argument 4 passed to

Appeals court OKs Texas immigration law to take effect Sunday unless Supreme Court steps in

Update: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday evening accepted an emergency appeal from the U.S. Justice Department and kept a hold on SB 4 until at least March 13, preventing the Texas law that empowers state law enforcement officers to detain and deport migrants suspected of illegally entering or living in the U.S. from going into effect Sunday.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will allow a sweeping and controversial border security package that Texas lawmakers passed last year to go into effect at 12:01 a.m. Sunday — paving the way for state law officers to arrest people suspected of illegally crossing into Texas from Mexico and allowing state judges to issue deportation orders — unless the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, according to an order the court issued over the weekend.

The New Orleans-based appeals court's decision came a day after Judge David Ezra of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on Friday issued a ruling to temporarily block the law from going into effect while its constitutional challenge is settled.

"Several factors warrant an injunction," Ezra wrote in enjoining Senate Bill 4 on Friday . "First, the Supremacy Clause, and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government."

However, in reversing the lower court's ruling, the appeals court allowed SB 4, which was previously scheduled to take effect Tuesday, to become active Sunday. As per its brief memo, the appeals court delayed its decision from taking effect for seven days to allow the federal government time to appeal the order to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, federal prosecutors made that petition to the Supreme Court, which the country's high court accepted later in the day , to consider overturning the appeals court's decision based on long-standing court precedent on border issues.

"This court has long recognized that the regulation of entry and removal of noncitizens is inseparably intertwined with the conduct of foreign relations and thus vested 'solely in the federal government,’” federal prosecutors wrote in asking to reinstate the District Court’s injunction.

In response to the Supreme Court's intervention, migrant advocacy groups — including the ACLU, Las Americas and the League of United Latin American Citizens — were "cautiously optimistic" and view the continued delay of SB 4's implementation as "encouraging."

"This is a step in the right direction and a moment to celebrate the importance of checks and balances in our legal system," said state Rep. Victoria Neave Criado, D-Dallas, the chair of the House Mexican American Legislative Caucus.

Earlier on Monday before the Supreme Court's intervention, Gov. Greg Abbott in a short post on X, formerly Twitter, welcomed the appeals court ruling as "huge news."

"Federal appeals court allows Texas immigration law to take effect," Abbott said. "Law enforcement officers in Texas are now authorized to arrest & jail any illegal immigrants crossing the border."

In a follow-up post nearly an hour later, Abbott clarified that law enforcement officers will be allowed to start enforcing SB 4 only if the Supreme Court doesn't take up the case by Saturday.

In November, the state Legislature passed SB 4, creating a series of penalties for anyone suspected of crossing the Texas-Mexico border into the U.S. other than through a legal international port of entry. The penalties range from a Class B misdemeanor to a second-degree felony.

SB 4, which faced heavy opposition from Democrats and civil rights groups throughout the 2023 legislative calendar, also requires people accused of illegally crossing into Texas to either accept a magistrate judge's deportation order or face a second-degree felony charge for noncompliance.

Rep. David Spiller, R-Jacksboro, who wrote the House's final version of SB 4, said the appeals court ruling is "great news for Texas" and that federal prosecutors have failed to make a successful argument on the harms that could be caused by the state's immigration law taking effect.

"The injunction shouldn’t have ever been granted because the DOJ failed to prove they were likely to succeed on the merits, and that SB 4 would have inflicted irreparable harm to the US — both requisite steps for the issuance of a temporary injunction," Spiller said Monday on X.

More: Far-right billionaires throw money at Republican primary to weed out enemies of AG Paxton

In reversing the lower court's injunction on SB 4 taking effect, Judges Edith Clement, Kurt Engelhardt and Irma Ramirez said the court's consideration of Texas' immigration law will be expedited, with the case to be taken up on the "next available oral argument calendar." As of Monday, no date had been set.

The appeals court decision was not unanimous by the three-judge panel, with Ramirez saying she would not have granted the temporary stay and instead favored deferring that decision to the judges panel that will hear oral arguments on the case, according to the court's order published Saturday.

