Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky appeared in court remotely Tuesday where he said he agreed with his lawyers not to go forward with testimony from an accuser who wants to recant allegations that Sandusky sexually abused him years ago.

The hearing was part of the latest bid by Sandusky's lawyers to secure a new trial for him as his lawyers prepare to go to federal court to seek a new trial after failing repeatedly in state courts.

In court, Sandusky, 82, appeared on a video screen in a spare room in Laurel Highlands state prison, seated at a small table in a maroon-colored shirt looking up at the camera through glasses.

Under questioning, he told Centre County Judge Maureen Skerda he had consulted with his lawyers about the decision not to present the accuser's testimony recanting the allegations from Sandusky's 2012 trial.

"I'm making this decision on advice of counsel," Sandusky said, his arms on the table in front of him, a notepad between them. "Is there anything wrong with that?"

Sandusky, 82, has been serving a decades-long prison sentence since he was convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse in 2012, after eight young men testified about what happened to them as boys.

Sandusky's lawyer, Jerry Russo, told reporters later that state courts frown on granting new trials based on a witness recantation, seeing it as "inherently unreliable."

Instead, Russo said, he plans to take Sandusky's broader claims for a new trial to federal court — Sandusky's made at least three attempts in state courts — after one more procedural appeal in state court.

Last year, Sandusky's lawyers had asked for a new trial, claiming there were inconsistencies in the accusers' testimony and that their testimony was driven by the possibility of financial gain, coaching by prosecutors and "therapy intended to (help) them reconstruct memories of alleged abuse."

Skerda months ago had refused to hear the claims, except for the recantation of the victim identified in court documents as R.R.

On Tuesday, Russo suggested that it wasn't worth taking the time for the judge to hear and consider the recantation testimony if it has no chance to win a new trial in a state court.

"If that's the only issue that remains for us to litigate, there's no purpose being served litigating it here in state court," Russo said.

Skerda told Russo and Sandusky that withdrawing the request to present the recantation from the accuser, identified in court documents as R.R., meant that it could not be litigated again in state or federal court.

Russo agreed with that assessment, saying "technically" it is true, but also suggested that the recantation could find its way into federal court, saying that "there are other witnesses that can testify" about R.R.'s recantation.

The Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General had said the supposed recantation was "highly suspect" and said it had prepared to rebut the recantation claim with testimony from six witnesses and other evidence.

In a statement, Attorney General David Sunday called Sandusky a "convicted child predator" and said he is making another attempt to "avoid accountability and escape punishment for years of abuse he perpetrated."

Sandusky was the defensive coordinator at one of the country's top football programs under Hall of Fame head coach Joe Paterno. The scandal led to Paterno's firing, and the university paid more than $100 million to people who said they were abused by Sandusky.

Authorities said he found and groomed boys at The Second Mile, a charity he founded for at-risk youth. Sandusky has repeatedly declared his innocence.

R.R., who was 25 years old at trial, testified that when he was 11, Sandusky sexually abused him in the coach's basement in 1998, a transcript shows.

Donald Trump fired the new top federal prosecutor in Seattle on Wednesday less than an hour after the attorney was unanimously appointed by the federal judges in the district, highlighting tensions between the courts and the president over the powerful positions.

Roger Rogoff, a former judge and veteran state and federal prosecutor, was sworn in as US attorney before 8am at the US courthouse in downtown Seattle. In a phone interview, he said he then went to the US attorney's office and asked to meet with Charles Neil Floyd, whose 120-day interim term in the position ended in February.

As he waited in a lobby, Rogoff said, he received an email from the Trump administration informing him he had been removed from the position. He is consulting with other lawyers about suing over his firing, he said.

Presidents normally appoint US attorneys, the top federal prosecutors in each judicial district. The positions require Senate confirmation, except in temporary appointments. When temporary appointments expire before a nominee is confirmed, the judges in a judicial district can name a US attorney.

But under Trump, the justice department has sought to leave unconfirmed prosecutors in their positions indefinitely, often through novel personnel maneuvers.

"District court judges can appoint a temporary US attorney, and [the president] can fire them," the acting US attorney general, Todd Blanche, said in a social media post on Wednesday. He added that the judges who appointed Rogoff "abandoned the time-honored process of consultation with the administration so that the selected US attorney is qualified to serve in the administration".

Trump named Floyd, who previously served as an immigration judge, interim US attorney last October but never forwarded his nomination to the Senate. When Floyd's time as interim US attorney expired, Trump simply shifted his title, a tactic the administration has also tried in other federal judicial districts: he named him first assistant US attorney, while the top post was left empty.

In May, a US appeals court panel expressed skepticism that the maneuver was legal. The federal judges in the city decided to take applications for the position, and they appointed a bipartisan panel to review the applications.

On Wednesday morning the court – comprising 17 active and senior judges appointed by five presidents – issued its unanimous order naming Rogoff the US attorney for western Washington.

