'90 Day' fans brutally slammed Big Ed after TLC star offered to sell customized Big Ed Can Koozie online

A suburban Indianapolis Army veteran has been sentenced to 55 years in prison for the road rage shooting death of a Muslim man after witnesses said he hurled ethnic and religious insults at the victim

Two American women, Judith and Natalie Raanan were released by Hamas on Friday, October 20

Afghanistan faces a worsening mental health crisis amid a clampdown on women's freedoms and rights.

European stocks were muted on Monday following gains in the first half of the year as cyclical sectors

In a victory for voting rights and Alabama voters, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act with a congressional redistricting plan that diluted the voting power of Black voters. The state likely discriminated against Black voters with a newly drafted map that packs most of the state’s Black residents into a single district, out of seven, despite Black residents making up 27 per cent of the state’s population. A key ruling in the case of Allen v Milligan means that the state will have to re-draw its congressional map to include a second majority-Black district. The surprise 5-4 decision on the conservative-majority panel was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor, with partial but crucial concurrence from conservative Brett Kavanaugh. In January, a lower court determined that the map significantly dilutes Black residents’ political power and ordered the state to draw new political boundaries that would create at least two districts in which Black voters would be more likely to elect a representative that more closely resembles the state’s demographics. The Voting Rights Act was drafted to prevent that kind of race-based dilution of Black voters. But attorneys for the state argued the opposite – that considering race to redraw political boundaries would mark an unconstitutional consideration of “racial targets” and “race-based sorting”, in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. A decision that sided with Alabama attorneys would have radically reduced Black voters’ political power and landed a critical blow to a state with a long history of racist violence and discrimination. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits voting laws and election policies from discriminating on the basis of race. The state’s suggestion that “race should play no role whatsoever” to determine whether redistricting plans violate Section 2 would “rewrite” the law and “overturn decades of settled precedent,” according to the map’s challengers. Attorneys for President Joe Biden’s administration argue that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act should be considered when “pervasive racial politics would otherwise deny minority voters equal electoral opportunities.” The map’s challengers argued that is precisely what is at stake in Alabama. This is a developing story Read More Main suspect in 2005 disappearance of Natalee Holloway due to be extradited to US Alabama senator says Space Command prefers Huntsville for HQ, but command has no comment Missouri governor signs ban on transgender health care, school sports

Jayson Tatum scored 34 points and grabbed 11 rebounds, Derrick White and Jaylen Brown each added 16 points and the Boston Celtics staved off elimination in the Eastern Conference finals by running away in the second half to beat the Miami Heat 116-99 in Game 4 on Tuesday night

Stanley Donahue robbed two Casey's employees, locked them in a cooler, and then shot Linn County deputy Will Halverson seven times

Scorching temperatures meteorologists say were brought on by a heat dome have taxed the Texas power grid and threaten to bring record highs to the state before they are expected to expand to other parts of the U.S. National Weather Service Forecaster Bob Oravec said Monday that the heat dome is expected to reach north to Kansas City and east to the Florida Panhandle and continue at least until the July Fourth holiday

(Reuters) -The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Inc's drug as a broad treatment for heart

The Boston Bruins named Brad Marchand captain on Wednesday

A landlady has been accused of “outrageous” and “control freakish” behaviour for setting unusually harsh restrictions for prospective tenants. The homeowner used an estate agent to advertise her two “spacious, sun-drenched” apartments in Brooklyn, New York, which were valued at $4,500 (£3,580) and $5,750 (£4,490) per month. When you’re charging such eye-watering rates, you’d hope these flats – with “spectacular outdoor spaces” – would be pretty exceptional homes. And yet, for many interested parties, the dream was shattered when they spotted that the “wonderful vegan landlord” had one eye-catching house rule: “No meat/fish in the building." Sign up for our free Indy100 weekly newsletter Andrea Kelly, the agent managing the flat, explained to the New York Times (NYT) why the landlady had made such a strict stipulation. She told the paper that the apartments weren’t, technically, “vegetarian-only,” but added that “the owner lives in the building and doesn’t want the smell of cooking meat drifting upstairs.” To be fair, this means that tenants could enjoy the likes of sushi, ham sandwiches and even meaty takeaways without causing a scene. But woe betide anyone harbouring hopes of a Sunday roast or sausages barbecued in their “spectacular outdoor space”. The owner, Michal Arieh Lerer, refused to speak to a NYT reporter about her controversial regulation, but her ex-husband, who co-owns the building and is also vegan, admitted that they’d refused to rent their property out to keen carnivorous cooks since they bought it in 2007. “It’s not about discrimination,” ex-husband Motti Lerer insisted. “You have to fit into the building.” For anyone wondering whether this could legally be classed as discrimination, the answer is, perhaps surprisingly, no. New York’s Human Rights Law lists 14 characteristics that landlords must not consider when choosing a potential tenant. These include age, race, family status, and sexual orientation – there's no mention of dietary preferences. Lucas A. Ferrara, an adjunct professor at New York Law School told the NYT that an interested renter might be able to fight the meat ban if they could prove that they had a medical condition which required some sort of “reasonable accommodation” on the landlord’s part. Still, we’re not familiar with many illnesses whose sufferer needs to regularly fry steaks or grill fish as a matter of urgency. The original listing which caused such a stir was taken down from nextdoor.com on Friday, a day after it was posted. However, the apartments are still listed on the estate agent’s own site, although there’s no mention of the cooked veg-only policy. The listings do note: “Cats welcome on a case-by-case basis (only one, please).” We just hope those felines are happy to forgo mouse hunts or particularly pungent meal pouches, for their sake. Social media commentators have shared their horror at the meat-free rule, with a number suggesting Lerer "shouldn't be a landlord". One Facebook user wrote: "[She] can’t just tell people they can’t cook meat in a home they rent off [her]. It’s like telling a kid they can not play with toys." Another said: "Well I hope they/them enjoy paying the mortgage when they get no tenants." But a third suggested tenants should just find a way around the restrictions. "[Her] property, [her] rules," they pointed out, before adding: "If you lie to [her] and cook meat while [she] doesn't get to know then it's a win-win situation." Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.