Paramedics convicted in Elijah McClain's death after administering ketamine

Two Denver-area paramedics were convicted Friday for giving a fatal overdose of the sedative ketamine to Elijah McClain in 2019 — a jury verdict that experts said could have a chilling effect on first responders around the country. The case involving the 23-year-old Black man’s death was the first among several recent criminal prosecutions against medical first responders to reach trial, potentially setting the bar for prosecutors for future cases. It also was the last of three trials against police and paramedics charged in the death of McClain, whom officers stopped following a suspicious person complaint. He was injected with the sedative after being forcibly restrained. The case received little attention until protests over the 2020 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. An Aurora police officer was convicted of homicide and third degree assault earlier this year, while two other officers were acquitted. The jury on Friday found Aurora Fire Rescue paramedics Jeremy Cooper and Peter Cichuniec guilty of criminally negligent homicide following a weekslong trial in state district court. They could face years in prison at sentencing. The jury also found Cichuniec guilty on one of two second-degree assault charges, which brings the possibility of an enhanced prison sentence and required that he be taken into immediate custody. Cooper was found not guilty on the assault charges and was not taken into custody.

Google to pay $700 million to US states, consumers in app store settlement

Google has agreed to pay $700 million and make several other concessions to settle allegations that it had been stifling competition against its Android app store — the same issue that went to trial in another case that could result in even bigger changes. Although Google struck the deal with state attorneys general in September, the settlement’s terms weren’t revealed until late Monday in documents filed in San Francisco federal court. The disclosure came a week after a federal court jury rebuked Google for deploying anticompetitive tactics in its Play Store for Android apps. The settlement with the states includes $630 million to compensate U.S. consumers funneled into a payment processing system that state attorneys general alleged drove up the prices for digital transactions within apps downloaded from the Play Store. That store caters to the Android software that powers most of the world’s smartphones. Like Apple does in its iPhone app store, Google collects commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on in-app purchases — fees that state attorneys general contended drove prices higher than they would have been had there been an open market for payment processing. Those commissions generated billions of dollars in profit annually for Google, according to evidence presented in the recent trial focused on its Play Store. Eligible consumers will receive at least $2, according to the settlement, and may get additional payments based on their spending on the Play store between Aug. 16, 2016 and Sept. 30, 2023. The estimated 102 million U.S. consumers who made in-app purchases during that time frame are supposed to be automatically notified about various options for how they can receive their cut of the money. Another $70 million of the pre-trial settlement will cover the penalties and other costs that Google is being forced to pay to the states. Although Google is forking over a sizeable sum, it’s a fraction of the $10.5 billion in damages that the attorneys general estimated the company could be forced to pay if they had taken the case to trial instead of settling. Google also agreed to make other changes designed to make it even easier for consumers to download and install Android apps from other outlets besides its Play Store for the next five years. It will refrain from issuing as many security warnings, or “scare screens,” when alternative choices are being used. The makers of Android apps will also gain more flexibility to offer alternative payment choices to consumers instead of having transactions automatically processed through the Play Store and its commission system. Apps will also be able to promote lower prices available to consumers who choose an alternate to the Play Store’s payment processing.

A conservative attack on government regulation reaches the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments in a challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to fight fraud, part of a broad attack on regulatory agencies led by conservative and business interests. The case before the justices Wednesday involves the Biden administration’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that threw out stiff financial penalties imposed on hedge fund manager George R. Jarkesy by the SEC. The high court’s decision could have far-reaching effects on the SEC and other regulatory agencies, and it’s just one of several cases this term that could constrict federal regulators. The court’s conservative majority has already reined them in, including in last May’s decision sharply limiting their ability to police water pollution in wetlands. Last year, a divided panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Jarkesy and his Patriot28 investment adviser group on three separate issues. It found that the SEC’s case against him, resulting in a $300,000 civil fine and the repayment of $680,000 in allegedly ill-gotten gains, should have been heard in a federal court instead of before one of the SEC’s administrative law judges. The panel also said Congress unconstitutionally granted the SEC “unfettered authority” to decide whether the case should be tried in a court of law or handled within the executive branch agency. And it said laws shielding the commission’s administrative law judges from being fired by the president are unconstitutional. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote the appellate opinion, joined by Judge Andrew Oldham. Elrod was appointed by former President George W. Bush, and Oldham by former President Donald Trump.

Russian court fines Google for failing to store personal data on its users

A Moscow court on Tuesday fined Google for failing to store personal data on its Russian users, the latest in a series of fines on the U.S. tech giant amid tensions between the Kremlin and the West over the fighting in Ukraine. A magistrate at Moscow’s Tagansky district court fined Google 15 million rubles (about $164,200) after the company repeatedly refused to store personal data on Russian citizens inside the country. Google was previously fined over the same charges in August 2021 and June 2022. The company declined to comment. Google also was ordered to pay a 3 million ruble (about $32,800) fine in August for failing to delete allegedly false information about the conflict in Ukraine. Russia can do little to collect the fine, however, as Google’s Russia business was effectively shut down last year after Moscow sent troops into Ukraine. The company has said it filed for bankruptcy in Russia after its bank account was seized by the authorities, leaving it unable to pay staff and suppliers. Russian courts also have fined Apple and the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia. Since sending troops into Ukraine in February 2022, Russian authorities have taken measures to stifle any criticism of the military campaign. Some critics have received severe punishments. Opposition figure Vladimir Kara-Murza was sentenced this year to 25 years in prison for treason stemming from speeches he made against Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Sasha Skochilenko, an artist and musician from St. Petersburg, is on trial on charges of spreading false information about the military for replacing supermarket price tags with protest slogans. Prosecutors have asked for an eight-year prison sentence for her.

