无人机拍摄的照片显示，6月15日的霍尔木兹海峡水域可见大量船舶。 （路透社）

美国总统特朗普说，已有许多装载石油的船只开始驶出霍尔木兹海峡。

特朗普星期一（6月15日）在社媒平台“真相社交”发文说：“许多装载着石油的船只开始驶出霍尔木兹海峡，沿着南部的‘高速公路’航行。这条航线完全安全、可靠，而且风景优美。也有其他一些交通方式！”

美国与伊朗前一天宣布就停止冲突达成共识，双方预计本周五（19日）签署谅解备忘录。

特朗普公布和解消息时声称，已正式批准开放霍尔木兹海峡，无须缴纳通行费，同时下令立即解除美国海军对伊朗港口的海上封锁。

一名伊朗高级官员说，一旦谅解备忘录签署，霍尔木兹海峡会向所有商船重新开放。

Supreme Court to decide if migrants detained for months must receive bond hearings

2026-06-15T13:39:57.528Z / CNN

By John Fritze

Updated 1 hr 32 min ago
Updated Jun 15, 2026, 9:43 AM ET
PUBLISHED Jun 15, 2026, 9:39 AM ET

The US Supreme Court is seen at dusk on May 28 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Summary

• The Supreme Court will decide whether the government can hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without bond hearings.
• The case involves two green card holders convicted of aggravated felonies who were detained for seven months and nearly two years without hearings.
• A ruling could significantly affect the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies.

AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide if the government may hold noncitizens in detention for prolonged periods without a bond hearing, a case that could have significant implications for the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

At the center of the dispute are two green card holders who had been convicted of aggravated felonies that immigration officials sought to deport to the Dominican Republic in one case and to Jamaica in the other. One of the men was held for seven months and the other for nearly two years as their removal cases were pending.

Neither received a hearing to assess whether they were a flight risk or could be released on bond.

A federal appeals court in New York ruled in 2024 that the due process clause requires a bond hearing for prolonged detention for noncitizens. The Trump administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court in January, arguing that it was “seriously misguided.”

The law at issue requires mandatory detention for noncitizens convicted of a list of crimes. The Trump administration has reclassified certain types of immigrants to sweep far more people into mandatory detention — a move that has been repeatedly challenged in court and that is likely to be ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court.

The two men at the center of the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the Supreme Court should decline to hear the case. That’s partly because, the group said, one of the men had already left the country and the other was released and, according to his attorneys, ICE has not attempted to re-detain him.

In 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a similar challenge and concluded that federal law did not require bond hearings. But the court’s divided decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, declined to answer whether the Constitution would require those hearings after prolonged detention.

“The court reads the statute as forbidding bail, hence forbidding a bail hearing, for these individuals,” liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, who has since retired, wrote in dissent at the time. “In my view, the majority’s interpretation of the statute would likely render the statute unconstitutional.”

The Trump administration also appealed the 2nd Circuit’s holding that, in order to continue detention, the government must prove that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community with a higher standard of evidence than is required in other cases.

Supreme Court declines to take up suspended 98-year-old judge’s bid to hear cases again

June 15, 2026 / 10:32 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Judge Pauline Newman’s bid to return to service on a federal appeals court after she was suspended from hearing cases due to concerns about her fitness to serve.

Newman, who is 98, has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit since 1984. Established in 1982, the Federal Circuit hears appeals in cases involving international trade, patents, trademarks, veterans’ benefits and money claims against the U.S. government.

Across her more than four decades on the Federal Circuit, Newman has authored more than 300 dissenting opinions, earning her the nickname the “Great Dissenter.”

But three years ago, the Judicial Council for the Federal Circuit, which consists of the circuit judges in active service, suspended Newman from hearing cases. The court’s chief judge, Kimberly Moore, also told Newman she could either retire or consider senior status, a form of semi-retirement in which judges take on a lighter caseload.

