GREEN MAG

SILVERSTONE, England (AP) — Cadillac is naming its firstFormula 1car in honor of 1978 champion Mario Andretti, who calls it the "ultimate compliment" ahead of the team's inaugural race next week at the season-openingAustralian Grand Prix.

Bahrain F1 Auto Racing

F1's new 11th team announced on Friday its car will be the MAC-26, short for Mario Andretti Cadillac, for the most recent American F1 champion.

"Naming our first chassis MAC-26 reflects the spirit Mario carried into Formula 1 and the belief that an American team belongs on this stage," said Dan Towriss, chief executive of Cadillac Formula 1 Team Holdings.

"His story embodies the American dream and inspires how we approach building this team every day."

Andretti is an ambassador for the General Motors-backed Cadillac team, whose F1 entry originated with a bid fronted by his son Michael under the Andretti Global name.

Advertisement

The original bid wasrejectedby Liberty Media, the commercial rights holder of F1, amid prolonged wrangling. Michael Andrettistepped asideand the entry was restructured withTowriss at the helmand an increased role for GM.

"Racing has been the joy of my life. It is the ultimate compliment that Cadillac Formula 1 Team sees those years as meaningful and worthy of recording with this honor," Mario Andretti said in a statement.

"I cherish the opportunity that it gives me to have a lasting board with F1 and am genuinely appreciative of everyone who continues to acknowledge my part in racing history."

AP auto racing:https://apnews.com/hub/auto-racing

The Dallas Cowboys placed the franchise tag on Pro Bowl wide receiver George Pickens on Friday, according to the team's website.The tag, according to Yahoo Sports' Jori Epstein, is a non-exclusive designationthat allows Pickens to negotiate a deal with other teams but puts the Cowboys in command of the negotiations considering the price tag required for a prospective team.

If a deal can't be reached by the July 15 deadline with the Cowboys, that locks in Pickens for next season on a one-year contract worth what is projected to be $28 million.

The decision is hardly a surprise, and one the Cowboys reportedly decided on doing earlier this month. Playing alongside All-Pro CeeDee Lamb, Pickens enjoyed the best season of his career in 2025 with 93 catches, 1,429 receiving yards and 9 touchdowns on 137 targets after being traded to Dallas from the Pittsburgh Steelers.

BothCowboys owner Jerry Jonesand his son,team COO Stephen Jones, have said they want Pickens back long term, with Jerry saying he expects a long-term extension to get done:

Advertisement

"I'm talking to George all the time by virtue of my excitement for him," Jones said when asked if contract extension talks have begun with Pickens. "He's better than, as far as what he contributed to our team, showing the potential that he could contribute. I'm looking forward to getting things worked out so George can be a Cowboy a long time."

The franchise tag ensures that, however negotiations go, the Cowboys can plan for Pickens to be in the fold for the 2026 season if another team doesn't come with an aggressive offer that would also include draft pick compensation, per the non-exclusive tag rules.

[Watch Yahoo Sports Network]

Hitting Pickens with the tag means the Cowboys could have the NFL's second-most expensive receiver duo next season between him and Lamb, who is currently on a four-year, $136 million deal. Combined with the average annual value of that contract, Dallas will be paying the pair $62 million, behind only the $69 million AAV currently going to the Cincinnati Bengals' Ja'Marr Chase and Tee Higgins.

Pickens is one of several notable Cowboys hitting free agency this offseason. Starters Jadeveon Clowney and Donovan Wilson are unrestricted free agents, while All-Pro kicker Brandon Aubrey is a restricted free agent and isseeking the richest kicker deal in NFL history. Running back Javonte Williams, who was scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent this offseason,recently signed a three-year, $24 million contractto return to the team through the 2028 season.

Signing Pickens to an extension instead of the tag would have freed up a significant amount of money for this upcoming offseason, in addition to retaining a star at a premium position for years to come. But at least in the short term, the Cowboys will have Pickens for another year.

As the top county law enforcement official for more than a decade, former district attorney Rob Greene regularly prosecuted crimes involving drugs even as he often consumedcannabison the side.

The Army veteran, avid hunter, and father of 3 is one of 440,000 Pennsylvanians with astate-authorizedmedical marijuana card under a program lawmakers enacted in 2016.

Greene, who stepped down as DA earlier this year, says the cannabis he uses "once or twice every week or two" has significantly improved his quality of life but also came with what he calls an unconstitutional trade-off.

"As of right now, I have zero firearms," Greene told ABC News in an interview. "I could serve 10 years in prison for having firearms because I am, according to the feds, an illegal user of marijuana. I mean, it's (expletive)."

For nearly 60 years, the possession of a gun by anyone who unlawfully uses or is addicted to controlled substances – including marijuana – has been banned under federal law, even when they are not intoxicated.

