ReportWire

Tag: law of the united states

  • Moulton bill would allow ICE lawsuits

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Immigrants would be allowed to sue federal authorities for “misconduct” under a proposal filed Monday by U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, which the Democrat named ostensibly after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

    The National Oversight and Enforcement of Misconduct Act, or NOEM Act, as filed Monday would update federal law to allow people “under federal immigration enforcement authority” to file lawsuits if they believe their “constitutional rights” have been violated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm|@F=E@?[ H9@ 😀 D66<:?8 E96 A2CEJ’D ?@>:?2E:@? E@ CF? 7@C &]$] $6?2E6 ?6IE J62C[ D2:5 E96 492?86D 2C6 ?66565 2D #6AF3=:42? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 6IA2?5D 9:D 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 4C24<5@H?]k^Am

    kAm“#:89E ?@H[ :7 2? xrt @77:46C G:@=2E6D D@>6@?6’D u@FCE9 @C u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ G:4E:>D 92G6 2=>@DE ?@ =682= C64@FCD6[” |@F=E@? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 }~t| p4E 7:I6D E92E]”k^Am

    kAmw6 25565[ “xrt 😀 ?@E 23@G6 E96 =2H – 2?5 :7 :ED @77:46CD 3C62< E96 =2H[ E96J D9@F=5 36 96=5 244@F?E23=6 😕 4@FCE]”k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ 5:5 ?@E :>>65:2E6=J C6DA@?5 E@ 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E 23@FE E96 AC@A@D2=]k^Am

    kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=65 😕 2 42D6 42==65 q:G6?D G] $:I &?65 p86?ED 😕 `hf` E92E 7656C2= 286?ED 4@F=5 36 DF65 :?5:G:5F2==J 3FE DF3D6BF6?E CF=:?8D 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE 92G6 E:89E6?65 E96 D@42==65 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6] pD HC:EE6?[ E96 DE2EFE6 @?=J 2AA=:6D E@ =@42= 2?5 DE2E6 2FE9@C:E:6D]k^Am

    kAmp a_aa $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=:?8 96=5 E92E q@C56C !2EC@= 286?ED 42??@E 36 DF65 7@C G:@=2E:?8 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED]k^Am

    kAm%96 23:=:EJ @7 A6@A=6 E@ DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E F?56C E96 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6 92D 366? “D6G6C6=J C6DEC:4E65” @G6C E96 J62CD 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE’D 4@?D6CG2E:G6 >2;@C:EJ[ |@F=E@? D2:5[ “=62G:?8 G:4E:>D H:E9 G:CEF2==J ?@ A2E9 E@ ;FDE:46 H96? 7656C2= @77:46CD G:@=2E6 E96:C C:89ED]”k^Am

    kAmw:D AC@A@D2= 😀 E96 =2E6DE 3J 4@?8C6DD:@?2= s6>@4C2ED D66<:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E xrt’D 6?7@C46>6?E 24E:@?D 2>:5 4=2:>D E92E >2D<65 7656C2= 286?ED 2C6 FD:?8 6I46DD:G6 7@C46 2?5 G:@=2E:?8 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED 2D E96J D66< 2?5 56E2:? :>>:8C2?ED H2?E65 7@C 4C:>6D 2?5 56A@CE2E:@? AC@4665:?8D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D D:>A=6[ E2C86E65 2>6?5>6?E 6?DFC6D E92E xrt 2?5 @E96C 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46CD 42? 36 96=5 =:23=6 😕 E96 D2>6 H2J 2D 2?J DE2E6 @C =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46C H96? E96J G:@=2E6 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED[” |@F=E@?’D DE2E6>6?E D2JD]k^Am

    kAm%96 =68:D=2E:@? 5:776CD 7C@> 2 A6C6??:2= 3:== C67:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 w@FD6 s6>@4C2ED 62C=:6C E9:D J62C E92E D666?5 2 7656C2= =2H E@ A6C>:E 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED =2HDF:ED 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 4=2:>D 282:?DE 7656C2= 286?4:6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C 4FCC6?E =2H[ A6@A=6 42? DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 5:C64E=J F?56C 2 =2H 42==65 E96 u656C2= %@CE r=2:>D p4E[ 3FE 52>286D 2C6 42AA65 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ @AE:@? E@ C6BF6DE 2 ;FCJ EC:2=]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge asked to strike down firearm age restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A coalition of gun rights groups are asking a federal judge to strike down Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of handguns to anyone age 18 to 20 in response to a federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal ban.

    In a filing in U.S. District Court, the Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups ask the judge to grant an injunction blocking the state’s age-based prohibitions from being enforced. The groups argue that the 18 to 20 age group is protected by the Second Amendment and that there is “historical tradition” supporting the states restrictions.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“x? DF>[ `gE@a_J62C@=5D 2C6 A2CE @7 ‘E96 A6@A=6’ H:E9 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ H6==6DE23=:D965 2?5 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 7@F?5:?86C2 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? E92E E96 DE2E6 4@F=5 A@DD:3=J A@:?E E@ E92E H@F=5 ;FDE:7J AC@9:3:E:?8 E96> A@DD6DD:?8 2?5 42CCJ:?8 7:C62C>D @? 2? 6BF2= 7@@E:?8 H:E9 @E96C 25F=E 4:E:K6?D[” =2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 E96 acA286 4@FCE 7:=:?8]k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA’D >@E:@? 7@C 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E 😀 E96 =2E6DE =682= G@==6J 😕 2 =2HDF:E 7:=65 😕 u63CF2CJ @? 3692=7 @7 2? `gJ62C@=5 qC6HDE6C >2? H9@ 92D 2 DE2E6 7:C62C> :56?E:7:42E:@? 42C5] qFE 3642FD6 @7 9:D 286[ 96 42??@E 3FJ 2?5 42CCJ 2 92?58F? 7@C A6CD@?2= 5676?D6[ @C 2 D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@? H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm|:?@CD 286D `d E@ `f 42? 86E 2 =:>:E65 7:C62C> xs 7@C C:7=6D 2?5 D9@E8F?D 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8 H:E9 E96 A6C>:DD:@? @7 2 A2C6?E @C 8F2C5:2?]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 C6DEC:4E:@?D 92G6 =@?8 366? E2C86E65 3J 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD H9@ 2C8F6 E92E :7 `gJ62C@=5D 42? 6?=:DE 😕 E96 >:=:E2CJ 2?5 36 D6?E @77 E@ 7:89E[ E96J D9@F=5 36 23=6 E@ 6I6C4:D6 E96:C $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2D 4:G:=:2?D]k^Am