The U.S. Department of Justice  filed its lawsuit against Texas to stop SB 4 in January ,  joining previous suits filed late last year by the ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Gateways, the Texas Civil Rights Project and El Paso County.

During oral arguments Feb. 15 in Ezra's federal courtroom in Austin, the state's attorneys defending SB 4 said the surge in migrants into Texas warrants state-level immigration provisions. Ezra, while complimentary of the argument presented by Ryan Walters, the state attorney general's office special litigation chief, entirely disagreed with the state's premise in his ruling.

"Finally, to allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives on the basis of an invasion would amount to nullification of federal law and authority — a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War," Ezra wrote.

More: Here's our Texas primary election voter guide before voting on Super Tuesday

During the February hearing, federal prosecutors bemoaned Texas' effort to enact immigration law as a clear overstep into the federal government's authority, laying out their case arguing that the state lacks the authority to determine the ingress and egress of migrants along the southern border.

After Ezra's ruling and the state's immediate appeal, Abbott and Attorney General Ken Paxton said their intent is to continue fighting for the state law with the purpose of reaching the Supreme Court for a final decision.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• March Madness
• AP Top 25 Poll
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Judge rejects Trump’s First Amendment challenge to indictment in Georgia election case

Judge Scott McAfee addresses the lawyers during a hearing on charges against former President Donald Trump in the Georgia election interference case on Thursday, March 28, 2024 in Atlanta. Lawyers for Trump argued in a court filing that the charges against him in the Georgia election interference case seek to criminalize political speech and advocacy conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. (Dennis Byron/Hip Hop Enquirer via AP)

FILE - Republican presidential candidate former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally, March 9, 2024, in Rome Ga. Lawyers for former President Donald Trump argued in a court filing that the charges against him in the Georgia election interference case seek to criminalize political speech and advocacy conduct that is protected by the First Amendment. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee plans to hear arguments on that filing and on two pretrial motions filed by former Georgia Republican Party chair David Shafer during a hearing set for Thursday. (AP Photo/Mike Stewart, File)

• Copy Link copied

ATLANTA (AP) — The judge overseeing the Georgia election interference case against Donald Trump and others rejected on Thursday arguments by the former president that the indictment seeks to criminalize political speech protected by the First Amendment.

The indictment issued in August by a Fulton County grand jury accused Trump and 18 others of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn the 2020 presidential election in Georgia after the Republican incumbent narrowly lost the state to Democrat Joe Biden. Trump’s attorneys argued that all the charges against him involved political speech that is protected even if the speech ends up being false.

But Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote that at this pretrial stage he must consider the language of the indictment in a light favorable to the prosecution. The charges do not suggest that Trump and the others are being prosecuted simply for making false statements but rather that they acted willfully and knowingly to harm the government, he wrote.

“Even core political speech addressing matters of public concern is not impenetrable from prosecution if allegedly used to further criminal activity,” the judge wrote.

He added that even lawful acts involving speech protected by the First Amendment can be used to support a charge under Georgia’s anti-racketeering law , which prosecutors used in this case.

But McAfee did leave open the possibility that Trump and others could raise similar arguments “at the appropriate time after the establishment of a factual record.”

Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said in an email that Trump and the other defendants “respectfully disagree with Judge McAfee’s order and will continue to evaluate their options regarding the First Amendment challenges.” He called it significant that McAfee made it clear they could raise their challenges again later.

A spokesperson for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis declined to comment.

McAfee’s order echoes an earlier ruling in the federal election interference case against Trump brought by Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith. U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in December that “it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime.”

McAfee also rejected arguments from Trump co-defendant and former Georgia Republican Party chairman David Shafer challenging certain charges and asking that certain phrases be struck from the indictment. Most of the charges against Shafer have to do with his involvement in the casting of Electoral College votes for Trump by a group of Georgia Republicans even though the state’s election had been certified in favor of Biden.

His lawyers argue that the following phrases are used to assert that the Democratic slate of electors was valid and the Republican slate was not: “duly elected and qualified presidential electors,” “false Electoral College votes” and “lawful electoral votes.” The lawyers said those are “prejudicial legal conclusions” about issues that should be decided by the judge or by the jury at trial.

