confirms Roberts

Emma Roberts confirms she’s expecting a baby boy with boyfriend Garrett Hedlund – Fox News

Emma Roberts is pregnant with her first child.

The 29-year-old actress revealed on social media she is expecting a baby boy with boyfriend, actor Garrett Hedlund. The two were first spotted together in March 2019.

“Me…and my two favorite guys,” Roberts captioned a photo on Instagram with two blue heart emojis. She cradled her bump as Hedlund, 35, wrapped his arm around her.


Her aunt, Oscar-winner Julia Roberts commented, “Love you.”

While friend and new mom Lea Michele said, “You will be the greatest mama. I love you Em! Boy moms together.”


The “Scream Queens” star and the “Triple Frontier” star have been spotted multiple times in New York and Los Angeles since their relationship started, but this is the first time either had said anything publicly about it.

Emma Roberts is radiant in red at the Trevor Project's TrevorLIVE LA 2src18 event at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on December 3, 2src18 in Beverly Hills, Calif.

Emma Roberts is radiant in red at the Trevor Project’s TrevorLIVE LA 2018 event at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on December 3, 2018 in Beverly Hills, Calif.
(Jerod Harris/Getty Images for The Trevor Project)

Roberts was previously engaged to “American Horror Story” star Evan Peters. They started dating in 2012 after meeting on the set of the indie movie “Adult World,” which premiered in 2013.


In 2013, the couple had some trouble when Roberts was arrested on domestic violence charges. Someone called the police to report a fight in the couple’s hotel room, TMZ reported. Peters elected not to press charges, according to MTV News.

In a joint statement, reps for the two addressed the incident.

Garrett Hedlund  (L) and Emma Roberts (R) are seen on August 1src, 2src19 in Los Angeles, California. 

Garrett Hedlund  (L) and Emma Roberts (R) are seen on August 10, 2019 in Los Angeles, California. 
(BG015/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)

“It was an unfortunate incident and misunderstanding. Ms. Roberts was released after questioning and the couple is working together to move past it,” the reps told Us Weekly at the time.

Peters proposed to Roberts five months after her arrest and the couple broke up twice  — once in 2015 and once in 2016 — before their most recent split in 2019.


Meanwhile, Hedlund previously dated actress Kirsten Dunst from 2011 to 2016.

Fox News’ Ann W. Schmidt contributed to this report.

Read More

Roberts sides

John Roberts sides with liberals on Supreme Court to block controversial Louisiana abortion law – CNN

Washington (CNN)Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberal justices on the Supreme Court on Monday to block a controversial Louisiana abortion law that critics said would have closed nearly every clinic in the state.

The 5-4 ruling is a win for supporters of abortion rights who argued that the law was not medically necessary and amounted to a veiled attempt to restrict abortion. The law barred doctors from performing the procedure unless they had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The majority opinion was penned by Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote that the majority “consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.”
Breyer added later: “The evidence also shows that opposition to abortion played a significant role in some hospitals’ decisions to deny admitting privileges.”
The ruling continues a trend of Roberts siding with liberals in major cases. He previously has upheld the program allowing undocumented immigrants who came into the US as children to remain and sided with opinion that extended anti-discrimination protections to LGBTQ workers.
Four years ago, when Justice Anthony Kennedy was still on the bench, the court struck down a similar law out of Texas.
Much has changed since then, however, as Kennedy has been replaced by Brett Kavanaugh, who is considered more conservative on the issue. Supporters of abortion rights feared not only that recent precedent would be in jeopardy, but that the strengthened conservative majority might begin to chip away at landmark opinions like Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld a woman’s right to have an abortion.
Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion also citing the Texas law.
“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents,” the chief justice wrote.
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas again said Roe should be revisited.
“Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons,” Thomas wrote, “but the most fundamental is that its core holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child — finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany blasted the ruling as “unfortunate,” and took aim at the justices who sided with the majority.
“Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected Justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of state governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations,” McEnany said in a statement.
The case has been closely watched as multiple largely red states continue to advance abortion restrictions and largely blue states move to protect access.
None of the nine so-called gestational bans — which bar abortions past a certain point in pregnancy — passed last year have gone into effect, after most of them have been blocked by courts.

