House Republicans issued a subpoena Tuesday to a federal prosecutor involved in the criminal investigation into Hunter Biden, demanding answers for what they allege is Justice Department interference in the yearslong case into the president’s son.

Rep. Jim Jordan, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, called on Lesley Wolf, the assistant U.S. attorney for Delaware, to appear before the committee by Dec. 7, according to a copy of the congressional subpoena obtained by The Associated Press.

“Based on the Committee’s investigation to date, it is clear that you possess specialized and unique information that is unavailable to the Committee through other sources and without which the Committee’s inquiry would be incomplete,” Jordan wrote in an accompanying letter to Wolf.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The subpoena to Wolf is the latest in a series of demands Jordan and fellow Republican chairmen have made as part of their sprawling impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. His youngest son Hunter and brother James received subpoenas last week as Republicans look to gain ground in their nearly yearlong investigation, which has so failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing.

The inquiry is focused both on the Biden family’s international business affairs and the Justice Department’s investigation into Hunter Biden, which Republicans claim has been slow-walked and stonewalled since the case was opened in 2018.

Wolf, who serves with David Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware in charge of the case, has been accused by whistleblowers from the Internal Revenue Service of “deviating from standard investigative protocol” and showing preferential treatment because Hunter Biden is the president’s son.

Republicans have claimed that it was clear that the prosecutors didn’t want to touch anything that would include Hunter Biden’s father. In one instance, Gary Shapley, an IRS employee assigned to the case, testified that in a meeting with Weiss and Wolf after the 2020 election, he and other agents wanted to discuss an email between Hunter Biden associates where one person made reference to the “big guy.” Shapley said Wolf refused to do so, saying she did not want to ask questions about “dad.”

Other claims relate to an August 2020 email in which Wolf ordered investigators to remove any mention of “Political Figure 1,” who was known to be Biden, from a search warrant. In another incident, FBI officials notified Hunter Biden’s Secret Service detail in advance of an effort to interview him and several of his business associates in order to avoid a potential shoot-out between two law enforcement bodies.

Justice Department officials have countered these claims by pointing to the extraordinary set of circumstances surrounding a criminal case into a subject who at the time was the son of a leading presidential candidate. Department policy has long warned prosecutors to take care in charging cases with potential political overtones around the time of an election, to avoid any possible influence on the outcome.

A federal appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order on Donald Trump in his 2020 election interference case in Washington on Friday — the latest twist in the legal fight over the restrictions on the former president’s speech.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision puts a hold on the limited gag order to give the judges time to consider Trump’s request for a longer pause on the restrictions while his appeals play out. The appeals court said the temporary pause “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of Trump’s bid.

The court set oral arguments for Nov. 20 before a panel of three judges — all appointees of Democratic presidents. The gag order, imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, bars Trump from making public statements targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses in the case accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election he lost to President Joe Biden. It still allows the former president to assert his innocence and his claims that the case against him is politically motivated.

Chutkan, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama reimposed the gag order on Sunday, after prosecutors pointed to Trump’s recent social media comments about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows.

It’s the most serious restriction a court has put on the speech of the GOP presidential primary frontrunner and criminal defendant in four separate cases. Gag orders are not unheard of in high-profile cases, but courts have never had to wrestle before with whether they can curtail the speech of a presidential candidate.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has said Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric about those involved in the case threatens to undermine public confidence in the judicial system and influence potential witnesses who could be called to testify.

A Missouri appeals court ruled Tuesday against Republican-written summaries of abortion-rights ballot measures that described several proposed amendments as allowing “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.”

A three-judge panel of the Western District Court of Appeals found the summaries written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, who is running for governor in 2024, are politically partisan.

Ballot summaries are used on Missouri ballots to help voters understand sometimes lengthy and complex constitutional amendments and policy changes.