McAfee wrote that “the challenged language is not prejudicial because it accurately describes the alleged offenses and makes the charges more easily understood by providing a basis to differentiate the allegedly lawful and unlawful acts of presidential electors (as theorized by the State.)” He noted that jurors are repeatedly instructed that an indictment should not be considered evidence.

Craig Gillen, an attorney for Shafer, declined to comment on pending litigation.

No trial date has been set for the sprawling Georgia case, one of four criminal cases pending against Trump as he seeks to return to the White House, though Willis has asked for the trial to begin in August. Four people have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. Trump and the others who remain have pleaded not guilty.

• Language Reference

Function arguments

Information may be passed to functions via the argument list, which is a comma-delimited list of expressions. The arguments are evaluated from left to right, before the function is actually called ( eager evaluation).

PHP supports passing arguments by value (the default), passing by reference , and default argument values . Variable-length argument lists and Named Arguments are also supported.

Example #1 Passing arrays to functions

As of PHP 8.0.0, the list of function arguments may include a trailing comma, which will be ignored. That is particularly useful in cases where the list of arguments is long or contains long variable names, making it convenient to list arguments vertically.

Example #2 Function Argument List with trailing Comma

Passing arguments by reference

By default, function arguments are passed by value (so that if the value of the argument within the function is changed, it does not get changed outside of the function). To allow a function to modify its arguments, they must be passed by reference.

To have an argument to a function always passed by reference, prepend an ampersand (&) to the argument name in the function definition:

Example #3 Passing function parameters by reference

It is an error to pass a value as argument which is supposed to be passed by reference.

Default argument values

A function may define default values for arguments using syntax similar to assigning a variable. The default is used only when the parameter is not specified; in particular, note that passing null does not assign the default value.

Example #4 Use of default parameters in functions

The above example will output:

Default parameter values may be scalar values, array s, the special type null , and as of PHP 8.1.0, objects using the new ClassName() syntax.

Example #5 Using non-scalar types as default values

Example #6 Using objects as default values (as of PHP 8.1.0)

The default value must be a constant expression, not (for example) a variable, a class member or a function call.

Note that any optional arguments should be specified after any required arguments, otherwise they cannot be omitted from calls. Consider the following example:

Example #7 Incorrect usage of default function arguments

Now, compare the above with this:

Example #8 Correct usage of default function arguments

As of PHP 8.0.0, named arguments can be used to skip over multiple optional parameters.

Example #9 Correct usage of default function arguments

Example #10 Declaring optional arguments after mandatory arguments

Note : As of PHP 7.1.0, omitting a parameter which does not specify a default throws an ArgumentCountError ; in previous versions it raised a Warning.

Note : Arguments that are passed by reference may have a default value.

Variable-length argument lists

PHP has support for variable-length argument lists in user-defined functions by using the ... token.

Example #11 Using ... to access variable arguments

Example #12 Using ... to provide arguments

You may specify normal positional arguments before the ... token. In this case, only the trailing arguments that don't match a positional argument will be added to the array generated by ... .

Example #13 Type declared variable arguments

Finally, variable arguments can also be passed by reference by prefixing the ... with an ampersand ( & ).

Named Arguments

PHP 8.0.0 introduced named arguments as an extension of the existing positional parameters. Named arguments allow passing arguments to a function based on the parameter name, rather than the parameter position. This makes the meaning of the argument self-documenting, makes the arguments order-independent and allows skipping default values arbitrarily.

Named arguments are passed by prefixing the value with the parameter name followed by a colon. Using reserved keywords as parameter names is allowed. The parameter name must be an identifier, specifying dynamically is not allowed.

Example #14 Named argument syntax

Example #15 Positional arguments versus named arguments

The order in which the named arguments are passed does not matter.

Example #16 Same example as above with a different order of parameters

Named arguments can be combined with positional arguments. In this case, the named arguments must come after the positional arguments. It is also possible to specify only some of the optional arguments of a function, regardless of their order.

Example #17 Combining named arguments with positional arguments

Passing the same parameter multiple times results in an Error exception.

