A conservative prosecutor’s attorney struggled Monday to persuade the Wisconsin Supreme Court to reactivate the state’s 175-year-old abortion ban, drawing a tongue-lashing from two of the court’s liberal justices during oral arguments.

Sheboygan County’s Republican district attorney, Joel Urmanski, has asked the high court to overturn a Dane County judge’s ruling last year that invalidated the ban. A ruling isn’t expected for weeks but abortion advocates almost certainly will win the case given that liberal justices control the court. One of them, Janet Protasiewicz, remarked on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights.

Monday’s two-hour session amounted to little more than political theater. Liberal Justice Rebecca Dallet told Urmanski’s attorney, Matthew Thome, that the ban was passed in 1849 by white men who held all the power and that he was ignoring everything that has happened since. Jill Karofsky, another liberal justice, pointed out that the ban provides no exceptions for rape or incest and that reactivation could result in doctors withholding medical care. She told Thome that he was essentially asking the court to sign a “death warrant” for women and children in Wisconsin.

“This is the world gone mad,” Karofsky said.

The ban stood until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never repealed the ban, however, and conservatives have argued the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe two years ago reactivated it.

Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit challenging the law in 2022. He argued that a 1985 Wisconsin law that prohibits abortion after a fetus reaches the point where it can survive outside the womb supersedes the ban. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Urmanski contends that the ban was never repealed and that it can co-exist with the 1985 law because that law didn’t legalize abortion at any point. Other modern-day abortion restrictions also don’t legalize the practice, he argues.

Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled last year that the ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother’s consent — but not consensual abortions. The ruling emboldened Planned Parenthood to resume offering abortions in Wisconsin after halting procedures after Roe was overturned.

Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court in February to overturn Schlipper’s ruling without waiting for a lower appellate decision.

A judge has postponed a decision on whether to undo President-elect Donald Trump’s hush money conviction as prosecutors consider how to proceed in light of last week’s election and his lawyers argue for dismissal so he can run the country.

The postponement announced Tuesday comes at a dramatic and dynamic point in the New York case, which focused on how Trump accounted for payments to a porn actor before the 2016 election and produced a first-ever conviction of a former commander-in-chief.

Sentencing had been set for Nov. 26. But Manhattan prosecutors now say they’re reassessing, and they appear open to the possibility that the proceedings can’t go as planned.

“These are unprecedented circumstances,” Assistant District Attorney Matthew Colangelo wrote in an email to the court. He said prosecutors need to consider how to balance the “competing interests” of the jury’s verdict and the presidency.

Trump lawyer Emil Bove, meanwhile, argued the case must be thrown out altogether “to avoid unconstitutional impediments to President Trump’s ability to govern.”

The messages were exchanged over the weekend and released Tuesday, when Judge Juan M. Merchan had been set to rule on Trump lawyers’ earlier request to toss his conviction for a different reason — because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this summer on presidential immunity.

Instead, Merchan told Trump’s lawyers he’d halt proceedings and delay the ruling until at least Nov. 19 so that prosecutors can suggest a way forward. Both sides agreed to the one-week postponement.

Trump campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung heralded the delay. He said in a statement that the president-elect’s win makes it “abundantly clear that Americans want an immediate end to the weaponization of our justice system, including this case, which should have never been filed.”

Prosecutors declined to comment. A jury convicted Trump in May of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels in 2016. The payout was to buy her silence about claims that she had sex with Trump.

Trump says they didn’t have sex, denies any wrongdoing and maintains the prosecution was a political tactic meant to harm his latest campaign. Trump is a Republican. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office brought the case, is a Democrat, as is Merchan.

Just over a month after the verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that ex-presidents can’t be prosecuted for actions they took in the course of running the country, and prosecutors can’t cite those actions even to bolster a case centered on purely personal conduct.

Trump’s lawyers cited that ruling to argue that the hush money jury got some evidence it shouldn’t have, such as Trump’s presidential financial disclosure form and testimony from some White House aides.

Prosecutors disagreed and said the evidence in question was only “a sliver” of their case.

Trump’s criminal conviction was a first for any ex-president. It left the 78-year-old facing the possibility of a fine, probation or up to four years in prison.

A Dutch appeals court on Tuesday overturned a landmark ruling that ordered energy company Shell to cut its carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels, while saying that “protection against dangerous climate change is a human right.”

The decision was a defeat for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, which had hailed the original 2021 ruling as a victory for the climate. Tuesday’s civil ruling can be appealed to the Dutch Supreme Court.

“This hurts,” Friends of the Earth director in the Netherlands Donald Pols said. “At the same time, we see that this case has ensured that major polluters are not immune and has further stimulated the debate about their responsibility in combating dangerous climate change. That is why we continue to tackle major polluters, such as Shell.”

