The Supreme Court struck down a Hawaii law requiring people to get permission to carry guns into stores and hotels on Thursday, in its latest opinion backing Second Amendment rights.

The high court's 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments. It comes shortly after the court found that marijuana users can't be completely banned from owning firearms.

It's a win for President Donald Trump's Republican administration, which argued the law violates the Second Amendment. The measure was sometimes referred to as a "vampire rule" because it required people with guns get permission to enter, like vampire lore says bloodsuckers need an invitation to enter a home.

Hawaii argued that the 2023 measure ensured private owners could decide whether they wanted firearms on their property. The state passed the law as thousands more people got legal permission to carry guns in the wake of a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that found the Second Amendment gives most people the right to have guns in public.

About four other states have enacted similar laws, though presumptive restrictions for guns on private property open to the public have also been blocked elsewhere.

Hawaii also restricts guns in places like parks, beaches and restaurants that serve alcohol, but those rules weren't before the court. They are being challenged in lower courts, however.

The suit before the Supreme Court was filed by a gun rights group, the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, and three people from Maui. A judge originally blocked the measure, but an appeals court allowed it to be enforced. Trump's Republican administration backed the Supreme Court appeal.

The Second Amendment Foundation applauded the ruling. "This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens, and we're grateful the Supreme Court saw through the ruse," said Alan Gottlieb, its founder and executive vice president.

The gun-control group Everytown Law called the decision disappointing but pointed out that business owners can still post signs forbidding firearms on their properties. "The Supreme Court may have changed the default rule, but it cannot take away a private property owner's authority over their own land," said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation.

The two Second Amendment decisions this term are the latest in a series of gun cases that have come before the Supreme Court in the wake of its 2022 ruling that led to a flood of challenges to firearm restrictions around the country. The justices have since struck down a ban on bump stocks, gun accessories that enable rapid firing, but upheld a federal gun law intended to protect domestic violence victims as well as strict regulations on firearms known as ghost guns, which are nearly impossible to trace.

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Thursday in upholding the power of federal regulators to enforce data privacy laws on telecommunications companies.

The 8-1 decision preserved one of the Federal Communications Commission's key tools, though the companies also won a concession from the Republican administration that could shift the regulatory landscape.

The appeal from telecommunications giants Verizon and AT&T challenged a combined $100 million in penalties imposed after the agency determined that the companies had failed to safeguard customer location data.

The companies argued that the FCC's process was unconstitutional because it gave them little opportunity to tell their side of the story in front of a jury.

The administration defended the fines as an essential regulatory tool. But the government also said companies did not have to pay the penalties right away, a regulatory shift in the companies' favor.

The Supreme Court agreed, affirming the FCC's power to order fines when challenges are still available.

"The orders at issue did not settle the carriers' legal obligations because, stated simply, they did not create an obligation to pay," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the lone dissenter, said he would have given the two telecom companies a clearer path to recouping the fines they already paid.

Other agencies use similar enforcement methods, so a sweeping victory for AT&T and Verizon could have had widespread effects, advocates said.

The environmental group Earthjustice applauded the ruling, saying it has direct implications for other agencies and a key energy-efficiency case.

"By rejecting this unsupported attack on agency authority, the Court's decision safeguards the government's ability to enforce laws that protect people, communities, and the environment," said Caroline Flynn, the group's Supreme Court counsel.

The libertarian-leaning New Civil Liberties Alliance was disappointed by the decision, but expected it to help other companies in the future. "In fact, it may even buttress their willingness to challenge future agency orders in federal court before paying any penalties," said the alliance's president, Mark Chenoweth.

A few more carriers may decide to litigate, but the decision leaves the FCC with the power to "publicly announce large fines with much fanfare," said Doug Orvis, a veteran telecom attorney. "It will be interesting to see what happens going forward."

The Supreme Court's conservative majority has sided against federal agencies and limited their power before. That includes overturning a decades-old decision that had given regulators an advantage in court and stripping another agency of a major tool in fighting securities fraud.

The estranged husband of former Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon pleaded guilty Monday to embezzling more than 400,000 pounds ($540,000) from the Scottish National Party to fund a lavish lifestyle when he was its chief executive.

Peter Murrell, 61, who was remanded into custody in the High Court in Edinburgh after his plea, admitted he used the money to buy a motorhome, two cars and luxury goods.

"By embezzling from the SNP, Peter Murrell was stealing the hopes, the dreams and the aspirations of thousands of people all over Scotland, people who gave what they could over many years in the hope that it would help contribute to a better country," SNP leader John Swinney said at a press conference. "I am horrified, I am betrayed."