Ashcroft’s original description of the amendments, which could go on the ballot in 2024 if supporters gather enough voter signatures, would have asked voters whether they want to “allow for dangerous, unregulated, and unrestricted abortions, from conception to live birth, without requiring a medical license or potentially being subject to medical malpractice.”

But the appeals-court panel wrote that allowing unrestricted abortion “during all nine months of pregnancy is not a probable effect of initiatives.”

The judges largely upheld summaries that were rewritten by a lower court judge to be more impartial.

The summaries approved by the appeals court would tell voters the amendments would “establish a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraceptives” and “remove Missouri’s ban on abortion.” Ashcroft said he plans to appeal the ruling.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey defiantly pushed back against federal corruption charges on Monday, saying nearly half a million dollars in cash authorities found in his home was from his personal savings, not from bribes, and was on hand for emergencies.

Rejecting rising calls for him to resign, the influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said he believed he’d be cleared of charges that he took cash and gold in illegal exchange for helping Egypt and New Jersey business associates.

“I recognize this will be the biggest fight yet, but as I have stated throughout this whole process, I firmly believe that when all the facts are presented, not only will I be exonerated, but I still will be New Jersey’s senior senator,” Menendez said at Hudson County Community College’s campus in Union City, where he grew up. He did not respond to questions and did not say whether he would seek reelection next year.

Addressing allegations in the indictment unsealed Friday that authorities found cash stuffed in envelopes and clothing at his home, Menendez said that stemmed from his parents’ fear of confiscation of funds from their time in Cuba.

“This may seem old fashioned, but these were monies drawn from my personal savings account based on the income that I have lawfully derived over those 30 years,” he said.

Authorities recovered about 10 envelopes with tens of thousands of dollars in cash that had the fingerprints of one of the other defendants in the case on them, according to the indictment.

Menendez also addressed his relationship with Egypt, which plays a central role in the indictment against him, suggesting he’s been tough on the country over its detention of Americans and other “human rights abuses.”

“If you look at my actions related to Egypt during the period described in this indictment and throughout my whole career, my record is clear and consistent in holding Egypt accountable,” he said.

Prosecutors say he met with Egyptian military and intelligence officials, passed along non-public information about employees at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and ghostwrote a letter on behalf of Egypt asking his Senate colleagues to release a hold on $300 million worth of aid. He did not directly address those allegations Monday.

The state’s Democratic leadership, including Gov. Phil Murphy, the state party chairmen and leaders of the Legislature, along with some of Menendez’s congressional colleagues, are calling on him to resign.

In Washington, however, where his party holds a bare Senate majority, some of Menendez’s Democratic colleagues have stopped short of urging him to give up his seat, notably Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, and Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.

The wording of a proposed constitutional amendment on Ohio’s fall ballot to ensure abortion rights seems straightforward: It would enshrine the right “to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions.”

Yet as the campaigning for and against the nation’s latest tug-of-war over abortion begins in earnest this weekend, voters are getting a different message from the measure’s opponents. They are characterizing it as threatening a wide range of parental rights.

“As parents, it’s our worst nightmare,” one particularly ominous online ad funded by Protect Women Ohio, the opposition campaign, says of November’s Issue 1. That ad suggests the amendment would let minors end pregnancies without parental permission, calling it “a potential reality so grim it’s hard to even imagine.” Another suggests parents would have no say in minors’ ”sex change surgery.”

It’s no surprise that anti-abortion groups opposed to the amendment are promoting that message. They are trying to flip the script in how they talk to voters after a string of losses in statewide ballot fights since the U.S. Supreme Court ended a nationwide right to abortion last year.

Measures protecting access to abortion have succeeded in Democratic- and Republican-leaning states, including California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont.

Data collected last year by AP VoteCast, a broad survey of the electorate, showed that 59% of Ohio voters believe abortion should generally be legal. Just last month, Ohio voters soundly defeated a measure that GOP lawmakers placed on a special election ballot that would have raised the threshold to pass constitutional amendments to 60% — a proposal seen as a first step to defeating the abortion amendment.