Example #18 Error thrown when passing the same parameter multiple times

As of PHP 8.1.0, it is possible to use named arguments after unpacking the arguments. A named argument must not override an already unpacked argument.

Example #19 Use named arguments after unpacking

User Contributed Notes 14 notes

Watch CBS News

Minnesota Supreme Court hears arguments Monday in challenge to felons' voting rights

By WCCO Staff , Beret Leone

Updated on: April 1, 2024 / 4:22 PM CDT / CBS/AP

MINNEAPOLIS — The Minnesota Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Monday over a challenge to the state's restoration of voting rights for felons.

The law passed last year restored the voting rights of 55,000 Minnesotans on probation, supervision and work release. Before the change, they had to complete their probation before they could regain their eligibility to vote.

An Anoka County judge overruled a challenge to that law filed by the Minnesota Voters Alliance. The alliance argued that the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says felons cannot vote "unless restored to civil rights." The group argued that the language means all their civil rights, not just some.

Anoka County Judge Thomas Lehmann ruled that the alliance lacked the legal standing to sue and failed to prove that the Legislature overstepped its authority when it voted to expand voting rights for the formerly incarcerated.   

The group's appeal of that decision will now be heard by the state's Supreme Court.

Advocates for the change argued that disenfranchising felons disproportionately affects people of color because of biases in the legal system. 

Twenty-two other states have laws similar to Minnesota's in which felons automatically have their right to vote automatically restored upon release.

ACLU members and advocates say their fight isn't over.

"We are here asking the court to protect the fundamental right to vote," ACLU attorney David McKinney said.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals in November  rejected a different attempt  to void the law along similar grounds, ruling that a lower court judge overstepped his authority when he declared the law unconstitutional.  

"That language begs two questions, how can that be restored and what order," Minnesota Voters Alliance attorney James Dickey said.

The group argues the law violates a clause in the state constitution that says felons cannot vote "unless restored to civil rights," saying the language means all their civil rights, not just some.

"It's our view that the law doesn't accomplish what the constitution requires, plain and simple," Dickey said.

Advocates on the other side, say there's a lot at stake.

"It's really disheartening to know that there are people out there with special interests that are fighting so hard to take away civil rights of so many people who have been disenfranchised for years," Restore the Vote Coalition member Tierre Caldwell said.

"We think they're made in good faith, we think that they have a different interpretation of the law," Dickey said. "And I think that it's important that we look at these types of situations, what is really important to our clients is the rule of law."

During Monday's court proceedings, the state asked the Supreme Court to make a decision by the end of June.

• Voting Rights

The WCCO Staff is a group of experienced journalists who bring you the content on WCCO.com.

Featured Local Savings

More from cbs news.

Drought conditions cause lower than usual water levels, DNR warns boaters

Justus Ramsey House to be rebuilt in the Transportation Museum, proposes new bill

Saturday's Powerball drawing delayed, per officials

State Republicans fail to force vote preventing Minneapolis from setting pay for Lyft, Uber drivers

Support » Plugin: WooCommerce PayPal Payments » CRITICAL Uncaught TypeError: Argument 4 passed to

CRITICAL Uncaught TypeError: Argument 4 passed to

2 years, 9 months ago

some errors in Status log since the last update.

CRITICAL Uncaught TypeError: Argument 4 passed to WooCommerce\PayPalCommerce\Subscription\SubscriptionModule::display_saved_paypal_payments() must be of the type string, null given, called in /www/htdocs/XXXXX/web/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce-paypal-payments/modules/ppcp-subscription/src/class-subscriptionmodule.php on line 83 and defined in /www/htdocs/XXXXX/web/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce-paypal-payments/modules/ppcp-subscription/src/class-subscriptionmodule.php:171 Stack trace: #0 /www/htdocs/XXXXX/web/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce-paypal-payments/modules/ppcp-subscription/src/class-subscriptionmodule.php(83): WooCommerce\PayPalCommerce\Subscription\SubscriptionModule->display_saved_paypal_payments(Object(WooCommerce\PayPalCommerce\WcGateway\Settings\Settings), ‘amazon_payments…’, Object(WooCommerce\PayPalCommerce\Subscription\Repository\PaymentTokenRepository), NULL, Object(WooCommerce\PayPalCommerce\Subscription\Helper\SubscriptionHelper)) #1 /www/htdocs/XXXXX/web/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php in /www/htdocs/XXXXX/web/wp-content/plugins/woocommerce-paypal-payments/modules/ppcp-subscription/src/class-subscriptionmodule.php in Zeile 171