Appeals courts temporarily lifts Donald Trump’s gag order

A federal appeals court temporarily lifted a gag order on Donald Trump in his 2020 election interference case in Washington on Friday — the latest twist in the legal fight over the restrictions on the former president’s speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decision puts a hold on the limited gag order to give the judges time to consider Trump’s request for a longer pause on the restrictions while his appeals play out. The appeals court said the temporary pause “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” of Trump’s bid. The court set oral arguments for Nov. 20 before a panel of three judges — all appointees of Democratic presidents. The gag order, imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, bars Trump from making public statements targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses in the case accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election he lost to President Joe Biden. It still allows the former president to assert his innocence and his claims that the case against him is politically motivated. Chutkan, who was appointed to the bench by former President Barack Obama reimposed the gag order on Sunday, after prosecutors pointed to Trump’s recent social media comments about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows. It’s the most serious restriction a court has put on the speech of the GOP presidential primary frontrunner and criminal defendant in four separate cases. Gag orders are not unheard of in high-profile cases, but courts have never had to wrestle before with whether they can curtail the speech of a presidential candidate. Special counsel Jack Smith’s team has said Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric about those involved in the case threatens to undermine public confidence in the judicial system and influence potential witnesses who could be called to testify.

Trump trial: accountant testifies, Michael Cohen postpones

Donald Trump returned Tuesday to the civil fraud trial that imperils his real estate empire, watching and deploring the case as an employee and an outside appraiser testified that his company essentially put a thumb on the scale when sizing up his properties’ value. Incensed by a case that disputes his net worth and could strip him of such signature holdings as Trump Tower, the former president is due to testify later in the trial. But he chose to attend the first three days and came back Tuesday to observe — and to protest his treatment to the news cameras waiting outside the Manhattan courtroom. Star witness Michael Cohen, a onetime Trump fixer now turned foe, postponed his scheduled testimony because of a health problem. Instead, Trump company accountant Donna Kidder testified that she was told to make some assumptions favorable to the firm on internal financial spreadsheets. Outside appraiser Doug Larson said he didn’t suggest or condone a former Trump Organization comptroller’s methods of valuing properties. “It doesn’t make sense,” Larson said of the way the ex-controller reached a $287.6 million value for a prominent Trump-owned retail space in 2013. Trump, outside court, reiterated his insistence that he’s done nothing wrong and that New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit is a political vendetta designed to drag down his 2024 presidential campaign as he leads the Republican field.

Federal Judge rules California assault weapons ban unconstitutional

A federal judge who previously overturned California’s three-decade-old ban on assault weapons did it again on Thursday, ruling that the state’s attempts to prohibit sales of semiautomatic guns violates the constitutional right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego conceded that powerful weapons like AR-15 rifles are commonly used by criminals, but said the guns are importantly also owned by people who obey the law and feel they need firearms to protect themselves. “The State of California posits that its ‘assault weapon’ ban, the law challenged here, promotes an important public interest of disarming some mass shooters even though it makes criminals of law-abiding residents who insist on acquiring these firearms for self-defense,” Benitez wrote. “Nevertheless, more than that is required to uphold a ban.” The judge’s ruling is nearly identical to a 2021 decision in which he called California’s ban on assault weapons a “failed experiment.” Benitez has has repeatedly struck down multiple California firearms laws. Just last month, he ruled the state cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Benitez’s latest decision would overturn multiple state statutes related to assault weapons. The judge gave the state 10 days to seek a stay on the ruling as part of an appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said his office had already filed a notice of appeal. “Weapons of war have no place on California’s streets,” Bonta said in a statement Thursday. “This has been state law in California for decades, and we will continue to fight for our authority to keep our citizens safe from firearms that cause mass casualties. In the meantime, assault weapons remain unlawful for purchase, transfer, or possession in California.” John Dillon, an attorney for the plaintiffs who sued to overturn the law, cheered the judge’s ruling.

Biden’s second try at student loan cancellation moves forward with debate

President Joe Biden’s second attempt at student loan cancellation began moving forward Tuesday with a round of hearings to negotiate the details of a new plan. In a process known as negotiated rulemaking, 14 people chosen by the Biden administration are meeting for the first of three hearings on student loan relief. Their goal is to guide the Education Department toward a proposal after the Supreme Court rejected Biden’s first plan in June. The negotiators all come from outside the federal government and represent a range of viewpoints on student loans. The panel includes students and officials from a range of colleges, along with loan servicers, state officials and advocates including the NAACP. In opening remarks, Under Secretary of Education James Kvaal said the student debt crisis has threatened to undercut the promise of higher education. “Student loan debt in this country has grown so large that it siphons off the benefits of college for many students,” Kvaal said in prepared remarks. “Some loans made to young adults stretch into retirement with no hope of being repaid. These debt burdens are shared by families and communities.” Biden directed the Education Department to find another path to loan relief after the conservative court ruled that he couldn’t cancel loans using a 2003 law called the HEROES Act. The latest attempt will rest on a sweeping law known as the Higher Education Act, which gives the education secretary authority to waive student loans — although how far that power extends is the subject of legal debate. The department is going through the negotiated rulemaking process to change or add federal rules clarifying how the secretary can cancel debt.

