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.”

Native Americans living on a remote Montana reservation filed a lawsuit against state and county officials Monday saying they don’t have enough places to vote in person — the latest chapter in a decades-long struggle by tribes in the United States over equal voting opportunities.

The six members of the Fort Peck Reservation want satellite voting offices in their communities for late registration and to vote before Election Day without making long drives to a county courthouse.

The legal challenge, filed in state court, comes five weeks before the presidential election in a state with a a pivotal U.S. Senate race where the Republican candidate has made derogatory comments about Native Americans.

Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship a century ago. Advocates say the right still doesn’t always bring equal access to the ballot.

Many tribal members in rural western states live in far-flung communities with limited resources and transportation. That can make it hard to reach election offices, which in some cases are located off-reservation.

The plaintiffs in the Montana lawsuit reside in two small communities near the Canada border on the Fort Peck Reservation, home to the Assiniboine and Sioux tribes. Plaintiffs’ attorney Cher Old Elk grew up in one of those communities, Frazer, Montana, where more than a third of people live below the poverty line and the per capita income is about $12,000, according to census data.

It’s a 60-mile round trip from Frazer to the election office at the courthouse in Glasgow. Old Elk says that can force prospective voters into difficult choices.

“It’s not just the gas money; it’s actually having a vehicle that runs,” she said. “Is it food on my table, or is it the gas money to find a vehicle, to find a ride, to go to Glasgow to vote?”

The lawsuit asks a state judge for an order forcing Valley and Roosevelt counties and Republican Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to create satellite election offices in Frazer and Poplar, Montana. The offices would be open during the same hours and on the same days as the county courthouses.

The plaintiffs requested satellite election offices from the counties earlier this year, the lawsuit says. Roosevelt County officials allegedly refused, while Valley County officials said budget constraints limited them to opening a satellite voting center for just one day.

Valley County Attorney Dylan Jensen said there were only two full-time employees in the Clerk and Recorder’s Office that oversees elections, so staffing a satellite office would be problematic.

“To do that for an extended period of time and still keep regular business going, it would be difficult,” he said.

A spokesperson said Jacobsen’s office had encouraged tribes and counties to work together to establish satellite offices as needed by Jan. 31, under a 2015 state elections directive.

Two journalists who led a now-closed Hong Kong online news outlet will hear a verdict in their sedition case on Thursday, in a trial that’s seen as an indicator of press freedom in the semi-autonomous Chinese city.

The trial of Stand News ' former editor-in-chief Chung Pui-kuen and former acting editor-in-chief Patrick Lam began almost two years ago. It’s Hong Kong’s first sedition case involving media since the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997.

The journalists were charged with conspiracy to publish seditious materials under a colonial-era law that’s been increasingly used to target dissent as part of a crackdown that followed huge anti-government protests in 2019.

Here is what you need to know:

What was Stand News?

Stand News was one of the last remaining openly critical media outlets in Hong Kong following the closing of the Apple Daily newspaper in June 2021.

It was founded as a nonprofit by businessman Tony Tsoi and media veterans Yee Ka-fai and Chung in December 2014, promising to uphold independent editorial standards and writing in a founding message that the responsibility of media is to keep power in check.

During the 2019 anti-government protests, Stand News gained prominence for its live-streaming coverage from the front lines and attracted many democracy supporters for its critical reporting of the authorities.

The city’s secretary for security Chris Tang and its police criticized the outlet, saying some of its reports were “misleading,” while Hong Kong residents surveyed by the researchers at the Chinese University of Hong Kong rated it among the most credible outlets in the city in 2019.
How did the journalists wind up on trial?

In 2021, Hong Kong witnessed the shutdown of dozens of civil society groups under the shadow of a Beijing-imposed national security law, with many prominent activists arrested. In June that year, authorities arrested members of Apple Daily’s top management and froze its assets. The newspaper’s founder Jimmy Lai is now fighting collusion charges and faces up to life in prison if convicted.

On Dec. 29, 2021, police raided the Stand News office. The same day, they arrested Chung and Lam along with four former board members and Chung’s wife Chan Pui-Man, a former Apple Daily editor. Assets worth about 61 million Hong Kong dollars ($7.8 million) were frozen, forcing Stand News to close.