Patty Murray, a US senator from Washington, who had opposed Floyd for the US attorney job, blasted Rogoff's quick firing.

"Throughout his career, he has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to public service, and he was appointed legally by the federal judges in the western district of Washington," the senator said in a written statement. "This administration doesn't want to deal with advice and consent – they just want to install cronies to carry out a corrupt political agenda."

In December, Alina Habba resigned as the top federal prosecutor for New Jersey after an appeals court said she had been serving in the post unlawfully.

Lindsey Halligan, who pursued indictments against a pair of Trump's adversaries, left her position as an acting US attorney in Virginia after a judge concluded her appointment was unlawful and that indictments she brought against the New York attorney general, Letitia James, and the former FBI director James Comey must be dismissed.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day, a persistent target of President Donald Trump.

The 5-4 decision rejected a Republican-led attack on laws in more than half the states and the District of Columbia that permit mailed ballots to arrive and be counted some number of days after the election, provided they are postmarked by Election Day. The outcome spares officials the headache of changing their ballot rules just a few months before the 2026 midterm congressional elections.

In just over half those states, the more forgiving deadlines apply only to ballots cast by military and overseas voters.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the court's majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the three liberal justices.

Federal laws setting a single Election Day "leave open when those votes must be received," Barrett wrote.

Congress could change the law, she said. "If varied deadlines for ballot receipt similarly call for a national solution, the American people must choose it through their elected representatives," Barrett wrote.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the dissent for four justices. "Not only is today's decision inconsistent with statutory text, legal context, historical practice, and precedent; it also threatens to produce lamentable consequences," Alito wrote. "The majority's holding spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."

The legal challenge was part of Trump's broader attack on most mail balloting, which he has said breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and years of experience in numerous states. Trump has repeatedly claimed that his loss to Joe Biden in 2020 resulted from fraud even though more than 60 court decisions and his own attorney general said that argument had no merit.

Trump called the court ruling a "tremendous loss" and renewed his call for Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, which has made it through the House of Representatives but not the Senate.

The court heard arguments in March in a case from Mississippi pitting the state against Trump's Republican administration and the Republican and Libertarian parties. At issue was whether federal law sets a single Election Day that requires ballots to be both cast by voters and received by state officials.

The federal appeals court in New Orleans struck down a Mississippi law allowing ballots to be counted if they arrive within five business days of the election and are postmarked by Election Day.

The outcome is a "sigh of relief" for a lot of election administrators, said Stephen Richer, a Republican and the former top election administrator in Arizona's Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix.

A ruling in favor of the Republican National Committee "would have created a whole host of administrative challenges for the affected states," said Richer, who is now a legal fellow at the Cato Institute.

A tourist from Washington state pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges accusing him of hurling a coconut-sized rock at an endangered Hawaiian monk seal and was ordered to stay away from Hawaii beaches.

Igor Lytvynchuk, 38, of Covington, Washington, was in U.S. District Court in Honolulu Wednesday, where he pleaded not guilty to charges of harassing and attempting to harass a protected animal. U.S. Magistrate Judge Rom Trader allowed him to remain free pending the criminal case but ordered him to stay away from beaches and marine wildlife while in Hawaii.

"You're not going to the beach, you understand that," Trader told Lytvynchuk, who responded that he understood.

Lytvynchuk declined to comment after the hearing.

One of his defense attorneys, Myles Breiner, said previously his client was trying to protect sea turtles and has since been physically assaulted, threatened and doxed.

Earlier this month, a witness recorded what prosecutors say was a video of him throwing the rock at a Hawaiian monk seal at a Maui beach. He later made arrangements to surrender in the Seattle area as special agents with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were seeking to arrest him, prosecutors said.

The video drew widespread condemnation and demands for prosecution in Hawaii, including from Maui's mayor. Scientists identified the seal as an adult male known as "R404," NOAA said.

According to prosecutors, a state Department of Land and Natural Resources officer investigated a report of Hawaiian monk seal harassment in Lahaina, the community that was largely destroyed by a deadly wildfire in 2023. A witness showed the officer video of the seal swimming in shallow water while a man watched from shore.

The video showed Lytvynchuk throwing the rock, described by a witness as the size of a coconut, directly at the seal, narrowly missing its head, prosecutors said in a criminal complaint.

When a witness confronted Lytvynchuk, he said "he did not care and was 'rich' enough to pay any fines," according to the complaint.

Afterward, a man "brutally assaulted" Lytvynchuk, Breiner said. Lytvynchuk declined to file a police report on the assault, the attorney said.

Breiner explained his client had been to Hawaii previously and was familiar with sea turtles, but not Hawaiian monk seals. Lytvynchuk is a fisherman and thought the seal was an aggressive sea lion, the lawyer said.

"So his response was not to hurt this monk seal, but to get it away from the turtles," Breiner said.

The incident shows NOAA must do more to educate the public about protecting Hawaiian monk seals, Hawaii's U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Since the video surfaced, Lytvynchuk has faced death threats and doxing, including receiving a package at his home containing what appeared to be feces, Breiner said.