After Newman refused either option, Moore entered an order that identified a judicial complaint against the then-96-year-old judge and found “there is probable cause to believe that Judge Newman’s health has left her without the capacity to perform the work of an active judge and that her habitual delays are prejudicial to the efficient administration of justice.”

Judge Pauline Newman in her office in Washington, D.C., in 2023. Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Moore’s filing referenced health issues Newman suffered in the summer of 2021 and a fainting episode in 2022, and said judges and staff on the Federal Circuit had expressed concerns about Newman’s inability to keep up with her workload.

Moore and a special committee of two Federal Circuit judges then investigated Newman’s fitness to continue serving and ordered the judge to submit to neurological and neuropsychological testing. The panel also requested she turn over medical records and participate in an interview.

While Newman provided expert reports from two doctors, the committee recommended Newman “not be permitted to hear any cases” for one year, subject to renewal. The Judicial Council approved the recommendation in September 2023.

Newman asked a panel of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policy-making body for the federal courts, to review her suspension, though it rejected her arguments in February 2024.

The Federal Circuit then renewed Newman’s suspension for another year in September 2024, and again in August 2025.

Amid her suspension, Newman filed a lawsuit against Moore and her colleagues on the Federal Circuit and sought to prevent the Judicial Council from taking action against her in the future. The judge argued that the panel violated the Constitution by effectively removing her from office despite life tenure protections and denied her due process.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ultimately ruled against Newman, finding that the Disability Act prevents litigants from bringing certain constitutional challenges to a judicial council’s authority.

In urging the Supreme Court to take up her case, Newman’s lawyers claimed that Moore was circumventing the Constitution’s protections for federal judges in an attempt to sideline a judge she doesn’t want to serve with. They also accused the Federal Circuit judges of trying to silence a colleague who often dissents.

“This administrative removal of a judge who is famous for dissenting from her colleagues, by those same colleagues, with judicial refusal to review the merits of the action, undermines the judicial independence that is a vital foundation of our constitutional design,” Newman’s lawyers wrote in a filing. “Every judge who gets crosswise with her chief judge or her colleagues must now worry whether similar tactics could be used to remove them.”

The Justice Department, which represented Moore and the other judges,urged the Supreme Court to turn away Newman’s case.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing Newman, said it is disappointed in the high court’s denial of the appeal, but said it would continue to push for her reinstatement.

“It is a dark day for the independence of the federal judiciary,” Mark Chenoweth, the group’s president, said in a statement. “The cert denial in this case means that Judge Newman’s due process and other complaints about the way Chief Judge Moore and the Federal Circuit Judicial Council have treated her never have and never will receive a merits decision from an Article III court. That is utterly inexcusable and truly inexplicable.”

Supreme Court won’t hear Trump ex-campaign aide’s bid to sue former FBI officials

2026-06-15 13:52:14 / Reuters

One-time advisor of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump Carter Page addresses the audience during a presentation in Moscow, Russia, December 12, 2016. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin/File Photo Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Page was adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign
• Lawsuit alleged unlawful spying by former FBI officials

WASHINGTON, June 15 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a bid by Carter Page, an adviser to President Donald ​Trump’s 2016 campaign, to revive a lawsuit against former FBI officials accusing them of unlawfully ‌obtaining warrants to surveil him during its probe into Russian interference in that year’s election.

The justices on Monday turned away Page’s

appeal, opens new tab
of rulings by lower courts dismissing remaining elements of a lawsuit he filed in 2020 alleging he had been the ​victim of unlawful spying. The Trump administration agreed to pay a reported $1.25 million to resolve the ​rest of the claims he had also brought against the government.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

That partial settlement left ⁠remaining claims Page had also been pursuing against numerous former officials. They include former FBI Director James ​Comey, his former deputy Andrew McCabe and Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer who pleaded guilty to altering ​an email that had been used to seek court approval to wiretap Page.

Page’s lawsuit alleged that, while volunteering as a member of an informal foreign policy advisory committee to Trump’s 2016 presidential election campaign, he became a target of an FBI ​surveillance program aimed at determining if anyone associated with the campaign was coordinating activities with Russia.