    kAmx? y2?F2CJ[ E96 u:7E9 r:C4F:E &]$] r@FCE @7 pAA62=D DECF4< 5@H? 2 =@?8DE2?5:?8 7656C2= 32? E92E AC6G6?E65 E96 D2=6 @7 92?58F?D E@ p>6C:42?D 36EH66? E96 286D @7 `g 2?5 a_[ CF=:?8 E92E E96 7656C2= =2H 32??:?8 92?58F? D2=6D E@ E66?D 😀 :?4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 ?2E:@?’D 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? 2?5 G:@=2E6D E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 ;F586D 2=D@ 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 42D6 😀 23@FE 6?5:?8 |2DD249FD6EED’ 2FE9@C:E2C:2?[ 28632D65 2EE24< @? A624623=6 25F=ED[” qC2?5@? r@>3D[ E96 8C@FA’D AC6D:56?E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 DE2E6’D 32? :D?’E ;FDE F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= – :E’D 2? :?DF=E E@ E96 G6CJ AC:?4:A=6D E9:D ?2E:@? H2D 3F:=E @?]”k^Am

    kAm~? q624@? w:==[ #6AF3=:42? =2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 =68:D=2E:@? E92E H@F=5 C6A62= E96 DE2E6’D `g E@ a_J62C@=5 C6DEC:4E:@?D] qFE E96 AC@A@D2= 7246D =@?8 @55D 😕 E96 s6>@4C2E:44@?EC@==65 DE2E6 {68:D=2EFC6[ H96C6 =2H>2<6CD 92G6 D@F89E E@ E:89E6? 8F? =2HD 😕 C646?E J62CD]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E 6IA2?5:?8 2446DD E@ 7:C62C>D 7@C J@F?8 25F=ED H@F=5 @?=J :?4C62D6 8F? G:@=6?46[ ?@E:?8 E92E 92?58F?D 2C6 E96 >@DE 4@>>@?=J FD65 H62A@?D 😕 >FC56CD 2?5 >2DD D9@@E:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96J 2=D@ ?@E6 E92E E96 >2;@C:EJ @7 >2DD D9@@E:?8D 2C6 42CC:65 @FE 3J J@F?8 25F=ED 2?5 4:E6 D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49 D9@H:?8 E92E 3C2:? 56G6=@A>6?E 😀 ?@E 7F==J 4@>A=6E6 2E `g J62CD @=5 E@ 2C8F6 E96J 42??@E 36 ECFDE65 E@ FD6 8F?D D276=J]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • GOP candidate files lawsuit over legislative audit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The state Legislature has been hit with another lawsuit over its refusal to open up the books to allow a voter-approved audit of its inner workings.

    The lawsuit was filed Thursday in Middlesex County Superior Court by Republican candidate for lieutenant governor Anne Brensley, who asked a judge to declare a voter-approved law giving State Auditor Diana DiZoglio the power to audit the Legislature constitutional and invalidate an internal state House of Representatives rule on audits.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“’@E6CD DA@<6 =@F5 2?5 4=62C – E96J H2?E EC2?DA2C6?4J @? 9@H E96:C E2I 5@==2CD 2C6 DA6?E[” qC6?D=6J[ 2 (2J=2?5 $6=64E q@2C5 >6>36C[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “}62C=J 2 J62C =2E6C[ =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD 92G6 :8?@C65 E92E >2?52E6 2?5 C67FD65 E@ 4@>A=J H:E9 E96 =2H] %9:D :D?’E 23@FE A@=:E:4D – :E’D 23@FE 244@F?E23:=:EJ E@ E96 A6@A=6]”k^Am

    kAm%96 =2HDF:E 😀 E96 =2E6DE D66<:?8 E@ 6?7@C46 “F6DE:@? `[ H9:49 2FE9@C:K65 s:+@8=:@ E@ 4@?5F4E 2 A6C7@C>2?46 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 2F5:E @7 E96 {68:D=2EFC6 E@ 6?DFC6 E92E :E 😀 2596C:?8 E@ 8@G6C?>6?E C68F=2E:@?D] %96 C676C6?5F> H2D 2AAC@G65 😕 =2DE J62C’D 6=64E:@? 3J ?62C=J faT[ 244@C5:?8 E@ @77:4:2= C6DF=ED]k^Am

    kAmqFE w@FD6 $A62<6C #@? |2C:2?@ 2?5 $6?2E6 !C6D:56?E z2C6? $A:=<2 92G6 4@?E:?F65 E@ AFD9 324< 282:?DE E96 G@E6C2AAC@G65 =2H[ C6A62E:?8 4=2:>D E92E E96 2F5:E H@F=5 G:@=2E6 E96 D6A2C2E:@? @7 A@H6CD 5@4EC:?6]k^Am

    kAm%96 w@FD6 2AAC@G65 2 >62DFC6 E92E 2FE9@C:K6D s:+@8=:@’D @77:46 E@ 9:C6 2? :?56A6?56?E 2F5:E:?8 7:C> E@ 4@?5F4E 2 7:?2?4:2= C6G:6H @7 E96 492>36C 3FE 67764E:G6=J DEC:AA65 96C @77:46 @7 E96 2FE9@C:EJ E@ 56E6C>:?6 E96 D4@A6 @7 E96 2F5:E]k^Am

    kAms:+@8=:@[ 2 |6E9F6? s6>@4C2E 2?5 =@?8E:>6 4C:E:4 @7 =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD[ 92D 9:C65 2 AC:G2E6 2EE@C?6J 2?5 G@H65 E@ AFCDF6 =682= 24E:@? 282:?DE $A:=<2 2?5 |2C:2?@ 3FE 92D ?@E 7:=65 2 492==6?86 J6E] p DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C s:+@8=:@’D @77:46 D2:5 D96 😀 2H2C6 @7 qC6?D=6J’D =2HDF:E 3FE 😀 ?@E 2 A2CEJ E@ :E]k^Am

    kAmx? s646>36C[ 7@C>6C #6AF3=:42? !2CEJ r92:C>2? y:> {J@?D 7:=65 2 D:>:=2C =2HDF:E 2D<:?8 E96 DE2E6 $FA6C:@C r@FCE E@ 7@C46 E96 {68:D=2EFC6 E@ @A6? FA :ED 3@@A36== E92E BF6DE:@?65 E96 =682=:EJ @7 E96 G@E6C2AAC@G65 =2H]k^Am

