National security trial for Hong Kong's Tiananmen vigil organizers opens

HONG KONG (AP) — A trial against two pro-democracy activists behind a group that for decades organized a vigil that commemorated people killed inBeijing's Tiananmen Square crackdownin 1989 opened Thursday, in another landmark case brought under a China-imposed national security law that has practically crushed protests in the semiautonomous Chinese city.

Critics saytheir caseshows that Beijing's promise to keep the city's Western-style civil liberties intact for 50 years when the former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 has weakened over time. But the city's government said its law enforcement actions were evidence-based and strictly in accordance with the law.

Chow Hang-tung and Lee Cheuk-yan, former leaders of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China, werechargedwith incitement to subversion in September 2021 under the law. They are accused of inciting others to organize, plan or act through unlawful means with a view to subvert state power, and if convicted, they face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison.

As they entered the courtroom, Lee waved at his supporters, who waved back and said "good morning" to him. Ho sat calmly. Chow thanked her supporters for enduring winds during the night and bowed to her supporters.

Minutes later, Lee and Chow pleaded not guilty, while Ho entered a guilty plea, which could help him get a sentence reduction.

The prosecution began reading out the case details about Ho on Thursday morning, and has not started its case yet.

Among people sitting in the public gallery were Lee's wife, Chow's mother and other pro-democracy activists like Tang Ngok-kwan.

Before sunrise, dozens of people were already in line outside the court building to secure a seat in the public gallery under a cold-weather warning.

Tang, a former core member of the alliance, has been queuing since Monday afternoon. He said he wanted to show support for his former colleagues in detention.

"They use their freedom to exchange for a dignified defense," he said. "It's about being accountable to history."

Former pro-democracy district councilor Chan Kim-kam, a former vigil-goer and also Chow's friend, stayed awake the whole night outside the building.

"We need to witness this, regardless of the results," she said.

Trial expected to last 75 days

Three government-vetted judges will preside over the trial, which is expected to last 75 days. Videos related to the alliance's years of work will be part of the prosecution evidence.

Chow, also a lawyer defending herself, tried to throw out her case in November, arguing the prosecution had not specified what "unlawful means" were involved. But the judges rejected her bid.

The judges explained their decision on Wednesday, saying the prosecution made it clear that "unlawful means" meant ending the Chinese Communist Party's rule and violating the Chinese constitution. The prosecution accused the defendants of promoting the call of "ending one-party rule" by inciting people's hatred of and disgust over the state's power, the judges said.

The prosecution, they said, had pointed to the defendants' media interviews and public speeches related to the alliance to sustain the group's operation and promote that call to others after the security law took effect in June 2020. Although the scope of the charge was relatively wide, the prosecutors had provided sufficient details for the defendants, they added.

The court will not allow the trial to become a tool of political suppression in the name of law, the judges said.

Prosecutors are expected to detail their case this week.

Urania Chiu, lecturer in law at Oxford Brookes University, said the case goes to the heart of freedom of expression.

"The prosecution case hinges on the argument that the Alliance's general call for 'bringing the one-party rule to an end' constitutes subversion without more, which amounts to criminalizing an idea, a political ideal that is very far from being actualized," she said.

Sarah Brooks, Amnesty International's Deputy Regional Director, alleged the case was about "rewriting history and punishing those who refuse to forget the victims of the Tiananmen crackdown."

Alliance's disbandment a blow to civil society

The alliance was best known for organizing the only large-scalepublic commemorationof the 1989 crackdown in China for decades. Tens of thousands of people attended it annually until authorities banned it in 2020, citing anti-pandemic measures.

After COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, the park was occupied instead by a carnival organized by pro-Beijing groups. Those who tried to commemorate the event near the sitewere detained.

Before the alliancevoted to disbandin September 2021, police had sought details about the group, saying they had reasonable grounds to believe it was acting as a foreign agent. The alliance rejected the allegations andrefused to cooperate.

Chow, Tang, another core member of the alliance were convicted in a separate case in 2023 for failing to provide authorities with information on the group and were each sentenced to4 1/2 monthsin prison. But the triooverturned their convictionsat the city's top court in March 2025.