Public health groups call it common sense; the Trump administration calls it acornerstone of public safety. Greene argues it should only apply to people who are in the act of using drugs.

Next week, the Supreme Court will consider whether thegun ban for drug usersis unconstitutionally broad in a high-stakes case at the center of growing debate over whether marijuana deserves a carve-out in the law.

"Are there certain drugs that are so dangerous and addictive that it's not safe for you to have a firearm? Sure," said Greene. "Marijuana is not one of them." AlthoughCongresshas prohibited the Justice Department from cracking down on state medical marijuana programs and President Trump recentlysigned an executive orderloosening restrictions on the drug, cannabis remains prohibited under federal law.

That means6 millionregistered medical marijuana patients across40 statesmust surrender their Second Amendment right to own a gun as long as they are using.

"Even though in the state of Pennsylvania they mademedical marijuana legal, the federal law still mandates that we cannot sell you a firearm," said Tim Parker, owner of Presque Isle Gun Shop in Erie, Penn.

Parker said he frequently turns away customers who attest on a federal gun purchase form that they have used illegal drugs or mention their medical marijuana card when seeking to purchase a weapon.

"We have a sign on the outside of the door - we do not like people that smell like marijuana coming into our shop. We will not sell you anything," he said.

Since 1998, theFBI sayscountless drug users have been turned away by gun dealers because of the federal Firearm Transaction Form 4473. In addition, more than 240,000 potential gun buyers have been flagged for drug-related convictions by the background check system, according to federal data.

"Those are the kind of people that shouldn't be carrying a gun because it's all split second things, and a gun doesn't think for itself. Guns don't kill people. People kill people," said Parker.

State and local law enforcement groups have urged the Supreme Court to uphold the law, warning of the potential dangers of combining drugs and guns.

"We don't want someone who's under the influence of alcohol or methamphetamine or cocaine or marijuana to be handling a firearm. Obviously, there's some safety issues there," said Erie Police Chief Rick Lorah.

Advertisement

Of the 700 firearms confiscated in crimes in Erie since 2023, Lorah estimated 70% were probably involved in the drug trade.

While Lorah told ABC that he does not consider medical marijuana a top threat and understands the medical benefits of the drug, he says creating an exception for cannabis in the drug ban should be up to federal lawmakers.

"Certainly the Second Amendment brings about a lot of strong emotion," he said. "If we could get the federal government and the states to come to a conclusion on the issue of marijuana and guns that would probably make law enforcement's life much easier."

The Justice Department says it prosecutes roughly 300 federal cases a year in which a violation of the drug user gun ban is a leading charge.

The recent prosecution of Hunter Biden, a self-confessed recovering crack cocaine addict, is considered the most high profile example. Biden was charged with lying on the federal gun transaction form and obtaining a firearm.

So was Ali Hemani of Texas whosecase is now before the Supreme Court. The government says he admitted to using marijuana "every other day" while keeping a Glock 9mm pistol in his home.

A federal court tossed out the indictment of Hemani saying the ban is unconstitutional as applied since he was not intoxicated with a gun.

"The truth is, there has to be a showing of some kind of actual dangerousness," argued attorney Joseph Bondy, chairman of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law (NORML).

"You could, for example, have a prescription to consume Oxycontin or some kind of anti-psychotic medication, right? And you would still be able to possess a firearm whereas a cannabis user could not," he said.

The lower court Hemani decision spawned a rare alliance bringing together the Trump Administration, gun safety advocates, and anti-drug groups who are now appealing to the Supreme Court to hold the line.

The administration argues that a ban on guns for people who use illegal drugs is both constitutional and rooted in the nation's history and tradition.

"Back to the days of the founding, we had laws about intoxication and severe intoxication, even surrounding things like alcohol," said Jordan Davidson, government affairs director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

The group has warned that marijuana use has been linked toperpetratorsof some of the country's deadliest mass shootings.

"It's not to say that everyone who smokes marijuana is going to have cannabis induced psychosis, or even the vast majority," said Davidson, "but we need a bright line rule here to prevent against the worst possible scenarios that could occur."

Greene agrees that certain Americans who use drugs should be disarmed, but says the dangers of marijuana are overblown.

"Cannabis has helped me in a number of ways. I mean, it helps me immensely. It's helped out a lot of other people and it has hurt me in zero ways," he said.

Oral arguments in the case U.S. v Hemani will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 2. A decision on the constitutionality of the gun ban for marijuana users is expected later this spring.

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has not allowed the United Nations nuclear agency access to itsnuclear facilitiesbombed by Iran and the United States during a12-day warin June, according to a confidential report by the watchdog circulated to member states and seen Friday by The Associated Press.

Ukraine-Nuclear-Risks

The report from the International Atomic Energy Agency stressed that it "cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all enrichment-related activities," or the "size of Iran's uranium stockpile at the affected nuclear facilities."

