ARLINGTON, Texas (AP) — Police say a 17-year-old has been arrested on a murder warrant after fatally shooting a schoolmate on the campus of an Arlington, Texas, high school.

The slain student was identified as 18-year-old Etavian Barnes by the Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office.

Barnes was found unresponsive with multiple gunshot wounds Wednesday afternoon outside portable buildings on the campus of Bowie High School, according to Arlington Police Chief Al Jones.

No other injuries were reported.

The suspect, who was also a student at the school, was arrested a short time later near the campus, according to Jones, who said the two apparently knew each other.

“We’re still early on in our investigation, our detectives are working to determine a motive,” Jones said.

Jones said the shooting was reported about 2:50 p.m., shortly before classes were scheduled to be dismissed, and the school was placed on lockdown for about two hours before students were allowed to leave.

Arlington Independent School District Superintendent Matt Smith said classes at the school are canceled for Thursday.

“Honestly, I’m at a loss for words by this tragedy,” Smith said. “Schools are supposed to be a place of learning and growth” but that was interrupted by what he called “senseless violence.”

Smith said counselors will be available to students and staff when classes resume.

NEW YORK (AP) — The Federal Trade Commission is sending more than $5.6 million in refunds to consumers as part of a settlement with Amazon-owned Ring, which was charged with failing to protect private video footage from outside access.

In a 2023 complaint, the FTC accused the doorbell camera and home security provider of allowing its employees and contractors to access customers’ private videos. Ring allegedly used such footage to train algorithms without consent, among other purposes.

Ring was also charged with failing to implement key security protections, which enabled hackers to take control of customers’ accounts, cameras and videos. This led to “egregious violations of users’ privacy,” the FTC noted.

The resulting settlement required Ring to delete content that was found to be unlawfully obtained, establish stronger security protections and pay a hefty fine. The FTC says that it’s now using much of that money to refund eligible Ring customers.

According to a Tuesday notice, the FTC is sending 117,044 PayPal payments to impacted consumers who had certain types of Ring devices — including indoor cameras — during the timeframes that the regulators allege unauthorized access took place.

Eligible customers will need to redeem these payments within 30 days, according to the FTC — which added that consumers can contact this case’s refund administrator, Rust Consulting, or visit the FTC’s FAQ page on refunds for more information about the process.

In a statement sent to The Associated Press, Ring said that bad actors took emails and passwords that were “stolen from other companies to unlawfully log into Ring accounts of certain customers” who used the same credentials on multiple sites back in 2019 — adding that the company promptly addressed this by notifying those it discovered to be “exposed in a third-party, non-Ring incident” and taking action to protect impacted accounts.

Ring did not immediately address the FTC’s allegations of employees and contractors unlawfully accessing footage.

Earlier this year, the California-based company separately announced that it would stop allowing police departments to request doorbell camera footage from users, marking an end to a feature that had drawn criticism from privacy advocates.

ATLANTA (AP) — Workers at auto plants in the South should be free to unionize without pressure from employers or anti-union governors, acting U.S. Labor Secretary Julie Su said Thursday, even as some southern states pass laws to inhibit organized labor.

“That choice belongs to the worker, free from intervention, either by the employer or by politicians, free from retaliation and threats,” Su told The Associated Press in an interview Thursday in Atlanta. “And what we are seeing is that workers who were thought to be too vulnerable to assert that right are doing it, and they’re doing it here in the South.”

The United Auto Workers union vowed a broad campaign to organize southern auto assembly plants after winning lucrative new contracts in a confrontation with Detroit’s automakers. Last week, 73% of those voting at a Volkswagen AG plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee chose to join the UAW. It was the union’s first in a Southern assembly plant owned by a foreign automaker.

Workers at Mercedes factories in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, will vote on UAW representation in May, and the company has also targeted plants in Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina and Texas.

But political and business leaders in southern states have long fought organized labor. Ahead of the Volkswagen vote, six Southern Republican governors criticized the UAW’s organizing drive, arguing that autoworkers who vote for union representation would jeopardize jobs. Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee on Monday called the union vote “a mistake” and “a loss for workers.”

Ford Motor Co. CEO Jim Farley said in February that his company will “think carefully” about where it will build new vehicles after the UAW’s strike last year. If the UAW organizes other automakers, it could raise their costs, leading them to build more vehicles outside the United States. But Su said President Joe Biden’s administration is focused on supporting jobs in the country, noting grants to automakers to support a transition to electric vehicles.