    kAm{J@?D 7:=65 2? 2AA62= @7 E96 CF=:?8 😕 pAC:= 3FE 92D 2=D@ A6E:E:@?65 E96 $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE E@ 8C2?E 2 “5:C64E 2AA6==2E6 C6G:6H” @7 E96 42D6 E@ C6D@=G6 E96 5:DAFE6]k^Am

    kAmqFE qC6?D=6J[ H9@ 😀 C6AC6D6?E:?8 96CD6=7 😕 E96 =2HDF:E[ 2C8F6D E92E D96 😀 5:C64E=J 27764E65 3J E96 {68:D=2EFC6’D C67FD2= E@ 2FE9@C:K6 E96 2F5:E D@ E96 #:89E @7 !F3=:4 s@4EC:?6 4:E65 😕 AC6G:@FD 4@FCE C6;64E:@?D 5@6D ?@E 2AA=J E@ 96C 2D 2 DE2E6 E2IA2J6C 2?5 564=2C65 42?5:52E6 7@C =:6FE6?2?E 8@G6C?@C]k^Am

    kAmx? E96 =2HDF:E[ D96 2C8F6D =68:D=2E:G6 =6256CD’ C67FD2= E@ A6C>:E E96 2F5:E “9FCED 96C 23:=:EJ E@ 36EE6C :?7@C> 2?5 DH2J G@E6CD @? 9@H D96 H@F=5 AC6A2C6[ @A6C2E6[ 2?5 C65F46 E96 3F586E 7@C E96 DE2E6 2?5 F=E:>2E6=J H:? E96 6=64E65 A@D:E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm“~E96C =2HDF:ED 72:=65 3642FD6 E96:C A=2:?E:77D 5:5?’E 92G6 2 5:C64E DE2<6[” qC6?D=6J D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “x 5@] pD 2 42?5:52E6 7@C DE2E6H:56 @77:46[ x ?665 244FC2E6 3F586E 52E2 E@ AC@A@D6 C62= 7:D42= C67@C>D] %96 {68:D=2EFC6’D C67FD2= E@ 7@==@H E96 =2H 5@6D?’E ;FDE G:@=2E6 G@E6C :?E6?E – :E 24E:G6=J 9:?56CD 72:C 6=64E:@?D 2?5 :?7@C>65 A@=:4J>2<:?8]”k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • As AG Formella rejects YDC settlements, state won’t diclose possible judicial bias

    [ad_1]

    If a Superior Court judge has a conflict of interest that potentially benefits Gov. Kelly Ayotte, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office doesn’t want anyone to know about it, according to a notice filed this week in a lawsuit brought by survivors of sexual abuse committed by state employees.

    At issue is Merrimack County Superior Court Judge Daniel St. Hilaire’s recent ruling against 1,500 survivors of the Sununu Youth Services Center, formerly called YDC, sex abuse scandal, a ruling that favors Ayotte who is a named defendant.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 =2HDF:E H2D 7:=65 27E6C pJ@EE6 AFD965 E9C@F89 =68:D=2E:G6 492?86D E@ E96 *sr $6EE=6>6?E uF?5 E92E 8:G6D pEE@C?6J v6?6C2= y@9? u@C>6==2 E96 2FE9@C:EJ E@ G6E@ 2?J D6EE=6>6?E 28C66>6?E DFCG:G@CD C6249 H:E9 E96 7F?5 25>:?:DEC2E@C] %9@D6 492?86D 92AA6?65 27E6C E96 DE2E6 2==6865=J 4@6C465 DFCG:G@CD E@ 5C@A E96:C 4:G:= =2HDF:ED 😕 72G@C @7 E96 D6EE=6>6?E AC@46DD] !2CE @7 E96 762EFC65 36?67:E @7 E96 $6EE=6>6?E uF?5 H2D E96 724E E96 ?6FEC2= 2?5 :?56A6?56?E 7F?5 25>:?:DEC2E@C H@F=5 >2<6 E96 7:?2= 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAmqFE pJ@EE6’D 492?86D[ H9:49 E@@< A=246 yF=J ` 27E6C E96 DFCG:G@CD 7:=65 7@C D6EE=6>6?ED[ @3=:E6C2E6 E96 562=[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 DFCG:G@CD] p44@C5:?8 E@ %9FCD52J’D >@E:@? E@ C64@?D:56C[ u@C>6==2 92D 2=C625J G6E@65 a_ A6C46?E @7 E96 D6EE=6>6?ED 7@C>6C p5>:?:DEC2E@C y@9? qC@56C:4< C624965 367@C6 E96 =2H 492?865]k^Am

    kAm%96 DFCG:G@CD H9@ 5:D28C66 H:E9 E96 D6EE=6>6?E @776CD 42? 2=H2JD C6DE2CE E96:C =2HDF:ED[ 3FE E92E AC@46DD 😀 6DE:>2E65 E@ E2<6 D6G6C2= J62CD[ :7 ?@E 2 564256] %96 56=2J >:89E 36 A2CE @7 pJ@EE6’D >@E:G6 7@C E96 492?86D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 2? 277:52G:E 7:=65 3J y@?2E92? ~’}6:=[ @?6 @7 E96 }:I@? !623@5J 2EE@C?6JD C6AC6D6?E:?8 E96 G:4E:>D]k^Am