Chow, Lee and Ho have been in custody, awaiting the trial's opening, which has been postponed twice.

Beijing said the 2020 security law was necessary for the city's stability following the 2019 protests, which sent hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets.

The same law hasconvicted dozensof other leading pro-democracy activists, including pro-democracy former media mogulJimmy Lailast month. Dozens of civil society groups have closed since the law took effect.

byCosmopolite

in

January 21, 2026

National security trial for Hong Kong's Tiananmen vigil organizers opens

HONG KONG (AP) — A trial against two pro-democracy activists behind a group that for decades organized a vigil that comme...

Read More

Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge's warrant, memo says

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people's homes withouta judge's warrant, according to an internalImmigration and Customs Enforcement memoobtained by The Associated Press, marking a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.

The memo authorizes ICE officers to use force to enter a residence based solely on a more narrow administrative warrant to arrest someone with a final order of removal, a move that advocates say collides with Fourth Amendment protections and upends years of advice given to immigrant communities.

The shift comes as the Trump administration dramatically expands immigration arrests nationwide, deploying thousands of officers undera mass deportation campaignthat is alreadyreshaping enforcement tacticsin cities such as Minneapolis.

For years, immigrant advocates, legal aid groups and local governments have urged people not to open their doors to immigration agents unless they are shown a warrant signed by a judge. That guidance is rooted in Supreme Court rulings that generally prohibit law enforcement from entering a home without judicial approval. The ICE directive directly undercuts that advice at a time when arrests are accelerating under the administration's immigration crackdown.

The memo itself has not been widely shared within the agency, according to a whistleblower complaint, but its contents have beenused to trainnew ICE officers who are being deployed into cities and towns to implement the president's immigration crackdown. New ICE hires and those still in training are being told to follow the memo's guidance instead of written training materials that actually contradict the memo, according to the whistleblower disclosure.

It is unclear how broadly the directive has been applied in immigration enforcement operations. The Associated Press witnessed ICE officersramming through the front doorof the home of a Liberian man, Garrison Gibson, with a deportation order from 2023 in Minneapolis on Jan. 11, wearing heavy tactical gear and with their rifles drawn.

Documents reviewed by The AP revealed that the agents only had an administrative warrant — meaning there was no judge who authorized the raid on private property.

The change is almost certain to meet legal challenges and stiff criticism from advocacy groups and immigrant-friendly state and local governments that have spent years successfully urging people not to open their doors unless ICE shows them a warrant signed by a judge.

The Associated Press obtained the memo and whistleblower complaint from an official in Congress, who shared it on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive documents. The AP verified the authenticity of the accounts in the complaint.

The memo, signed by the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, and dated May 12, 2025, says: "Although the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose."

The memo does not detail how that determination was made nor what its legal repercussions might be.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in an e-mailed statement to the AP that everyone the department serves with an administrative warrant has already had "full due process and a final order of removal."

She said the officers issuing those warrants have also found probable cause for the person's arrest. She said the Supreme Court and Congress have "recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement," without elaborating. McLaughlin did not respond to questions about whether ICE officers entered a person's home since the memo was issued, relying solely on an administrative warrant and if so, how often.

Recent arrests shine a light on tactics

Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit legal organization that assists workers exposing wrongdoings, said in the whistleblower complaint obtained by The Associated Press that it represents two anonymous U.S. government officials "disclosing a secretive — and seemingly unconstitutional — policy directive."

A wave of recent high-profile arrests, manyunfolding at private homesand businesses and captured on video, has placed a spotlight on immigration arrest tactics, including officers' use of proper warrants.

Most immigration arrests are carried out under administrative warrants, internal documents issued by immigration authorities that authorize the arrest of a specific individual but do not permit officers to forcibly enter private homes or other non-public spaces without consent. Only warrants signed by judges carry that authority.

All law enforcement operations — including those conducted by ICE and Customs and Border Protection — are governed by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects all people in the country from unreasonable searches and seizures.

People can legally refuse federal immigration agents entry into private property if the agents only have an administrative warrant, with some limited exceptions.