“So the auto industry is an iconic American industry,” Su said before speaking to the African American Mayors Association. “We want to make sure that employers who do right by their workers, who come to the bargaining table in good faith, who negotiate fair contracts, can also thrive and profit by using U.S. workers.”

Biden is backing unions in other ways. Su noted the administration in January finalized a rule mandating unionized labor on all federal construction projects costing more than $35 million, despite complaints from nonunion contractors that the rule reduces competition and increases costs.

“That’s one way that we ensure that you’ve got good union workers on jobs,” Su said, saying union labor agreements are rising sharply on construction projects.

Southern states are also pushing laws that would claw back economic incentive dollars if companies recognize unions without requiring a secret ballot election. Every major southern auto plant has received state economic development assistance.

Federal law also allows employers to recognize unions if a majority of workers return signed cards authorizing unions to represent them, a process known as card check. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp signed such a law Monday; Lee signed one in Tennessee last year. Alabama lawmakers are advancing such a measure.

Supporters believe unions can unfairly pressure workers into signing cards, while employers have a better chance of defeating unions in secret ballot elections. But those who support unions argue the laws violate the National Labor Relations Act, which allows voluntary recognition. They also say that employers use secret ballot elections to scare workers away from unions.

Su said she’s not sure if the Labor Department will seek to challenge the laws, noting the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union affairs, has primary responsibility. But she said that “there are federal standards beneath which no worker should have to live and work.”

Su also decried union busting activity by employers, calling it “unacceptable.” She cited a 2017 survey that showed nearly half of American workers would vote to unionize if they had the opportunity.

“This is part of President Biden’s promise to center workers in the economy,” Su said. “He has said he’s the most pro-worker, pro-union president in history, and we are going to make good on that promise. And that includes making sure that workers have the right to join a union.”

BALTIMORE (AP) — The first cargo ship passed through a newly opened deep-water channel in Baltimore on Thursday after being stuck in the harbor since the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed four weeks ago.

The Balsa 94, a bulk carrier sailing under a Panama flag, passed through the new 35-foot (12-meter) channel headed for St. John, Canada.

The ship is one of five stranded vessels expected to pass through the new, temporary channel. On Thursday morning, the vessel moved through the channel guided by two tug boats, one in front and one behind. It passed slowly by the wreckage of the bridge and the Dali, the massive container ship that caused the collapse when it slammed into one of the bridge’s support columns.

The Balsa 94 is expected to arrive in Canada on Monday.

The new channel will remain open until Monday or Tuesday. It will then close again until roughly May 10 while crews work to remove steel from the Dali and refloat the ship, which will then be guided back into the port, officials said earlier this week.

The 35-foot depth is a substantial increase over the three other temporary channels established in recent weeks. It puts the cleanup effort slightly ahead of schedule, as officials previously said they hoped to open a channel of that depth by the end of April.

Five of the seven cargo ships that have been stuck in Baltimore’s harbor will be able to pass through the new channel, including one loaded car carrier, officials said. Other ships are scheduled to enter the port, which normally processes more cars and farm equipment than any other in the country.

The port’s main channel, with a controlling depth of 50 feet (15 meters), is set to reopen next month after the ship has been removed. That will essentially restore marine traffic to normal.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday took up Donald Trump’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to absolute immunity for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.

Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington. And even if the high court resoundingly follows suit, the timing of its decision may be as important as the outcome.

That’s because Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.

The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, which is roughly four months before the election.

Currently:

What to listen for during Supreme Court arguments on Donald Trump and presidential immunity

The Supreme Court will decide whether Trump is immune from federal prosecution. Here’s what’s next

What to know in the Supreme Court case about immunity for former President Trump

Trump is in New York for the hush money trial while the Supreme Court hears his immunity case in DC

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court

Here’s the latest:

Justice Neil Gorsuch posed a line of questions Thursday that appeared friendly to arguments by Trump’s lawyers in his bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Gorsuch suggested that if presidents fear they could be prosecuted after they leave office, they could begin preemptively pardoning themselves.

“We’ve never answered whether a president can do that. And happily, it’s never been presented to us,” he said.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett took issue with a key argument of the Trump team — that under the Constitution, former presidents must be impeached and convicted before the Senate before they can be prosecuted in court.

Barrett said no one has ever suggested the justices would need to be impeached and convicted before they could be prosecuted. Trump lawyer D. John Sauer responded that under the Constitution, the sequence is only mandatory as it relates to former presidents.