    kAm“|2?J @7 @FC 4=:6?ED H:== ?6G6C C646:G6 ;FDE:46] x?5665[ d_ @7 @FC 4=:6?ED 92G6 A2DD65 2H2J D:?46 E96 4@?D@=:52E65 =:E:82E:@? 3682? 😕 a_a`] %92E ?F>36C H:== :?6G:E23=J :?4C62D6 2D 2 C6DF=E @7 E96 56=2JD 42FD65 3J s676?52?ED’ 5:D>2?E=:?8 @7 E96 $6EE=6>6?E uF?5] q2D65 @? E96 2G6C286 D6EE=6>6?E 2>@F?ED 😕 E96 $6EE=6>6?E uF?5[ E96 562E9D @7 d_ G:4E:>D J:6=565 2 D2G:?8D E@ E96 $E2E6 @7 2AAC@I:>2E6=J Sa_ >:==:@?] p55:E:@?2= 56=2JD H:== >62? 255:E:@?2= 562E9D 2?5 7FCE96C D2G:?8D E@ E96 $E2E6 @7 7F?5D H9:49 D9@F=5 36 5:C64E65 E@ G:4E:>D[” ~’}6:= HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm$E] w:=2:C6 CF=65 =2DE >@?E9 E92E pJ@EE6UCDBF@jD 492?86D 2C6 G2=:5 2D E96 DFCG:G@CD 5@?UCDBF@jE 92G6 2?J =682= C:89E E@ D2J 9@H E96 $6EE=6>6?E uF?5 @A6C2E6D] qFE[ k2 9C67lQ9EEAi^^x?s6AE9}w]@C8Qmx?s6AE9}w]@C8k^2m 92D D:?46 C6A@CE65 E92E pJ@EE6UCDBF@jD @77:46 😀 C67FD:?8 E@ 5:D4=@D6 E96 ?2>6D @7 2?J =@H6C 4@FCE ;F586 H9@ 2AA=:65 7@C E96 FA4@>:?8 $FAC6>6 r@FCE @A6?:?8] pJ@EE6 F=E:>2E6=J >2<6D 2== ;F5:4:2= ?@>:?2E:@?D H9:49 E96? >FDE 36 2AAC@G65 3J E96 #6AF3=:42?5@>:?2E65 tI64FE:G6 r@F?4:=]k^Am

    kAmpJ@EE6’D C67FD2= E@ C6=62D6 E96 ?2>6D @7 $FAC6>6 r@FCE 2AA=:42?ED AC@>AE65 E96 DFCG:G@CD E@ 7:=6 2 >@E:@? 56>2?5:?8 2?DH6CD 23@FE $E] w:=2:C6’D A@DD:3=6 2>3:E:@?D] %96J 2C8F6 E96 CF=6D 7@C ;F5:4:2= 4@?5F4E C6BF:C6 $E] w:=2:C6 E@ 5:D4=@D6 :7 96 😀 D66<:?8 E96 DA@E @? E96 }6H w2>AD9:C6 $FAC6>6 r@FCE 6IA64E65 E@ @A6? 😕 u63CF2CJ]k^Am

    kAm}6:E96C E96 }6H w2>AD9:C6 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2=UCDBF@jD ~77:46[ ?@C pJ@EE6UCDBF@jD ~77:46 C6DA@?565 E@ k2 9C67lQ9EEAi^^x?s6AE9}w]@C8Qmx?s6AE9}w]@C8k^2m] x?DE625[ E96 }6H w2>AD9:C6 pEE@C?6J v6?6C2=UCDBF@jD ~77:46 7:=65 2 ?@E:46 H:E9 E96 4@FCE %9FCD52J E92E :E A=2?D E@ @3;64E E@ $E] w:=2:C6 2?DH6C:?8 E96 BF6DE:@?]k^Am

    kAms2G:5 ‘:4:?2?K@[ =625 2EE@C?6J 7@C E96 DFCG:G@CD[ D2:5 E96C6 😀 ?@ 8@@5 C62D@? E@ 4@G6C FA E96 724E :7 $E] w:=2:C6 2AA=:65 7@C E96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE ;@3]k^Am

    kAmU=5BF@j%96 C6BF6DE 7@C 5:D4=@DFC6 😀 G6CJ D:>A=6[ 2?5 E96 $E2E6 D9@F=5?UCDBF@jE 36 3=@4<:?8 :E] (9J H@F=5?UCDBF@jE E96 pv 2?5 v@G6C?@C H2?E E96 ;F586 E@ ;FDE D2J U=DBF@jJ6DUCDBF@j @C U=DBF@j?@UCDBF@j D@ E96 23FD6 G:4E:>D 42? 36 EC62E65 H:E9 C6DA64E 2?5 42?5@Cn %96 AF3=:4 2=D@ 56D6CG6D EC2?DA2C6?4J 7C@> :ED 8@G6C?>6?E] ~FC r@?DE:EFE:@? D2JD @FC 8@G6C?>6?E >FDE 36 U=DBF@j@A6?[ 2446DD:3=6[ 244@F?E23=6 2?5 C6DA@?D:G6]UCDBF@j ~3;64E:?8 E@ @FC D:>A=6 BF6DE:@? ;FDE >2<6D :E =:<6 E96J 92G6 D@>6E9:?8 E@ 9:56[UC5BF@j ‘:4:?2?K@ E@=5 k2 9C67lQ9EEAi^^x?s6AE9}w]@C8Qmx?s6AE9}w]@C8k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Damien Fisher | InDepthNH.org

    Source link

  • Federal judge blocks Trump’s cuts in FEMA funding

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — The Trump administration can’t block federal disaster relief funding for Massachusetts and other states for refusing to cooperate with immigration crackdowns, a federal judge has ruled.

    The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith in Rhode Island sided with Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell and 22 other Democrats who sued to block a Homeland Security policy tying Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster funding to a state’s willingness to cooperate with immigration enforcement.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm$>:E9 8C2?E65 E96 pvD’ C6BF6DE 7@C 2 A6C>2?6?E :?;F?4E:@? @? E96 4@?5:E:@?D 7@C 6>6C86?4J AC6A2C65?6DD 7F?5:?8 3J ut|p[ 42==:?8 E96 A@=:4J “2C3:EC2CJ 2?5 42AC:4:@FD[ 2?5 E9FD :?G2=:5]”k^Am

    kAm“!=2:?E:77 $E2E6D DE2?5 E@ DF776C :CC6A2C23=6 92C>j E96 67764E @7 E96 =@DD @7 6>6C86?4J 2?5 5:D2DE6C 7F?5D 42??@E 36 C64@G6C65 =2E6C[ 2?5 E96 5@H?DEC62> 67764E @? 5:D2DE6C C6DA@?D6 2?5 AF3=:4 D276EJ 2C6 C62= 2?5 ?@E 4@>A6?D23=6[” $>:E9 HC@E6 😕 E96 cdA286 CF=:?8]k^Am

    kAmr2>A36==[ H9@ 7:=65 E96 :?:E:2= 4@>A=2:?E[ H6=4@>65 E96 CF=:?8 (65?6D52J 2?5 D2:5 :E D:8?2=D E92E E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? “42??@E 3F==J DE2E6D :?E@ E2<:?8 A2CE 😕 E96:C 762C5C:G6?[ :?9F>2?6 :>>:8C2E:@? 286?52 3J H:E99@=5:?8 4@?8C6DD:@?2==J 2AAC@AC:2E65 7F?5D]”k^Am