He said his client is being treated unfairly because he is a white outsider. "The vast majority of attacks on monk seal and turtle are by locals," he said.

Lytvynchuk is charged with violations of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Hawaiian monk seals are a critically endangered species. Only 1,600 remain in the wild.

If convicted, he faces up to one year in prison for each charge. He also faces a fine of up to $50,000 under the Endangered Species Act and a fine of up to $20,000 under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

At the hearing, attended by numerous Hawaiian monk seal protection activists, Trader set a scheduling hearing for June 9, but said Lytvynchuk is allowed to participate by phone or video from Washington. Trader ordered him not to travel outside Washington and Hawaii. Lytvynchuk said he surrendered his U.S. passport to authorities.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a push to avoid a lawsuit alleging that Facebook and Instagram harmed young users, a decision that comes as social media companies increasingly face legal scrutiny.

Parent company Meta Platforms Inc. appealed after Vermont's highest court allowed a suit filed by its attorney general in 2023 to move forward. The company is facing similar lawsuits from states across the country, accusing it of knowingly designing addictive features.

Meta had argued that it can't be sued in Vermont court because neither the company nor the app design has specific ties to the state. Vermont countered that the sites' large number of teen users gives its courts jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in a brief, unexplained order, as is typical. The procedural decision comes after court losses for Meta and YouTube in social media addiction lawsuits in California and New Mexico.

Vermont's lawsuit was filed after an investigation by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general in several states. Newspaper reports based on Meta's own research also found that the company knew about the harms Instagram can cause teenagers — especially teen girls — when it comes to mental health and body image issues. One internal study cited 13.5% of teen girls saying Instagram makes thoughts of suicide worse and 17% of teen girls saying it makes eating disorders worse.

Almost all teens ages 13 to 17 in the U.S. report using a social media platform, with about a third saying they use social media "almost constantly," according to the Pew Research Center.

Meta, for its part, has said that it has already introduced dozens of tools to support teens and their families and suggested it would have worked with the states on standards for youth social media use.

Vermont Attorney General Charity Clark applauded the decision, saying it affirms "that companies that choose to do business in Vermont, like Meta, can be held accountable when they harm kids."

A Canadian man facing murder charges for allegedly selling lethal substances online to people at risk of self-harm has agreed to plead guilty to 14 counts of counseling or aiding suicide, his lawyer said on Saturday.

In turn, Canadian prosecutors will withdraw all 14 murder charges filed against Kenneth Law, lawyer Matthew Gourlay told The Associated Press in a email.

"The plea will be to the charges of aiding suicide," he said in an email. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation first reported the plea.

Law will make a virtual appearance by Zoom before a Newmarket, Ontario, court on Monday afternoon for the purpose of further scheduling, Gourlay said. The plea and the sentencing will take place at a later date.

Calls to Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General weren't immediately answered.

Canadian police say Law, from the Toronto area, used a series of websites to market and sell sodium nitrite, a substance commonly used to cure meats that can be deadly if ingested. They say he is suspected of sending at least 1,200 packages to more than 40 countries.

Authorities in the United States, Britain, Italy, Australia and New Zealand also have launched investigations.

It is against the law in Canada for someone to recommend suicide, although assisted suicide has been legal since 2016 for people aged at least 18. Any adult with a serious illness, disease or disability may seek help in dying, but they must ask for assistance from a physician.

Law has been in custody since his arrest at his Mississauga, Ontario, home in May 2023.

According to the Canadian Criminal Code, abetting suicide carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. A murder conviction automatically means life in prison, with no chance of parole for at least 25 years.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday refused to block the Pentagon from blacklisting artificial intelligence laboratory Anthropic in a decision that differed from the conclusions reached in another judge's ruling on the same issues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., rejected Anthropic's request for an order that would shield the San Francisco company from the fallout stemming from a dispute over how the Pentagon could deploy its Claude chatbot in fully autonomous weapons and potential surveillance of Americans while the panel is still collecting evidence about the case.

But the setback in Washington came after Anthropic already had prevailed in separate case focused on the same issues in San Francisco federal court. In that case, a judge forced President Donald Trump's administration to remove a label tainting the company as a national security risk.

Anthropic filed the two separate lawsuits in San Francisco and the Washington appeals court last month, asserting the Trump administration was engaging in an "unlawful campaign of retaliation" because of its attempt to impose limits on how its AI technology can be deployed. The Trump administration blasted Anthropic as a liberal-leaning company trying to dictate U.S. military policy.

In the San Francisco case, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the Trump administration had overstepped its bounds by labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk unqualified to work with military contractors and issuing other directives that could cripple a company locked in a race for AI supremacy against rivals such as ChatGPT maker Open AI and Google.

That decision prompted the Trump administration to remove the stigmatizing labels from Anthropic and take other steps clearing the way for government employees and contractors to continue using Claude and other chatbots, according to court filing made in San Francisco earlier this week.