Iran has four declared enrichment facilities, but the report warned that because of the lack of access, the IAEA "cannot provide any information on the current size, composition or whereabouts of the stockpile of enriched uranium in Iran."

The report stressed that the "loss of continuity of knowledge ... needs to be addressed with the utmost urgency."

Iran has long insisted its program is peaceful, but the IAEA and Western nations say Tehran had an organized nuclear weapons program up until 2003. The U.S. is seeking a deal to limit Iran's nuclear program and ensure it does not develop nuclear weapons.

Highly enriched material should be verified regularly

The IAEA reported that Iran had informed the agency in a letter dated Feb. 2 that normal safeguards were "legally untenable and materially impracticable," as a result of threats and "acts of aggression."

The confidential report also said Friday that Iran did provide access to IAEA inspectors "to each of the unaffected nuclear facilities at least once" since June 2025, with the exception of a power plant at Karun that is under construction.

Iran is legally obliged to cooperate with the IAEA under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, butsuspended all cooperationafter the war with Israel.

According to the IAEA, Iran maintains a stockpile of 440.9 kilograms (972 pounds) of uranium enriched up to 60% purity — a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%.

That stockpile could allow Iran to build as many as 10 nuclear bombs, should it decide to weaponize its program, IAEA director general Rafael Grossi warned in arecent interview with the AP. He added that it doesn't mean that Iran has such a weapon.

Such highly enriched nuclear material should normally be verified every month, according to the IAEA's guidelines.

Advertisement

IAEA observes activity around nuclear sites

In the absence of direct access to the nuclear sites, the IAEA turned to commercially available satellite imagery.

Observation of the Isfahan facility, some 350 kilometers (215 miles) southeast of Tehran, showed "regular vehicular activity" around the entrance to a tunnel complex used to store enriched material, the report said.

Isfahan was struck by both Israel and the United States in June.

The IAEA said it also observed activity at the enrichment sites in Natanz and Fordow, but added that "without access to these facilities it is not possible for the Agency to confirm the nature and the purpose of the activities."

IAEA joined Geneva talks

The IAEA reported on Friday that Grossi attended negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on Feb. 17 and Feb. 26 in Geneva at which he "provided advice" on the verification of Iran's nuclear program. The report said that those negotiations are "ongoing."

Thursday's talks, the third round this year under Omani mediation, ended without a deal, leaving the danger of another Mideast war on the table as the U.S. has gathered a massive fleet ofaircraft and warshipsin the region.

An Omani official said lower-level technical talks would continue next week in Vienna, the home of the IAEA. The agency is likely to be critical in any deal.

Iran says it is not pursuing weapons and has so far resisted demands that it halt uranium enrichment on its soil or hand over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.

Similar talks last year between the U.S. and Iran about Iran's nuclear program broke down after the start of the war in June. Before then, Iran had beenenriching uranium up to 60% purity.

The Associated Press receives support for nuclear security coverage fromthe Carnegie Corporation of New YorkandOutrider Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. ___ Additional AP coverage of the nuclear landscape:https://apnews.com/projects/the-new-nuclear-landscape/

The extraordinary number of dueling opinions in the Supreme Court's tariff case,laying bare divisions among the justices, also became the basis for a punch line.

At the courtroom lectern this week in a dispute between an energy-pipeline company and the state of Michigan, lawyer John Bursch contended his position could lead to an easy decision: "I mean, it could be an opinion that's 160 pages less than the tariffs opinion last week."

"Well," said Justice Samuel Alito as he and other justices began laughing, "That's certainly a goal to aim for."

Chief Justice John Roberts' face brightened, and he appeared especially amused as the exchange played out. Roberts hadwritten the court's main opinionstriking down the Trump administration tariffs, then waited weeks as colleagues finished their various additional opinions.

The seven separate opinions in theLearning Resources v. Trumptariffs case demonstrated how a case can become a forum for airing larger doctrinal differences.

Or, sometimes, the justices simply want to vent.

The result can be a lack of clarity in the law as the general public, along with lawyers and judges, navigate competing views.

The number of concurrences – writings by a justice who signs onto the majority's bottom-line but adds a separate angle – has been rising at the contemporary court. That's a reflection of increased polarization and shows that justices within the standard conservative and liberal blocs often splinter in their legal reasoning and approach.

Roberts' opinion for the majority in the tariffs dispute was an efficient 21 pages. The principal dissenting opinion, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, stretched to 63 pages. But then four other justices, who'd sided with Roberts, wrote concurring opinions: Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The most expansive came from Gorsuch, at 46 pages. Clarence Thomas added a separate dissenting opinion.

The writings totaled 164 pages, with another six for the accompanying syllabus.

"I felt very left out in the tariffs case," Alito told Bursch drolly. "Justice Sotomayor didn't write and I didn't write."

Rejoined Sonia Sotomayor, as the others chuckled, "Maybe we'll have a chance here."

