17 college basketball players charged in point shaving scheme: Indictment
Basketball on court (Matt_Brown/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Former college All-American Antonio Blakeney is among 17 basketball players charged in a point-shaving scheme to fix games in the NCAA and Chinese Basketball Association and rig bets, according to an indictment unsealed Thursday in Philadelphia.
The alleged scheme ran from September 2022 to February 2025 and defrauded various sportsbooks and individual bettors.
“The sportsbooks would not have paid out those wagers had they known that the defendants fixed those games,” the indictment said.
In total, 20 defendants are named in the indictment, including basketball players who agreed, in exchange for bribes, to fix NCAA and Chinese Basketball Association games. So-called fixers who were operating the scheme then placed big bets on those games.
“In placing these wagers on games they had fixed, the defendants defrauded sportsbooks, as well as individual sports bettors, who were all unaware that the defendants had corruptly manipulated the outcome of these games that should have been decided fairly, based on genuine competition and the best efforts of the players,” the indictment said.
Two of the players named in the indictment, Cedquavious Hunter and Dequavion Short, both of New Orleans, were sanctioned in November by the NCAA for allegedly fixing games.
Two other defendants, Marves Fairley and Shane Hennen, allegedly recruited Blakeney, an All-American college player and a leading scorer in the CBA, offering bribe payments in exchange for Blakeney underperforming in games. Blakeney also allegedly recruited other players from his team to join the scheme.
After profiting on the fixed CBA games, Fairley, Hennen and Blakeney allegedly turned their attention to fixing NCAA men’s basketball games.
They are accused of recruiting players who would help ensure their team failed to cover the spread of the first half of a game or an entire game, the indictment said. The fixers would then place wagers on those games through sportsbooks, betting against the team whose player or players they had bribed to engage in this point-shaving scheme, the indictment said.
The bribe payments ranged from $10,000 to $30,000 per game, a sum prosecutors said exceeded most players’ legitimate opportunity to make money by marketing their name, image and likeness. The fixers also allegedly targeted players on teams that were underdogs in games and sought to have them fail to cover the spreads in those games.
Jesse Jackson poses for a portrait during the 55th Anniversary of Ben’s Chili Bowl on August 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. (Kris Connor/Getty Images)
(CHICAGO) — Memorial services for Rev. Jesse Jackson began on Thursday in Chicago, where the late civil rights icon, Baptist minister and politician lay in repose at the headquarters of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition — the organization he founded in 1996 to fight for social justice.
Jackson’s family departed the Leaks and Sons Funeral Home on Thursday morning and their procession drove down Cottage Grove Avenue to reach Rainbow PUSH Coalition, where thousands are expected to pay their respects to the civil rights leader on Thursday and Friday.
“Jesse Jackson, Sr. changed the United States — and the world,” the Jackson family said in a statement on Wednesday. “We are deeply honored to know there are people from every walk of life who want to join us to pay their respects.”
Jackson was born in Greenville, S.C. on Oct. 8, 1941 and will lie in honor at the South Carolina State House in Columbia on Monday. Afterwards, his body will be transported to Washington, D.C. for a formal funeral service on Wednesday, before returning to Chicago for “The People’s Celebration,” a public homegoing service on Friday, and a private final homegoing service on Saturday.
Jackson’s children honored their father’s legacy, reflecting on his 1984 and 1988 presidential runs and how he dedicated his career to advancing economic justice and building political power for Black Americans.
Jesse Jackson, Jr. called for unity in the Feb. 18 press conference ahead of his father’s funeral services.
“Do not bring your politics out of respect to Rev. Jesse Jackson and the life that he lived to these home going services,” he said. “Come respectful and come to say thank you, but these homegoing services are welcome to all Democrat, Republican, liberal and conservative, right wing, left wing, because his life is broad enough to cover the full spectrum of what it means to be an American.”
He asked people to “be respectful in the context of the extraordinary life” his father lived.
“Dad would have wanted us to have a great meeting to discuss our differences, to find ways of moving forward and moving together, and if his life becomes a turning point in our national political discourse, amen,” he said.