Outside court, Pols said the fight against climate change “is a marathon, not a sprint, and the race has just begun.”

The ruling upholding Shell’s appeal came as a 12-day U.N. climate conference was entering its second day in Azerbaijan where countries are discussing how to fund cutting planet-warming emissions and adapt to ever-increasing weather extremes.

It marked a stinging defeat for climate activists after several courtroom victories. A court in The Hague in 2015 ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld the ruling five years ago.

Earlier this year, a U.N. tribunal on maritime law said that countries are legally required to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found that carbon emissions qualify as marine pollution and said that countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects.

And in April, Europe’s highest human rights court ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. In December the top U.N. legal body, the International Court of Justice, is holding public hearings on climate change after the world body requested a nonbinding advisory opinion on “the obligations of States in respect of climate change.” Dozens of countries are set to present arguments at two weeks of hearings.

In a written summary of Tuesday’s ruling, the court said that Shell has a duty of care to limit its emissions, but it annulled the lower court’s decision because it was “unable to establish that the social standard of care entails an obligation for Shell to reduce its CO2 emissions by 45%, or some other percentage.

“There is currently insufficient consensus in climate science on a specific reduction percentage to which an individual company like Shell should adhere.”

Shell has emitted 36,528 million tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2, since 1854, which is 2.1% of global emissions, according to an April report by the Carbon Majors Database.

Presiding Judge Carla Joustra said that Shell already has targets for climate-warming carbon emissions that are in line with demands of Friends of the Earth — both for what it directly produces and for emissions produced by energy the company purchase from others.

The court then ruled that “for Shell to reduce CO2 emissions caused by buyers of Shell products ... by a particular percentage would be ineffective in this case. Shell could meet that obligation by ceasing to trade in the fuels it purchases from third parties. Other companies would then take over that trade.”

Joustra said that, “The court’s final judgment is that Friends of the Earth’s claims cannot be granted. The court therefore annuls the district court’s judgment.”

Climate activists sitting outside on the courthouse steps hugged, and some appeared close to tears after the decision.

“To be honest I was just really disappointed,” Neele Boelens said. I was almost crying. I was in there in the court and it was just like... At first it looked really good for us but then it just went down hill.”

Shell, meanwhile, welcomed the ruling.

A former drugstore worker in the small Indiana community of Delphi was found guilty of murder on Monday in the killings of two teenage girls who vanished during an afternoon hike.

Jurors convicted Richard Allen of two counts of murder and two additional counts of murder while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping in the 2017 killings of Abigail Williams, 13, and Liberty German, 14.

Allen wasn’t arrested for five more years, while the case drew outsized attention from true-crime enthusiasts. His trial followed repeated delays, a leak of evidence, the withdrawal of Allen’s public defenders and their reinstatement by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Reporters inside the courtroom said Allen, 52, showed no reaction as the verdict was delivered, but he looked back at his family at one point. Allen is scheduled to be sentenced on Dec. 20. He could face up to 130 years in prison.

Outside the courthouse, people on the sidewalk began to cheer as word of the verdict spread.

Indiana State Police spokesman Capt. Ron Galaviz told The Associated Press that the judge’s gag order remains in place and he believes it will until Allen is sentenced. Allen’s lawyers left the courthouse Monday without making statements.

A special judge oversaw the case — Superior Court Judge Fran Gull who along with the jurors, came from northeastern Indiana’s Allen County. The seven women and five men were sequestered throughout the trial, which began Oct. 18 in the Carroll County seat of Delphi, the girls’ hometown of about 3,000 residents in northwest Indiana where Allen also lived and worked.

Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland noted in his closing argument that Allen had repeatedly confessed to the killings — in person, on the phone and in writing. In one of the recordings he replayed for the jury, Allen could be heard telling his wife, “I did it. I killed Abby and Libby.”

McLeland also said Allen is the man seen following the teens in a grainy cell phone video recorded by one of the girls as they crossed an abandoned railroad trestle called the Monon High Bridge.

“Richard Allen is Bridge Guy,” McLeland told jurors. “He kidnapped them and later murdered them.”

McLeland said it was Allen’s voice that could be heard on the video telling the teens, “ Down the hill ″ after they crossed the bridge on Feb. 13, 2017. Their bodies were found the next day, their throats cut, in a nearby wooded area.

An investigator testified that Allen told him and another officer that on the day the teens vanished, he was wearing a blue or black Carhartt jacket, jeans and a beanie — clothing similar to what the man recorded on the bridge wore.

McLeland said an unspent bullet found between the teens’ bodies “had been cycled through” Allen’s .40-caliber Sig Sauer handgun. An Indiana State Police firearms expert told the jury her analysis tied the round to Allen’s handgun.