    kAm“x 2AA=2F5 E96 4@FCE’D 564:D:@?[ H9:49 H:== AC@E64E 3:==:@?D @7 5@==2CD E@ 96=A DE2E6D 6?DFC6 AF3=:4 D276EJ 2?5 AC6A2C6 7@C[ AC@E64E 282:?DE[ 2?5 C6DA@?5 E@ 42E2DEC@A9:4 ?2EFC2= 5:D2DE6CD[” E96 s6>@4C2E D2:5]k^Am

    kAmx? E96 =2HDF:E[ E96 pvD 2C8F65 E96 A@=:4J H2D F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 2?5 G:@=2E65 E96 p5>:?:DEC2E:G6 !C@465FC6 p4E[ 2 =2H E92E 8@G6C?D E96 AC@46DD 😕 H9:49 7656C2= 286?4:6D :DDF6 ?6H C68F=2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAmqFE =2HJ6CD 7@C E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 yFDE:46 4@F?E6C65 E92E E96 492==6?86 H2D >@@E 3642FD6 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ @77:4:2=D 925 2=C625J @AE65 E@ 6I4=F56 >@DE @7 E96 `g ut|p AC@8C2>D 7C@> 92G:?8 E@ 4@>A=J H:E9 :>>:8C2E:@? A@=:4J E@ BF2=:7J 7@C 7F?5:?8]k^Am

    kAm“%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 😀 4@>>:EE65 E@ C6DE@C:?8 E96 CF=6 @7 =2H[” s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ DA@<6DH@>2? %C:4:2 |4{2F89=:? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E 😕 C6DA@?D6 E@ E96 CF=:?8] “}@ =2HDF:E[ ?@E E9:D @?6 @C 2?J @E96C[ 😀 8@:?8 E@ DE@A FD 7C@> 5@:?8 E92E]”k^Am

    kAm%96 AFD9 E@ H:E99@=5 7656C2= 8C2?ED 😀 D:>:=2C E@ 2 A@=:4J :>A=6>6?E65 3J E96 7:CDE %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@?[ H9:49 H:E996=5 2446DD E@ 2 7656C2= AF3=:4 D276EJ 8C2?E AC@8C2> 7C@> =@42= 8@G6C?>6?ED E92E 5:5 ?@E 4@@A6C2E6 H:E9 :>>:8C2E:@? 2FE9@C:E:6D] %92E 677@CE H2D 3=@4<65 3J 2 D6C:6D @7 7656C2= 4@FCE CF=:?8D]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 5@6D ?@E 92G6 2 =2H 564=2C:?8 :ED6=7 2 D2?4EF2CJ DE2E6] x? a_`f[ E96 $FAC6>6 yF5:4:2= r@FCE CF=65 E92E DE2E6 =2H 5@6D ?@E 8:G6 =@42= A@=:46 E96 2FE9@C:EJ E@ 56E2:? A6@A=6 DFDA64E65 @7 36:?8 😕 E96 &]$] :==682==J F?=6DD E92E A6CD@? 7246D 4C:>:?2= 492C86D] q@DE@? H2D C646?E=J =:DE65 3J E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 yFDE:46 2D 2 “D2?4EF2CJ” 4:EJ]k^Am

    kAmx? yF?6[ 2 7656C2= ;F586 3=@4<65 E96 &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 %C2?DA@CE2E:@? 7C@> 6?7@C4:?8 2 5:C64E:G6 H:E99@=5:?8 7656C2= 8C2?ED E@ DE2E6D H:E9 “D2?4EF2CJ” A@=:4:6D E92E =:>:E 4@@A6C2E:@? H:E9 &]$] x>>:8C2E:@? 2?5 rFDE@>D t?7@C46>6?E 56A@CE2E:@? @A6C2E:@?D]k^Am

    kAmx? E96 `_A286 CF=:?8[ |4r@??6== D2:5 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 72:=65 E@ D9@H “2?J A=2FD:3=6 4@??64E:@? 36EH66? 4@@A6C2E:?8 H:E9 xrt 6?7@C46>6?E 2?5 E96 4@?8C6DD:@?2==J 2AAC@G65 AFCA@D6D @7 E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 %C2?DA@CE2E:@?]”k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge overturns Trump’s Harvard funding freeze

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s move to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding for Harvard University was unconstitutional.

    The ruling issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs in Boston said the funding freeze amounted to “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion” against the Ivy League school for refusing to yield to the White House’s “ideologically motivated” policy demands.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“p C6G:6H @7 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:G6 C64@C5 >2<6D :E 5:77:4F=E E@ 4@?4=F56 2?JE9:?8 @E96C E92? E92E E96 5676?52?ED WE96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?EX FD65 2?E:D6>:E:D> 2D 2 D>@<6D4C66? 7@C 2 E2C86E65[ :56@=@8:42==J>@E:G2E65 2DD2F=E @? E9:D 4@F?ECJ’D AC6>:6C F?:G6CD:E:6D[” qFCC@F89D HC@E6 😕 E96 CF=:?8]k^Am

    kAmqFCC@F89D’ CF=:?8 3=@4:?:DEC2E:@? 7C@> E6C>:?2E:?8 @C 7C66K:?8 >@C6 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 E@ w2CG2C5[ 3FE E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 92D G@H65 E@ 2AA62= E96 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm(9:E6 w@FD6 DA@<6DA6CD@? {:K wFDE@? D2:5 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? H:== 2AA62= E96 CF=:?8 2?5 3=2DE65 qFCC@F89D 2D 2? “24E:G:DE ~32>22AA@:?E65 ;F586]” $96 D2:5 w2CG2C5 “5@6D ?@E 92G6 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ E2IA2J6C 5@==2CD 2?5 C6>2:?D :?6=:8:3=6 7@C 8C2?ED 😕 E96 7FEFC6]”k^Am