A Supreme Court redistricting ruling gave hope to Black voters

The Supreme Court’s decision siding with Black voters in an Alabama redistricting case gave Democrats and voting rights activists a surprising opportunity before the 2024 elections. New congressional maps would have to include more districts in Alabama and potentially other states where Black voters would have a better chance of electing someone of their choice, a decision widely seen as benefiting Democrats. It’s been more than three months since the justice’s 5-4 ruling, and maps that could produce more districts represented by Black lawmakers still do not exist. Alabama Republicans are hoping to get a fresh hearing on the issue before the Supreme Court. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana never even bothered to draw a new map. Khadidah Stone, a plaintiff in the Alabama case, said the continuing opposition was “appalling” but “not surprising.” She noted that Alabama is where then-Gov. George Wallace blocked Black students from integrating the University of Alabama in 1963. “There is a long history there of disobeying court orders to deny Black people our rights,” she said. A similar dynamic is playing out in Florida, where Republicans are appealing a ruling favorable to Black voters to the Republican-majority state Supreme Court. Lawsuits over racially gerrymandered congressional maps in several other states, including Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, quickly followed the Supreme Court’s landmark Voting Rights Act decision in June. But the continued pushback from Republican legislatures in control of redistricting means there is great uncertainty about whether –- or how soon -– new maps offering equal representation for Black voters will be drawn.

McCarthy juggles a government shutdown and a Biden impeachment inquiry

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is a man who stays in motion — enthusiastically greeting tourists at the Capitol, dashing overseas last week to the G7 summit of industrial world leaders, and raising funds back home to elect fellow Republicans to the House majority. But beneath the whirlwind of activity is a stubborn standstill, an imbalance of power between the far-right Republicans who hoisted McCarthy to the speaker’s role yet threaten his own ability to lead the House. It’s a political standoff that will be tested anew as the House returns this week from a long summer recess and McCarthy faces a collision course of difficult challenges — seeking to avoid a government shutdown, support Ukraine in the war and launch an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. “They’ve got some really heavy lifting ahead,” said the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, John Thune, of South Dakota. McCarthy, of California, is going to “have his hands full trying to figure out how to navigate and execute,” he said. Congress has been here before, as has McCarthy in his nearly two decades in office, but the stakes are ever higher, with Republicans powered by an increasingly hard-right faction that is refusing to allow business as usual in Washington. With former President Donald Trump’s backing, McCarthy’s right-flank pushed him into the speaker’s office at the start of the year only after he agreed to a long list of conservative demands — including the ability to call a quick vote to “vacate the chair” and remove him from office. That threat of an abrupt ouster hovers over McCarthy’s every move, especially now. To start, Congress faces a deadline to fund the government by the end of the month, or risk a potentially devastating federal shutdown. There are just 11 working days for Congress to act once the House resumes Tuesday. McCarthy and his team are pitching lawmakers on a stopgap funding bill, through Nov. 1, to keep the government running under a 30-day continuing resolution, or CR, according to a leadership aide granted anonymity to discuss the private talks. But as McCarthy convenes lawmakers for a private huddle, even the temporary funding is expected to run into opposition from his right flank. Facing a backlash from conservatives who want to slash government funding, McCarthy may be able to ease the way by turning to another hard-right priority, launching a Biden impeachment inquiry over the business dealings of the president’s son, Hunter Biden.

Some states reject federal money to find and replace dangerous lead pipes

As the Biden administration makes billions of dollars available to remove millions of dangerous lead pipes that can contaminate drinking water and damage brain development in children, some states are turning down funds. Washington, Oregon, Maine and Alaska declined all or most of their federal funds in the first of five years that the mix of grants and loans is available, The Associated Press found. Some states are less prepared to pay for lead removal projects because, in many cases, the lead must first be found, experts said. And communities are hesitant to take out loans to search for their lead pipes. States shouldn’t “shrug their shoulders” and pass up funds, said Erik Olson, a health and food expert at the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s troubling that a state would decide to take a complete pass on the funding because part of the reason for the funding is to figure out whether you even have lead,” Olson said. The Biden administration wants to remove all 9.2 million lead pipes carrying water to U.S. homes. Lead can lower IQ and create behavioral problems in children. The 2021 infrastructure law provides $15 billion to find and replace them. That money will help a lot, but it isn’t enough to get all the toxic pipes out of the ground. State programs distribute the federal funds to utilities. The Environmental Protection Agency said it is reviewing state requests to decline funds but did not provide a full list of states that have said no so far. That information will be available in October, officials said. States that declined first-year funds can still accept them during the remaining four years. “EPA has been working closely with our state partners on utilizing Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding that is available,” the agency said. Lead pipes are far more common in some states such as Michigan and Illinois, which each have hundreds of thousands. The harm there is clear. Flint’s lead crisis elevated lead in tap water to a national health issue. Residents of Benton Harbor, Michigan, drank water with too much lead for years until all their lead pipes were replaced. In response, however, Michigan is clamoring for as much money as it can get to remove lead. The states that declined funds have fewer problematic pipes, but that doesn’t mean lead isn’t an issue. There’s concern about lead in some Maine schools. Portland, Oregon, has struggled with high lead levels for years, although recent tests have been better and officials say the issue isn’t lead pipes, but household plumbing.