The FBI ​during the investigation obtained four warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveil Page.

But later reviews by the U.S. ‌Justice Department’s ⁠inspector general discovered that the FBI made numerous errors in its warrant applications to the court, which is tasked with reviewing classified requests from agencies for surveillance warrants. The inspector general released its main report on the matter in 2019, during Trump’s first term as president.

Page was never charged and has denied having had ​any improper communications with ​or ties to Russia. ⁠He asked the Supreme Court to hear his case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2025 upheld a judge’s dismissal ​of his lawsuit on the grounds that it was filed too late.

The D.C. ​Circuit said that ⁠his surveillance claim was subject to a three-year statute of limitations that kicked in when Page first became aware of the FBI’s surveillance, which it traced to an April 2017 article by the Washington Post about the ⁠operation.

Page, in ​asking the Supreme Court to consider his case, argued that ​the clock for the statute of limitations should instead be found to have begun ticking when the government acknowledged unlawfully surveilling him, rather ​than when an anonymously sourced news story was published.

Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Nate Raymond reports on the federal judiciary and litigation. He can be reached at nate.raymond@thomsonreuters.com.

美国副总统万斯说，美方希望霍尔木兹海峡能长期免费开放。图为万斯5月28日从科罗拉多州返回马里兰安德鲁斯空军基地时，向记者发表讲话。 （法新社）

美国副总统万斯说，希望与伊朗的谅解备忘录文本能在本周公布，相关细节的进一步谈判预计会继续进行。

万斯星期一（6月15日）接受美国消费者新闻与商业频道采访时，发表上述言论。

他也表明，美国期望对于经济至关重要的霍尔木兹海峡能长期免费开放，这是双方要在技术性谈判中厘清的问题。

“还有许多非常重要的细节须要敲定，我们会切实坐到谈判桌前共同讨论，制定出前进的道路。”

另据美国有线电视新闻网报道，万斯称美伊协议星期天（14日）签署电子谅解备忘录。

早前有报道说，美伊谅解备忘录签署仪式预计于星期五（19日）在瑞士日内瓦举行。万斯说，协议的许多细节仍有待敲定。他没透露美方会派谁出席签字仪式。

The Odds: Midterm elections

9:49 AM EDT, Mon June 15, 2026 / CNN

By Ainsley Ehlers, CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/15/politics/video/the-odds-midterm-elections-cnc-kalpar

Subtitles

• Off

Video Ad Feedback

The Odds: Midterm elections

3:08 • Source: CNN

CNN News Central’s John Berman and chief data analyst Harry Enten examine new polling on the November midterm elections.

Video Ad Feedback

The Odds: Midterm elections

03:08
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Multiple angles show Minnesota ICE shooting

01:14
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Video Ad Feedback

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey tears into DHS and ICE after woman is fatally shot by agent

08:19
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Witness to ICE agents: ‘you shot her in the f**king face’; says: ‘I can’t let this narrative of self-defense go any further’

06:52
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Noem claims Minneapolis ICE shooting was result of ‘act of domestic terrorism’; police chief responds

07:31
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Video Ad Feedback

DHS Secy. Kristi Noem says officer in shooting “followed his training”

05:04
Now playing
• Source: CNN

Video Ad Feedback

Sen. Thom Tillis: Stephen Miller needs to know ‘what he’s talking about or get out of this job’

01:36
Now playing
• Source: CNN

‘You’ve done enough’: Gov. Waltz shares message for Trump and Noem

02:39
Now playing
• Source: CNN

See more videos

美国副总统万斯说，美方希望霍尔木兹海峡能长期免费开放。图为万斯5月28日从科罗拉多州返回马里兰安德鲁斯空军基地时，向记者发表讲话。 （法新社）

美国副总统万斯说，希望与伊朗的谅解备忘录文本能在本周公布，相关细节的进一步谈判预计会继续进行。

万斯星期一（6月15日）接受美国消费者新闻与商业频道采访时，发表上述言论。

他也表明，美国期望对于经济至关重要的霍尔木兹海峡能长期免费开放，这是双方要在技术性谈判中厘清的问题。

“还有许多非常重要的细节须要敲定，我们会切实坐到谈判桌前共同讨论，制定出前进的道路。”