Roberts’ footnotes leave an opening

Abortion rights supporters were fearful that the Louisiana case marked the first of what could be a growing number of opportunities for the court’s new conservative majority to offer a blueprint for states to continue to chip away at abortion rights.
But while Roberts upheld the law, in a concurring opinion the chief justice left open the door that other states might be able to pursue similar restrictions.
In a footnote, he said that the “validity of admitting privileges law depends on numerous factors that may differ from state to state.”
CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law Stephen Vladeck said that Roberts suggested that he did not necessarily endorse the analysis of the 2016 decision, which focused as much on whether the restrictions actually provided benefits to pregnant women as on whether they imposed an undue burden.
“In the process, Vladeck said, “the chief justice’s narrower opinion implies that states making different arguments in different cases might be able to justify similar restrictions going forward. In that respect, the chief justice may have sided with abortion supporters today, but their victory may be short-lived.”
While supporters of abortion rights will be pleased that the court preserved access to abortion in Louisiana, such language has already caused concern.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case, addressed the looming possibility it allowed for further state regulations similar to Louisiana’s in a statement Monday morning.
“We’re relieved that the Louisiana law has been blocked today but we’re concerned about tomorrow,” said Nancy Northup, the group’s president and CEO.
“(The) Court’s decision could embolden states to pass even more restrictive laws when clarity is needed if abortion rights are to be protected,” Northup said.
Anti-abortion groups decried the decision and warned of its implications energizing anti-abortion voters in November.
Jeanne Mancini, the president of March for Life, defended the Louisiana law as “designed to safeguard women’s health and safety” and promised a strong showing from anti-abortion voters over the decision.
“No abortion facility should receive a free pass to provide substandard care,” she added. “This decision underscores the importance of nominating and confirming judges who refrain from legislating from the bench, something pro-life voters will certainly remember come November.”

The law’s impact

Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, is an effort, state officials argued, to “improve abortion safety by means of doctor credentialing.”
Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Murrill said that clinics in the state have a “long disturbing” history of serious health and safety problems, that abortion carries “known risks for serious complications,” although it is largely considered a safe procedure, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted during oral arguments, and that the act would bring abortion practice “into conformity” with the privilege requirements for doctors performing other outpatient surgeries. The penalty for violating the law is not more than $4,000 per violation.
The Trump administration sided with Louisiana. The law “would not create a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion for a large fraction of Louisiana women seeking one — let alone all such women,” Principal Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued in court.
The claims were rejected by lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented two doctors and an abortion clinic in the state who claimed that if the law had been able to go into effect when it passed, it would have forced the closure of two of the state’s three remaining clinics and left only one doctor with the ability to provide abortions.
Louisiana also argued that the justices shouldn’t consider the constitutionality of the law because the doctors and the clinics bringing the case don’t have the legal right — or “standing” — to be in court. Murrill said that Louisiana women can challenge abortion regulations if they wish to do so — “as individual women have done in numerous other abortion cases across the country” — but that the clinics and doctors can’t stand in their place. She said that’s because the interests of a for-profit business that provides medical services for a fee might not align with those of patients seeking abortions.
Julie Rikelman, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, rejected the notion that only women seeking abortions could challenge the law in court, noting that a woman would have only a narrow time frame to bring such a suit and such litigation often lasts for years.
Rikelman prevailed when a district court ruled in her favor after a trial, but then a panel of judges on the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The appeals court concluded that the doctors had not made a good faith effort to get the credentials.
“Instead of demonstrating an undue burden on a large fraction of women,” the appeals court said, the law “at most shows an insubstantial burden on a small fraction of women.”
This story has been updated with details of the ruling.

Read More

Pregnant Roberts

Emma Roberts Is Pregnant, Expecting First Child With Garrett Hedlund – Entertainment Tonight


By Antoinette Bueno‍

This video is unavailable because we were unable to load a message from our sponsors.

If you are using ad-blocking software, please disable it and reload the page.

Emma Roberts and her boyfriend, Garrett Hedlund, are reportedly expecting their first child together.

According to Us Weekly, 29-year-old Roberts is pregnant. Roberts and 35-year-old Hedlund have been linked together since March 2019, when they were spotted together shortly after she ended her engagement to Evan Peters.

On Thursday, Roberts’ mother, Kelly Cunningham, responded to multiple well-wishers on Instagram asking if Roberts was pregnant and appeared to confirm the good news.

“YES!!” she responded with a heart emoji to one user who commented, “Kelly is Emma pregnant???”

When another user congratulated Cunningham on becoming a grandmother, she responded, “Thank you so much! Very excited.”

ET has reached out to Roberts and Hedlund’s reps for comment.

Though the couple has been private when it comes to talking about their relationship, they’ve had no issue showing PDA while out and about. Aside from Roberts, Hedlund dated Kirsten Dunst from 2012-2016.

Meanwhile, ET spoke with Roberts last April, when she talked about looking like her famous aunt, Julia Roberts. Watch the video below for more.