In addition to the city of Chicago, governors of Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina and South Carolina ordered flags to be flown at half-staff to honor Jackson. In announcing plans to lower the flags, governors highlighted the impact that Jackson made on the communities in each of those states.
“Jesse Jackson, Sr. marched beside Martin Luther King, Jr. for civil rights for all people. He traveled the world fighting economic and gender inequity. Until his last days, he fought for better healthcare, education, and peace in Chicago, Illinois, the United States, and beyond,” the Jackson family said in a statement on Wednesday. “I hope everyone who joins us to honor his legacy will also continue to champion these causes. That would be the best possible tribute and celebration they could offer.”
The Department of Homeland Security seal (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Domestic partners are “increasingly likely” to use chemical and biological toxins to kill or harm their partners, a trend so alarming that the Department of Homeland Security issued a warning to law enforcement.
The warning came in a January intelligence note, obtained by ABC News, that said people intent on harming or killing their domestic partners are turning to poisons like cyanide or ricin to do it, which are “often sourced from online black markets or made at home.”
“The use of chemical and biological toxins in domestic violence cases poses a significant challenge for detection and prosecution due to the often subtle and delayed onset of symptoms,” the intelligence note said.
The document highlighted as an example the case of a Colorado dentist convicted of first-degree murder last year after gradually poisoning his wife with a mix of arsenic, cyanide and tetrahydrozoline, the latter a medication commonly found in over-the-counter eye drops. The dentist secretly dosed his wife by adding the poisons to her protein shakes, according to prosecutors, resulting in her being hospitalized three times in a 10-day span, and then gave her a fatal dose of cyanide while she was ill in the hospital.
“Incidents using chemical or biological toxins to harm or kill are driven by several factors including accessibility of online information, ease of obtaining certain chemicals, and perceived difficulty in detection,” the DHS note said. It also listed an additional 16 cases in the U.S. since 2019 in which individuals were accused or convicted of poisoning current or former spouses, domestic or romantic partners, or family members, 10 of which resulted in the victim’s death.
Substances most often used in domestic poisoning incidents are antifreeze, eye drops, the synthetic opioid fentanyl and the prescription medication colchicine, as well as cyanide and the chemical element thallium, according to the note.
“These substances are often chosen for their ability to mimic natural illnesses, complicating detection and investigation,” the note said.
“If the trend of using chemical or biological toxins to kill or harm continues, we may see an increase in fatalities and long-term health consequences among survivors,” as well as an increase in the “need for specialized training and equipment for first responders,” according to the DHS note.
“The recurring use of these toxins by domestic partners highlights the need for more awareness, regulation, and forensic expertise to address this trend in domestic partner violence,” the note further said.
Signage at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. Stefani Reynolds/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — The Environmental Protection Agency is walking back a landmark environmental decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.
For more than 16 years, the EPA’s endangerment finding served as the scientific and legal foundation for federal regulations on carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The 2009 decision found that certain greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. The regulations that resulted cover everything from vehicle tailpipe emissions to the release of greenhouse gases from power plants and other significant emission sources.
President Donald Trump, joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, is expected to announce the decision on Thursday.
In a statement to ABC News, the EPA said it’s “actively working to deliver a historic action for the American people. Sixteen years ago, the Obama Administration made one of the most damaging decisions in modern history – the 2009 Endangerment Finding. In the intervening years, hardworking families and small businesses have paid the price as a result.”
Some climate scientists and policy experts say the agency’s decision to repeal the finding, even just for cars and trucks, could significantly affect U.S. efforts to address human-amplified climate change. The EPA calculates that the transportation sector is the largest contributor of direct greenhouse gas emissions in the country, with cars and trucks accounting for more 75% of those emissions.
“This is taking away the principal federal authority to regulate greenhouse gases. All of the federal regulations under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases depend on the endangerment finding. If it’s wiped out, none of those regulations exist,” said Michael Gerrard, a professor at Columbia Law School and the faculty director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
Gerrard said the immediate impact of the EPA’s decision will be somewhat muted by the fact that the Trump administration has already revoked most regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.These include greenhouse gas emission limits on passenger vehicles, emission controls on fossil fuel-powered power plants, and controls on methane leakage from oil and gas wells.