Memo shown to 'select' officials

The memo says ICE officers can forcibly enter homes and arrest immigrants using just a signed administrative warrant known as an I-205 if they have a final order of removal issued by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals or a district judge or magistrate judge.

The memo says officers must first knock on the door and share who they are and why they're at the residence. They're limited in the hours they can go into the home — after 6 a.m. and before 10 p.m. The people inside must be given a "reasonable chance to act lawfully." But if that doesn't work, the memo says, they can use force to go in.

"Should the alien refuse admittance, ICE officers and agents should use only a necessary and reasonable amount of force to enter the alien's residence, following proper notification of the officer or agent's authority and intent to enter," the memo reads.

The memo is addressed to all ICE personnel. But it has been shown only to "select DHS officials" who then shared it with some employees who were told to read it and return it, Whistleblower Aid wrote in the disclosure.

One of the two whistleblowers was allowed to view the memo only in the presence of a supervisor and then had to give it back. That person was not allowed to take notes. A whistleblower was able to access the document and lawfully disclose it to Congress, Whistleblower Aid said.

Although the memo was issued in May, David Kligerman, senior vice president and special counsel at Whistleblower Aid, said it took time for its clients to find a "safe and legal path to disclose it to lawmakers and the American people."

Memo says ICE officers are told to rely solely on administrative warrants

ICE has been rapidly hiring thousands of new deportation officers to carry out the president's mass deportation agenda. They're trained at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Brunswick, Georgia.

Duringa visit thereby The Associated Press in August, ICE officials said repeatedly that new officers were being trained to follow the Fourth Amendment.

But according to the whistleblowers' account, newly hired ICE officers are being told they can rely solely on administrative warrants to enter homes to make arrests, even though that conflicts with written Homeland Security training materials.

Lindsay Nash, a law professor at Yeshiva University's Cardozo School of Law in New York, said the memo "flies in the face" of what the Fourth Amendment protects against and what ICE itself has historically said are its authorities.

She said there's an "enormous potential for overreach, for mistakes and we've seen that those can happen with very, very serious consequences."

byCosmopolite

in

January 21, 2026

Immigration officers assert sweeping power to enter homes without a judge's warrant, memo says

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal immigration officers are asserting sweeping power to forcibly enter people's homes withouta...

Read More

Takeaways: Supreme Court signals it will defy Trump to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve

The Supreme Court signaled deep skepticism Wednesday that President Donald Trump had the authority toremove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve, with several conservative justices joining their liberal colleagues in posing pointed questions of the lawyer defending the president.

By the end of the two-hour argument, many of the justices appeared to be more interested in how the court would side with Cook — not whether it would do so — and how quickly it would resolve her underlying litigation.

The case is among the most pressing to deal with presidential power and the economy that the Supreme Court has heard in years. Cook argued that a ruling for Trump would sow "chaos" in the markets and eviscerate the central bank'slongstanding independence from White House politics. The administration focused on more technical arguments that found little purchase, even on a 6-3 conservative court that has repeatedly sided with Trump.

Here are the key takeaways from oral arguments:

Conservatives rush to question Trump

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was Trump's second nominee to the high court, made clear in a series of early questions that he had deep reservations with the administration's position — specifically the idea that it could define the "cause" for firing Cook and evade review from courts.

Trump fired Cook last summer based on allegations that she had committed mortgage fraud by claiming two properties as her principal residence. Cook has denied any wrongdoing and has said that other documents demonstrate that she was clear one of the properties was a vacation home.

"What goes around comes around," Kavanaugh warned US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, raising the possibility that the next president could cite some questionable "cause" to fire Trump's appointees to the Fed based on "trivial or inconsequential or old allegations that are very difficult to disprove."

"Once these tools are unleashed," Kavanaugh said, "they're used by both sides."

Chief Justice John Roberts jumped in early when Sauer claimed that Cook's applications were "at least gross negligence" and "quite a big mistake."

"Well, I mean, I suppose we can debate that, how significant it is in a stack of papers you have to fill out when you're buying real estate," Roberts said.