Before what is expected to be the highest profile national issue in November’s elections, Ohio also is serving as a testing ground for political messaging headed into next year’s presidential race. Abortion rights groups are trying to qualify initiatives in more states in 2024, potentially including the perennial battleground of Arizona.

To try to reverse their string of losses, anti-abortion groups are using the Ohio campaign to test arguments over parental rights and gender-related health care as potentially a winning counterpunch.

“It’s clear that the misinformation about abortion is not winning,” said Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights. “It didn’t win in Michigan. It didn’t win in Vermont. It didn’t win in Kansas. It didn’t win in Kentucky. So instead, we are seeing anti-abortion factions in search for that new, winning talking point.”

Legal experts disagree over what effect, if any, the Ohio amendment would have on parents’ ability to control their children’s access to abortion and gender-related health care, including surgery.

Congressional leaders are pitching a stopgap government funding package to avoid a federal shutdown after next month, acknowledging the House and Senate are nowhere near agreement on spending levels to keep federal operations running.

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy raised the idea of a months-long funding package, known as a continuing resolution, to House Republicans on a members-only call Monday evening, according to those familiar with the private session and granted anonymity to discuss it.

On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the two leaders had spoken about such a temporary measure. It would extend federal funding operations into December to allow more time to work on the annual spending bills.

“I thought it was a good thing that he recognized that we need a CR,” Schumer, D-N.Y., told reporters on a call. “We hope that our House Republicans will realize that any funding resolution has to be bipartisan or they will risk shutting down the government,” he said.

A stopgap measure that would keep government offices running past the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year is a typical strategy while the Republican-held House and Democrat-held Senate try to iron out a long-term budget agreement. The government’s new fiscal year begins on Oct. 1, when funding approval is needed to avert closures of federal offices.

But this year, the task may prove more politically difficult. McCarthy will need to win over a large portion of his Republican colleagues to pass the stopgap bill or risk political blowback from staunch conservatives if he leaves them behind and cuts a bipartisan deal with Democrats.

Conservatives, including many from the House Freedom Caucus, are usually loathe to get behind short-term funding measures as they push for steeper spending cuts, using the threat of a shutdown as leverage.

People seeking medication abortions on the U.S. Territory of Guam must first have an in-person consultation with a doctor, a federal appeals court says, even though the nearest physician willing to prescribe the medication is 3,800 miles (6,100 kilometers) — an 8-hour flight — away.

The ruling handed down Tuesday by a unanimous three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could make it even more difficult for pregnant people to access abortions on the remote island where 85% of residents are Catholic and about 1 in 5 live below the poverty line. The last doctor to provide abortions in Guam retired in 2018, leaving people seeking the procedure without local options.

That changed in 2021 when a lower court partially lifted the territory’s in-person consultation requirement and said two Guam-licensed physicians in Hawaii could provide medication abortions via telemedicine to people in Guam. The appellate court panel reversed that ruling Tuesday, saying Guam can enact the laws it thinks are best, even if others find them unwise.

“Guam has legitimate interests in requiring an in-person consultation: the consultation can underscore the medical and moral gravity of an abortion and encourage a robust exchange of information,” wrote Judge Kenneth K. Lee.

Lee was appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2018 along with fellow panel member Judge Daniel P. Collins. The third member of the panel, Judge Carlos T. Bea, was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003.

Abortion rights advocates contend having no doctors able to provide abortions on the island creates a significant challenge to people seeking care. The court ruled other doctors there could conduct the in-person consultations even if they do not want to personally perform abortions themselves. It’s not clear if any physicians in Guam are willing to take on that role.

“We are deeply disappointed that the court is permitting medically unnecessary government mandates to once again be enforced,” said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, the deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project. “Today’s decision imposes unnecessary obstacles on people seeking abortion in Guam, but make no mistake, abortion remains legal in Guam and we will continue to do everything in our power to make sure it stays both legal and accessible.”