The fraud trial against former U.S. Rep. George Santos, slated to start in a matter of weeks, is coming into focus after a federal judge ruled Tuesday that jurors will have their identities kept secret from the public.

They won’t, however, be required to fill out a written questionnaire gauging their opinions of Santos when they arrive for jury selection Sept. 9, as his lawyers had requested.

Judge Joanna Seybert said during a brief hearing in federal court on Long Island that she agreed with the government’s assessment that a questionnaire would only bog the proceedings down.

She said questioning each potential juror in person would allow her and both sides to ask more varied and probing questions to elicit more truthful responses.

Prosecutors told the judge the trial could last three weeks because they expect to call at least three dozen witnesses, including some victims of Santos’ alleged crimes.

Santos has pleaded not guilty to a range of financial crimes, including lying to Congress about his wealth, collecting unemployment benefits while actually working, and using campaign contributions to pay for personal expenses such as designer clothing.

Seybert urged both sides to work together to “streamline” the proceedings where possible.

“Make me hopeful. Seriously,” she said. “Sit down and discuss what is absolutely necessary.”

Santos, who was dressed in a blue suit, declined to speak with reporters outside the courthouse after the hearing, the last expected before the trial.

But when asked whether he believed his client could receive a fair trial, Santos’ lawyer Robert Fantone said, “I think we’re going to be alright.”

In court, Santos’ lawyers pushed back at claims prosecutors made in prior legal filings that they’re not participating fully in the required pretrial document-sharing process known as discovery.

Prosecutors this month said they’ve turned over more than 1.3 million pages of records, while defense lawyers have produced just five pages. But when pressed by the judge, Santos’ lawyers maintained that they’ve turned over every document in their possession.

“We’re not stonewalling,” said Joe Murray, another Santos lawyer. “Trial by ambush is not how I operate.”

The New York Republican’s lawyers had argued in recent court filings that a questionnaire addressing potential jurors’ “knowledge, beliefs, and preconceptions” was needed because of the extensive negative media coverage surrounding Santos, who was expelled from Congress in December after an ethics investigation found “overwhelming evidence” he had broken the law and exploited his public position for his own profit.

They cited more than 1,500 articles by major news outlets and a " Saturday Night Live " skit about Santos. They also noted similar questionnaires were used in other high-profile federal cases in New York, including the trial of notorious drug kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.

“For all intents and purposes, Santos has already been found guilty in the court of public opinion,” read the defense memo filed last week.

Social media platform X said Saturday it will close its operations in Brazil, claiming Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes threatened to arrest its legal representative in Brazil if they did not comply with orders.

X is removing all remaining Brazil staff in the country “effective immediately,” though the company said service will still be available to the people of Brazil. The company did not clarify how it could claim to suspend operations while continuing to provide services to Brazilians.

Earlier this year, the company clashed with de Moraes over free speech, far-right accounts and misinformation on X. The company said his most recent orders amounted to censorship, and shared a copy of the document on X.

The Supreme Court’s press office didn’t immediately respond to Associated Press email requests seeking comment, or to confirm the veracity of the document, on Saturday.

In the United States, free speech is a constitutional right that’s much more permissive than in many countries, including Brazil, where de Moraes in April ordered an investigation into CEO Elon Musk over the dissemination of defamatory fake news and another probe over possible obstruction, incitement and criminal organization.

Brazil’s political right has long characterized de Moraes as overstepping his bounds to clamp down on free speech and engage in political persecution.

Whether investigating former President Jair Bolsonaro, banishing his far-right allies from social media, or ordering the arrest of supporters who stormed government buildings on Jan. 8, 2023, de Moraes has aggressively pursued those he views as undermining Brazil’s young democracy.

“Moraes has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process,” the company said in a statement on X.

In a tweet Saturday morning, the self-proclaimed “free speech absolutist” and owner of X, Musk, said de Moraes “is an utter disgrace to justice.”

The Supreme Court on Friday kept on hold in roughly half the country new regulations about sex discrimination in education, rejecting a Biden administration request.

The court voted 5-4, with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the three liberal justices in dissent.

At issue were protections for pregnant students and students who are parents, and the procedures schools must use in responding to sexual misconduct complaints.

The most noteworthy of the new regulations, involving protections for transgender students, were not part of the administration’s plea to the high court. They too remain blocked in 25 states and hundreds of individual colleges and schools across the country because of lower court orders.

The cases will continue in those courts.