Abortion messaging roils debate over Ohio ballot initiative

The fraught politics of abortion have helped turn an August ballot question in Ohio that would make it harder to change the state constitution into a cauldron of misinformation and fear-mongering. State Issue 1, the sole question on the ballot, calls for raising the threshold for passing future changes to the Ohio Constitution from a simple majority to 60%. Starting next year, it also would double the number of counties where signatures must be gathered, from 44 to all 88, and do away with the 10-day grace period for closing gaps in the total valid signatures submitted. Republican state lawmakers and the GOP elections chief who urgently advanced the measure said it had nothing to do with thwarting an abortion rights questionworking toward the ballot this fall. However, early summer messaging on social media and in churches has consistently urged a yes vote on the August amendment “to protect life” — and that’s just one example of the loaded messages confronting voters during the campaign. Protect Women Ohio, the campaign against the fall abortion issue, is airing pro-Issue 1 ads suggesting that abortions rights proponents at work in the state “encourage minors to get sex change surgeries and want to trash parental consent.” The fall abortion amendment would protect access to various forms of reproductive health care but makes no mention of gender surgery, and the attorneys who wrote it say Ohio’s parental consent law would not be affected. Groups opposing Issue 1 also have played on voters’ fears with their messaging against the 60% threshold. One spot by the Democratic political group Progress Action Fund shows a couple steamily groping in their bedroom, then interrupted by a white-haired Republican congressman who has come to take their birth control. It closes with a caption: “Keep Republicans Out of Your Bedroom. Vote No On Aug, 8.” While the ad is based in fears that the U.S. Supreme Court could limit rights to at-home contraception and Issue 1 would make it harder to enshrine those in Ohio’s state constitution, “the direct, immediate issue is abortion,” said Susan Burgess, a political science professor at Ohio University. The divergent abortion communications around Issue 1 reflects a big problem Republicans in Ohio must confront: holding an increasingly diverse voting bloc together, Burgess said.

Amazon pushes back against Europe’s pioneering new digital rules

Amazon is disputing its status as a big online platform that needs to face stricter scrutiny under European Union digital rules taking effect next month, the first Silicon Valley tech giant to push back on the pioneering new standards. The online retailer filed a legal challenge with a top European Union court, arguing it’s being treated unfairly by being designated a “very large online platform” under the 27-nation bloc’s sweeping Digital Services Act. Amazon, whose filing to the European General Court was made available Tuesday, is the second company to protest the classification. German online retailer Zalando filed a legal claim two weeks ago with a similar argument. The Digital Services Act imposes new obligations on the biggest tech companies to keep users safe from illegal content and dodgy products, with violations punishable by potentially billions in fines or even a ban on operating in the EU. The rules, which will take effect on Aug. 25, are expected to help Europe maintain its place as standard setter in global efforts to rein in the power of social media companies and other digital platforms. Seattle-based Amazon is one of 19 companies classed as the largest online platforms and search engines under the DSA, which means they will have to better police their services to protect European users from hate speech, disinformation and other harmful online content. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, declined to comment directly on the case, saying it would defend its position in court.

Judge allows North Carolina’s revised 12-week abortion law to take effect

A federal judge ruled on Friday that nearly all of North Carolina’s revised 12-week abortion law scheduled to begin this weekend can take effect, while temporarily blocking one rule that doctors feared could expose them to criminal penalties. The decision by U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles sets aside that rule but allows the law’s remaining provisions to begin on Saturday while litigation continues. Abortion providers had last week requested a blanket order halting all of the July 1 restrictions pending their court challenge. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a physician said several sections in the newly revised law were so vague and seemingly contradictory that doctors could unintentionally break the law, leaving them unable to care for women seeking legal abortions. But the Republican-controlled General Assembly passed legislation this week revising or repealing nearly all of the challenged provisions, making arguments against most of them moot. Among other things, the lawmakers clarified that medication abortions will be legal in nearly all cases through 12 weeks, and that a lawful abortion remains an exception to North Carolina’s fetal homicide statute. Eagles, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, had said in court that it would be overly broad to block enforcement of the entire law. Instead, she directed that for at least the next two weeks, the state cannot enforce a rule saying doctors must document the existence of a pregnancy within the uterus before conducting a medication abortion. The abortion providers’ lawyers argued that the language raised questions about whether abortion pills can be dispensed when it’s too early in a pregnancy to locate an embryo using an ultrasound — subjecting a provider to potentially violating the law.

Court sides with Jack Daniel’s in dispute with makers of dog toy

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave whiskey maker Jack Daniel’s reason to raise a glass, handing the company a new chance to win a trademark dispute with the makers of the Bad Spaniels dog toy. In announcing the decision for a unanimous court, Justice Elena Kagan was in an unusually playful mood. At one point while reading a summary of the opinion in the courtroom Kagan held up the toy, which squeaks and mimics the whiskey’s signature bottle. Kagan said a lower court’s reasoning was flawed when it ruled for the makers of the rubber chew toy. The court did not decide whether the toy’s maker had violated trademark law but instead sent the case back for further review. “This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Kagan wrote in an opinion for the court. At another point, Kagan asked readers to “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it’s probably there)” before inserting a color picture of it. Arizona-based VIP Products has been selling its Bad Spaniels toy since 2014. It’s part of the company’s Silly Squeakers line of chew toys that mimic liquor, beer, wine and soda bottles. They include Mountain Drool, which parodies Mountain Dew, and Heini Sniff’n, which parodies Heineken beer. While Jack Daniel’s bottles have the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy proclaims: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” The original bottle notes it is 40% alcohol by volume. The parody features a dog’s face and says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.” The packaging of the toy, which retails for around $20, notes in small font: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.” Jack Daniel’s, based in Lynchburg, Tennessee, wasn’t amused. Its lawyers argued that the toy misleads customers, profits “from Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill” and associates its “whiskey with excrement.” At the center of the case is the Lanham Act, the country’s core federal trademark law. It prohibits using a trademark in a way “likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of ... goods.” A lower court never got to the issue of consumer confusion, however, because it said the toy was an “expressive work” communicating a humorous message and therefore needed to be evaluated under a different test. Kagan said that was a mistake and that “the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.” Kagan also said a lower court erred in its analysis of Jack Daniel’s claim against the toy company for linking “its whiskey to less savory substances.” The opinion was one of four the court issued Thursday, including a 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in Alabama in a congressional redistricting case. The case had been closely watched for its potential to weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. The case is Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 22-148.