(@crashbit666)

2 years, 8 months ago

I have same problem. I like to know when the plugin update with the fix, have been released

(@niklasinpsyde)

2 years, 7 months ago

The fix for this issue with the Amazon Pay plugin was included in update 1.5.0, so I will go ahead and mark this thread resolved. If any issues or questions remain, please reach out to us as described here: https://paypal.inpsyde.com/docs/how-to-request-support-via-widget-on-the-website/ Thanks!

Kind regards, Niklas

• The topic ‘CRITICAL Uncaught TypeError: Argument 4 passed to’ is closed to new replies.

• WooCommerce PayPal Payments
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Support Threads
• Active Topics
• Unresolved Topics
• In: Plugins
• 8 participants
• Last reply from: Syde Niklas
• Last activity: 2 years, 7 months ago
• Status: resolved

Florida Supreme Court OKs Abortion Amendment for 2024 Ballot

F lorida voters will have the opportunity to enshrine the right to abortion care this November, the state’s Supreme Court ruled on Monday – a decision that’s expected to boost participation in the 2024 presidential election and could spell trouble for Republicans up and down the ticket.

If successful, the measure would undo the state’s recent abortion bans, which the state’s Supreme Court also upheld on Monday in a separate decision, and would make Florida the latest GOP-controlled state that’s been roiled by reproductive rights in the wake of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022.

Florida currently bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law upheld by the justices Monday will prohibit abortions at six weeks when it takes effect in 30 days.

At issue is the Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion, known as Amendment 4, which would preserve the right to abortion in the Florida Constitution and protect abortion until about 24 weeks of pregnancy. “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion before viability,” it states in part.

It will need approval from 60% of voters to pass.

The amendment secured close to 1 million state-certified signatures – far more than it required before the Feb. 1 deadline to put a referendum on the 2024 ballot. State Republicans had vowed to block the measure in the high court, which assesses each qualifying ballot initiative to determine if voters can understand the language included in the summary.

Republican state Attorney General Ashley Moody challenged the amendment at the Supreme Court, arguing that the initiative is deceptive because it fails to explain, for example, words like “viability” and “health care provider.” Anti-abortion groups, including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America and the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops, also filed briefs asking the court to reject it.

But Florida’s seven justices approved the amendment in an 81-page opinion released Monday afternoon: “Accordingly, we approve the proposed amendment for placement on the ballot. No rehearing will be permitted. It is so ordered.

Now the state joins a growing list where advocates are putting abortion and other reproductive rights issues on the ballot in 2024, like in vitro fertilization treatment and birth control. Maryland voters will get a chance to enshrine abortion rights this November, and efforts are underway to put similar measures on the ballot in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and South Dakota.

Voters in Republican-led Kansas and Ohio approved constitutional amendments to protect abortion last year.

“This means every single Florida voter will have the chance to vote to enshrine abortion access in their state constitution in November,” the Center for Reproductive Rights President and CEO Nancy Northrup said in a statement. “Every single time that states have put abortion directly on the ballot, voters have chosen to protect it, and now, Florida voters will have the chance to do the same.”

More than two years after the Supreme Court dismantled Roe v. Wade, abortion continues playing a significant role in election decisions up and down the ballot, with reproductive rights advocates scoring major – and sometimes surprising – victories in Republican states. Last year, Kentucky voters reelected Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, who fought against his state’s abortion ban, while voters in Virginia flipped the state House of Delegates after Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin attempted to push a 15-week abortion ban through the state legislature.

Last week in Alabama, Democrat Marilyn Lands , a licensed mental health counselor who campaigned almost entirely on reproductive rights, emerged from the special election for a state legislative seat with 62% of the vote, compared with 37% for Republican Teddy Powell.