    kAmx? 2 DE2E6>6?E[ w2CG2C5 !C6D:56?E p=2? v2C36C D2:5 E96 ;F586’D CF=:?8 “277:C>D w2CG2C5’D u:CDE p>6?5>6?E 2?5 AC@465FC2= C:89ED[ 2?5 G2=:52E6D @FC 2C8F>6?ED 😕 5676?D6 @7 E96 &?:G6CD:EJ’D 24256>:4 7C665@>[ 4C:E:42= D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49[ 2?5 E96 4@C6 AC:?4:A=6D @7 p>6C:42? 9:896C 65F42E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm“tG6? 2D H6 24@H=6586 E96 :>A@CE2?E AC:?4:A=6D 277:C>65 😕 E@52J’D CF=:?8[ H6 H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ 2DD6DD E96 :>A=:42E:@?D @7 E96 @A:?:@?[ >@?:E@C 7FCE96C =682= 56G6=@A>6?ED[ 2?5 36 >:?57F= @7 E96 492?8:?8 =2?5D42A6 😕 H9:49 H6 D66< E@ 7F=7:== @FC >:DD:@?[” v6C36C D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 925 2C8F65 E96 7F?5:?8 7C66K6 H2D ?646DD2CJ E@ 4@>A6= w2CG2C5 E@ 255C6DD 2?E:D6>:E:D> 2?5 “C25:42= =67E” :56@=@8:6D @? 42>AFD]k^Am

    kAmt2C=:6C E9:D J62C[ E96 (9:E6 w@FD6’D ;@:?E 2?E:D6>:E:D> E2D< 7@C46 — H9:49 :?4=F56D E96 &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 w62=E9 2?5 wF>2? $6CG:46D 2?5 s6A2CE>6?E @7 t5F42E:@? — D2:5 :E 92D 5:C64E65 7656C2= 286?4:6D E@ 7C66K6 >@C6 E92? Sa]a 3:==:@? 😕 5:C64E 7656C2= 7F?5D E@ E96 6=:E6 D49@@=]k^Am

    kAm%96 286?4:6D 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D a_ab C63F<6 😕 $EF56?ED 7@C u2:C p5>:DD:@?D G] w2CG2C5[ F?:G6CD:EJ :?G6DE:82E:@?D 2?5 C6A@CED E92E 7@F?5 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 2C6 DF3;64E65 E@ A6CG2D:G6 :?DF=ED[ A9JD:42= 2DD2F=E[ 2?5 :?E:>:52E:@? @? 42>AFD[ H:E9 “?@ >62?:?87F= C6DA@?D6” 7C@> w2CG2C5’D =6256CD9:A]k^Am

    kAm“w2CG2C5’D 42>AFD[ @?46 2 DJ>3@= @7 24256>:4 AC6DE:86[ 92D 364@>6 2 3C665:?8 8C@F?5 7@C G:CEF6 D:8?2=:?8 2?5 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[” E96 E2D< 7@C46 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96C6 😀 2 52C< AC@3=6> @? w2CG2C5’D 42>AFD[ 2?5 3J AC:@C:E:K:?8 2AA62D6>6?E @G6C 244@F?E23:=:EJ[ :?DE:EFE:@?2= =6256CD 92G6 7@C76:E65 E96 D49@@=’D 4=2:> E@ E2IA2J6C DFAA@CE]”k^Am

    kAmw2CG2C5 DF65 @G6C E96 >@G6[ 4=2:>:?8 :E H2D “2C3:EC2CJ 2?5 42AC:4:@FD” 2?5 G:@=2E65 :ED u:CDE p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2?5 E96 DE2EFE@CJ AC@G:D:@?D @7 %:E=6 ‘x @7 E96 r:G:= #:89ED p4E]k^Am

    kAmw2CG2C5 92D >@C6 E92? Sh 3:==:@? 😕 4FCC6?E 2?5 A=65865 7656C2= 8C2?ED 2?5 4@?EC24ED[ >F49 @7 :E 56G@E65 E@ D4:6?E:7:4 2?5 >65:42= C6D62C49[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 F?:G6CD:EJ]k^Am

    kAm%96 =682= 7:89E 😀 A2CE @7 2 9:89DE2<6D 5:DAFE6 36EH66? E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2?5 E96 xGJ {628F6 F?:G6CD:EJ[ H9:49 92D AFD965 324< 282:?DE E96 AC6D:56?E’D 677@CED E@ 7@C46 D49@@= =6256CD E@ 6=:>:?2E6 :ED 5:G6CD:EJ AC@8C2>>:?8 2?5 4FCE2:= DEF56?E 56>@?DEC2E:@?D @? 42>AFD]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D 2=D@ D@F89E E@ AC6G6?E w2CG2C5 7C@> 6?C@==:?8 :?E6C?2E:@?2= DEF56?ED 😕 2? 677@CE E@ AF?:D9 E96 D49@@= 7@C C67FD:?8 :ED 56>2?5D] qFE E9@D6 677@CED 92G6 D@ 72C 366? 3=@4<65 3J 7656C2= 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 😀 2=D@ AFD9:?8 7@C w2CG2C5 E@ 36 DEC:AA65 @7 :ED 244C65:E2E:@? 2?5 E2I6I6>AE DE2EFD 2D 96 AC6DD6D 7@C C67@C>D 2E @E96C 6=:E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D 2?5 4@==686D 96 4=2:>D 2C6 “:?5@4EC:?2E:?8” DEF56?ED H:E9 “C25:42= =67E” :562D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge rejects challenge to handgun restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A federal judge has upheld the state’s ban on the sale of certain types of handguns following a legal challenge by gun rights groups that vow to repeal the ruling.

    In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper rejected claims in a lawsuit filed by the owners of Gunrunners LLC and the Delaware-based Firearms Policy Coalition alleging that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment and are “inconsistent” with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm{2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D E@@< 2:> 2E E96 DE2E6’D 32? @? 46CE2:? EJA6D @7 92?58F?D[ 2C8F:?8 :E 😀 F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 32D65 @? E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“x? 5:C64E 567:2?46 @7 E9:D AC64656?E[ |2DD249FD6EED 92D 4=@D65 :ED 3@C56CD E@ =2C86 A@CE:@?D @7 E96 >@56C? 92?58F? >2C<6E[ 32??:?8 2D “F?D276” >2?J @7 E96 7:C62C>D E92E 2C6 >@DE ECFDE65 3J E96 p>6C:42? A6@A=6 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ[ DF3DE:EFE:?8 :ED ;F58>6?E 7@C E96:CD[” E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D]k^Am

    kAmqFE r2DA6C C6;64E65 E9@D6 2C8F>6?ED[ 2C8F:?8 E92E E96 DE2E6’D C68F=2E:@?D C6BF:C6 92?58F?D D@=5 3J C6E2:=6CD E@ 92G6 2 “>6492?:D> H9:49 67764E:G6=J AC64=F56D 2? 2G6C286 7:G6 J62C @=5 49:=5 7C@> @A6C2E:?8 E96 92?58F? H96? :E 😀 C625J E@ 7:C6]”k^Am