Supreme Court rules in favor of Black Alabama voters

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections. The decision was keenly anticipated for its potential effect on control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the ruling, new maps are likely in Alabama and Louisiana that could allow Democratic-leaning Black voters to elect their preferred candidates in two more congressional districts. The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections, and in arguments last October the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The chief justice himself suggested last year that he was open to changes in the way courts weigh discrimination claims under the part of the law known as section 2. But on Thursday, Roberts wrote that the court was declining “to recast our section 2 case law as Alabama requests.” Roberts also was part of conservative high-court majorities in earlier cases that made it harder for racial minorities to use the Voting Rights Act in ideologically divided rulings in 2013 and 2021.

Families sue to block Idaho law barring gender-affirming care for minors

The families of two transgender teenagers filed a lawsuit Thursday to block enforcement of Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors. The ban, which was signed into law in April and scheduled to take effect in January 2024, violates the federal constitutional guarantee of equal protection for the teens and due process for their parents, the families said in the filing in U.S. District Court. “Governor Brad Little signed the bill into law in the name of ‘protecting minors.’ But lawmakers and the Governor ignored the extensive legislative testimony that the Healthcare Ban harms children,” the court filing asserts. The plaintiffs, whose legal representation includes lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union, note that the law makes it a felony for doctors to provide puberty blockers, hormone treatment and surgery for minors only in cases in which it is to help align their bodies with their gender identities. The same treatments are allowed for other purposes. The legal challenges are also so recent that there’s not a clear trend for outcomes. A court put enforcement of a Missouri policy on hold — and then officials terminated the rule entirely last month. Lawmakers there have separately passed a ban, though it has not been signed into law so far. Oklahoma has agreed not to enforce its ban while opponents seek to have it blocked. In the Idaho case, the plaintiff families were not named. Both teens are receiving gender-affirming care. In the court filing, one of the families said the treatment has improved their daughter’s life: She no longer has days when her gender dysphoria is so severe she feels she cannot get out of bed; she’s happy to look into mirrors; her grades have improved and her mother said the girl was glowing as she prepared for her school’s prom. But debate over and passage of the ban took a toll, leading to depressive thoughts and telling her parents she feels the state where she’s lived her whole life is telling her to leave — something the family is considering doing so she can continue her treatments. Defendants in the lawsuit include Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a county prosecutor and members of the Idaho Code Commission. Labrador’s office, which would likely defend the law in court, said in a statement that it does not comment on pending litigation.

Adnan Syed’s lawyer appeals to Maryland Supreme Court

Adnan Syed’s lawyer asked Maryland’s highest court on Wednesday to overturn a lower court’s ruling that reinstated his murder conviction from more than two decades ago — after he was freed last year in a legal case that gained international attention from the hit podcast “Serial.” Syed’s lawyer also is asking the court to prevent her client from being incarcerated while the Supreme Court of Maryland’s review is pending “He is grateful that the victim’s representative and Attorney General have consented to the stay,” a statement from the Maryland public defender’s office said while announcing the court filings. “Reincarcerating Adnan would be devastating for him and his family and would be an affront to justice.” Syed’s counsel filed a petition that asks the state’s highest court to review several legal issues raised by the victim’s family, who contended they were not given enough notice to testify at a court hearing. The legal issues include whether former Baltimore State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby’s decision to dismiss the charges against Syed last year made the family’s court challenge moot. The issues also include whether attendance on Zoom satisfied the right of the victim’s representative to attend the hearing and whether the notice of the hearing was sufficient. Syed’s lawyer also is asking the court to consider whether the Appellate Court of Maryland’s reversal is appropriate without showing that the result of the hearing that decided his release would have been different. “Adnan’s innocence is not at issue, but his rights as a defendant and freedom as an exoneree are directly impacted by the Appellate Court of Maryland’s decision,” said Erica Suter, Syed’s lawyer, in a statement. Suter said the issues raised in the case “have broader implications for our entire legal system, most notably the authority of the State to dismiss a case, the role of victims’ representatives in proceedings to redress unjust convictions, and the restrictions placed on judges’ discretion to utilize remote communication services like Zoom.”

PA mail-in voting law gets beaten up on GOP campaign trail

Election integrity and Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law are prominent subjects in the state’s Republican primary contest for an open state Supreme Court seat, as Donald Trump continues to baselessly claim that the 2020 election was stolen. This year, two GOP primary rivals for the state Supreme Court seat in Tuesday’s primary election are signaling their disapproval of Pennsylvania’s expansive mail-in voting law. In one appearance last month, Carolyn Carluccio, a Montgomery County judge, called the mail-in voting law “bad” for the state and for faith in elections. She suggested elections are too “secretive” and promised that if the law comes before the high court “I’m going to be happy to take a look at it.” Meanwhile, Patricia McCullough, a judge on the statewide Commonwealth Court, repeatedly highlights her rulings in election-related cases, including voting to throw out the mail-in voting law. “Election integrity, that seems to be like the most important issue to the people right now,” McCullough told an interviewer on public access television in Erie last month. Both parties will pick a high court nominee to run in November’s general election. The state’s highest court currently has four justices elected as Democrats and two as Republicans. The seat is open following the death of Chief Justice Max Baer last fall. Allegations about election fraud and opposition to Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law have persisted in Republican primaries in 2021 and 2022, demonstrating just how influential Trump’s extreme and baseless election claims are to the GOP campaign trail. In last year’s governor’s race, for instance, every candidate in the GOP’s nine-person field vowed to repeal the 2019 law that established no-excuse mail-in voting in Pennsylvania. A third Republican-backed challenge to the mail-in voting law is pending in state courts, while Republicans have repeatedly gone to court to try to ensure that ballots cast by legal, eligible voters are thrown out for technical errors, like a missing envelope, signature or date.