Of the seven people arrested, only Chung and Lam were later charged in connection to Stand News. Chan was charged in the Apple Daily case and later pleaded guilty.
What’s the bigger picture for civil liberties in Hong Kong?

Days after Stand News shut down, independent news outlet Citizen News announced it would cease operations, citing the deteriorating media environment and the potential risks to its staff.

The closing of Apple Daily, Stand News and Citizen News within months dealt a blow to the city’s once vibrant press scene.

The shutdowns were widely seen as casualties during the political crackdown on civil society. Many activists were prosecuted, silenced or forced into self-exile after the 2020 security law took effect. The Hong Kong government in March enacted a new, homegrown security law that critics fear will further curtail civil liberties.

The delivery of the verdict for the Stand News editors has been delayed several times, including once while awaiting the appeal outcome of another landmark sedition case.

Eric Lai, a research fellow at Georgetown Center for Asian Law, said the case is significant because it was the first sedition case the Hong Kong government brought against news editors and a media outlet since the 1997 handover. Lai said the British colonial government had stopped using the sedition law in its final decades.

The Hong Kong government insists the city still enjoys civil liberties, as guaranteed by its mini-constitution, and the exercise of them may be subject to restrictions that are provided by law.

George Santos, the former New York congressman who spun lies into a brief political career, pleaded guilty Monday to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, acknowledging that he allowed his ambitions to cloud his judgment.

Santos, 36, is likely to spend at least six years in prison and owes hundreds of thousands of dollars in restitution. His federal fraud case, which led to his expulsion from Congress, was just weeks away from going to trial.

“I betrayed the trust of my constituents and supporters. I deeply regret my conduct,” the New York Republican said, his voice trembling as he entered the plea in a Long Island courtroom.

Santos, 36, said he accepted responsibility for his crimes and intends to make amends. He faces more than six years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines and owes at least $370,000 in restitution.

Senior Federal Judge Joanna Seybert scheduled sentencing for Feb. 7.

Santos was indicted on felony charges that he stole from political donors, used campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses, lied to Congress about his wealth and collected unemployment benefits while actually working.

Santos was expelled from the U.S. House after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” that he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit.

The case has been set to go to trial in early September. If that had happened, federal prosecutors said Monday that they were prepared to call some 40 witnesses, including members of Santos’ campaign, employers and family members.

Santos was once touted as a rising political star after he flipped the suburban district that covers the affluent North Shore of Long Island and a slice of the New York City borough of Queens in 2022.

But his life story began unraveling even before he was sworn into office. At the time, reports emerged that he had lied about having a career at top Wall Street firms and a college degree along with other questions swirling about his biography.

New questions then emerged about his campaign funds.

He was first indicted on federal charges in May 2023, but refused to resign from office.

Santos had previously maintained his innocence, though he said in an interview in December that a plea deal with prosecutors was “not off the table.”

Asked if he was afraid of going to prison, he told CBS 2 at the time: “I think everybody should be afraid of going to jail, it’s not a pretty place and uh, I definitely want to work very hard to avoid that as best as possible.”

Separately Monday, in Manhattan federal court, Judge Denise Cote tossed out a lawsuit in which Santos claimed that late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, ABC and Disney committed copyright infringement and unjustly enriched themselves at his expense by using videos he made on the Cameo app for a “Jimmy Kimmel Live” segment. The judge said it was clear that Kimmel used the clips, which were also posted to YouTube, for the purposes of criticism and commentary, which is fair use.

Santos had begun selling personalized videos on Cameo in December shortly after his ouster from Congress. He subsequently launched, then quickly abandoned, a longshot bid to return to Congress as an independent earlier this year.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to publicly disclose additional travel on GOP megadonor Harlan Crow’s private jet, a top Democratic senator who is backing an election-year push to tighten the high court’s ethics rules said Monday.

Thomas and his wife, Virginia, took a round-trip flight between Hawaii and New Zealand in November 2010, according to international flight records maintained by Customs and Border Protection, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., wrote.

The letter to Crow’s lawyer is part of an inquiry that Wyden, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, opened after several reports that Thomas had for years received undisclosed luxury travel from Crow.

Wyden’s letter demands additional information about private jet and superyacht trips. “I am deeply concerned that Mr. Crow may have been showering a public official with extravagant gifts, then writing off those gifts to lower his tax bill,” he wrote. The letter was first reported by The New York Times.

