Month: January 2026

Emmy Award-winning actor and director Timothy Busfield appeared in court Wednesday after turning himself in to New Mexico authorities to face multiple felony charges involving alleged sexual abuse of minors. Prosecutors are seeking to keep the 68-year-old actor in custody as the case proceeds, citing both the current charges and a newly reported allegation against him from years earlier.

Busfield was arrested after Albuquerque police issued a warrant charging him with two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and one count of child abuse. The charges stem from accusations that he inappropriately touched two young boys on the set of the television series “The Cleaning Lady,” which was filmed in Albuquerque while Busfield was directing. The children’s mother reported the alleged abuse to Child Protective Services, saying it occurred between November 2022 and spring 2024.  The investigation began in November 2024 after a physician at the University of New Mexico Hospital contacted authorities. Investigators said the boys feared reporting the incidents because Busfield was in a position of authority on set. Busfield denied the allegations during a police interview, suggesting the children’s mother was retaliating after her sons were replaced on the show, a claim later echoed by his attorney.

On Wednesday, prosecutors filed a motion seeking to keep Busfield detained pending trial, arguing that his release would pose a risk to the community. Prosecutors also disclosed a new allegation reported to law enforcement the same day Busfield surrendered. According to court filings, the father of a then-16-year-old girl alleged that Busfield kissed and inappropriately touched his daughter during an audition at B Street Theatre in Sacramento, California, an organization Busfield co-founded. The alleged incident occurred several years ago, and no charges have been filed in that matter.

Busfield’s attorney, Larry Stein, has denied all allegations on behalf of his client, sharing in a statement: “Tim Busfield denies the allegations in the criminal complaint and maintains they are completely false. As a voluntary step, he submitted to an independent polygraph examination regarding those allegations and passed.” Busfield also share a video to the media outlet TMZ on Tuesday prior to turning himself in, where he labelled the accusations against him as ‘lies’ — a move prosecutors criticized as an attempt to control the public narrative.

During Wednesday’s court appearance, Busfield did not enter a plea and was ordered held without bond.  He remains in custody at the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center, with a detention hearing expected within five business days, when a judge will determine whether he will remain in custody.

Busfield, best known for roles in “The West Wing,” “Thirtysomething,” and the film “Field of Dreams,” is married to actor Melissa Gilbert. Through her publicist, Gilbert said she is not commenting publicly during the legal process. “Melissa stands with and supports her husband and will address the public at an appropriate time,” the statement said, warning that online claims attributed to her, including AI-generated content, are not authentic.

Editorial credit: DFree / Shutterstock.com

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared inclined to uphold laws in Idaho and West Virginia that prohibit transgender girls and women from competing on female school and college sports teams, signaling another potential setback for transgender rights nationwide. A final decision is expected later this year, and could determine how far states may go in regulating transgender participation in athletics across the country.

The bans at issue are part of a broader national trend, with at least 25 other states have enacting similar restrictions, meaning the court’s eventual ruling could have wide-reaching effects.

During more than three hours of oral arguments, the justices considered challenges brought by two transgender athletes — Becky Pepper-Jackson of West Virginia and Lindsay Hecox of Idaho — who argue that the bans violate the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee and Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Both athletes previously secured lower-court rulings allowing them to compete while litigation continued. Pepper-Jackson, now 15, competes in shot put and discus and previously ran cross-country. Hecox, 25, sought to compete in track and cross-country at Boise State University but did not make the teams; she later participated in club soccer and running. Hecox has since asked the court to dismiss her case as moot after deciding to stop playing sports covered by Idaho’s ban, citing fear of harassment, though state lawyers say the dispute remains live.

The court’s questioning suggested a majority was skeptical that the laws unlawfully discriminate. Several justices focused on Title IX’s Javits Amendment, adopted in 1974, which expressly permits sex-based distinctions in athletics. Conservative members of the court repeatedly emphasized biological differences between males and females and their relevance to competitive sports. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said “obviously, one of the great successes in America over the last 50 years has been the growth of women’s and girls’ sports. And it’s inspiring,” while adding that many institutions believe transgender participation could undermine those gains.

Idaho and West Virginia argue their statutes regulate sports based on biological sex, not gender identity, and are designed to preserve fairness and safety for female athletes. As Idaho officials wrote, “men are faster, stronger, bigger, more muscular, and have more explosive power than women;” with Idaho Solicitor General Alan Hurst telling the court, “if women don’t have their own competitions, they won’t be able to compete,” and said sex “correlates strongly with countless athletic advantages, like size, muscle mass, bone mass and heart and lung capacity.” West Virginia Solicitor General Michael Williams described the legal challenge as a “backdoor attack on Title IX,” warning that redefining eligibility around gender identity would reverse a law enacted to expand opportunities for girls.

The Trump administration has supported the states. Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan argued that “Denying a special accommodation to trans-identifying individuals does not discriminate on the basis of sex or gender identity or deny equal protection,” even if transgender athletes use hormone treatments.