Donald Trump seeks to move NY criminal case to federal court

Donald Trump ’s lawyers have asked a federal court to take control of his New York City criminal case. They argued Thursday that the former president can’t be tried in the state court where his historic indictment was brought because the alleged conduct occurred while he was in office. In court papers, Trump’s lawyers said the criminal case “involves important federal questions,” including alleged violations of federal election law. Federal officers, including former presidents, have the right to be tried in federal court for charges arising from “conduct performed while in office,” the lawyers argued. Echoing Trump’s claims that his indictment is “politically motivated,” lawyer Susan Necheles urged the federal court to exert its “protective jurisdiction” and seize the case from the state courts where Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg routinely practices. Such requests are rarely granted in criminal cases, although Trump’s request is unprecedented because he’s the first former president ever charged with a crime. "This effort is extremely unlikely to succeed,” said Rebecca Roiphe, a professor at New York Law School. “It’s not even clear that this would be a particularly effective delay tactic.” Moving the case could give Trump some advantages, such as a broader, more politically diverse jury pool — but the fundamentals of the case would remain largely intact. The Manhattan district attorney’s office would still prosecute him and state law would still apply, but with the oversight of a federal judge, said University of Iowa law professor Derek Muller.

Supreme Court hears mail carrier’s religious tolerance case

The Supreme Court is being asked to decide under what circumstances businesses must accommodate the needs of religious employees. A case before the justices Tuesday involves a Christian mail carrier in rural Pennsylvania. He was told that as part of his job he’d need to start delivering Amazon.com packages on Sundays. He declined, saying his Sundays are for church and family. U.S. Postal Service officials initially tried to get substitutes for the man’s shifts, but they couldn’t always. When he didn’t show, that meant more work for others. Ultimately, the man quit and sued for religious discrimination. The case is the latest religious confrontation the high court has been asked to referee. In recent years, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority has been particularly sensitive to the concerns of religious plaintiffs. That includes a ruling last year in which the court said a public high school football coach should be allowed to pray on the field after games. Another case the court is weighing this term involves a Christian graphic artist who wants to create wedding websites, but doesn’t want to serve gay couples. A federal law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, requires employers to accommodate employees’ religious practices unless doing so would be an “undue hardship” for the business. But a Supreme Court case from 1977, Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, says employers can deny religious accommodations to employees when they impose “more than a de minimis cost” on the business. Three current justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — have said the court should reconsider the Hardison case. The case currently before the court involves Gerald Groff, a former employee of the U.S. Postal Service in Pennsylvania’s Amish Country. For years, Groff was a fill-in mail carrier who worked on days when other mail carriers were off. But when an Amazon.com contract with the Postal Service required carriers to start delivering packages on Sundays, Groff balked. Initially, to avoid the shifts, Groff transferred to a more rural post office not yet doing Sunday deliveries, but eventually that post office was required to do them too.

Supreme Court rejects Turkish bank’s arguments in Iran case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Turkish bank’s main arguments for dismissing a lawsuit accusing it of helping Iran evade U.S. sanctions, but the court sent the case back for additional review. Halkbank, a bank owned by Turkey, had argued that a federal law, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, gave foreign states absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in U.S. courts. It also said federal courts don’t have jurisdiction to oversee the case. “We disagree with Halkbank on both points,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for himself and six of his eight colleagues. Still, Kavanaugh said the case should go back to a lower court for further review. He said the lower court “did not fully consider the various arguments regarding common-law immunity that the parties press in this Court.” The federal government says the bank “participated in the largest-known conspiracy to evade the United States’ economic sanctions on Iran,” laundering billions of dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas proceeds. The government says that working with an Iranian-Turkish businessman, the bank created ways for Iran to access the funds — including shipments of gold and fake food shipments. The government says that the schemes “freed up approximately $20 billion of restricted Iranian funds.” The businessman, Reza Zarrab, has pleaded guilty. The case was initiated under the Trump administration but was continued by the Biden administration. The case is Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, 21-1450.

Wisconsin Supreme Court control, abortion access at stake

Control of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and likely the future of abortion access, Republican-drawn legislative maps and years of GOP policies in the key swing state rests with the outcome an election Tuesday that has seen record campaign spending. The winner of the high-stakes contest between Republican-backed Dan Kelly and Democratic-supported Janet Protasiewicz will determine majority control of the court headed into the 2024 presidential election. The court came within one vote of overturning President Joe Biden’s narrow win in 2020, and both sides expect another close race in 2024. It’s the latest election where abortion rights has been the central issue since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June. It’s also an example of how officially nonpartisan court races have grown into political battles as major legal fights play out at the state level. All of it has fueled spending that will double, and likely triple or more, the previous high of $15.4 million spent on a state court race in Illinois in 2004. Democrats have spent heavily for Protasiewicz and Republicans for Kelly. Democrats are trying to flip control of the court, which has had a majority of conservative justices the past 15 years. That has allowed the court to uphold an array of Republican priorities, including banning absentee ballot drop boxes last year and affirming the 2011 law all-but ending collective bargaining for most public workers.