另据美国有线电视新闻网报道，万斯称美伊协议星期天（14日）签署电子谅解备忘录。

早前有报道说，美伊谅解备忘录签署仪式预计于星期五（19日）在瑞士日内瓦举行。万斯说，协议的许多细节仍有待敲定。他没透露美方会派谁出席签字仪式。

Federal judge who had sex in chambers apologizes to former clerk as impeachment push ramps up

June 15, 2026 10:26am EDT / Fox News

A federal judge in Georgia has apologized to a former law clerk for “harmful, offensive, and unprofessional behavior” amid allegations she had engaged in sexual activity with a high-ranking uniformed police officer in her office during working hours and within earshot of staff.

The apology comes as two House Republicans from Georgia have filed articles of impeachment for U.S. District Judge Eleanor Ross.

“You deserved better than to have your experience marred by my own offensive conflict,” Ross, who serves in the Northern District of Georgia, wrote in a letter last week, adding that her “actions were patently wrong, and there is no excuse,” and her previous letter to the clerk was “entirely deficient, as I did not take full accountability for my actions, and I failed to give you the apology that you deserve.”

“I also want to convey my deepest apologies to you for my false accusation against you,” the letter continued. “Again, I have no excuse and immensely regret my behavior.”

MARRIED FEDERAL JUDGE REPEATEDLY HAD COURTHOUSE SEX WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, COMPLAINT ALLEGES

Judge Eleanor Ross was nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2014 and approved in the Senate later that year.(Vino Wong/Atlanta Journal-Constitution)

Ross, nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2014, was disciplined after investigators found she had sex with a police officer in her chambers and then lied about it.

Reps. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., and Clay Fuller, R-Ga., filed separate impeachment resolutions against Ross following the judicial misconduct investigation. Federal judges are appointed for life and can only be removed through impeachment by Congress.

“When judges become political activists or engage in judicial misconduct, Congress bears both the responsibility and the constitutional authority to hold them accountable,” Clyde said. “Judge Ross’ deeply disturbing actions prove she is incapable of displaying integrity or showing impartiality.”

DOJ SOLICITS EXAMPLES OF ‘JUDICIAL ACTIVISM’ FROM PROSECUTORS AS IT WEIGHS IMPEACHMENT REFERRALS

Federal Judge Eleanor Ross was accused of having sex with Atlanta Police Department Deputy Chief Kelley Collier in her chambers and within earshot of her staff, according to articles of impeachment drafted in the House by two Republicans.(AP)

Ross provided materially false statements to senior judicial officials during the course of an internal inquiry, potentially obstructing efforts to fully assess misconduct concerns and impacting the administration of the court, according to Fuller, who said these issues represent a serious breach of judicial ethics and a serious failure to uphold the basic standards required of federal judges.

“The American people expect and deserve a judiciary system that operates with the highest level of integrity, professionalism, and accountability,” Fuller said. “Judge Ross has no place on the federal bench.”

“This behavior is unacceptable and cannot be tolerated on any level within our courts, and most certainly not in the State of Georgia,” Fuller added.

The investigation, initiated by 11th U.S. Circuit Chief Judge William Pryor, also examined allegations that Ross attended a partisan political event, failed to properly supervise clerks and yelled and cursed at staff. A special committee ultimately found that Ross had sex in the courthouse, attended a partisan event and initially lied when confronted with the allegations.

RETIRED FEDERAL JUDGE WHO WROTE ANTI-TRUMP OP-ED REPORTEDLY FACED MISCONDUCT INQUIRY BEFORE RESIGNING

Ross received a “private reprimand” that did not publicly name her. She also agreed not to seek the position of chief judge for the district when eligible and to write apology letters to six former law clerks.