The results, which came on the heels of the state Supreme Court ruled that embryos created from IVF are considered people, marked a dramatic shift after Lands lost the seat in 2022 by 7 percentage points and exposed the vulnerability of Republicans on abortion and other reproductive rights issues.

Copyright 2024 U.S. News & World Report

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests...

Provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement . We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[PHP 7] Exception error PHP 7 #9601

Codenator81 commented Jul 12, 2015

• 👍 3 reactions
• 👎 1 reaction

Sorry, something went wrong.

GrahamCampbell commented Jul 12, 2015

peter-mw commented Apr 7, 2016

• 👍 5 reactions

dani3l commented Apr 9, 2016

Grahamcampbell commented apr 9, 2016.

notflip commented Apr 29, 2016

Grahamcampbell commented apr 29, 2016, dani3l commented may 1, 2016.

• 👍 2 reactions
• 😕 1 reaction

GrahamCampbell commented May 1, 2016

karthigashree commented Jun 24, 2016

dequis commented Jul 1, 2016

• 👍 15 reactions
• ❤️ 1 reaction

GrahamCampbell commented Jul 1, 2016

grey-dev-0 commented Aug 1, 2016

Grahamcampbell commented aug 1, 2016, grey-dev-0 commented aug 2, 2016.

ThreePinkApples commented Nov 21, 2016 • edited

basith374 commented Jan 17, 2017 • edited

munzirbm commented Mar 26, 2017

mkhuramj commented Oct 18, 2017

Dylan-Buth commented Jan 22, 2018

• 🎉 2 reactions

bartek-indycki commented Apr 11, 2018

gokspandey commented Mar 13, 2020

No branches or pull requests

Cookie banner

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to improve your browsing experience on our site, show personalized content and targeted ads, analyze site traffic, and understand where our audiences come from. To learn more or opt-out, read our Cookie Policy . Please also read our Privacy Notice and Terms of Use , which became effective December 20, 2019.

By choosing I Accept , you consent to our use of cookies and other tracking technologies.

Follow Blogging The Boys online:

• Follow Blogging The Boys on Twitter
• Follow Blogging The Boys on Facebook
• Follow Blogging The Boys on Instagram

Site search

• DraftKings Sportsbook
• DraftKings Daily Fantasy Sports
• Dallas Cowboys News
• Full Archive
• 2023 Draft Picks
• 2023 Cowboys Schedule
• 2023 Preseason Schedule
• 2023 Training Camp Schedule
• Cowboys Blogroll
• Community Guidelines
• Fantasy Football
• Cowboys NFL picks center

Filed under:

NFC East news: Giants pass rusher duo, Philadelphia signs OT Mailata to extension

The latest news from around the division.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: NFC East news: Giants pass rusher duo, Philadelphia signs OT Mailata to extension

How Brian Burns fits with Kayvon Thibodeaux in Shane Bowen’s defense - Matt Citak, Giants.com

The Giants added a star pass rusher via free agency.

The Giants’ defense has undergone significant changes this offseason, starting with the hiring of Shane Bowen to lead the unit. The former Titans defensive coordinator will now rely more on the front four to produce pressure on the quarterback as opposed to blitzing at a high rate. In Tennessee last year, Bowen’s defense had a blitz rate of 20.4 percent, which ranked 24th in the league (compared to the Giants’ 46.2 percent blitz rate, the second-highest in the NFL). Based on the new system, the defense will lean heavily on its edge defenders to get after the quarterback. This is why it should not come as a surprise that the Giants’ biggest splash of the offseason came in the acquisition of outside linebacker Brian Burns in a trade with the Carolina Panthers. “Productive player, young player,” coach Brian Daboll said about Burns at the NFL Annual Meeting. “I’m happy that Joe (Schoen) ended up getting that deal done. I know Shane is as well and Charlie (Bullen), our new outside linebacker coach. I had a chance to meet Burns when he came up and signed, and he’s a good man. It will be good to get him in and get him working and introduced to our program and our values and things that we believe in. I credit really Joe. Joe did an outstanding job.” Burns will now play opposite Kayvon Thibodeaux, who enjoyed a breakout campaign that saw him reach double-digit sacks in his second season. They will combine to create a formidable pass-rushing duo on the edge, something the former Carolina Panther is very much looking forward to. “As far as us being similar, I would say our body types are somewhat similar,” Burns said about Thibodeaux. “Other than that, he can burn the edge, but I do know that he’s a little more prone to get into that long-arm, that power a little bit more. I definitely think we could complement each other more in practice, because I feel like he could teach me some things, I could teach him some things, and we could really bounce ideas off of each other. That’s really how pass rushers come up with a lot of their moves and their plans for that week. I think that will be the main thing is the IQ.”

