Uvalde opens new elementary school honoring shooting victims 3 years after tragedy

(CONEJOS COUNTY, Colo.) —  Two elk hunters found dead last week were killed when a tree they were standing near was struck by lightning, a coroner confirmed to ABC News.

The two bodies found near the Colorado-New Mexico border last week have officially been identified as Andrew Porter, 25, and Ian Stasko, 25, Conejos County Coroner Richard Martin told ABC News.

The bodies were found Sept. 18 after a dayslong search.

While the two hunters were not directly hit by lightning, the electricity traveled down through the tree and then struck Porter and Stasko, according to Martin.

“Do not stand under a tall tree during a lightning storm,” Martin advised.

The two bodies were otherwise “basically in perfect condition,” Martin said.

“I couldn’t believe they were that good of a condition after being in the wilderness for seven days,” he said.

The two hunters were first reported missing on Sept. 13 after they failed to check in with family.

After nearly a weeklong search, the bodies were found 2 miles from the Rio De Los Pinos Trail Head on Thursday morning, according to the Conejos County Sheriff’s Office.

Investigators responded to the Rio De Los Pinos Trail Head Sept. 13 to search for the hunters, finding their vehicle at the trail head, according to the Conejos County Sheriff’s Office.

The hunters were in the San Juan Wilderness Area west of Trujillo Meadows Reservoir. The Trujillo Meadows Reservoir is a 69-acre wildlife area in the Conejos Region, according to the U.S. Forest Service.

Investigators found a vehicle that had camping gear and backpacks — but not the hunters — which concerned authorities due to heavy rain and bad weather, according to officials.

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — A federal appeals court has ruled that most of President Donald Trump’s sweeping global tariffs are unlawful, potentially dealing a significant blow to the president’s effort to reshape the country’s trade policy unilaterally.

In a 7-4 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump’s authority to carry out most of his tariffs, agreeing with the lower court that Trump’s actions were “invalid as contrary to law.” However, the court delayed the impact of its decision through mid-October to allow the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court, as the tariffs remain in effect.

“Because we agree that [International Emergency Economic Powers Act’s] grant of presidential authority to ‘regulate’ imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm,” the majority wrote.

The decision in effect tees up one of the most consequential legal questions for the Supreme Court about the scope of the president’s authority on trade policy.

After Oct. 14, the court will return the case to the lower court to decide how the Supreme Court’s recent decision limiting nationwide injunctions affects the decision.

Trump reacts to decision
In a post on his social media platform Friday evening, Trump rebuked the appeals court’s decision, warning that a court order blocking the tariffs “would literally destroy the United States of America.”

Previewing the legal challenge expected in the coming weeks, Trump called on the Supreme Court to rule that he has the power to impose tariffs unilaterally.

“Now, with the help of the United States Supreme Court, we will use them to the benefit of our Nation, and Make America Rich, Strong, and Powerful Again! Thank you for your attention to this matter,” Trump wrote.

What the decision says
In its decision Friday, the appeals court determined that only Congress, not the president alone, has the authority to impose tariffs, setting up a high-profile legal question for the Supreme Court regarding the scope of the president’s power.

The decision centers on whether the authority to “regulate” imports, included in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, means the president can issue tariffs on his own.

Seven of the 11 judges said that the rarely used law does not give Trump the power to implement either his “reciprocal” tariffs or the “trafficking” tariffs imposed on Canada, Mexico and China aimed at stopping the flow of fentanyl across U.S. borders, writing that “tariffs are a core Congressional power.”

“We discern no clear congressional authorization by IEEPA for tariffs of the magnitude of the Reciprocal Tariffs and Trafficking Tariffs,” the majority wrote. “Given these considerations, we conclude Congress, in enacting IEEPA, did not give the President wide-ranging authority to impose tariffs of the nature of the Trafficking and Reciprocal Tariffs simply by the use of the term ‘regulate . . . importation.'”

A subset of four judges from the majority took the decision even further, determining that IEEPA does not give Trump the power to issue any tariffs, not just the two types of tariffs in question.

“The Government’s interpretation of IEEPA would be a functionally limitless delegation of Congressional taxation authority,” they wrote.

In a minority opinion, four other judges disagreed, suggesting Trump’s declaration of a national emergency is enough of an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to justify the tariffs.

“IEEPA’s language, as confirmed by its history, authorizes tariffs to regulate importation,” the judges wrote.

How the case came about
A group of small businesses and a coalition of states sued to block the tariffs earlier this year, arguing that President Trump had overstepped his authority under the rarely used International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) when he issued a flurry of tariffs in April.

The following month, the New York-based Court of International Trade declared the tariffs were unlawful and encroached on Congress’s authority to regulate trade. The Trump administration quickly appealed the decision, which was stayed as the legal process played out.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments on the tariffs in July, during which time the panel of judges appeared skeptical that Trump could justify the tariffs based on a national emergency.

The judges noted that the text of the IEEPA never explicitly mentions “tariffs” and that no other president has attempted to utilize the law in the same manner as Trump has.

“One of the major concerns I have is that IEEPA doesn’t mention tariffs anywhere,” one judge remarked during the arguments in June. “Here, IEEPA doesn’t even say tariffs — doesn’t even mention it.”

Ahead of Friday’s decision, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer preemptively asked the court to stay their decision to prevent “serious harms” to ongoing negotiations and the country’s trade policy.