The rules took effect elsewhere in U.S. schools and colleges on Aug. 1. The rights of transgender people — and especially young people — have become a major political battleground in recent years as trans visibility has increased. Most Republican-controlled states have banned gender-affirming health care for transgender minors, and several have adopted policies limiting which school bathrooms trans people can use and barring trans girls from some sports competitions.

In April, President Joe Biden’s administration sought to settle some of the contention with a regulation to safeguard rights of LGBTQ+ students under Title IX, the 1972 law against sex discrimination in schools that receive federal money. The rule was two years in the making and drew 240,000 responses — a record for the Education Department.

The rule declares that it’s unlawful discrimination to treat transgender students differently from their classmates, including by restricting bathroom access. It does not explicitly address sports participation, a particularly contentious topic.

Title IX enforcement remains highly unsettled. In a series of rulings, federal courts have declared that the rule cannot be enforced in most of the Republican states that sued while the litigation continues.

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that it was declining to question the lower court rulings that concluded that “the new definition of sex discrimination is intertwined with and affects many other provisions of the new rule.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in dissent that the lower-court orders are too broad in that they “bar the Government from enforcing the entire rule — including provisions that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries

A Detroit judge who ordered a teenager into jail clothes and handcuffs on a field trip to his courtroom will be off the bench while undergoing “necessary training,” the court’s chief judge said Thursday.

Meanwhile, the girl’s mother said Judge Kenneth King was a “big bully.”

“My daughter is hurt. She is feeling scared,” Latoreya Till told the Detroit Free Press.

She identified her daughter as Eva Goodman. The 15-year-old fell asleep in King’s court Tuesday while on a visit organized by a Detroit nonprofit.

King didn’t like it. But he said it was her attitude that led to the jail clothes, handcuffs and stern words.

“I wanted this to look and feel very real to her, even though there’s probably no real chance of me putting her in jail,” he explained to WXYZ-TV.

King has been temporarily removed from his criminal case docket and will undergo “necessary training to address the underlying issues that contributed to this incident,” said William McConico, the chief judge at 36th District Court.

The court “remains deeply committed to providing access to justice in an environment free from intimidation or disrespect. The actions of Judge King on August 13th do not reflect this commitment,” McConico said.

He said the State Court Administrative Office approved the step. King will continue to be paid. Details about the training, and how long it would last, were not disclosed.

King, who has been a judge since 2006, didn’t immediately return a phone message seeking comment. At the close of his Thursday hearings, accessible on YouTube, he made a heart shape with his hands. The judge’s work includes determining whether there’s enough evidence to send felony cases to trial at Wayne County Circuit Court.

Till said her daughter was sleepy during the Tuesday court visit because the family doesn’t have a permanent residence.

“And so, that particular night, we got in kind of late,” she told the Free Press, referring to Monday night. “And usually, when she goes to work, she’s up and planting trees or being active.”

The teen was seeing King’s court as part of a visit organized by The Greening of Detroit, an environmental group.

Donald Trump has lost his latest bid for a new judge in his New York hush money criminal case as it heads toward a key ruling and potential sentencing next month.

In a decision posted Wednesday, Judge Juan M. Merchan declined to step aside and said Trump’s demand was a rehash “rife with inaccuracies and unsubstantiated claims” about his ability to remain impartial.

It is the third time that Merchan has rejected such a request from lawyers for the former president and current Republican nominee. They contend the judge has a conflict of interest because his daughter works as a political consultant for prominent Democrats, including Kamala Harris when she sought the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nomination. Harris is now the party’s nominee against Trump.

The judge’s daughter, Loren Merchan, met Harris occasionally in 2019 but never “developed an individual relationship” with her, consulting firm founder Mike Nellis told the chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, in a letter Tuesday. The firm, Authentic Campaigns Inc., has not worked for Harris’ campaign, President Joe Biden’s now-ended reelection bid or the Democratic National Committee in the 2024 election cycle, Nellis said.'

A state court ethics panel said last year that Merchan could continue as the judge on Trump’s case. The panel wrote that a relative’s independent political activities are not “a reasonable basis to question the judge’s impartiality.”

Merchan, a state court judge in Manhattan, acknowledged last year that he made several small donations to Democratic causes during the 2020 campaign, including $15 to Biden. But Merchan has repeatedly said he is certain he can handle Trump’s case fairly and impartially. In his ruling, Merchan wrote he will continue to base decisions “on the evidence and the law, without fear or favor, casting aside undue influence.”