Some Supreme Court justices posed scenarios or expressed skepticism Thursday as arguments started in Donald Trump’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito said he considered it “implausible” that a president could legally order Navy SEALs to order the assassination of a political rival. That skepticism matters because the hypothetical is something the Trump team, which includes attorney D. John Sauer, has suggested could theoretically be protected from prosecution.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Sauer a question that cut to the heart of the case, reading aloud allegations from the indictment and asking him to respond whether Trump’s actions in each instance were private or official.

Trump’s attorneys concede that immunity does not extend to personal actions but instead protects official acts. Sauer said he believed most of the acts are unquestionably official.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who could be a key swing vote, struck a skeptical note about the idea of expunging from the indictment acts that are official rather than personal, saying such a move would render the case a “one-legged stool.”

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Sauer was asking for a change in the immunity law. She raised Richard Nixon’s pardon, asking, “I think that if everybody thought that presidents couldn’t be prosecuted, then what was that about?”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan noted the Founding Fathers did not insert an immunity clause for presidents into the Constitution — but, she said, “they knew how to.”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Donald Trump’s lawyer D. John Sauer at the outset of arguments Thursday, asking where the principle of absolute immunity comes from.

The question was the first during arguments at the Supreme Court in Trump’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Sauer fell back quickly on a Supreme Court case that’s core to the defense — a 1982 decision that held that former presidents are immune from civil lawsuits.

A skeptical Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointedly noted to Sauer that the indictment alleges that Trump acted for personal gain.

She said the Founding Fathers had contemplated the idea of immunity for presidents but had explicitly decided against it.

She made clear her opposition to the Trump legal team’s position, saying she was having a hard time envisioning immunity for a president who creates and submits false documents, orders the assassination of a political rival, and any number of other criminal acts.

First up on Thursday was D. John Sauer, making Donald Trump’s argument that he’s immune from criminal prosecution. A former Missouri solicitor general and onetime Supreme Court clerk, Sauer also represented Trump at the appeals court level.

Trump went to those arguments even though he wasn’t required to be there, but he won’t be in the audience at the Supreme Court today. He’s required to be in New York for his hush money trial.

About 30 demonstrators gathered outside the Supreme Court before arguments, some wearing judicial robes with kangaroo masks and others holding signs like “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied.” That’s an apparent reference to the the timing of the high court’s ultimate decision in the case, which could determine whether a trial can be held before the election in November.

Shortly before arguments were slated to begin, Trump fired off a few posts Thursday on his social media network.

In one, he declared in all caps, “WITHOUT PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PRESIDENT TO PROPERLY FUNCTION, PUTTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN GREAT AND EVERLASTING DANGER!”

Trump also said that without immunity, a president would just be “ceremonial” and the opposing political party “can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, ‘if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,’ even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate.”

Of the nine justices hearing the case, three were nominated by Trump — Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. But it’s the presence of a justice confirmed decades before Trump’s presidency, Justice Clarence Thomas, that’s generated the most controversy.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni Thomas, urged the reversal of the 2020 election results and then attended the rally that preceded the Capitol riot. That has prompted calls for the justice to step aside from several court cases involving Trump and Jan. 6.

But Thomas has ignored the calls, taking part in the unanimous court decision that found states cannot kick Trump off the ballot as well as last week’s arguments over whether prosecutors can use a particular obstruction charge against Capitol riot defendants.

The justices will probably meet in private a short time after arguments to take a preliminary vote on the outcome. Chief Justice John Roberts would be a prime candidate to take on the opinion for the court, assuming he is in the majority.

They could simply reject Trump’s immunity claim outright, permitting the prosecution to move forward and returning the case to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to set a trial date.

They could also reverse the lower courts by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for conduct related to official acts during their time in office. Such a decision would stop the prosecution in its tracks.

There are other options, too, including ruling that former presidents do retain some immunity for their official actions but that, wherever that line is drawn, Trump’s actions fall way beyond it.

Yet another possibility is that the court sends the case back to Chutkan with an assignment to decide whether the actions Trump is alleged to have taken to stay in power constitute official acts.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Thursday the outright seizure of Russian assets is justifiable but is only one possibility, with assets instead able to serve as collateral for borrowing in the market to help Ukraine.

“That’s an option that’s been discussed. The leaders have asked us to give them a range of options,” Yellen said in an interview with Reuters, when asked if the leading option was pulling forward the interest on those assets to issue bonds or loans for Ukraine.

“The Europeans have taken a very constructive step and that is most of Russian assets held in Belgium … have now converted to cash and Euroclear earns interest on those assets. The European Union has agreed to segregate that interest and essentially move forward on a program in which it can be transferred to Ukraine. That is an approach that could be broadly supported by countries that are concerned about seizure of assets … there are a range of options.”