Trump administration officials had previously warned that losing the ability to issue tariffs would “lead to dangerous diplomatic embarrassment,” threaten ongoing negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and “threaten broader U.S. strategic interests at home and abroad.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK)- — A father’s lawsuit against the online gaming platform Roblox will remain in the public eye after a California judge denied the company’s attempt to force the dispute into a private resolution process.

While the ruling issued last week by California Superior Court Judge Nina Shapirshteyn applies only to one case in San Mateo County, attorneys representing dozens of families view the ruling as a legal precedent that opens the door for other victims to pursue their lawsuits against the company through the judicial system.

Roblox, launched in 2006, has been at the center of recent controversy, with some parents alleging that the platform has been used to help facilitate child sexual exploitation and grooming. The company is facing over 35 lawsuits, with one law firm telling ABC News that it is investigating thousands of child sexual exploitation and abuse claims.

Roblox had nearly 83 million average daily active users in 2024, according to its financial reports. It reported $3.6 billion in revenue last year.

The attorneys general of Louisiana and Kentucky have filed lawsuits against the company, and recently Florida’s attorney general subpoenaed Roblox for information about its age verification and chat moderation policies.

The company has consistently responded to the lawsuits and allegations by stating that protecting children is a priority and announcing investments in safety measures, including artificial intelligence age verification.

“We are deeply troubled by any allegations about harms to children online and are committed to setting the industry standard for safety,” a spokesperson for Roblox told ABC News. “To protect our users, we have rigorous, industry-leading policies, including limiting chat for younger users and employing advanced filters designed to block the sharing of personal information. Roblox also does not allow users to share images or videos. We also collaborate closely with law enforcement.”

The Roblox spokesperson told ABC News the company disagrees with the ruling from the California judge and plans to appeal.

‘The gateway to all of this happening’
Steve, the father whose lawsuit prompted last week’s ruling in California, told ABC News that in 2023, he created a Roblox account for his son who was 13 years old at the time.

A year later, Steve — who asked ABC News not to publish his last name out of concern for his son’s safety — made a devastating discovery. He says he found messages on his son’s phone from an individual who, according to civil court documents, found his son on a children’s game in the online platform and initiated contact, despite him and his son not being “friends” on the platform.

According to Steve and court records, the perpetrator, who had initially posed as a 16-year-old, moved communication off of Roblox and onto Discord, a separate communication platform. Once there, he allegedly began exploiting Steve’s son by offering Robux gift cards — Roblox’s in-game currency — in exchange for explicit images and videos.

The messages Steve found allegedly included direct threats after his son failed to show up to an arranged in-person meeting, with the accused predator reminding the teenager that he knew his New Jersey address, according to the complaint.

“He had our home address, what school he went to, his phone number, everything,” Steve said.

Steve told ABC News he immediately contacted local police who later told him that the man who messaged his son was a known predator who was facing charges in another case for sexually exploiting another child. According to the complaint, authorities believe the same individual similarly exploited at least 26 other children using online platforms.

In February, Steve filed a lawsuit against Roblox and Discord, alleging the companies misled him and other parents about the platforms’ safety and features, leading directly to his son’s “sexual exploitation and abuse.”

In a statement to ABC News, a Discord spokesperson said the company is “committed to safety” and said it requires all users to be 13 to use their platform. 

“We maintain strong systems to prevent the spread of sexual exploitation and grooming on our platform and also work with other technology companies and safety organizations to improve online safety across the internet,” the spokesperson said.

“I’ve traditionally kept myself as a ‘helicopter parent,’ so I did all my research,” Steve said. “I did my best to enable every parental control I could find, and a lot of them are pretty confusing, but I tried my best to keep him safe online and teach him as best I could, and it still happened.”

Steve told ABC News that Roblox “was the gateway to all of this happening” because that’s where “all the conversations started.”

‘Everyone deserves a day in court’
Alexandra Walsh, the attorney representing Steve and about a dozen other clients suing the company, said Roblox’s response to the lawsuit was to file a motion to compel arbitration — a private, out-of-court process where claims are settled confidentially by a third party.

“[It was] a motion to silence this family, to prevent this family from presenting what happened to them to a judge and jury, and instead put it into a secret rigged system,” Walsh told ABC News. “Roblox has followed suit in multiple other cases … they’ve either filed similar motions to compel arbitration, or made very clear that they intend to do so.”

In court filings, Roblox has said the dispute must be settled confidentially, because Steve, when he signed up for Roblox, was provided notice of the Terms of Service and the Arbitration Agreement mandating that any dispute “will be subject only to binding arbitration.”

The company said in filings that their arbitration agreement is “consumer friendly and cost friendly.”

Last week, Judge Shapirshteyn rejected Roblox’s motion to compel arbitration.

Walsh told ABC News the company has a right to defend itself, but it should do so “in the light of day so the public can see, and so that a jury made up of citizens of this country can decide if they’re liable or not.”

Steve told ABC News the ruling was “reassuring.”

“Everyone deserves a day in court, but Roblox and these companies don’t want that to happen,” Steve said. “They want to keep things quiet.”

Steve told ABC News that his family moved across the country because they did not feel safe in their home.

“It was an eye-opening experience,” he said. “Predators aren’t down at your local park anymore. They’re not hanging out in the dark city places … it has become just so easy for them to come online and pretend to be somebody that they’re not.”

Copyright © 2025, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.