Murrell's plea caps a five-year police investigation and a tumultuous period for Scotland's dominant party and the former power couple once at its helm.

Following big gains for the SNP in the Scottish Parliament in 2021, signs of internal turmoil exploded less than two years later as questions swirled about the SNP's finances and dwindling membership numbers.

Sturgeon, who dominated Scottish politics for almost a decade, abruptly resigned as first minister of Scotland's semi-autonomous government in February 2023 after serving more than eight years in the role. Observers were bewildered by her announcement that she knew in her "head and in my heart" that it was the right time to go.

A month later, Murrell quit his job after two decades as party executive. He took responsibility for misleading the news media about the collapsing membership of the party.

Three weeks later, police showed up at the couple's Glasgow home and arrested Murrell.

Officers spent two days searching the house. They also searched SNP headquarters in Edinburgh and confiscated a luxury motorhome parked in the driveway at Murrell's mother's home north of the capital.

Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston said the investigation, which cost 2 million pounds ($2.7 million) in public funds, was lengthy and complex because Murrell covered his tracks over a 12-year period by cooking the books.

"Peter Murrell has shown utter contempt for the high public trust placed in him," Houston said. "He abused his privileged position with access to Scottish National Party funds to divert cash into his own accounts and bankroll the lavish lifestyle he craved but could not afford."

Sentencing was scheduled for June 23.

Police Scotland's investigation into how the SNP spent more than 600,000 pounds ($810,000) designated for a Scottish independence campaign cast a cloud over the party, Sturgeon and her legacy.

President Lyndon B. Johnson knew the legislation he was about to sign was momentous, one that took courage for certain members of Congress to pass since the vote could cost them their seats.

To honor that, he took the unusual step of leaving the Oval Office and going to Capitol Hill for the signing ceremony. It was Aug. 6, 1965, five months after the "Bloody Sunday" attack on civil rights marchers in Selma, Alabama, gave momentum to the bill that became known as the Voting Rights Act.

In the six decades since, it became one of the most consequential laws in the nation's history, preventing discrimination against minorities at the ballot box and helping to elect thousands of Black and Hispanic representatives at all levels of government.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked out a major pillar of the law that had protected against racial discrimination in voting and representation. It was a decision that came more than a decade after the court undermined another key tenet of the law and led to restrictive voting laws in a number of states.

Voting and civil rights advocates were left fearful of what lies ahead for minority communities. "It means that you have entire communities that can go without having representation," said Cliff Albright, a co-founder of the group Black Voters Matter. "It is literally throwing us back to the Jim Crow era unapologetically, and that's not exaggeration."

Kareem Crayton, vice president of the Brennan Center for Justice's Washington office, said the court's steady work to erode the Voting Rights Act, culminating in Wednesday's decision, amounted to "burying it without the funeral."

The Supreme Court's ruling came in a congressional redistricting case out of Louisiana after the state created a district that gave the state its second Black representative to Congress.

It found that map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander because it took race into account to draw the lines. In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the court's conservative majority said the provision of the Voting Rights Act in question, called Section 2, was designed to protect voters from intentional discrimination.

Spirit Airlines, an impish upstart that shook the industry with its irreverent ads and deep discount fares, announced Saturday that it has gone out of business after 34 years.

The ultralow cost airline that once operated hundreds of daily flights on its bright yellow planes and employed about 17,000 people said it had "started an orderly wind-down of our operations, effective immediately."

The airline said on its website that all flights have been canceled and customer service is no longer available.

"We are proud of the impact of our ultra-low-cost model on the industry over the last 34 years and had hoped to serve our guests for many years to come," the announcement said.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Saturday that Spirit had a reserve fund set up for customers who bought directly from the airline to get refunds. People who bought from third-party vendors like travel agents would have to seek refunds from them. He had a stark message for people flying with Spirit.

"If you have a flight scheduled with Spirit Airlines, don't show up at the airport. There will be no one here to assist you," Duffy said.

He said United, Delta, JetBlue and Southwest were offering $200 one-way flights for people who could confirm that they had Spirit confirmation numbers and proof of purchase for a limited time. Duffy also said other airlines would help with Spirit employees who might be stranded as well as offering them a preferential application process as they look for work.

Spirit said in a statement it was working to get more than 1,300 crew to their home bases and that the final Spirit flight landed at Dallas Forth Worth International Airport from Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

The company advised customers that they could expect refunds but there would be no help in booking travel on other airlines.