The cases arrive as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has repeatedly ruled against transgender rights. Last year, it allowed states to ban gender-affirming care for minors and upheld Trump-era policies barring transgender people from the military and restricting passport sex designations. Those decisions contrast with a 2020 ruling extending workplace protections under Title VII to gender identity and sexual orientation — a precedent some questioned whether the court would apply to Title IX.

Editorial credit: Philip Yabut / Shutterstock.com

Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have declined to appear before the House Oversight Committee as part of its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein, setting up a confrontation with the Republican-led panel that is now moving toward contempt of Congress proceedings.

The Clintons were subpoenaed in August 2025 to give closed-door depositions this week — Bill Clinton on Tuesday and Hillary Clinton on Wednesday. Instead, the couple released a joint, four-page public letter addressed to Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, calling the subpoenas “invalid and legally unenforceable” and accusing the committee of pursuing a politically motivated process.

Comer confirmed Tuesday morning that Bill Clinton did not appear for his scheduled deposition and said the committee would proceed with contempt action. “I think everyone knows by now, Bill Clinton did not show up,” Comer said, stressing that the subpoenas were approved unanimously in a bipartisan committee vote. He later added, “We will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress.” Comer said the panel would leave open the possibility that Hillary Clinton could still comply, though her attorney, David Kendall, has not indicated whether she plans to appear.

The letter from the Clintons states that “despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America’s ills, and we will forcefully defend ourselves.”  The Clintons argued they have already provided all relevant information in writing and accuse Comer of undermining the investigation’s stated purpose. “We have tried to give you the little information that we have,” they wrote. “We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific. If the Government didn’t do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes, for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work — to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. There is no evidence that you are doing so.”  They also contend the chairman has “done nothing” to compel the Justice Department to meet its disclosure requirements under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, passed late last year, while instead focusing on compelling testimony from individuals with limited knowledge.

Republicans on the House Oversight Committee say they want to question Bill Clinton about his past association with Epstein, including travel on Epstein’s private plane in the early 2000s and Epstein’s visits to the White House during Clinton’s presidency. Comer has acknowledged that neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing, but has warned that failure to comply could result in criminal contempt referrals to the Department of Justice. If approved by the full House, such a referral would leave it to federal prosecutors to decide whether to pursue charges, which can carry penalties of up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

The Clintons’ attorneys note that Hillary Clinton “has no personal knowledge of Epstein or Maxwell’s criminal activities, never flew on his aircraft, never visited his island, and cannot recall ever speaking to Epstein,” and that Bill Clinton ended contact with Epstein more than two decades ago and has expressed regret over even that limited association. Comer has rejected those arguments, saying it is up to the committee — not witnesses — to assess the value of testimony. “[T]he Committee believes that it should be provided in a deposition setting, where the Committee can best assess its breadth and value,” he said.

Editorial credit: Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., has filed a federal lawsuit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon, seeking to stop what he calls an unprecedented and unconstitutional effort to punish him by lowering his military retirement rank and pension. Kelly, a retired Navy captain, argues the administration’s actions amount to retaliation for protected political speech. The dispute stems from a video released last November in which Kelly and five other Democratic lawmakers with military or intelligence backgrounds urged active-duty personnel to “refuse illegal orders.” The group did not point to specific directives but framed the message as a reminder of service members’ constitutional obligations.

According to the 46-page complaint, Hegseth and President Donald Trump responded with what Kelly describes as “extreme rhetoric and punitive retribution,” publicly accusing him of “sedition” and “treason.” Kelly contends those accusations, coupled with Pentagon actions, violated his First Amendment rights, his right to due process, and the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause, which protects lawmakers from punishment over official acts. Kelly’s lawyers wrote: “It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” adding that allowing such punishment would “invert the constitutional structure” by giving the executive branch leverage over legislators and chilling congressional oversight of the military.

Hegseth announced last week that the Defense Department had initiated retirement grade determination proceedings that could reduce Kelly’s retired rank and corresponding pay. He also issued a formal letter of censure that would be placed permanently in Kelly’s military personnel file, citing what he called “reckless misconduct.” In a post on X, Hegseth said Kelly and the other lawmakers had released “a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline.” He added that as a retired officer receiving a pension, Kelly remained accountable under military law.

The lawsuit counters that federal law does not allow the Pentagon to revisit a retirement rank based on post-retirement political speech. Kelly also argues his due process rights were violated when senior officials publicly labeled his conduct criminal before any formal proceedings took place. “The Constitution does not permit the government to announce the verdict in advance and then subject Senator Kelly or anyone else to a nominal process designed only to fulfill it,” the complaint states.

Kelly retired from the Navy in 2011 after more than 20 years of service, including multiple deployments. In a statement, he said the case goes beyond his own situation. “Pete Hegseth is coming after what I earned through my twenty-five years of military service, in violation of my rights as an American, as a retired veteran, and as a United States Senator whose job is to hold him—and this or any administration—accountable,” he said, and warned the effort “sends a chilling message to every retired member of the military” who speaks critically of government leaders.

Editorial credit: Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com