(Reporting by Alessandra Galloni; Writing by Lindsay Dunsmuir; Editing by Paul Simao)

NEW YORK (AP) — New York’s highest court on Thursday overturned Harvey Weinstein ’s 2020 rape conviction, finding the judge at the landmark #MeToo trial prejudiced the ex-movie mogul with “egregious” improper rulings, including a decision to let women testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case.

Weinstein, 72, will remain imprisoned because he was convicted in Los Angeles in 2022 of another rape and sentenced to 16 years in prison. But the state Court of Appeals ruling reopens a painful chapter in America’s reckoning with sexual misconduct by powerful figures — an era that began in 2017 with a flood of allegations against Weinstein.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office signaled its intention to retry Weinstein, and his accusers could again be forced to retell their stories on the witness stand.

In overturning Weinstein’s 23-year sentence in New York, the court said in its 4-3 decision that “the trial court erroneously admitted testimony of uncharged, alleged prior sexual acts against persons other than the complainants of the underlying crimes.” The court’s majority called this “an abuse of judicial discretion.”

In a stinging dissent, Judge Madeline Singas wrote that the majority was “whitewashing the facts to conform to a he-said/she-said narrative,” and said the Court of Appeals was continuing a “disturbing trend of overturning juries’ guilty verdicts in cases involving sexual violence.”

Weinstein has been in a New York prison since his conviction on charges of criminal sex acts for forcibly performing oral sex on a TV and film production assistant in 2006 and rape in the third degree for an attack on an aspiring actress in 2013.

In the Los Angeles rape case, Weinstein was acquitted on charges involving one of the women who testified in New York.

In a statement, the Manhattan district attorney’s office said: “We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault.”

Weinstein lawyer Arthur Aidala said immediately after the ruling came out: “We all worked very hard and this is a tremendous victory for every criminal defendant in the state of New York.”

Attorney Douglas H. Wigdor, who has represented eight Harvey Weinstein accusers including two witnesses at the New York criminal trial, called the ruling “a major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence.”

“Courts routinely admit evidence of other uncharged acts where they assist juries in understanding issues concerning the intent, modus operandi or scheme of the defendant. The jury was instructed on the relevance of this testimony and overturning the verdict is tragic in that it will require the victims to endure yet another trial,” Wigdor said in a statement.

Weinstein’s lawyers argued Judge James Burke’s rulings in favor of the prosecution turned the trial into “1-800-GET-HARVEY.”

The reversal of Weinstein’s conviction is the second major #MeToo setback in the last two years, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a Pennsylvania court decision to throw out Bill Cosby’s sexual assault conviction.

Weinstein’s conviction stood for more than four years, heralded by activists and advocates as a milestone achievement, but dissected just as quickly by his lawyers and, later, the Court of Appeals when it heard arguments on the matter in February.

Allegations against Weinstein, the once powerful and feared studio boss behind such Oscar winners as “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” ushered in the #MeToo movement. Dozens of women came forward to accuse Weinstein, including famous actresses such as Ashley Judd and Uma Thurman. His New York trial drew intense publicity, with protesters chanting “rapist” outside the courthouse.

Weinstein is incarcerated in New York at the Mohawk Correctional Facility, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) northwest of Albany.

He maintains his innocence. He contends any sexual activity was consensual.

Aidala argued before the appeals court in February that Burke swayed the trial by allowing three women to testify about allegations that weren’t part of the case and by giving prosecutors permission to confront Weinstein, if he had testified, about his long history of brutish behavior.

Aidala argued the extra testimony went beyond the normally allowable details about motive, opportunity, intent or a common scheme or plan, and essentially put Weinstein on trial for crimes he wasn’t charged with.

Weinstein wanted to testify, but opted not to because Burke’s ruling would’ve meant answering questions about more than two-dozen alleged acts of misbehavior dating back four decades, Aidala said. They included fighting with his movie producer brother, flipping over a table in anger and snapping at waiters and yelling at his assistants.

“We had a defendant who was begging to tell his side of the story. It’s a he said, she said case, and he’s saying ‘that’s not how it happened. Let me tell you how I did it,’” Aidala argued. Instead, the jurors heard evidence of Weinstein’s prior bad behavior that “had nothing to do with truth and veracity. It was all ‘he’s a bad guy.’”

A lawyer for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, argued that the judge‘s rulings were proper and that the extra evidence and testimony he allowed was important to provide jurors context about Weinstein’s behavior and the way he interacted with women.