Emma Roberts Jokes About Looking Like Aunt Julia Roberts (Exclusive)

Emma Roberts Enjoys Romantic Stroll With Garrett Hedlund Following Split From Evan Peters

Emma Roberts Reportedly Ends Engagement with Evan Peters, Spotted Out With Garrett Hedlund

Related Gallery

Read More

Roberts Upholds

Roberts Upholds COVID-19 Restrictions on Churches, Scolds Kavanaugh – Slate

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts arrive to hear President Donald Trump deliver the State of the Union address in the House chamber on February 4, 2src2src in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts arrive to hear President Donald Trump deliver the State of the Union address in the House chamber on February 4, 2020 in Washington, D.C.

Pool/Getty Images

Friday at midnight, the Supreme Court rejected a church’s challenge to California’s COVID-19 restrictions by a 5–4 vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberals. In a pointed opinion, Roberts indicated that he will not join conservative judges’ escalating efforts to override public health measures in the name of religious freedom. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent, by contrast, falsely accused the state of religious discrimination in an extremely misleading opinion that omits the most important facts of the case. Roberts went out of his way to scold Kavanaugh’s dishonest vilification of the state.

SCOTUS’ late-night order in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom divided the justices into two camps: those who acknowledge reality, and those who ignore it to score ideological points. The case began when a California church accused Gov. Gavin Newsom of violating its religious freedom. Newsom’s current COVID-19 policy limits attendance at houses of worship to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower. At the same time, it allows certain secular businesses, like grocery stores, to operate under looser guidelines, allowing more people to enter. The church claimed this disparate treatment between churches and commercial establishments runs afoul of the First Amendment.

As Roberts noted, however, California does not impose uniform rules on all places where people assemble. The state does strictly limit church attendance. But it applies “similar or more severe restrictions” to “lectures, concerts, movie showings, spectator sports, and theatrical performances.” So the question for the court is less constitutional than scientific: From an epidemiological perspective, are churches more like grocery stores or concerts? And that, the chief justice concluded, is a question for lawmakers, not federal judges.

“The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should be lifted during the pandemic,” Roberts declared, “is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreement.” The Constitution leaves such decisions “to the politically accountable officials of the state,” whose decisions “should not be subject to second-guessing” by judges who lack “background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.” Multiple coronavirus outbreaks in California have been traced back to religious services. California has good reason to treat churches more like concerts—where people “congregate in large groups” and “remain in close proximity for extended periods”—than grocery stores, where they can social distance. For courts, that should be the end of the matter.

Kavanaugh, in dissent, viewed the case through a different lens. Whereas Roberts began by noting that COVID-19 has “killed thousands of people in California and more than 100,000 nationwide,” Kavanaugh crafted a narrative of invidious religious discrimination. His dissent reads like a brief by the church, not a judicial opinion. Kavanaugh alleged that Newsom’s order “indisputably discriminates against religion” in violation of the free exercise clause. For support, the justice insisted that “comparable secular businesses,” like grocery stores and pharmacies, “are not subject” to the same restrictions imposed on churches. California must have a “compelling justification” for this disparate treatment, and he saw none.

But Kavanaugh’s assertion that California treats churches and “comparable secular businesses” differently begs the question: what is a comparable secular business? When it comes to the spread of infectious disease, is a church really just like a grocery store, where people spend as little time as possible, separated by aisles and shopping carts, rarely speaking to one another? Or is it more like a concert, where people congregate for lengthy periods, shoulder to shoulder, often speaking or singing and thereby spreading droplets that may contain the coronavirus?

What is genuinely shocking about Kavanaugh’s dissent is that he does not even address this question. The dispute lies at the heart of the case, and Kavanaugh ignores it. He simply takes it as a given that churches are “comparable” to grocery stores when it comes to risk of spreading COVID-19. By warping the facts, Kavanaugh paints California’s rules as irrationally discriminatory, when in fact they are based on medical advice Newsom has right now. If the justice wants to override public health measures during a pandemic, shouldn’t he at least admit that he’s substituting his own scientific judgment for that of a democratically elected lawmaker’s?

Roberts seems to think so. His opinion ends with a clear swipe at Kavanaugh: “The notion that it is ‘indisputably clear’ that the Government’s limitations are unconstitutional,” the chief justice wrote, “seems quite improbable.” Roberts went out of his way to telegraph his displeasure with the raft of lawsuits contesting COVID-19 restrictions as unconstitutional burdens on religious liberty. Even in borderline cases, he suggested, courts must defer to the people’s representatives if they decide the health crisis requires limitations on public assemblies.