UN seeks court opinion on climate in win for island states

The countries of the United Nations led by the island state of Vanuatu adopted what they called a historic resolution Wednesday calling for the U.N.‘s highest court to strengthen countries’ obligations to curb warming and protect communities from climate disaster. The resolution was adopted by consensus and Vanuatu Prime Minister Ishmael Kalsakau called it “a win for climate justice of epic proportions.” He reeled off a string of recent disasters including back-to-back Category 4 cyclones in his own country and record-breaking Cyclone Freddy that refused to leave southeastern Africa in recent weeks. “Catastrophic and compound effects like this are growing in number,” he said. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres said he hoped the opinion, when issued, would encourage nations “to take the bolder and stronger climate action that our world so desperately needs.” Saudi Arabia and Iraq sought to soften the resolution, which was co-sponsored by some 132 countries, saying it would increase the workload of the international court. Like many Pacific Island nations Vanuatu is at risk of rising seas engulfing swathes of the islands. Scientists say both extreme weather and sea levels have worsened because of climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels. The resolution asks the court to pay particular attention to the harm endured by small island states. Youth groups bolstered the effort, citing the need to protect the planet for current and future generations. “I don’t want to show a picture to my child one day of my island. I want my child to be able to experience the same environment and the same culture that I grew up in,” said Cynthia Houniuhi of the Solomon Islands, who is president of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, a group involved in getting the resolution to the General Assembly. “The environment that sustains us is disintegrating before our eyes.” The group’s Solomon Yeo said “young people across the world will recall the day when we were able to get the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice, to bring its voice to the climate justice fight.”

Supreme Court skeptical of man who offered adult adoptions

The Supreme Court seemed inclined Monday to rule against a man convicted of violating immigration law for offering adult adoptions he falsely claimed would lead to citizenship. Attorneys for Helaman Hansen told the justices during approximately 90 minutes of arguments that the law he was convicted of violating was too broad. But the court’s conservative majority in particular seemed willing to side with the government and conclude that it is not. Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that the law “has been on the books for 70 years” without some of the issues Hansen’s lawyers worried about. He also expressed no sympathy for Hansen himself, who he said was “taking advantage of very vulnerable people.” “He had every intent in the world to keep these people here to take their money with no prospect they’d ever” actually get citizenship, Gorsuch said. The case involves a section of federal immigration law that says a person such as Hansen who “encourages or induces” a non-citizen to come to or remain in the United States illegally can be punished by up to five years in prison. That’s increased to up to 10 years if the person doing the encouraging is doing so for their own financial gain. The federal government says that from 2012 to 2016 Hansen — who lived in Elk Grove, California, near Sacramento — deceived hundreds of non-citizens into believing that he could guarantee them a path to citizenship through adult adoption. Based on Hansen’s promises, officials say, people either came to or stayed in the United States in violation of the law, even though Hansen knew that the adult adoptions he was arranging would not lead to citizenship. The government says at least 471 people paid him between $550 and $10,000 and that in total he collected more than $1.8 million. Hansen was ultimately convicted of encouragement charges as well as fraud charges. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for the encouragement charges and another 20 years on the fraud charges. But a federal appeals court ruled that the law on encouragement is overbroad and violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment and overturned just those convictions. The court’s three liberal justices seemed more concerned about the reach of the law. Justice Elena Kagan asked “what happens to all the cases” where a lawyer, doctor, neighbor, friend or teacher “says to a non-citizen: ‘I really think you should stay.’” Kagan wanted to know whether those people could or would be prosecuted under the law.

Executive gets 15 months in prison in doomed nuclear project

A former executive utility who gave rosy projections on the progress of two nuclear power plants in South Carolina while they were hopelessly behind will spend 15 months in prison for the doomed project that cost ratepayers billions of dollars. Ex-SCANA Corp. Executive Vice President Stephen Byrne apologized in court Wednesday, saying he thinks about how he let down customers, shareholders, employees, taxpayers and his family almost every day. The two nuclear plants, which never generated a watt of power despite $9 billion of investment, were supposed to be “the crowning achievement of my life,” Byrne said. “But I failed.” Byrne is the second SCANA executive to head to prison for the nuclear debacle. Former CEO Kevin Marsh was sentenced to two years in prison in October 2021 and released earlier in March after serving about 17 months. Two executives at Westinghouse, which was contracted to build the reactors, are also charged. Carl Churchman, who was the company’s top official at the Fairfield County construction site at V.C. Summer, pleaded guilty to perjury and is awaiting sentencing. Former Westinghouse senior vice president Jeff Benjamin faces 16 charges. His trial is scheduled for October. Both defense lawyers and prosecutors agreed to delay Byrne’s prison sentence until he testifies at Benjamin’s trial to make sure he is honest and helpful. But that isn’t in doubt. Prosecutors said Byrne was the first executive to come to investigators after the project was abandoned in July 2017. His careful notes taken in every meeting of who spoke and what was said saved the government years of work unraveling the lies, prosecutor Winston Holliday said.