But a firearms expert called by the defense questioned the analysis, and attorney Bradley Rozzi dismissed it as a “magic bullet,” saying investigators had made an “apples to oranges” comparison of the unspent round to one fired from Allen’s gun.

Allen was arrested in October 2022. He had become a suspect after a retired state government worker who volunteered to help police in the case found paperwork in September 2022 showing that Allen had contacted authorities two days after the girls’ bodies were found. That paperwork indicated that Allen had told an officer he had been on the hiking trail the afternoon the girls went missing, according to testimony.

Allen’s defense argued that his confessions are unreliable because he was facing a severe mental health crisis while under the pressure and stress of being locked up in isolation, watched 24 hours a day and taunted by people incarcerated with him. A psychiatrist called by the defense testified that months in solitary confinement could make a person delirious and psychotic.

But Dr. Monica Wala, Allen’s psychologist at the Westville Correctional Facility, said Allen shared details of the crime in some of the confessions, including telling her he slashed the girls’ throats and put tree branches over their bodies. She wrote in a report that Allen told her he abandoned his plans to rape the teens when a van passed nearby. A man whose driveway passes under the Monon High Bridge testified that he was driving home from work in his van around that time.

That van, McLeland told jurors in his closing, was a detail “only the killer would know.”

During cross-examination, Wala acknowledged that she had followed Allen’s case with interest during her personal time even while treating him and that she was a fan of the true-crime genre.

Rozzi said in his closing arguments that Allen is innocent. He said no witness explicitly identified Allen as the man seen on the hiking trail or the bridge the afternoon the girls went missing. And he said no fingerprin

“He had every chance to run, but he did not because he didn’t do it,” Rozzi told the jurors.

Allen’s lawyers had sought to argue before the trial that the girls were killed in a ritual sacrifice by members of a white nationalist group known as the Odinists who follow a pagan Norse religion, but the judge ruled against that, saying the defense “failed to produce admissible evidence” of such a connection.t, DNA or forensic evidence links Allen to the murder scene.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein was elected governor on Tuesday, defeating Republican Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson and maintaining Democratic leadership of the chief executive’s office in a state where Republicans have recently controlled the legislature and appeals courts.

Stein, a Harvard-trained lawyer, former state senator and the state’s chief law enforcement officer since 2017, will succeed fellow Democrat Roy Cooper, who was term-limited from seeking reelection. He will be the state’s first Jewish governor. Robinson’s campaign was greatly hampered by a damning report in September that he had posted messages on an online pornography website, including that he was a “black NAZI.”

Democrats have held the governor’s mansion for all but four years since 1993, even as the GOP has held legislative majorities since 2011.

As with Cooper’s time in office, a key task for Stein likely will be to use his veto stamp to block what he considers extreme right-leaning policies. Cooper had mixed success on that front during his eight years as governor.

Otherwise, Stein’s campaign platform largely followed Cooper’s policy goals, including those to increase public school funding, promote clean energy and stop further abortion restrictions by Republicans.

Stein’s campaign dramatically outraised and outspent Robinson, who was seeking to become the state’s first Black governor.

For months Stein and his allies used television ads and social media to remind voters of previous inflammatory comments that Robinson had made about abortion, women and LGBTQ+ people that they said made him too extreme to lead a swing state.

“The people of North Carolina resoundingly embraced a vision that’s optimistic, forward-looking and welcoming, a vision that’s about creating opportunity for every North Carolinian,” Stein told supporters in his victory speech after Cooper introduced him. “We chose hope over hate, competence over chaos, decency over division. That’s who we are as North Carolinians.”

Robinson’s campaign descended into disarray in September when CNN reported that he made explicit racial and sexual posts on a pornography website’s message board more than a decade ago. In addition to the “black NAZI” comment, Robinson said he enjoyed transgender pornography and slammed the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as “worse than a maggot,” according to the report. Robinson denied writing the messages and sued CNN and an individual for defamation in October.

In the days following the report, most of Robinson’s top campaign staff quit, many fellow GOP elected officials and candidates — including presidential nominee Donald Trump — distanced themselves from his campaign and outside money supporting him on the airwaves dried up. The result: Stein spent millions on ads in the final weeks, while Robinson spent nothing.

Stein had a clear advantage among women, young and older voters, moderates and urban and suburban voters, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of more than 3,600 voters in the state. White voters were about evenly divided between Stein and Robinson, while clear majorities of Black voters and Latino voters supported Stein.

Fifteen percent of those who voted for Trump also backed Stein for governor, while just 2% of those who cast ballots for Democratic presidential nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris backed Robinson.

Patrick Stemple, 33, a shipping coordinator attending a Trump rally last week in Greensboro, said he voted early for Trump but also chose Stein for governor.