Even Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative who also appeared to have concerns with lower court rulings that sided with Cook, at one point expressed annoyance that the case was being rushed through the courts and said that Trump's move was "handled in a very cursory manner."

Cook faces a friendlier bench

The questions for Paul Clement, the attorney arguing for Cook, signaled that the justices had likely decided that they were not inclined to give Trump the immediate okay to fire Cook, but were grappling with what should happen in the case next.

A narrow ruling simply concluding that Trump had not met the threshold for an emergency intervention would all but guarantee that the case would be back before the justices within a year or two. Yet it would also mean that Cook would remain in the job in the meantime.

A ruling agreeing with the DC Circuit that Trump had likely violated Cook's due process rights by not giving her sufficient opportunity to respond to the allegations would be the "simplest" way to resolve the current dispute, Kavanaugh said.

But other justices noted that a ruling that said that Trump was required to give Cook an opportunity to respond to the mortgage claims wouldn't answer the underlying questions over whether that alleged conduct meets the "for cause" threshold that allows Trump to fire her.

"I guess I don't quite understand what sending it back would be for, other than airing of the same sort of issues that we've been airing this morning," Roberts said.

Part of the debate centered on technical questions about the judicial mechanisms that courts would be allowed to use if they decided Cook should prevail in the lawsuit. There are legal limits constraining what types of orders courts can issue directly against presidents, but Clement noted that courts have been creative in finding ways to issue orders against lower-level officials to effectuate their rulings.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a member of the court's liberal wing, suggested that the debate over that mechanism was premature.

"No one has made a definitive determination about the president's right to remove her. The question now is, just in the interim, while that issue is being litigated, what happens?" Jackson said.

Still, in a sign that Clement sensed a win for his client, the veteran Supreme Court lawyer emphasized the benefits of the court issuing the opinion that would address the broader range of legal questions that had been put forward in the arguments.

"If you decided to go a little further and say something substantive, it might bring all of this to an end," Clement said. "And there's probably some virtue to that."

Little traction for Trump's sweepiest arguments

Trump's lawyers have repeatedly argued that courts have no business scrutinizing some of his most controversial moves, including his desire to send National Guard troops to major cities and his effort to use a sweeping wartime authority to quickly deport migrants.

Too much court intervention, the Department of Justice has said, would trample on the executive's power to govern as they see fit.

But the justices seemed to have little appetite for that position in Cook's case.

Several members of the court made clear that they were not willing to adopt Sauer's argument that the judiciary had no role to play in the dispute – specifically, in reviewing the amount of process given to Cook or another governor before their attempted removal.

"Your position that there's no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available, very low bar for 'cause' – that the president alone determines – I mean that would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve," Kavanaugh told Sauer.

Roberts, too, repeatedly put Sauer on the defense about his position, peppering him with questions about when, if at all, a court could step into a contested firing like Cook's.

"I suppose we can debate real estate, but I gather under your position it doesn't make a difference, right? In other words, the determination of cause is unreviewable, right?" Roberts asked Sauer.

The solicitor general contended that the only place for judicial review is if Trump gave no reason at all for his decision to fire Cook.

"But once you're within that, and we clearly are here, then there would be deference to the president," he told the chief justice.

Roberts also questioned the administration's position that courts are powerless to reinstate an official who might be wrongly fired by the president.

"If you're correct that courts do not have authority to reinstate a removed officer, why are we wasting our time wondering if there's cause or not?" Roberts asked. "How is that consistent with the time and energy being spent on determining if there's cause?"

If there is any level of cause that a president has to show to fire Cook, Roberts said, "and you indicate that there is some level of cause — well, then you can't be right about the idea that a court can't order anybody who's been removed to be reinstated."

Powell, Cook make rare appearance

Adding to the drama of the Supreme Court's argument was the fact that Cook, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke sat in the audience, a striking show of support for the institution's ability to set interest rates free of politics.

Powell's attendance made a big statement. Earlier this month, it was revealed that federal prosecutors are probing Powell's testimony to Congress last year on the Fed's renovation of its Washington, DC headquarters. Powell released a stunning video calling out Trump, a critic of Powell's actions on interest rates, for relentlessly trying to bend the Fed to his will.