Clyde filed three articles of impeachment against Ross, accusing her of improper sexual activity in chambers, attending a partisan political event and obstructing an official proceeding. Clyde’s resolution states that Ross engaged in an extramarital affair from roughly October 2023 through October 2025 with high-ranking Atlanta Police Department officer Kelley Collier, and that the relationship was not disclosed to judges, court staff or litigants.

The articles allege that Ross and Collier had sex in Ross’ chambers during business hours, and that at least three former clerks heard sounds from the judge’s chambers, creating what the resolution described as an uncomfortable workplace.

“She’s simply unfit to remain a U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, which is why I’m leading the charge to impeach Judge Ross and ultimately remove her from the bench,” Clyde concluded.

Cosponsors of his articles of impeachment include Reps. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.; Sheri Biggs, R-S.C.; Buddy Carter, R-Ga.; John Carter, R-Texas; Paul Gosar, R-Ariz.; Andy Harris, R-Md.; and Andy Ogles, R-Tenn.

JUDGE CAUGHT IN EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIR WITH AN OFFICER IN HER CHAMBERS

Rep. Clay Fuller, R-Fla., represents Georgia’s 14th District, replacing former Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene, R-Ga.(Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)

Fuller filed a separate impeachment article, saying Ross “engaged in extra-marital affairs with a high ranking officer of the Atlanta police department within her chambers during official court hours, while actively presiding over criminal matters.”

Clyde’s articles also accuse Ross of attending an event hosted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ campaign the evening before she presided over a criminal revocation proceeding. The resolution says Ross told interns and staff the next morning that she had consumed “too many martinis” at the campaign event.

Ross told investigators she attended a “mixer” for former employees of a district attorney’s office where she used to work, but said it was in a separate room from the victory party.

The articles further accuse Ross of making “numerous, material false statements” to Pryor and the chief district judge when she initially responded to the allegations. The resolution says Ross denied having sexual intercourse in her office or anywhere else in the courthouse and said she was “astounded and confused” by the allegation.

FORMER PRISON GUARD WHO HAD SEX TAPE WITH INMATE GO VIRAL IS FILLED WITH REGRET & NOW FOCUSING ON BEING A MOM

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., a member of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, is seeking to impeach Obama-nominated Judge Eleanor Ross out of Georgia.(Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Ross did not recant those statements until Oct. 10, 2025, after the special committee had gathered corroborating evidence. The resolution says the committee declined to treat the recantation as absolution because it came only after Ross likely knew her false statements had been, or were about to be, exposed.

Pryor first asked Ross to respond to the allegations last fall. Ross replied the same day and “specifically denied” them, then suggested in a follow-up email that the law clerk might have invented the claims in retaliation for being required to work in the office.

The special committee reviewed logs and security footage showing that an officer had frequently visited Ross’ chambers in uniform around lunchtime. Six clerks recalled seeing someone matching the officer’s description, and three remembered overhearing what might have been sexual activity in the judge’s office.

The committee found that clerks described an “eggshell culture,” but it did not find evidence of abusive behavior.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The House Judiciary Committee will decide whether to open impeachment proceedings against Ross. If the House were to impeach her, the Senate would decide whether to remove her from the federal bench.

“Though I can never fully undo the harm that I have caused you, I hope that my acknowledgment of these failures is a small first step,” Ross wrote in her apology letter to the former clerk. “I will be taking further steps to ensure that this never happens again.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6360664094112

Supreme Court turns away free speech case involving high school club’s “Defund Planned Parenthood” posters

June 15, 2026 / 10:42 AM EDT / CBS News

Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a free speech clash arising from an Indiana high school’s decision not to allow a student-led anti-abortion rights group to hang meeting flyers that featured the message “Defund Planned Parenthood.”

The dispute involved the scope of students’ free speech rights and schools’ ability to restrict expression that could be viewed as reflecting their endorsement. A lower court had sided with the school, and the Supreme Court’s denial of the case leaves that decision intact.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision and said the high court should “clarify the relationship between” a 1988 decision involving the regulation of school-sponsored activities and its other government-speech decisions.