Quips aside, the competing views in the dispute over Trump's assertion of unilateral power for tariffs on foreign goods surprised the legal community.

"I was struck with just how many and how long the separate opinions were," said University of Pennsylvania law professor Jean Galbraith. "Justice Gorsuch's opinion was notable for pointedly throwing down the gauntlet, at his colleagues, which had the effect making all of them feel they had to write more in response."

Why justices are writing more

In prior decades, justices tended to write concurring opinions to make clear the limits of a majority ruling, said Galbraith, an international law scholar who earlier served as a law clerk to the late Justice John Paul Stevens.

"Concurrences these days are often being used for big brush strokes," she said, "for laying out and defending broad judicial philosophies. That's what was going on in the tariff opinions."

The extended debate in Learning Resources v. Trump concerned modes of statutory interpretation more than the nuts-and-bolts of tariff policy. Such seemingly abstract differences can often consume the members of the country's highest court more than which side wins or loses.

Similarly, in a 2024 dispute over the Second Amendment, the justices by an 8-1 vote (Thomas dissented)upheld a federal lawprohibiting individuals subject to a restraining order for domestic violence from possessing a gun. Then, in addition to Roberts' opinion for the majority,five other justices wrote concurring opinionsdetailing their views on the constitutional and historical inquiry when determining whether a gun-control measure breaches the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Adam Feldman, who researches Supreme Court patterns and is the author of theLegalyticssubstack, documented a 42% increase in written concurring opinions from 2000 to 2024. He said the court averaged roughly 64 concurrences per 100 majority opinions in 2000–2009, compared to about 80 per 100 opinions in 2019–2024, with a pronounced rise since the mid-2010s.

Advertisement

For years, Thomas led the court in such supplemental writings as he laid out his distinct conservative approach to the Constitution. The newest justice, Jackson, on the left wing, is now close to rivaling Thomas.

Since 2022 when she joined the bench, Jackson has authored 29 concurring opinions, Feldman found, topped only by Thomas at 35 concurrences for the same period.

For comparison, at the other end of the spectrum, the liberal Kagan penned just five concurrences over the past three-and-a-half years. Roberts, who controls many of the court's most important opinions, wrote only one concurring statement.

Justices increasingly spar in the footnotes

An otherwise little-noticed January dispute over federal court procedure illustrated Jackson's tendency. Barrett had the majority in the case,Berk v. Choy, and wrote an 11-page decision signed by all other justices but Jackson.

Jackson agreed with Barrett's conclusion that a Delaware affidavit requirement for medical malpractice cases does not apply in federal court. But she strongly disagreed with the Barrett majority over which rules of civil procedure applied.

Jackson laid out her reasoning, across 13 pages and six footnotes, some of which tussled with Barrett over how each was interpreting (or "contorting") the rules.

At one point, Jackson asserted that a Barrett assumption "jumps the gun." Barrett responded with a footnote asserting, "we do not 'jump the gun,' but rather cut to the chase."

All seven of the justices who wrote opinions in the tariff dispute last Friday dropped asides in the footnotes.

Roberts trained his fireon Kavanaugh's dissent, noting that Kavanaugh had suggested Trump could impose "most if not all" of the disputed tariffs under statutes other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

Responded Roberts: "We do not speculate on hypothetical cases not before us."

Later, as he rejected Kavanaugh's reliance on a 1981 case, Roberts insisted that the court had stressed the narrowness of that ruling at least five times in its opinion. "That is not quite 'no, no, a thousand times no,' but should have sufficed to dissuade" Kavanaugh from using it.

Major questions for one another

Much of the separate writing in the tariffs case addressed how a legal approach known as "the major questions doctrine" should be applied. The theory holds that if Congress wants to delegate significant economic or political power to the president, it must do so clearly in a statute.

Roberts concluded that Congress had not granted such tariff power under IEEPA, as Trump had claimed.

"(T)he President must 'point to clear congressional authorization' to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs," Roberts wrote.

Gorsuch agreed with Roberts' take but then used the occasion tocriticize other justices' approachesto interpreting statutes under the major questions doctrine, largely based on their past writings.

Barrett fired back that Gorsuch was mischaracterizing her position, saying, "he takes down a straw man. I have never espoused that view."

Kagan, a critic of the constraints imposed by the "major questions" approach, noted in her separate writing that Gorsuch was "insisting that I now must be applying the major-questions doctrine, and his own version of it to boot. Given how strong his apparent desire for converts, I almost regret to inform him that I am not one."

The desire for converts can indeed motivate a lengthy concurrence. As much as the justices were, by turns, relitigating past cases and defending their positions in the dispute at hand, they were laying out the groundwork for future cases.

As Gorsuch remarked as he closed out his 46 pages, "if history is any guide, the tables will turn…."

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account atCNN.com