Powell's video — and his presence at the Supreme Court — is an extraordinary departure from his usual way of handling Trump's attacks, which had been to simply avoid further escalation. For years, since Trump's first term, Powell had mostly avoided responding directly to the president's public gripes that the Fed should be lowering interest rates.

Powell will likely be asked to elaborate when he addresses reporters next week in a news conference after Fed policymakers announce their latest decision on interest rates.

Several of Powell's former and current colleagues have come out in support of his response to the administration's intense pressure campaign, including New York Fed President John Williams, a highly influential member of the Fed's rate-setting committee.

While Cook did not speak in the courtroom or after the arguments, she did say in a statement that the verdict will decide "whether the Federal Reserve will set key interest rates guided by evidence and independent judgment or will succumb to political pressure." Also in attendance at Wednesday's hearing were Fed Governor Michael Barr, Powell's wife and several members of Cook's family.

It was a lively and full courtroom during oral arguments, with several moments of murmur and soft laughter, including at the justices' multiple references to Trump's Truth Social post notifying Cook of her termination.

When will the court rule on this and tariffs?

Given the tenor of the arguments, and the fact that the case was at the Supreme Court on an emergency basis, it's possible that the justices will hand down a decision far more quickly than it normally might in an argued case. Usually, the court will resolve its most important cases before the end of June.

Trump v. Cook is the only case on the Supreme Court's argument calendar this year on its emergency docket. That unusual posture means there's no specific "question presented," as there would be if the merits of the case had been appealed from a lower court. The "question presented" helps to focus an argument and, ultimately, a decision. In this case, Cook has defined the question very broadly as one of Fed independence. Trump, by contrast, has defined the case narrowly.

But the possibility of a faster resolution means that court watchers, the White House and the markets will now be waiting expectantly for two major pending opinions involving the Trump administration: The Cook case and the appeal challenging the president'ssweeping use of emergency tariffs. Trump also faced a rocky argument in the tariffs case in early November.

Of course, the Supreme Court's view of "fast" is different than how the rest of Washington would define that word. The court is not scheduled to take the bench again until mid-February — though it could add a day to release opinions at any time.

CNN's Elisabeth Buchwald and Austin Culpepper contributed to this report.

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

byCosmopolite

in

January 21, 2026

Takeaways: Supreme Court signals it will defy Trump to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve

The Supreme Court signaled deep skepticism Wednesday that President Donald Trump had the authority toremove Lisa Cook from the Federal Rese...

Read More

Wilson, Veesaar lead way as No. 22 North Carolina rolls past Notre Dame 91-69 in ACC play

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — Caleb Wilson had 22 points while frontcourt mate Henri Veesaar added a double-double to help No. 22 North Carolina beat Notre Dame 91-69 on Wednesday night.

Notre Dame North Carolina Basketball

The 7-foot Veesaar had 15 points and 12 rebounds for the Tar Heels (15-4, 3-3 Atlantic Coast Conference), who had lost three of four amid an abrupt defensive downturn — notably against shots from behind the arc.

The Tar Heels didn't have any trouble this time, with the Fighting Irish (10-9, 1-5) struggling since losing leading scorer Markus Burton to left-ankle surgery in early December. North Carolina got off to a fast start from outside and kept firing, making a season-high 13 3-pointers while shooting 50.8% overall to send the Irish to a fifth straight loss.

The Tar Heels led 42-33 at halftime, then rolled out of the break with 10 unanswered points to blow the game open — powered by Veesaar's immediate jumper, a 3-pointer and a layup during the spurt.

Wilson was strong out of the gate while working more in the post, with the star freshman finishing 8 for 11 from the field to go with seven rebounds and five assists.

Sir Mohammed scored 14 points, while Jalen Haralson added 13 to lead Notre Dame, which shot 36%. The Fighting Irish did manage to shoot well from outside early, but Notre Dame went just 2 of 13 on 3s after halftime and finished the game at 8 for 25 (32%).

Advertisement

That was notable considering UNC's struggles stopping the 3 since the start of ACC play. Entering Wednesday's game, the Tar Heels had allowed five ACC opponents to make 70 of 156 3-pointers (44.9%) for an average of 14 made 3s per game.

