnold, said in a statement Friday that the plea “reflects a delicate balance between accepting responsibility for a regrettable incident and recognizing the impact of Mr. Redden’s untreated mental illness at the time.”

Arnold told jurors who began hearing evidence on Tuesday that Redden had not taken prescribed medication to control his diagnosed schizophrenia. Holthus testified that she felt “defenseless” during the attack and that court officials and attorneys who came to her aid saved her life, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.

Law clerk Michael Lasso told the jury he saw Holthus’ head hit the floor and Redden grab her hair. “I absolutely thought, ‘He’s going to kill her,’” Lasso testified. He said he wrestled Redden away, punched him to try to subdue him and saw Redden hitting a corrections officer who also intervened.

An armed courtroom marshal suffered a bleeding gash on his forehead and a dislocated shoulder, according to court officials and witnesses. Holthus was not hospitalized and returned to work after treatment for her injuries. A prosecutor for more than 27 years, she was elected to the state court bench in 2018.

Redden, 31, is already serving prison time for other felony battery convictions. Prosecutor John Giordani said Friday he could face up to 86 years for his pleas to eight felonies, which also included battery of a protected person age 60 or older resulting in substantial bodily harm, intimidating a public officer and battery by a prisoner.

Clark County District Court Judge Susan Johnson ruled that Redden was competent and capable of entering his plea, the Review-Journal reported. Sentencing was scheduled for Nov. 7.

Arnold said in his statement that he will ask Johnson to order mental health treatment for his client behind bars.

Giordani said Redden told three correctional staff members after the attack that he tried to kill Holthus.

“While he clearly has past mental issues, he made a choice that day and failed to control his homicidal impulses,” the prosecutor said.

The 14-year-old suspect in a shooting that killed four people at a Georgia high school and his father, who was arrested for allowing his son to have a weapon, will stay in custody after their lawyers decided not to seek bail Friday.

Colt Gray, who has been charged with four counts of murder, is accused of using a semiautomatic assault-style rifle to kill two fellow students and two teachers Wednesday at Apalachee High School in Winder, outside Atlanta. His father, Colin Gray, faces related charges in the latest attempt by prosecutors to hold parents responsible for their children’s actions in school shootings.

“You don’t have to have been physically injured in this to be a victim,” District Attorney Brad Smith said outside the Barrow County courthouse. “Everyone in this community is a victim. Every child in that school was a victim.”

The father and son appeared in back-to-back hearings Friday morning with about 50 onlookers in the courtroom, where workers had placed boxes of tissues along the benches, in addition to members of the media and sheriff’s deputies. Some victims’ family members in the front row hugged each other and one woman clutched a stuffed animal.

During his hearing, Colt Gray, wearing khaki pants and a green shirt, was advised of his rights as well as the charges and penalties he faced for the shooting at the school where he was a student. He was escorted out in shackles at the wrists and ankles.

The judge then called the teen back to the courtroom to correct an earlier misstatement that his crimes could be punishable by death. Because he’s a juvenile, the maximum penalty he would face is life without parole.

Shortly afterward, Colin Gray was brought into court dressed in a gray-striped jail uniform. Colin Gray, 54, was charged Thursday in connection with the shooting and answered questions in a barely audible croak, giving his age and saying he finished 11th grade, earning a high school equivalency diploma.

Colin Gray has been charged with involuntary manslaughter and second-degree murder related to the shooting. Arrest warrants said he caused the deaths of others “by providing a firearm to Colt Gray with knowledge that he was threat to himself and others.”

The charges come five months after Michigan parents Jennifer and James Crumbley were the first convicted in a U.S. mass school shooting. They were sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for not securing a firearm at home and acting indifferently to signs of their son’s deteriorating mental health before he killed four students in 2021. The Georgia shootings have also renewed debate about safe storage laws for guns and have parents wondering how to talk to their children about school shootings and trauma.

The hearings for the father and son came as police in the Atlanta suburb of Dunwoody said schools there and nationwide have received threats of violence since the Apalachee High School shooting, police said in a statement. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation also noted that numerous threats have been made to schools across the state this week.