The case dates back to 2021, when a freshman identified in court papers as E.D. launched Noblesville Students for Life, a chapter of Students for Life of America, at Noblesville High School. The club was among more than 70 “noncurriculum based” clubs at the school that are initiated and led by students.

The school allows the student clubs to hang flyers advertising meeting dates, times and locations on the walls in common areas, but they must receive approval from a school administrator to be posted. The high school does not allow the posters to include content deemed “political” or “disruptive,” according to court filings.

After E.D. received approval to form the club, she took steps to schedule an initial meeting and submitted to the school’s assistant principal two proposed flyers to inform students of the gathering. The template posters, which she obtained from the Students for Life of America website, featured photos of students holding signs that read “Defund Planned Parenthood” and “I am the Pro-Life Generation.”

The assistant principal denied approval of the posters and told E.D. that they should only include the club’s name and information about the meeting location, date and time. E.D., accompanied by her mother, Lisa Duell, then met with the school’s dean about the flyers, and they were told they could not include the phrase “Defund Planned Parenthood.”

The school’s principal then decided to suspend Noblesville Students for Life’s approval because of concerns that it was not student-led and student-driven, given the participation of E.D.’s mother, and because she refused to comply with instructions for meeting flyers. The club was reinstated in 2022 and remained active.

E.D.’s parents and Noblesville Students for Life filed a lawsuit against the school, arguing that their First Amendment rights were violated when the school refused to allow E.D.’s proposed posters.

But a federal district court ruled in favor of the school, finding that the flyers “could reasonably be perceived to bear the imprimatur of the school.” The district court applied a 1988 decision from the Supreme Court in the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, in which the high court held that a school can exercise “editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”

“It would be reasonable for parents and other members of the public entering NHS for sporting events, student concerts, theater performances, parent-teacher conferences, or any other reason who observed such flyers displayed on school walls to erroneously attribute any political messaging they contained to the school district or the school itself,” U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker wrote in a 2024 decision.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, finding that students, parents or visitors to the school could view the posters as reflecting the school’s endorsement.

“This is not a case about tolerating private student speech,” the court found. “To the contrary, E.D. was permitted to wear her pro-life shirt to school and hand out her flyers to students at the activities fair. Instead, it is a case about whether the school must lend its resources (here, literally its walls) — and, by extension, its authority — to disseminate student messages.”

Additionally, the 7th Circuit said the school’s restriction on political content in flyers aimed to maintain “neutrality on matters of political controversy.” Allowing school walls to be covered with competing political messages would “divert attention from the business of learning,” the panel found.

E.D., represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative judicial group, appealed to the Supreme Court. In a filing to the justices, they argued that the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision has been used by schools and universities to censor speech they deem controversial.

“That can’t be the right rule for our nurseries of democracy,” the plaintiffs wrote, adding that the federal appeals courts have adopted different views on the breadth of student-speech protections. In a landmark 1969 decision in the case Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court held that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

They warned that “public schools and educators increasingly engage in political advocacy and indoctrination, heightening the risk that students who dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy will be censored.”

But lawyers for Noblesville High School argued that the case is not about a student’s expression at school, and instead addresses whether a school “must lend its walls to students to disseminate political messages.”

Students are free to express their political views through other channels, they wrote in a filing, but said the school had the authority to restrict political content on materials posted on its walls.

伊朗总统：伊美6月19日签署谅解备忘录

2026年6月15日 22:06 / 联合早报

伊朗总统：伊美6月19日签署谅解备忘录

伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬说，伊朗和美国将于6月19日签署谅解备忘录。 （法新社）

伊朗媒体星期一（6月15日）报道，伊朗总统佩泽希齐扬说，德黑兰与华盛顿将于6月19日签署谅解备忘录。

美国总统特朗普星期天（14日）宣布与伊朗达成协议，双方会在6月19日签署谅解备忘录。

谅解备忘录的文本内容尚未公开。美国副总统万斯星期一早些时候告诉美媒，希望本周能公开文本。