Gun magazine found on Frontier Airlines flight, passengers forced to deplane
A Frontier Airlines plane lands at San Francisco International Airport on April 15, 2025, in San Francisco, California. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
(DENVER, Colo.) — Passengers on a Frontier Airlines flight were forced to deplane at the gate Sunday evening in Denver after an ammunition magazine was found on the aircraft as it was preparing for departure, according to the airline.
Frontier says preliminary investigation indicates the magazine belongs to a law enforcement officer who may have left it behind on a previous flight.
There were no injuries, officials said. All passengers were deplaned and rescreened out of precaution, and the plane also went through a security sweep, and nothing additional was recovered from the flight, according to the airline.
Flight 4765 was scheduled to travel from Denver to Phoenix. Due to the delay, the flight crew exceeded their duty time, and passengers were booked on another flight, which departed Monday morning, according to Frontier Airlines.
TSA says it is aware of the incident, and the FBI is leading the investigation.
Brianna Arango is seen in an undated photo released by the Southern Methodist University Police Department. Southern Methodist University Police Department
(DALLAS) — Police are looking for a missing Texas college student, calling it a “matter of concern.”
Brianna Arango, 21, a student at Southern Methodist University, was last seen midday Thursday on the Dallas campus, according to police.
She was last seen around 12:30 p.m. near Harold Simmons Hall, according to the Southern Methodist University Police Department.
A family member contacted SMU Police at approximately 3:30 p.m. Thursday to report that Arango did not meet with them as planned earlier that afternoon, campus police said. She had a class at 1 p.m. that she also did not attend, police said.
“Based on the information available, SMU Police are actively working to locate Brianna and are treating this as a matter of concern,” the department said in an advisory.
“SMU Police are asking for the campus community’s assistance in locating her,” the advisory added.
Arango was last seen wearing a white shirt, blue sweatpants and carrying a beige tote bag, police said.
Anyone with information on her whereabouts is asked to contact SMU Police at 214-768-3388.
Nurses on strike rally outside Gov. Hochul’s midtown office after marching from Grand Central Monday, Feb. 2, 2026, in Manhattan, New York. (Barry Williams/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The largest nurses strike in New York City history ended this weekend when the last holdouts in the 41-day labor action overwhelmingly voted to ratify a contract and agreed to return to work, officials said.
Around 4,200 members of the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) employed by the private New York-Presbyterian system approved on Saturday a contract that includes more than a 12% increase in salaries over the life of the three-year deal.
The nurses and management of the New York-Presbyterian system also agreed to improve enforceable safe staffing standards, boost protection for nurses from workplace violence and, for the first time ever, provide safeguards for employees against artificial intelligence.
The union previously said the hospitals had threatened to cut health care benefits for frontline nurses and roll back safe staffing standards that were won by nurses after a three-day strike in January 2023.
The labor agreement was approved after about 10,500 NYSNA nurses employed by the private Montefiore, Mount Sinai Hospital and Mount Sinai Morningside and West hospitals approved a similar contract last week. Some nurses in the system began returning to work on Saturday, officials said.
About 93% of the NYSNA nurses in the New York-Presbyterian system voted to ratify the contract, and about 7% rejected the deal, which was announced on Thursday, according to the union.
Nearly 15,000 nurses in total walked off their jobs on Jan. 12 after declaring a stalemate in negotiations with management for the private hospital systems, making it the largest nurses’ strike in New York City history.
“This is a proud moment for our union,” NYSNA President Nancy Hagans said in a statement. “We are so happy with the wins we achieved, and now the fight to enforce these contracts and hold our employers accountable begins.”
Hagans added, “NYSNA nurses showed what it means to advocate for patients, and this moment will go down in history as a win for our communities, in the fight for healthcare justice, and for the labor movement.”
In a statement Saturday evening, management of NewYork-Presbyterian confirmed the contract had been ratified by the last group of striking nurses.
“We are pleased to share that we have a new ratified contract with the New York State Nurses Association (NYSNA) and look forward to our nurses’ return to the hospital,” management of the New York-Presbyterian system said. “The new contract reflects our respect for our nurses and the critical role they play as part of our exceptional care teams.”
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul also expressed relief that the strike was finally over.
“Nurses are the backbone of our health care system. I am grateful that NYSNA has overwhelmingly ratified an agreement with New York Presbyterian recognizing the exceptionally difficult work our nurses do day in and out,” Hochul said in a statement.
The governor added, “Throughout this process, I have made clear that my top priority is protecting patients and providing continuity of care. With these agreements now ratified and nurses going back to work, I am confident we can continue to build on the progress made under this administration.”
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks in front of the American flag to the press as he departs the White House on May 12, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — A District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals panel is set to hear arguments Thursday over the Trump administration’s bid to reinstate executive orders that sought punishing sanctions against four elite law firms over their past representation or employment of perceived political foes of President Donald Trump.
Four separate district court judges had previously granted permanent restraining orders sought by the four law firms — Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey, Wilmer Hale and Jenner & Block — after determining the EOs were unconstitutional.
Some of the judges derided the White House’s efforts to punish the firms in particularly blistering terms, likening the pressure campaign mounted last year by the Trump administration against ‘Big Law’ as akin to McCarthyism and the ‘Red Scare’ era in American history.
Staring down similar prospects of facing executive orders that sought to virtually eliminate their interactions with the government, at least nine other elite firms entered into controversial settlements with the Trump administration in exchange for providing pro bono legal services for causes supported by the White House.
Those settlements, which in sum totaled nearly $1 billion by the White House’s calculation, led to an exodus of high-profile attorneys at several of the firms who said the agreements amounted to capitulation in response to an unlawful intimidation campaign by the Trump administration.
In March, the Justice Department appeared inclined to drop their appeal of the injunctions and even notified attorneys and the circuit court that it was withdrawing the case.
Less than 24 hours later, however, the department abruptly reversed course and said it would continue arguing the appeal after multiple news articles described the move as a major victory for the firms that mounted the legal battle.
It’s unclear whether that back-and-forth will surface in oral arguments Thursday as the law firms seek to convince a three-judge panel to uphold the injunctions — which barred the Trump administration from implementing sanctions that included barring firm attorneys from accessing some federal properties and restricting their security clearances. Several of the firms described in detailed filings how the orders, if implemented, would effectively bankrupt them.
The administration, however, argued the orders were well within President Trump’s power to issue, and described the district courts’ orders as an impermissible intrusion on the executive branch.
“This appeal of those sweeping decisions is not about the sanctity of the American law firm; it is about lower courts encroaching on the constitutional power of the President to discuss and address invidious racial discrimination, national security risks, and other problems with certain law firms,” DOJ attorneys said in a court filing in March.