Alabama man charged in quadruple killing denied bond

A judge has denied bond for a man accused of killing his grandparents, his brother and a family friend in south Alabama. Jared Smith-Bracy, 21, is charged with four counts of capital murder in the deaths Wednesday night in Daphne. He met briefly with his two court-appointed attorneys before the Friday bond hearing, and they entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or mental defect on his behalf, WKRG-TV reported. Baldwin County Chief Assistant District Attorney Teresa Heinz asked for no bond, and the judge granted that request. But the judge said that could change as the investigation continues, the television station reported. Police have said Smith-Bracy fatally shot his 72-year-old grandmother, Barbara Smith; his 27-year-old brother, Jeremy Smith; and 71-year-old family friend, Sheila Glover, whose bodies were found in the backyard of his grandparents’ home. He then used a pickaxe to beat his 80-year-old grandfather, Lenard Smith, to death inside a bedroom in the house, police said, according to WPMI-TV. Baldwin County Chief Assistant District Attorney Teresa Heinz asked for no bond, and the judge granted that request. But the judge said that could change as the investigation continues, the television station reported.

Federal appeals court strikes down domestic violence gun law

A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that the government can’t stop people who have domestic violence restraining orders against them from owning guns — the latest domino to fall after the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative majority set new standards for reviewing the nation’s gun laws. Police in Texas found a rifle and a pistol at the home of a man who was the subject of a civil protective order that banned him from harassing, stalking or threatening his ex-girlfriend and their child. The order also banned him from having guns. A federal grand jury indicted the man, who pled guilty. He later challenged his indictment, arguing the law that prevented him from owning a gun was unconstitutional. At first, a federal appeals court ruled against him, saying that it was more important for society to keep guns out of the hands of people accused of domestic violence than it was to protect a person’s individual right to own a gun. But then last year, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a new ruling in a case known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That case set new standards for interpreting the Second Amendment by saying the government had to justify gun control laws by showing they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The appeals court withdrew its original decision and on Thursday decided to vacate the man’s conviction and ruled the federal law banning people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from owning guns was unconstitutional. Specifically, the court ruled that the federal law was an “outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted” — borrowing a quote from the Bruen decision. The decision came from a three-judge panel consisting of Judges Cory Wilson, James Ho and Edith Jones. Wilson and Ho were nominated by former Republican President Donald Trump, while Jones was nominated by former Republican President Ronald Reagan.

Supreme Court has failed to find leaker of abortion opinion

The Supreme Court said Thursday an eight-month investigation that included more than 120 interviews and revealed shortcomings in how sensitive documents are secured has failed to find who leaked a draft of the court’s opinion overturning abortion rights. Ninety-seven employees, including the justices’ law clerks, swore under oath that they did not disclose a draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, the court said. It was unclear whether the justices themselves were questioned about the leak, which was the first time an entire opinion made its way to the public before the court was ready to announce it. Politico published its explosive leak detailing the Alito draft in early May. Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation the next day into what he termed an “egregious breach of trust.” On Thursday, the court said its investigative team “has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence.” The investigation has not come to an end, the court said. A few inquiries and the analysis of come electronic data remain.

Thousands of Israelis rally against Netanyahu government

Tens of thousands of Israelis gathered in central Tel Aviv on Saturday night to protest plans by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new government to overhaul the legal system and weaken the Supreme Court — a step that critics say will destroy the country’s democratic system of checks and balances. The protest presented an early challenge to Netanyahu and his ultranationalist national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has ordered police to take tough action if protesters block roads or display Palestinian flags. Israeli media, citing police, said the crowd at Tel Aviv’s Habima Square had swelled to 80,000 people by 9 p.m. despite cool, rainy weather. Protesters, many covered by umbrellas, held Israeli flags and signs saying “Criminal Government,” “The End of Democracy” and other slogans. There were no immediate reports of unrest. Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption charges, has made overhauling the country’s legal system a centerpiece of his agenda. In office for just over two weeks, his government has launched proposals to weaken the Supreme Court by giving parliament the power to overturn court decisions with a simple majority vote. It also wants to give parliament control over the appointment of judges and reduce the independence of legal advisers.

State seeks long prison term for accused NYC subway gunman

Prosecutors plan to seek a decades-long prison sentence for a man who is expected to plead guilty this week to opening fire in a subway car and wounding 10 riders in an attack that shocked New York City. Frank James, 63, is scheduled to enter a guilty plea on Tuesday in Brooklyn federal court, admitting that he was responsible for the April 12 attack. It set off a massive 30-hour manhunt that ended when he called the police on himself. Prosecutors told Judge William F. Kuntz II in a letter late last week that they plan to ask him to go beyond the roughly 32-year to 39-year sentence that federal sentencing guidelines would recommend. James planned the attack for years and endangered the lives of dozens of people, prosecutors said in the letter. Defense attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday, when courts were closed to observe the New Year’s holiday. James had been scheduled to stand trial in late February. His lawyers informed the judge on Dec. 21 that James wanted to plead guilty. Prosecutors say he plans to plead guilty to 11 charges without a plea agreement. Ten of those charges — each one corresponding to a specific victim — accuse him of committing a terrorist attack against a mass transportation system carrying passengers and employees. The 11th charge accuses James of discharging a firearm during a violent crime. Kuntz issued an order last week instructing the U.S. Marshals Service to use “all necessary force” to ensure that James shows up at Tuesday’s plea proceeding, noting that James has refused to appear at past hearings. James, who is being held in a federal jail, balked at being taken to a court date in October but then appeared later that day, after Kuntz issued a similar order for him to be forced to court if necessary. In the subway attack, the shooter set off a pair of smoke grenades and then fired a barrage of random shots inside the train, bloodying passengers as it moved between stations. Before the shooting, James, who is Black, posted dozens of videos online in which he ranted about race, violence and his struggles with mental illness. In some, he decried the treatment of Black people and talked about how he was so frustrated, “I should have gotten a gun and just started shooting.”