Notre Dame: The Fighting Irish host Boston College on Saturday.

UNC: The Tar Heels visit No. 14 Virginia on Saturday.

Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign uphere. AP college basketball:https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-basketball-pollandhttps://apnews.com/hub/college-basketball

byCosmopolite

in

January 21, 2026

Wilson, Veesaar lead way as No. 22 North Carolina rolls past Notre Dame 91-69 in ACC play

CHAPEL HILL, N.C. (AP) — Caleb Wilson had 22 points while frontcourt mate Henri Veesaar added a double-double to help No....

Read More

Will winter storm watch impact AFC, NFC championship games?

Winter is here, and with it is cominga sizeable snow and ice stormthat is expected to impact large swaths of the United States.

Millions of Americans are already under advisories for cold weather and dangerous ice conditions in addition to the oncoming snow. More than two dozen states are in the line of the developing storm, from Texas up through the Northeast,according to AccuWeather meteorologists.

The exact path of the storm isn't yet clear. However, at present, it isn't expected to have an impact on either of this weekend's NFL playoff contests. The AFC and NFC championship games are being played in cities that are presently out of the predicted path of the storm.

Here's what to know about the forecast for the AFC and NFC championship games as the United States gears up for a major winter storm.

NFL weather games: Football played in adverse conditions ❄️🌧️

Where is the AFC championship game?

The AFC championship game is set to be in Denver this season. TheBroncosearned the No. 1 seed in the AFC, so Empower Field at Mile High Stadium will be the site for their game against the New England Patriots.

The Broncos last hosted the AFC championship game during the 2015 NFL playoffs, which were played in 2016. It was 46 degrees with 6 mph of wind at kickoff of the contest, perPro Football Reference, which Denver won 20-18 over New England.

AFC championship game weather forecast

Conditions for the AFC championship game in Denver are expected to be relatively benign, according tothe National Weather Service (NWS).

Below is a full breakdown of the agency's early-week forecast for the Jan. 25 game between the Broncos and Patriots:

• High temperature: 31 degrees

• Low temperature: 12 degrees

• Chance of precipitation: TBD

• Wind: TBD

The Broncos vs. Patriots game is scheduled to take place at 3 p.m. ET, which is 1 p.m. locally in Denver. Temperatures will be below freezing for Sunday's game, but the lowest temperatures won't happen until the evening.

Advertisement

As such, the teams will dodge the worst of Sunday's cold while the band of snow crossing the country is not expected to impact the game. No precipitation is currently listed among the NWS forecast for Jan. 25.

Where is the NFC championship game?

The NFC championship game will be played in Seattle. The Seahawks earned the NFC's No. 1 seed and have the right to host the conference title game after thrashing the 49ers 41-6 in the divisional round of the playoffs.

The Seahawks last hosted the NFC championship game during the 2014 NFL playoffs, which were contested in 2015. It was 52 degrees at kickoff with 15 mph winds blowing, according toPro Football Reference.

The Seahawks beat thePackers28-22 in overtime. Russell Wilson helped lead Seattle to a come-from-behind victory after Packers tight end Brandon Bostick failed to handle an onside kick late in regulation of the conference championship game.

NFC championship game forecast

Sunday's NFC championship game will also be played amid mild conditions, according tothe National Weather Service (NWS).

Below is a full breakdown of the agency's early-week forecast for the Jan. 25 game between the Seahawks and Rams:

• High temperature: 45 degrees

• Low temperature: 34 degrees

• Chance of precipitation: TBD

• Wind: TBD

The NWS notes there is "a slight chance of rain before 10 p.m." but it isn't yet clear whether that will intersect with the game.

The Seahawks vs. Rams game is set to kick off at 6:30 p.m. ET, which is 3:30 p.m. locally in Seattle.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:Winter storm watch: Will weather impact AFC, NFC championship games?

byCosmopolite

in

January 21, 2026

Will winter storm watch impact AFC, NFC championship games?

Winter is here, and with it is cominga sizeable snow and ice stormthat is expected to impact large swaths of the United S...

Read More