Five Spirit flights were still showing as "on time" on Saturday morning on the departure board in Atlanta, one of the airline's smaller stations.

A trickle of passengers who hadn't heard the news were still showing up, including Joshua Sigler, who had bought a ticket Friday for a flight Saturday to Miami.

"I'm just going to go back home," said Sigler, who didn't try to take advantage of deals some other airlines were offering to displaced Spirit passengers.

He said he had gotten no communication from Spirit, which he had flown multiple times in the past. "They get you there," he said of past flights. "It was cheap."

Former Spirit flight attendant Freddy Peterson was on a Spirit flight from Detroit that arrived in Newark around 11 p.m. Friday. He said that despite rumors flying on social media Friday, things seemed kind of normal, with more than 200 passengers on the plane.

"All our aircraft were packed," he said.

Peterson, 60, said he set his alarm clock for 3 a.m. Saturday to check the company website at the hour of the rumored shutdown.

"I said, OK, well, since all this going on, they said Spirit is supposed to close at 3, I'm going to bed. I set my alarm clock for 3 o'clock, went onto the website and it said, 'Spirit flights have been canceled,'" Peterson said.

He said Delta Air Lines brought him and another flight attendant back to Atlanta on Saturday morning, with Peterson leaving from there to drive to his home in Shellman in southwest Georgia.

"I'll probably do my boo-hoo crying and all that other stuff once I get in the car."

Peterson said he had been a flight attendant with Spirit for 10 years and the company has "done wonders for me." He said the airline's reputation for bargain basement chaos was largely undeserved, but he did fault management for not communicating with the employees in the closing days, saying a promised employee town hall was canceled.

The Trump administration had considered a government bailout for the cash-strapped business to keep it from going under, but a deal was not reached. Of the potential bailout, Duffy said Saturday "we often times don't have half a billion dollars laying around."

President Donald Trump had floated the idea of a bailout last week after the airline found itself in bankruptcy proceedings for the second time in less than two years with jet fuel prices soaring because of the Iran war.

As late as Friday afternoon, Trump had said that "we're looking at it" and had given the budget carrier a "final proposal" for a taxpayer-funded takeover.

Spirit has struggled financially since the COVID-19 pandemic, weighed down by rising operating costs and growing debt. By the time it filed for Chapter 11 protection in November 2024, Spirit had lost more than $2.5 billion since the start of 2020.

The budget carrier sought bankruptcy protection again in August 2025, when it reported having $8.1 billion in debts and $8.6 billion in assets, according to court filings.

The White House had blamed President Joe Biden administration for Spirit's tenuous financial situation. Biden, a Democrat, opposed a proposed merger between Spirit and JetBlue in 2023. On Saturday, Trump administration officials took to social media to amplify voices of conservative critics who faulted Biden for Spirit's demise.

On Saturday, Duffy concentrated blame on Biden as well as his predecessar Pete Buttigieg.

"Many at the time said that this was a disaster. This merger should have been allowed," he said.

Supporters of a rescue including labor unions representing Spirit's pilots, flight attendants and ramp workers said a collapse would put thousands of Americans out of work and hurt consumers by reducing airline competition and increasing airfares. About 17,000 jobs could be impacted, according to Spirit lawyer Marshall Huebner.

Budget-conscious and leisure travelers would likely feel Spirit's absence the most, especially in places where the airline has a big footprint such as Las Vegas and the Florida cities of Fort Lauderdale and Orlando.

The carrier flew about 1.7 million domestic passengers in February, roughly half a million fewer than during the same month a year earlier, according to aviation analytics firm Cirium. Spirit also has sharply reduced its capacity, with about half as many seats available this month than in May 2024.

An appeals court on Friday blocked President Donald Trump's executive order suspending asylum access at the southern border of the U.S., a key pillar of the Republican president's plan to crack down on migration.

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that immigration laws give people the right to apply for asylum at the border, and the president can't circumvent that.

The court opinion stems from action taken by Trump on Inauguration Day 2025, when he declared that the situation at the southern border constituted an invasion of America and that he was "suspending the physical entry" of migrants and their ability to seek asylum until he decides it is over.

The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't authorize the president to remove the plaintiffs under "procedures of his own making," allow him to suspend plaintiffs' right to apply for asylum or curtail procedures for adjudicating their anti-torture claims.