    kAm“%96 AFCA@D6 7@C E96 C68F=2E:@?D 😀 “C6=2E:G6=J D:>:=2C” E@ E92E @7 E96 9:DE@C:42= 6G:56?46[ H9:49 H2D E@ AC6G6?E 49:=5C6? 7C@> 244:56?E2==J 5:D492C8:?8 2 7:C62C> 8:G6? E96:C 23:=:EJ E@ 92?5=6 2?5 @A6C2E6 E96 7:C62C>[” r2DA6C HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 92D D@>6 @7 E96 E@F896DE 7:C62C> C68F=2E:@?D 😕 E96 ?2E:@? 2?5 AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g J62CD @=5 @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@?[ H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm&?56C DE2E6 C68F=2E:@?D[ 92?58F?D D@=5 3J 562=6CD >FDE A2DD 2 >2<6 2?5 >@56= A6C7@C>2?46 E6DE AC@G:?8 E96J 2C6 ?@E AC@?6 E@ C6A62E65 7:C:?8 7C@> 2 D:?8=6 EC:886C AF==[ 6IA=@D:@? FA@? 7:C:?8 H:E9 DE2?52C5 2>>F?:E:@?[ @C 244:56?E2= 5:D492C86] %96 DE2E6 92D 2 C@DE6C @7 92?58F?D 2AAC@G65 7@C D2=6]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 2C8F6 E96 DE2E6’D DEC:4E C6BF:C6>6?ED – :?4=F5:?8 C62=E:>6 =:46?D6 4964D]k^Am

    kAmqFE $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E 8C@FAD 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E E96 E@F896C 8F? 4@?EC@= =2HD 2C6 F??646DD2CJ 2?5 AF?:D9 =2H23:5:?8 8F? @H?6CD H9:=6 D:56DE6AA:?8 E96 :DDF6 @7 :==682= 7:C62C>D] %96 DE2E6’D 7:C62C> =:46?D:?8 AC@46DD 92D =@?8 366? 2 E2C86E 7@C 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD]k^Am

    kAmpEE@C?6J v6?6C2= p?5C62 r2>A36==[ H9@ H2D ?2>65 2D 2 5676?52?E 😕 E96 =2HDF:E[ D2:5 E96 CF=:?8 4@?7:C>D E92E “|2DD249FD6EED 92D E96 DEC@?86DE 8F? D276EJ =2HD 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ E92E 2C6 6?7@C465 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 AF3=:4 D276EJ 2?5 E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]”k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 564:D:@? E@ FA9@=5 |2DD249FD6EED 92?58F? D276EJ C68F=2E:@?D 😀 2 D:8?:7:42?E H:? E92E H:== AC@E64E E96 AF3=:4 2?5 4@?E:?F6 |2DD249FD6EED’ =6256CD9:A @? 8F? G:@=6?46 AC6G6?E:@?[” E96 s6>@4C2E D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAmqFE qC2?5@? r@>3D[ u!r’D AC6D:56?E[ 4C:E:4:K65 r2DA6C’D CF=:?8 2D “3:K2CC6 2?5 566A=J 7=2H65” 2?5 D2:5 E96 A=2:?E:77D H:== 2AA62= E96 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 564:D:@? 😀 23DFC5[ =2H=6DD[ 2?5 :>A@DD:3=6 E@ C64@?4:=6 H:E9 3:?5:?8 $FAC6>6 r@FCE AC64656?E @C E96 E6IE 2?5 9:DE@CJ @7 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?[” 96 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “|2<6 ?@ >:DE2<6i u!r H:== 2AA62= E9:D :?D2?6 CF=:?8 2?5 H6 H:== 7:89E F?E:= E9:D F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 32? 😀 DECF4< 5@H? – H92E6G6C :E E2<6D[ 7@C 2D =@?8 2D :E E2<6D]”k^Am

    kAmk6>mr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^6>mk^Am

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — An abortion rights group is asking a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit against them and Gov. Maura Healey by anti-abortion groups in response to a state-funded campaign targeting pregnancy ‘crisis’ center operators.

    In a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court in Boston on Tuesday, lawyers for the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation argue that the plaintiffs “lack standing” to file the lawsuit and blasted the legal challenge as an attempt to “silence” their advocacy work.

    “Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, this case is not about any wrongful deprivation of the First Amendment or other constitutional rights …” lawyers for the foundation wrote in a court filing. “Instead, it is a blatant attempt to enlist this court’s assistance in its effort to silence Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its president Rebecca Hart Holder, by enjoining them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

    The lawsuit, filed in August by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center on behalf of Your Options Medical Center and others, alleges that the state and Equity Now violated their constitutional rights with a “campaign of harassment, suppression, and threats” against the Revere-based facility and other pregnancy centers.

    At issue is a taxpayer-funded education campaign by the state Department of Health warning the public to avoid pregnancy crisis centers, which have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning federal protections.

    The $1 million campaign, which began earlier this year, has blanketed social media platforms, billboards and radio, with ads emblazoned on MBTA buses, trains and depots.

    The plaintiffs allege the campaign has forced them “to operate in a culture of fear and harassment” and that they continue to face “unprecedented investigations, including unnecessary subpoenas,” despite a prior state investigation clearing the operators of any wrongdoing.

    But lawyers for Holder and Equity Now argue in court filings that the public education campaign hasn’t deprived the pregnancy centers of their free speech rights or interfered with their operations.

    “To be clear, the public has not been prevented from seeking out and receiving YOM’s services, and YOM has not been prevented from expressing its viewpoints or fulfilling its mission consistent with those viewpoints,” they wrote.

    The plaintiffs “utterly failed to allege facts that plausibly demonstrate this is one of those rare instances in which the conduct of private parties constitutes state action,” they added.

    Hart-Holder calls the lawsuit “an attempt to silence our organization and prevent us from exercising our First Amendment protected right to free speech.”

    “We will not be intimidated by this lawsuit, and we will always fight for New England patients and their ability to access the reproductive health care that is right for them,” she said in a statement.

    Pregnancy crisis centers have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning federal protections.

    The centers, which advertise free services and counseling for women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, have proliferated in the wake of the high court’s decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

    But Healey and women’s reproductive rights groups claim the facilities are funded by anti-abortion groups with the intention of blocking women from getting abortions.