“Defendant’s argument was that they had a consensual and loving relationship both before and after the charged incidents,” Appellate Chief Steven Wu argued, referring to one of the women Weinstein was charged with assaulting. The additional testimony “just rebutted that characterization completely.”

Wu said Weinstein’s acquittal on the most serious charges — two counts of predatory sexual assault and a first-degree rape charge involving actor Annabella Sciorra’s allegations of a mid-1990s rape — showed jurors were paying attention and they were not confused or overwhelmed by the additional testimony.

The Associated Press does not generally identify people alleging sexual assault unless they consent to be named; Sciorra has spoken publicly about her allegations.

The Court of Appeals agreed last year to take Weinstein’s case after an intermediate appeals court upheld his conviction. Prior to their ruling, judges on the lower appellate court had raised doubts about Burke’s conduct during oral arguments. One observed that Burke had let prosecutors pile on with “incredibly prejudicial testimony” from additional witnesses.

Burke’s term expired at the end of 2022. He was not reappointed and is no longer a judge.

In appealing, Weinstein’s lawyers sought a new trial, but only for the criminal sexual act charge. They argued the rape charge could not be retried because it involves alleged conduct outside the statute of limitations.

___

Associated Press writer Dave Collins reported from Hartford, Connecticut. AP writers Jocelyn Noveck and Larry Neumeister in New York also contributed to this story.

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction for sexual assault and rape was overturned on Thursday by New York’s highest court, reopening the landmark case that launched the #MeToo movement and highlighting the challenges of holding powerful men accountable.

In a 4-3 decision, the state Court of Appeals said the trial judge made a critical mistake by letting women testify that Weinstein assaulted them even though they were not part of the charges he faced.

Arthur Aidala, a lawyer for Weinstein, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. He told the New York Times that the decision upheld “the most basic principles” that criminal defendants should have at a trial.

The court also said the trial judge compounded the error by letting Weinstein be cross-examined in a way that portrayed him in a “highly prejudicial” light.

“It is an abuse of judicial discretion to permit untested allegations of nothing more than bad behavior that destroys a defendant’s character but sheds no light on their credibility as related to the criminal charges,” Judge Jenny Rivera wrote for the majority.

“The remedy for these egregious errors is a new trial,” she added.

In a sharp dissent, Judge Madeline Singas said the decision “perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence and allows predators to escape accountability.

She also accused the majority of “whitewashing the facts” and continuing a “disturbing trend” of overturning jury verdicts in sexual violence cases.

Former comedian Bill Cosby saw his 2018 sexual assault conviction overturned three years later by Pennsylvania’s highest court. It said a 2005 agreement not to charge Cosby with drugging and assaulting a woman meant he should not have been charged a decade later.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose predecessor Cyrus Vance brought the case, will have to decide how to proceed against Weinstein.

“We will do everything in our power to retry this case, and remain steadfast in our commitment to survivors of sexual assault,” Emily Tuttle, a spokesperson for Bragg, said in an email.

Weinstein, 72, has been serving a 23-year prison sentence, after being convicted in February 2020 of sexually assaulting a former production assistant in 2006, and raping an aspiring actress in 2013.

Bragg’s office is separately in the middle of a criminal hush money trial against former U.S. President Donald Trump.

It was not immediately clear how the decision would affect Weinstein, who has been serving his sentence in upstate New York.

Even if he were not retried, he still faces a 16-year prison sentence in California after being convicted there last year for the 2013 rape of an actress in Los Angeles.

Weinstein’s conviction in New York was considered a milestone for #MeToo, in which women have accused hundreds of men in entertainment, media, politics and other fields of sexual misconduct.

“Today’s decision is a major step back in holding those accountable for acts of sexual violence,” said Douglas Wigdor, a lawyer who represented eight of Weinstein’s accusers. “It will require the victims to endure yet another trial.”

Weinstein co-founded the Miramax film studio, whose hit movies included “Shakespeare in Love” and “Pulp Fiction.” His own eponymous film studio filed for bankruptcy in March 2018.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Brendan Pierson in New York, and Susan Heavey in Washington; editing by Paul Grant and Jonathan Oatis)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden on Thursday appointed Lise Grande as the new special envoy for Middle East humanitarian issues, the State Department said in a statement.

Grande, who replaces David Satterfield, is currently head of the independent U.S. Institute of Peace. She previously worked for the United Nations for more than 25 years, a career that included running aid operations in Yemen, Iraq and South Sudan.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; writing by Paul Grant)