Eagles OT Jordan Mailata agrees to three-year, $66M extension - Kevin Patra, NFL.com

Philadelphia signs their second starting offensive lineman this offseason to an extension.

The Philadelphia Eagles have locked down left tackle Jordan Mailata long-term. Philly agreed to terms on a three-year, $66 million extension with the starting left tackle, NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport reported on Thursday, per a source informed of the pact. The team confirmed Mailata’s contract shortly after. ESPN first reported the news. The extension keeps Mailata under contract in Philadelphia through 2028. The deal marks the second long-term extension for the former seventh-round pick, who inked a four-year extension in 2021. Mailata is a glowing success story of the International Player Pathway program . The Australian grew up playing rugby before transitioning into professional football. The Eagles used a seventh-round pick on the raw talent with upside, a move that paid off big time. While dealing with a back injury his first two seasons, Mailata didn’t play a game until 2020, when he started 10 tilts. The Aussie was named the full-time starter in 2021, starting 47 tilts over the past three campaigns and becoming one of the more stout tackles in the league. Philly faces adjustments to the offensive line this season after center Jason Kelce ’s retirement , but Mailata’s extension ensures the left tackle spot is shored up for years. The three-year extension, averaging $22 million per season, sits fourth among left tackles, behind only Laremy Tunsil , Andrew Thomas and Trent Williams . The move ensures Mailata will be in Philly long-term and likely frees up cap space in the short term for the club, spreading out the hit to allow general manager Howie Roseman more maneuverability moving forward.

Marcus Mariota will make history with the Commanders in 2024 - Bryan Manning, USA Today

A new number for Washington’s QB1 will be an NFL first.

New Washington Commanders quarterback Marcus Mariota will make history in 2024. After signing over 20 outside free agents, the Commanders announced jersey numbers for their new players this week. The veteran quarterback will wear No. 0 next season, making Mariota the first quarterback in NFL history to wear that number. The NFL relaxed its rules regarding jersey numbers in 2021 and brought back No. 0 in 2023. There were 22 players who wore the number throughout the league last season, but no quarterbacks. That changes with Mariota, who has always worn No. 8 in his NFL career, excluding one season in Atlanta, but that number belongs to running back Brian Robinson Jr. in Washington. Mariota signed with Washington last month after spending the 2023 season in Philadelphia as Jalen Hurts’ backup. In 2022, He played for the Falcons, starting 13 games. Prior to his time in Atlanta, Mariota played two years for the Raiders after spending the first five seasons of his career with the Titans, who drafted him No. 2 overall back in 2015. Mariota will enter his 10th NFL season in 2024. He has played in 90 career games, making 74 starts and completing 62.7% of his passes for over 15,000 yards, with 93 touchdown passes and 55 interceptions. Mariota has also rushed for 2,064 yards and 17 touchdowns.

More From Blogging The Boys

• Replacing WR Michael Gallup shouldn’t require outside help
• Cowboys draft 2024: LB Junior Colson scouting report
• Stefon Diggs to be a free agent in 2025, setting up opportunity to play with brother Trevon Diggs
• Cowboys news: The best in-state draft prospects for Dallas
• If the Cowboys want to go into a true rebuild for 2024, here are 3 trades they could consider
• Why Dallas isn’t big enough for the Cowboys and the Chiefs

Loading comments...

Sign up for the newsletter sign up for the blogging the boys daily roundup newsletter, thanks for signing up.

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.