Stemple mentioned both Stein’s ads talking about how he has fought illegal drug trafficking and his dislike for Robinson’s rhetoric. Stemple said the graphic language that CNN reported was used in Robinson’s posts reinforced his decision not to back Robinson.

Who gets to keep an engagement ring if a romance turns sour and the wedding is called off?

That’s what the highest court in Massachusetts was asked to decide with a $70,000 ring at the center of the dispute.

The court ultimately ruled Friday that an engagement ring must be returned to the person who purchased it, ending a six-decade state rule that required judges to try to identify who was to blame for the end of the relationship.

The case involved Bruce Johnson and Caroline Settino, who started dating in the summer of 2016, according to court filings. Over the next year, they traveled together, visiting New York, Bar Harbor, Maine, the Virgin Islands and Italy. Johnson paid for the vacations and also gave Settino jewelry, clothing, shoes and handbags.

Eventually, Johnson bought a $70,000 diamond engagement ring and in August 2017 asked Settino’s father for permission to marry her. Two months later, he also bought two wedding bands for about $3,700.

Johnson said he felt like after that Settino became increasingly critical and unsupportive, including berating him and not accompanying him to treatments when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to court filings.

At some point Johnson looked at Settino’s cell phone and discovered a message from her to a man he didn’t know.

“My Bruce is going to be in Connecticut for three days. I need some playtime,” the message read. He also found messages from the man, including a voicemail in which the man referred to Settino as “cupcake” and said they didn’t see enough of each other. Settino has said the man was just a friend.

Johnson ended the engagement. But ownership of the ring remained up in the air.

A trial judge initially concluded Settino was entitled to keep the engagement ring, reasoning that Johnson “mistakenly thought Settino was cheating on him and called off the engagement.” An appeals court found Johnson should get the ring.

In September, the case landed before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, which ultimately ruled that Johnson should keep the ring.

In their ruling the justices said the case raised the question of whether the issue of “who is at fault” should continue to govern the rights to engagement rings when the wedding doesn’t happen.

More than six decades ago, the court found that an engagement ring is generally understood to be a conditional gift and determined that the person who gives it can get it back after a failed engagement, but only if that person was “without fault.”

“We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context,” the justices wrote in Friday’s ruling. “Where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.”

Johnson’s lawyer, Stephanie Taverna Siden, welcomed the ruling.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision today. It is a well-reasoned, fair and just decision and moves Massachusetts law in the right direction,” Siden said. A lawyer for Settino said they were disappointed, but respected the court’s decision to follow the majority rule among the states.

“We firmly believe that the notion of an engagement ring as a conditional gift is predicated on outdated notions and should no longer be a legal loophole in our otherwise well-established rule that a breach of a promise to marry is not an injury recognized by law,” Nicholas Rosenberg said.

Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet, who studies engagement ring law, said she wasn’t surprised that the court rejected the fault standard, saying it really doesn’t fit with modern family law.

“I’m a bit disappointed that they didn’t give more consideration to the other no-fault option. That would be that the gift stays with the person who received it, as is standard for most gifts,” she said. “The court calls an engagement ring a conditional gift, but the rule for engagement rings is not the same as the rule for every other kind of conditional gift.”

The judge overseeing Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case canceled any remaining court deadlines Friday while prosecutors assess the “the appropriate course going forward” in light of the Republican’s presidential victory.

Special Counsel Jack Smith charged Trump last year with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate. But Smith’s team has been evaluating how to wind down the two federal cases before the president-elect takes office because of longstanding Justice Department policy that says sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press.

Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris means that the Justice Department believes he can no longer face prosecution in accordance with department legal opinions meant to shield presidents from criminal charges while in office.

Trump has criticized both cases as politically motivated, and has said he would fire Smith “within two seconds” of taking office.

In a court filing Friday in the 2020 election case, Smith’s team asked to cancel any upcoming court deadlines, saying it needs “time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy.”

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan quickly granted the request, and ordered prosecutors to file court papers with their “proposed course for this case” by Dec. 2.

Trump had been scheduled to stand trial in March in Washington, where more than 1,000 of his supporters have been convicted of charges for their roles in the Capitol riot. But his case was halted as Trump pursued his sweeping claims of immunity from prosecution that ultimately landed before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in July ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution, and sent the case back to Chutkan to determine which of the the allegations in the indictment can move forward.

The classified documents case has been stalled since July when a Trump-appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed it on grounds that Smith was illegally appointed. Smith has appealed to the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where the request to revive the case is pending. Even as Smith looks to withdraw the documents case against Trump, he would seem likely to continue to challenge Cannon’s ruling on the legality of his appointment given the precedent such a ruling would create.