While all four far-right justices dissented from Friday’s order, only Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Kavanaugh’s dissent. Justice Samuel Alito declined to join Kavanaugh’s opinion and did not explain why. It’s possible Alito was so perturbed by his colleague’s deceptive recitation of the facts that he could not sign in good faith. Meanwhile, though the four liberals joined Roberts in turning away the church’s challenge, the chief justice wrote only for himself. His opinion reads like an official statement from the head of the judicial branch, reminding lower courts not to overstep constitutional boundaries when assessing COVID-19 orders. As long as Roberts has anything to say about it, the Supreme Court will not facilitate the spread of a deadly virus in the name of the First Amendment.

For more of Slate’s legal coverage, listen to Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick.

Read More

Julia Roberts

Julia Roberts and More Stars Dress Up in Honor Of the 2020 Met Gala – E! NEWS

All dressed up and nowhere to go!

Fashionistas know today is an extra special one—it’s the first Monday in May. The 2020 Met Gala would’ve taken place later tonight at the Metropolitan Museum of Art with the biggest celebrities showing up and showing out in their finest attire.

This year’s annual extravaganza also featured a delightful and divine theme: “About Time: Fashion and Duration.”

However, due to the ongoing Coronavirus pandemic, the Met Ball was postponed indefinitely. (insert several crying emojis.)

“Due to the unavoidable and responsible decision by the Metropolitan Museum to close its doors, About Time, and the opening night gala, will not take place on the date scheduled,” Anna Wintour said in a statement back in March. “In the meantime, we will give you a preview of this extraordinary exhibition in our forthcoming May issue.”

And since most ensembles were created way before the annual event got canceled, some stars are still getting glam and dressing up in honor of the 2020 Met Ball.

Because let’s be real: a damn good dress deserves to be seen.

Met Gala 2src2src, Collage, Instagram


Some celebs have showed off their lavish and elegant designs that they would’ve worn today, while others are recreating past lewks. Moreover, Vogue‘s “A Moment With the Met” is already live-streaming.

Cardi B, Florence Welsh and others have dressed to impress during the online special. 

So with that, see your fave stars get dolled up to celebrate the first Monday in May. Scroll through our gallery below!

Met Gala 2src2src, Julia Roberts, Instagram


Julia Roberts

What’s black-and-white and oh-so-chic? Julia Roberts‘ elegant and timeless gown! The Pretty Woman alum poses with her decadent design, as she holds up a bottle of wine. “Here’s me…not going to the Met Ball tonight,” she quips.

Met Gala 2src2src, Amanda Seyfried, Instagram


Amanda Seyfried

“What I would’ve tried to wear to the Met Gala this year,” the actress shares on Instagram. The Mamma Mia! star reveals her royal blue ball gown that features a breathtaking floral pattern that appears to be on a quilted material.

A Moment with the MET, Cardi B

Cardi B

The “Press” rapper asks people to show their support and love for the Metropolitan Museum. “I know I had my outfit… we had something really cooking that I know was going to impact… I cannot wait so we can come next year stronger than ever,” she says during the livestream.

Mindy Kaling, Jared Leto, Met Gala

Getty Images; Instagram

Mindy Kaling

The actress has yet to share what she would’ve worn to this year’s fashion affair. However, she’s still playing dress up and shows off her recreation of Jared Leto‘s insane 2019 Met Gala lewk. 

Met Gala, Adam Rippon, Rihanna

Instagram / Lars Niki/Corbis via Getty Images

Adam Rippon

The legendary figure skater joins in on the Met Gala Challenge that Billy Porter created in partnership with Vogue. Rippon channels Rihanna and wears a larger-than-life piece that looks similar to the one she wore in 2015.

A Moment with the MET, Florence Welch

Florence Welsh

The songstress gives a moving performance of “You Got the Love” during Vogue‘s livestream.

Priyanka Chopra, Instagram

Priyanka Chopra / Instagram

Priyanka Chopra

The actress gets all dolled up to celebrate the 2020 Met Gala. “First Monday in May ,” she writes. “This year’s theme: Pretty Pretty Princess .”

Watch E!’s The Met Gala: Ultimate Fashion Moments special tonight at 11 p.m., only on E!

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our US edition?

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Canadian edition?

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our UK edition?

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Australian edition?

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our Asia edition?

E! ist überall

Dieser Inhalt ist für internationale Besucher verfügbar. Möchtest du ihn in der deutschen Version anschauen?

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our German edition?

E! est partout

Une version adaptée de ce contenu est disponible pour notre public international. Souhaitez-vous voir ça dans notre édition française ?

E! Is Everywhere

This content is available customized for our international audience. Would you like to view this in our French edition?

E! está en todos lados

Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

E! está en todos lados

Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

E! está en todos lados

Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

E! está en todos lados

Nuestro contenido está disponible y personalizado para nuestra audiencia internacional. ¿Te gustaría verlo en la edición en español?

Read More