“But this action attempts to be the nail in the coffin of all those regulations, at least for the balance of the Trump administration,” Gerrard added.
Saying the decision “amounts to the largest act of deregulation in the history of the United States,” the Trump administration estimates the move will save Americans $1.3 trillion, primarily by reducing the cost of cars and trucks. The EPA said consumers will save more than $2,400 on the purchase of a new vehicle.
But Lou Leonard, dean of Clark University’s School of Climate, Environment, and Society, says the repeal could also result in companies facing more financial and legal challenges.
“It’s going to expose, particularly businesses that are very fossil fuel intensive, to legal claims that they might not have otherwise been exposed to,” said Leonard.
“When the EPA vacates the space legally and says we’re not going to regulate, we’re out of this game, then that not only creates room for other state and local governments to do their regulation, but it also creates room for legal claims against companies for not acting on climate, because they can’t say, well, we’re just following the regulations that the federal government has created,” he added.
“The EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding triggered a trillion-dollar regulatory cascade that Congress never authorized,” the conservative nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation said in a statement to ABC News. “What began as authority to address regional smog and acid rain has been stretched to vehicle emissions, power plants, oil and gas operations, and federal lands – reshaping America’s entire energy economy and ability to harness natural resources through administrative fiat.”
The EPA’s expected repeal of the 2009 finding “restores the principle that decisions of this magnitude require clear congressional authorization, not bureaucratic improvisation,” the statement continued.
A widely anticipated decision
The announcement from the administration was widely anticipated; the Trump administration has made the endangerment finding’s review a priority since the first day of Trump’s second term.
On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Unleashing American Energy” that required the head of the EPA to work with other agencies to “submit joint recommendations to the Director of OMB on the legality and continuing applicability of the Administrator’s findings” regarding the endangerment finding. The order gave them 30 days to respond.
Then, in March, the EPA announced more than two dozen policy recommendations aimed at rolling back environmental protections and eliminating a series of climate change regulations, including plans to “formally reconsider the endangerment finding.”
In a statement at the time, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “The Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas. We will follow the science, the law, and common sense wherever it leads, and we will do so while advancing our commitment towards helping to deliver cleaner, healthier, and safer air, land, and water.”
As part of the March announcement, the agency released a fact sheet about the endangerment finding, describing it as “the first step in the Obama-Biden Administration’s (and later the Biden-Harris Administration’s) overreaching climate agenda” and stating that it has cost the country trillions of dollars.
The EPA announced its proposal to rescind the endangerment finding in late July 2025, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that limited the regulatory power of executive agencies and arguing that the Obama administration misinterpreted Congress’s intent when it passed the Clean Air Act.
The Supreme Court case that led to the endangerment finding
The endangerment finding stems from the 2007 Supreme Court decision Massachusetts v. EPA, which held that the EPA could regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles under the 1970 Clean Air Act because those gases are air pollutants.
That ruling became the legal foundation for many of the federal government’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for vehicles, fossil-fuel power plants, and other sources of pollution responsible for climate change.
Writing for the court at the time, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “If EPA makes a finding of endangerment, the Clean Air Act requires the agency to regulate emissions of the deleterious pollutant from new motor vehicles.”
“Under the clear terms of the Clean Air Act, EPA can avoid taking further action only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do,” Stevens added.
In 2009, the head of the EPA made a landmark environmental decision. Lisa P. Jackson, appointed by President Barack Obama to lead the agency, determined that the current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” Her decision, based on a nearly 200-page EPA analysis of the science, more than 380,000 public comments and two public hearings, became what is now known as the “endangerment finding.”
Critics of decision say the underlying science is even stronger today
Critics of the administration’s plan to rescind the finding argue that the science linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change is even stronger today than when the endangerment finding was established in 2009. They argue that the repeal lacks both a scientific basis and a legal foundation and will exacerbate the harmful impacts of climate change. Some are already promising to fight the decision in court.