“With these fundamental principles in mind, this Court now reiterates for the third time, that which should already be clear — innuendo and mischaracterizations do not a conflict create,” Merchan wrote in his three-page decision. “Recusal is therefore not necessary, much less required.”

But with Harris now Trump’s opponent, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche argued in a letter to the judge last month that the defense’s concerns have become “even more concrete.”

Prosecutors called the claims “a vexatious and frivolous attempt to relitigate” the issue.

Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung, citing Merchan’s donation to Biden and Loren Merchan’s consulting work, slammed him as a “highly-conflicted judge” who “should have long ago recused himself from this case.”

Merchan “has proved to be biased against President Trump and beholden to not only Democrat partisan interests, but also to the glaring financial interests of an immediate family member,” Cheung said.

Trump railed against Merchan on his Truth Social platform for continuing to keep him under a partial gag order — an issue that was not part of the recusal decision. Earlier this month, a state appeals court upheld the gag order, which bars Trump from making public comments about the prosecution team, court staffers or their families, including Merchan’s daughter.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which prosecuted the case, declined to comment.

Wisconsin Capitol Police have declined to investigate the leak of a state Supreme Court abortion order in June citing a conflict of interest, but the court’s chief justice told The Associated Press she is pursuing other options.

Chief Justice Annette Ziegler told AP via email on Thursday that she continues “to pursue other means in an effort to get to the bottom of this leak.” She did not respond to messages last week and Monday asking what those other means were. Other justices also did not return a request for comment Monday.

Ziegler called for the investigation on June 26 after the leak of a draft order that showed the court would take a case brought by Planned Parenthood that seeks to declare access to abortion a right protected by the state constitution. A week after the leak, the court issued the order accepting the case.

The draft order, which was not a ruling on the case itself, was obtained by online news outlet Wisconsin Watch. Ziegler said in June that all seven of the court’s justices — four liberals and three conservatives — were “united behind this investigation to identify the source of the apparent leak. The seven of us condemn this breach.”

Ziegler told AP last week that the justices asked State Capitol Police to investigate the leak. That department is in charge of security at state office buildings, including the Capitol where the Supreme Court offices and hearing chamber are located. The police are part of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ administration.

That created a “clear conflict” given the governor’s “significant concern about outcome of the court’s decisions in addition to being named parties in several matters currently pending before the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” Evers’ administration spokesperson Britt Cudaback said.

Evers is not a party to the case where the order was leaked, but he has been outspoken in his support for abortions being legal in Wisconsin.

Cudaback said Capitol Police had a conflict because any investigation “will almost certainly require a review of internal operations, confidential correspondence, and non-public court documents and deliberations relating to any number of matters in which our administration is a party or could be impacted by the court’s decision.”

However, Cudaback said Evers’ administration agreed there should be a thorough investigation “and we remain hopeful the Wisconsin Supreme Court will pursue an effort to do so.”

Ziegler noted that unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, the state Supreme Court does not have an independent law enforcement agency that can investigate.

Investigations into the inner workings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are rare and fraught.

In 2011, when Justice Ann Walsh Bradley accused then-Justice David Prosser of choking her, the Dane County Sheriff’s Department led the investigation. That agency took over the investigation after the chief of Capitol Police at the time said he had a conflict. But Republicans accused the sheriff of having a conflict because he was a Democrat who endorsed Bradley.

A court in Thailand on Wednesday removed Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin from office over an ethical violation, further shaking up Thai politics after it ordered the dissolution of the main opposition party a week ago.

The Constitutional Court ruled on a case involving Srettha’s appointment of a Cabinet member who had been jailed in connection with an alleged attempt to bribe a court official.

The court voted 5-4 against Srettha and the ruling removed him from office immediately.

The Cabinet will remain in place on a caretaker basis until Parliament approves a new prime minister. A vote was scheduled by Parliament on Friday, but it has no time limit for filling the position. The caretaker Cabinet could also dissolve Parliament and call a new election.

Srettha, speaking at Government House shortly after the verdict, thanked the judges for giving him the opportunity to defend himself. He said he respected the ruling and that he always sought to act ethically during his time in office, which was less than a year.

The acting prime minister is expected to be Phumtham Wechayachai of Srettha’s Pheu Thai party. Phumtham was first deputy prime minister and commerce minister under Srettha.

The Constitutional Court last week ordered the dissolution of the progressive Move Forward Party, which won last year’s general election, over an accusation that it violated the Constitution by proposing an amendment to a law against defaming the country’s royal family. The party has already regrouped as the People’s Party.