Bayern Munich and Bayer Leverkusen will return from the international break with a big game on the line

Danielle Waldman's father said he witnessed his daughter's car being shot by multiple attackers

BRUSSELS European Union foreign ministers on Monday said an aborted mutiny in Russia at the weekend showed Moscow's

NEW DELHI The Group of 20 nations has agreed to work on reforms to the World Trade Organization

Erik ten Hag says Manchester United are making progress in their pursuit of a new striker. Already light of a frontman in his first season at Old Trafford, the acrimonious exit of Cristiano Ronaldo and January loan move for Wout Weghorst underlined the need for an attacking acquisition. United have signed midfielder Mason Mount and goalkeeper Andre Onana this summer but work continues to sign a striker, with up-and-coming Atalanta talent Rasmus Hojlund targeted. The Old Trafford giants are only believed to be willing to go up to £60million for the Denmark international, while Frankfurt’s Randal Kolo Muani is an alternative. “We make progress, yeah” Ten Hag said when asked about United’s pursuit of a striker. “But you know how it works – when we have him, we will tell you directly. “The only thing I can say is we do everything that’s in our power to get that done. “If it was up to me, yeah, as soon as possible. The earlier the better because we have to integrate him in the team, the way of play. “In an ideal situation, he was already here but you do not always get ideal situations as a manager and you have to deal with the situation.” While United look for a forward with potential, talk of a move for Tottenham sharpshooter Harry Kane persists. United sources have downplayed such talk and suggestions they are targeting Kylian Mbappe, who is subject of a world record bid from Al Hilal after Paris St Germain decided to sell him. Asked about a move for Mbappe, even on loan, Ten Hag said: “We never speak about players who are under contract in other clubs.” I think with Mason Mount already we have a player extra who is capable of not only scoring goals but also to create, and to put play players like Rashford into position to score more goals. Manchester United manager, Erik ten Hag United need a striker to bolster a goal-shy side, whose return of 58 was comfortably the lowest in the Premier League top-six. Marcus Rashford scored a career-high 30 club goals, but Ten Hag wants more from the rest of the team. “We are under-performing there, and we are aware of it so others have to contribute also in that area but therefore we are looking for scoring abilities,” said Ten Hag, who has given the green light for forward Anthony Elanga to join Nottingham Forest. “I think with Mason Mount already we have a player extra who is capable of not only scoring goals but also to create, and to put play players like Rashford into position to score more goals. “But as a whole team we have to score more.” A fully fit Anthony Martial would certainly aid that cause next season. The France international impressed during the last pre-season tour, only to score nine goals in 29 appearances during an injury-hit campaign that was ended by a hamstring issue. “Today he was in the team training, so that is really hopeful,” Ten Hag said after Monday’s session in San Diego. “Of course, when you have a player in your squad you expect that he is available and players have to take responsibility to be available. “But when he is not, I have to deal with the situation and we show we can be successful without that striker. “But it’s easier when you have that striker in the team because I think every club who wins big trophies has scoring abilities in that team. “We need a good squad and Anthony Martial is a brilliant football player so he will help us, he scores goals. “Also in other areas of football like pressing, in possession, combinations, he’s a great player, so let’s hope he will be fit and he stays fit.” United are in the USA as Ten Hag’s men continue to gear up for the 2023-24 season. The Under-21s – supplemented by some senior players, including Jonny Evans – face Wrexham in San Diego on Tuesday before the first-team play Real Madrid in Houston the following day. “I didn’t watch the Wrexham documentary, but I know them, we played them last year,” Ten Hag added. “I know they got promoted. Of course I’ve seen the actuality, the way we play, I know the players. “We brought the Under-21s in but we will strengthen them with some players who are on the tour with the first squad.” Read More Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Palace boss Roy Hodgson ‘really sad’ to lose Wilfried Zaha to Galatasaray Premier League chief ‘not too concerned at moment’ about Saudi Arabia rise Football rumours: Premier League clubs scramble for Kylian Mbappe

Golden State Warriors announce the Poole party is over. Rumors surface that some Golden State Warriors had problems with Jordan Poole.In a blockbuster draft day trade, the Golden State Warriors traded 24-year-old guard Jordan Poole for 38-year-old veteran Chris Paul. This surprised the league, c...

Fiery Australian Nick Kyrgios said he is doing everything he can to get back on court and is taking inspiration from Alexander Zverev in...

The French government is talking to Saudi Arabia about selling the kingdom Rafale fighter jets, France's defence...

Adin Ross has achieved the distinction of being the first to amass over 600k followers on Kick whereas xQc has amassed over 430k followers

ISTANBUL The head of a group representing global airlines renewed pressure on planemakers to speed up plane and

The final 2022/23 Pichichi Trophy standings from La Liga.