“The Trump administration justifies this assault on science and our health by falsely claiming that U.S. climate-heating pollution doesn’t matter and that it lacks the authority to cut it. That’s a lie, and any 6-year-old knows it’s wrong to lie,” said Dan Becker, director of the Center for Biological Diversity’s Safe Climate Transport Campaign, in a statement to ABC News.
“The United States is the second-largest carbon polluter in the world after China, and the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases. The U.S. emitted 11% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2021, and during Trump’s first term his administration admitted that emissions in excess of 3% were ‘significant,’” he added.
“EPA’s own settled science shows that managing greenhouse gases is fundamental to protecting Americans. Rolling back these safeguards is a dangerous breach of responsibility to protect people, the environment, and our economy, benefitting polluters at the expense of all people,” said World Resources Institute (WRI) U.S. Director David Widawsky in a statement.
Overwhelming scientific evidence
In the more than 16 years since the EPA issued its 2009 endangerment finding, the science on how greenhouse gases impact human health has become more robust.
In response to the EPA’s request for public input, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a comprehensive independent assessment of the science behind the endangerment finding to help inform the agency’s final decision. They released their report in September, concluding the EPA’s 2009 determination was accurate and is now supported by stronger scientific evidence, with many uncertainties that existed at the time now resolved.
“[T]he evidence for current and future harm to human health and welfare created by human-caused greenhouse gases is beyond scientific dispute,” the report stated.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation on such issues. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Abraham Lincoln.
Similarly, the United Nations concluded that “health and the climate are inextricably linked, and today the health of billions is endangered by the climate crisis.” The U.N. cited severe weather events, toxic air pollution, an increased risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and extreme heat as evidence that human-amplified climate change poses a significant danger to people.
In 2021, 200 leading medical journals issued a joint editorial stating that “the science is unequivocal: a global increase of 1.5° C above the pre-industrial average and the continued loss of biodiversity risk catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse.”
And in 2023, the Fifth National Climate Assessment, a report that the federal government describes as providing “authoritative scientific information about climate change risks, impacts, and responses in the U.S.,” found that “climate changes are making it harder to maintain safe homes and healthy families; reliable public services; a sustainable economy; thriving ecosystems, cultures, and traditions; and strong communities.”
“This is another setback in the fight against climate change. We’re already seeing climate change having very negative impacts. It worsens flooding, heat waves, wildfires and other impacts. We’ve seen catastrophes already in the United States for all of these. We will see more,” Gerrard said.
What happens next?
A coalition of state attorneys general, including those from California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, along with environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, has indicated they will challenge the EPA’s decision. They argue the action is unlawful because it ignores the agency’s obligations under the Clean Air Act to regulate pollutants that endanger public health and welfare.
“This action is unlawful, ignores basic science, and denies reality. We know greenhouse gases cause climate change and endanger our communities and our health – and we will not stop fighting to protect the American people from pollution,” said California Governor Gavin Newsom and Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, who are also the co-chairs of the U.S. Climate Alliance.
While the courts could overturn the repeal, Gerrard said they could also rule that the EPA needs congressional authorization for significant regulatory actions.
“If the Supreme Court says that, that would tie the hands of another president in reinstating the endangerment finding and in using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. It would not block another president from rejoining the Paris Agreement or doing lots of other things to fight climate change, but it would greatly hurt their ability to use the Clean Air Act,” said Gerrard.
Previous lawsuits challenged the endangerment finding itself, but the courts have consistently rejected those efforts. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the endangerment finding after fossil fuel industry groups challenged the EPA’s use of scientific assessments. The court ruled that the EPA’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the agency had considered the scientific evidence in “a rational manner.” The following year, the Supreme Court declined to hear petitions specifically contesting the finding.
Leonard warns that it will be a “long road” to learn out how the decision plays out.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty, and we’re gonna have even more starting tomorrow or the next day, and that’s not good. It’s not good for the public health of Americans, it’s not good for the welfare of our communities, and it’s not good for the business climate and the economy in America,” said Leonard.