"The power by proclamation to temporarily suspend the entry of specified foreign individuals into the United States does not contain implicit authority to override the INA's mandatory process to summarily remove foreign individuals," wrote Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was nominated to the bench by Democratic President Joe Biden.

"We conclude that the INA's text, structure, and history make clear that in supplying power to suspend entry by Presidential proclamation, Congress did not intend to grant the Executive the expansive removal authority it asserts," the opinion said.

The administration can ask the full appeals court to reconsider the ruling or go to the Supreme Court.

The order doesn't formally take effect until after the court considers any request to reconsider.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, speaking on Fox News, said she had not seen the ruling but called it "unsurprising," blaming politically-motivated judges.

"They are not acting as true litigators of the law. They are looking at these cases from a political lens," she said.

Leavitt said Trump was taking actions that are "completely within his powers as commander in chief."

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the Department of Justice would seek further review of the decision. "We are sure we will be vindicated," she wrote in an emailed statement.

The Department of Homeland Security said it strongly disagreed with the ruling.

"President Trump's top priority remains the screening and vetting of all aliens seeking to come, live, or work in the United States," DHS said in a statement.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that previous legal action had already paused the asylum ban, and the ruling won't change much on the ground.

The ruling, however, represents another legal defeat for a centerpiece policy of the president.

"This confirms that President Trump cannot on his own bar people from seeking asylum, that it is Congress that has mandated that asylum seekers have a right to apply for asylum and the President cannot simply invoke his authority to sustain," said Reichlin-Melnick.

Advocates say the right to request asylum is enshrined in the country's immigration law and say denying migrants that right puts people fleeing war or persecution in grave danger.

Lee Gelernt, attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued the case, said in a statement that the appellate ruling is "essential for those fleeing danger who have been denied even a hearing to present asylum claims under the Trump administration's unlawful and inhumane executive order."

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, welcomed the court decision as a victory for their clients.

A U.S. special forces soldier involved in the military operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has been charged with using classified information about the mission to win more than $400,000 in an online betting market, federal officials announced Thursday.

Gannon Ken Van Dyke was part of the operation to capture Maduro in January and used his access to classified information to make money on the prediction market site Polymarket, the federal prosecutor's office in New York said.

He has been charged by the Justice Department with unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud and making an unlawful monetary transaction. He could face years in prison.

Van Dyke, 38, was involved in the planning and execution of capturing Maduro for about a month beginning Dec. 8, 2025, according to the federal prosecutor's office. Even though he signed nondisclosure agreements promising to not divulge "any classified or sensitive information" related to the operations, prosecutors say the Army soldier used this information to make a series of bets related to Maduro being out of power by Jan. 31, 2026.

"This involved a U.S. soldier who allegedly took advantage of his position to profit off of a righteous military operation," FBI Director Kash Patel said in a post to social media.

A telephone number listed for Van Dyke in public records was not in service. There was not yet an attorney listed for him in court documents.

Polymarket, one of the largest prediction markets in the world, said it had found someone trading on classified government information, alerted the U.S. Department of Justice and "cooperated with their investigation."

"Insider trading has no place on Polymarket," the company said in a statement.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the federal agency that regulates prediction markets, announced Thursday it had filed a parallel complaint against Van Dyke.

That complaint alleges that Van Dyke moved $35,000 from his personal bank account into a cryptocurrency exchange account on Dec. 26 — a little over a week before U.S. forces would fly into Caracas and seize Maduro.

Van Dyke used more than $32,500 to make a series of bets on when Maduro might be removed from power, according to the complaint. He placed those bets between Dec. 30 and Jan. 2, with the vast majority occurring the night of Jan. 2 — just hours before the first missiles would fall on Caracas.

In the early hours of Jan. 3, President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform a photo of the now-captured Venezuelan leader, wearing a gray sweatsuit, headphones and a blindfold.

The bets Van Dyke made on Maduro leaving power resulted in "more than $404,000 of profits," the complaint said. Bets on three other Venezuela-related contracts netted the solider more than $5,000, according to the document.

"The defendant was entrusted with confidential information about U.S. operations and yet took action that endangered U.S. national security and put the lives of American service members in harm's way," said Michael Selig, the commission's chairman.

The massive profits from the well-timed bets aroused public attention days after the raid and brought bipartisan calls for stricter regulation of the markets where people can wager on just about anything.

Officials allege that shortly after the operation, Van Dyke put most of the money he won in a foreign cryptocurrency vault and then into a new brokerage account. He also asked Polymarket to delete his account, saying he had lost access to his email associated with the account, according to the federal prosecutor's office.