The US Supreme Court has shot down a fringe legal theory supported by Republican officials and Donald Trump’s allies that was invoked to toss out election results and radically reshape the nation’s elections. A 6-3 decision in Moore v Harper on 27 June determines that Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina amounted to a partisan gerrymander that violated the state’s constitution, but the majority dismissed the so-called “independent state legislature” theory that fuelled the state’s arguments. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion, with support from Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito dissented. In oral arguments in the case last year, justices were warned that the high court’s endorsement of fringe legal theory could “sow chaos” in American democracy. The decision follows a lawsuit from a group of North Carolina voters and advocacy groups challenging the state’s Republican-drawn map of its congressional districts, which a state court rejected. Republican officials appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that the state legislature is granted exclusive power to regulate federal elections. A ruling from the justices that would uphold the GOP-drawn map would be seen as vindication for the fringe legal theory supported by many Republican officials and conspiracy theorists in their efforts to upend election outcomes and transform how the nation’s elections are run. The dubious theory – which animated Mr Trump’s spurious attempts to overturn election results in states he lost in the 2020 presidential election – could eliminate state constitutional bans against gerrymandering and other voting protections, potentially handing electoral control to Republican-dominated state legislatures that are primed to “rig” the next elections. After the 2020 presidential election, Mr Trump and his allies pressed state courts to overturn “unlawful election results” in several states he lost, based on bogus claims of fraud, and to let state lawmakers determine the outcome. All of those claims and court challenges were rejected. That fringe reading of the US Constitution went on to fuel GOP efforts to subvert election laws and change the rules of election administration across the US. In oral arguments in the case last year, US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar warned that the court’s endorsement of the theory would “wreak havoc” on the electoral process and invalidate state constitutions across the country. “I’m not sure I’ve ever come across a theory in this court that would invalidate more state constitutional clauses as being federally unconstitutional,” added Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under Barack Obama’s administration who argued the case on behalf of voting rights groups and Democratic voters in North Carolina. “The blast radius from their [independent state legislature] theory would sow elections chaos, forcing a confusing two-track system with one set of rules for federal elections and another for state ones,” he told justices. One reading of the theory argues that elected members of a state legislature have absolute authority to determine how federal elections – as in, elections for members of Congress and the president – are performed. State constitutional protections for the right to vote and efforts to combat partisan and racial gerrymandering could be overruled. A “nightmare” scenario could mean that a Republican-controlled state legislature that rejects the outcome of an election or objects to how it was administered – including the use of mail-in ballots or voting machines that have been subject to rampant, baseless conspiracy theories – could invoke the theory as pretext to refuse the results. Retired federal judge J Michael Luttig – who advised then-Vice President Mike Pence on 6 January, 2021 while under pressure from then-President Trump to reject the election’s outcome – has warned that the theory is a part of the “Republican blueprint to steal the 2024 election.” Dozens of briefs to the Supreme Court urged justices to reject the theory, from constitutional law experts, election officials and voting rights advocates to judges and prominent Republicans – including lawyer Ben Ginsberg, who worked on the landmark Bush v Gore case in 2000 that opened the door for the theory to take shape. Chief justices from state courts across the US wrote that the Constitution “does not oust state courts from their traditional role in reviewing election laws under state constitutions.” Without such barriers, courts will be “flooded with requests to second-guess state court decisions interpreting and applying state elections laws during every election cycle, infringing on state sovereignty and repeatedly involving the federal judiciary in election disputes,” they wrote in a filing to the court. A filing on behalf of the League of Women Voters said the theory could “throw election law and administration into disarray”. More than a dozen secretaries of state also warned that the “mistaken legal theory alien to our country’s history and this court’s precedent would have far-reaching and unpredictable consequences on our country’s elections.” The US Constitution’s election clause reads that the times, place and manner of federal elections “shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.” The long-standing interpretation of that foundational clause is that election rules established by state legislatures must – like any other law – conform with state constitutions, which are under a court’s jurisdiction for review as to whether they are constitutional or not. “So if a state constitution subjects legislation to being blocked by a governor’s veto or citizen referendum, election laws can be blocked via the same means,” the Brennan Center explains. “And state courts must ensure that laws for federal elections, like all laws, comply with their state constitutions.” The Honest Elections Project, a Federalist Society-supported effort behind litigation involving state-level voting rules across the US, also supported the North Carolina case. The group invoked the fringe theory in a supporting brief filed with the Supreme Court, claiming that state legislatures are “vested with plenary authority that cannot be divested by state constitution to determine the times, places, and manner of presidential and congressional elections.” Moore v Harper “provides a timely opportunity to put these questions to rest,” according to the filing. Lawmakers in at least 38 states introduced nearly 200 bills that voting rights advocates and nonpartisan democratic watchdogs warned can be used to “subvert” election outcomes, building on a movement in the wake of 2020 elections to do in state legislatures what Mr Trump and his allies failed to do in court. The recently released analysis from the States United Democracy Center, Protect Democracy and Law Forward found that Republican state lawmakers advanced 185 bills that would make it easier for elected officials to overturn the will of their voters and make it harder for election workers to do their jobs. That total is on pace with similar efforts from previous legislative sessions. More than a dozen such bills introduced this year have been made law. Read More Supreme Court hears how the ‘blast radius’ of a radical legal theory could sow ‘election chaos’ How a fringe legal theory at the Supreme Court could blowtorch American elections Supreme Court rules Alabama discriminated against Black voters in major victory for voting rights Supreme Court rules against Navajo Nation’s access to drought-stricken Colorado River, despite US treaty Deb Haaland and Tribal leaders welcome Supreme Court decision upholding Indian Child Welfare Act