A spokesman for Crow said he has always followed tax law and Wyden’s inquiries have “no legal basis.” “It’s concerning that Senator Wyden is abusing his committee’s powers as part of a politically motivated campaign against the Supreme Court,” said spokesman Michael Zona in a statement.

The Senate Judiciary Committee previously uncovered at least three additional trips in its own investigation, including to Indonesia and California.

Democrats, including President Joe Biden, are separately pushing for changes to the high court, and seeking to capture voter attention in an election year after ethical revelations about some justices, including trips by Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito.

In recent days, Justice Elena Kagan has voiced support for an enforceable ethics code for her and her colleagues. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in an interview with The Associated Press last week, declined to comment on proposals on ethics and term limits for the high court.

A court in the United Arab Emirates sentenced dozens of Bangladeshi nationals to prison, including three for life imprisonment, over protests against their home government in the Gulf country, state media reported Monday.

The Abu Dhabi Federal Court of Appeal on Sunday handed 10-year prison sentences to 53 Bangladeshi nationals and an 11-year term to another Bangladeshi national, in addition to the three life imprisonments, according to the state-owned Emirates News Agency, WAM. The court ordered the deportation of the Bangladeshis from the UAE following their prison terms.

“The court heard a witness who confirmed that the defendants gathered and organised large-scale marches in several streets of the UAE in protest against decisions made by the Bangladeshi government,” WAM reported.

On Saturday, authorities in the United Arab Emirates ordered an investigation and an expedited trial of the arrested Bangladeshi nationals. The protests in the UAE followed weeks of demonstrations in Bangladesh by people upset about a quota system that reserved up to 30% of government jobs for relatives of veterans who fought in Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971. The country’s top court on Sunday scaled back the controversial system, in a partial victory for the mostly student protesters.

The UAE’s attorney general’s office on Saturday indicted the Bangladeshis on several charges, including “gathering in a public place and protesting against their home government with the intent to incite unrest,” obstructing law enforcement, causing harm to others and damaging property, according to WAM.

Bangladeshi nationals make up the UAE’s third-largest expatriate community. Many of them are low-paid laborers seeking to send money back home to their families. The Emirates’ overall population of more than 9.2 million is only 10% Emirati.

Political parties and labor unions are banned in the UAE, a federation of seven sheikhdoms. Broad laws severely restrict freedom of speech and almost all major local media are either state-owned or state-affiliated outlets.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for a Texas man 20 minutes before he was to receive a lethal injection Tuesday evening. The inmate has long maintained DNA testing would help prove he wasn’t responsible for the fatal stabbing of an 85-year-old woman during a home robbery decades ago.

The nation’s high court issued the indefinite stay shortly before inmate Ruben Gutierrez was to have been taken to the death chamber of a Huntsville prison.

Gutierrez was condemned for the 1998 killing of Escolastica Harrison at her home in Brownsville in Texas’ southern tip. Prosecutors said the killing of the mobile home park manager and retired teacher was part of an attempt to steal more than $600,000 she had hidden in her home because of her mistrust of banks.

Gutierrez has sought DNA testing that he claims would help prove he had no role in her death. His attorneys have said there’s no physical or forensic evidence connecting him to the killing. Two others also were charged in the case.

The high court’s brief order, released about 5:40 p.m. CDT, said its stay of execution would remain in effect until the justices decide whether they should review his appeal request. If the court denies the request, the execution reprieve would automatically be lifted.

Gutierrez, who had been set to die after 6 p.m. CDT, was in a holding cell near the death chamber when prison warden Kelly Strong advised him of the court’s intervention.

“He was visibly emotional,” prison spokeswoman Amanda Hernandez said, adding he was not expecting the court stay. “We asked him if he wanted to make a statement but he needed a minute.”

“He turned around to the back of the cell, covered his mouth. He was tearing up, speechless. He was shocked.”

She said Gutierrez then prayed with a prison chaplain and added: “God is great!”

Gutierrez has had several previous execution dates in recent years that have been delayed, including over issues related to having a spiritual adviser in the death chamber. In June 2020, Gutierrez was about an hour away from execution when he got a stay from the Supreme Court.

In the most recent appeal, Gutierrez’s attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing Texas has denied his right under state law to post-conviction DNA testing that would show he would not have been eligible for the death penalty.