    In June, the state Department of Public Health partnered with the advocacy groups on a new campaign to educate the public about the “dangers and potential harm” of anti-abortion centers that advocates say are providing misleading information to women.

    The $1 million taxpayer-funded public campaign features ads on social media platforms, billboards, radio and transit warning women about the pregnancy crisis centers.

    Some communities have moved to limit or ban the centers amid complaints that they are using deceptive advertising and providing misinformation.

    But anti-abortion groups say the centers are providing options to women other than abortions and being unfairly targeted by a “smear campaign” by proponents of the procedure.

    The Pregnancy Care Alliance of Massachusetts said the network of pregnancy care centers in the state “provides millions of dollars in no-cost support and care for thousands of women annually who face planned and unplanned pregnancies.”

    The alliance has accused Healey and other state leaders of “furthering their extreme abortion agenda by using a taxpayer-funded campaign to discredit our centers.”

    “Our pregnancy resource centers are paying close attention to the case and look forward to learning the outcome, since a decision will directly impact our service to women and communities across the state,” the alliance said in a statement.

    The conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which has helped former President Donald Trump fight his legal battles, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. It argues that the campaign targeting pregnancy centers is part of a strategy to “silence the anti-abortion movement.”

    Healey, who is being represented by the Attorney General’s office, hasn’t formally responded to the lawsuit’s claims but was granted an extension this week to file her response until Dec. 13, according to federal court filings.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Healey moves to implement gun control law

    Healey moves to implement gun control law

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey is moving to implement a tough new gun control law in response to a lawsuit challenging its provisions and a effort to repeal the restrictions.

    On Wednesday, Healey signed an executive order attaching an emergency preamble to the bill she signed in July that expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    Gun control groups praised the rare maneuver, which they said is aimed at blocking an effort by critics of the new law to block its implementation as they gather signatures to put the issue before voters in two years.

    “After years of advocating for these gun safety measures to become law, we weren’t going to stand by and let the gun lobby get in the way of our progress,” Anne Thalheimer, a survivor fellow with the Everytown Survivor Network, said in a statement. “We’re grateful to Governor Healey for standing with us and taking decisive action to ensure that this lifesaving law is implemented.”

    But the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the law’s training and licensing requirements, said Healey’s “radical move” signing the executive order makes hundreds of thousands of lawful gun owners across the state into “felons in waiting.”

    He accused the governor and Democratic lawmakers of waging a “consistent effort to silence our voices and mislead the general public.”

    “Ever since this tantrum against the Supreme Court decision Bruen started last year, the so-called ‘process’ has become even more putrid,” said Jim Wallace, GOAL’s executive director, in a statement. “At every turn, the Legislature and now the governor, have avoided honest public input, especially from the 2A [Second Amendment] community.”

    Wallace said despite the order the group is still urging the federal judge to issue a temporary injunction to block the law from going into effect as the ballot initiative and legal challenge plays out in court.

    Besides the legal fight, critics of the new law or gathering signatures to put the question before voters in the 2026 election. They argue that the restrictions will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive legal gun owners of their constitutional rights.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the state’s assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It also set strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as so-called “Glock switches” that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the legislation.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill through the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Gun control foes push to repeal restrictions

    Gun control foes push to repeal restrictions

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — Opponents of Massachusetts’ new gun control law are gearing up to repeal the tough restrictions, which they say will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive people of their constitutional rights.

    A law signed by Democratic Gov. Maura Healey in July expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on the open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    The move was in response to concerns about mass shootings and gun violence.

    But critics of the new restrictions say they are unconstitutional and argue the changes will do little to reduce gun violence. They’ve started gathering signatures on petitions to put a repeal of the law before voters in the 2026 elections.

    The chief organizer of the repeal effort, Cape Cod Gun Works owner Toby Leary, said on Thursday that the petition-gathering effort is well underway and he is seeing strong support for putting the question on the ballot.

    “A lot of businesses and jobs are at stake,” Leary said during a livestreamed briefing sponsored by the state’s Republican Party. “The effects of this law on businesses will be catastrophic. Jobs will be lost. Businesses and livelihoods will be lost.”

    Leary said among the many concerns gun shop owners have about the new restrictions is that the expansion of banned firearms will reduce the kinds of rifles and other weapons that can be sold in the state, which will hurt bottom lines. He estimates about 50% of his business will be “put on hold” if the law isn’t repealed.

    “But this is also about freedom,” Leary said. “This law is so unconstitutional on every level. A lot of ordinary people are going to run afoul of this law.”

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill thorough the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It sets strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as Glock switches that convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the law.

    The repeal effort is one of several seeking to block the law. The Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, plans to file a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law’s training and licensing requirements. Other legal challenges are expected.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Gun rights group chips in $100K for court challenge

    Gun rights group chips in $100K for court challenge

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — A national gun rights group pledges to help fund a legal challenge to overturn the state’s tough new gun control law that critics say will do little to prevent gun violence while depriving people of their constitutional rights.

    The Firearm Industry Trade Association said it has donated $100,000 to the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League to support the group’s legal challenge against new restrictions on firearms licensing signed into law by Gov. Maura Healey.

    “Massachusetts is known as a birthplace of the American Revolution, but these lawmakers have turned their backs to rights that belong to the people and instead are instituting an Orwellian state over the citizens of the Commonwealth,” Lawrence G. Keane, the association’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.

    “The fight to protect liberty and individual rights begins anew and we are confident that when federal courts apply scrutiny to this law, it will be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs,” Keane said.

    The new law, signed by Healey last month, adds dozens of long rifles to a list prohibited under the state’s “assault” weapons ban and outlaws the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It sets strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as Glock switches that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The measure also expands the state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    But Second Amendment groups argue tougher gun control laws are unnecessary and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    GOAL, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, has dubbed the restrictions the “The Devil’s Snare” and say it represents the greatest attack on civil rights in modern U.S. history. The group has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law’s training and licensing requirements. Other legal challenges are expected.

    Members of the group have also filed a petition with the Secretary of State’s Office to begin gathering signatures on a petition to put a repeal of the law before voters next year. The group wants to suspend the law ahead of a 2026 statewide referendum.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Mass. leaders react to blocking of Purdue Pharma payout

    Mass. leaders react to blocking of Purdue Pharma payout

    [ad_1]

    Beacon Hill leaders are pledging to push for money from OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that nullified a $6 billion settlement with the Sackler family over their alleged role in fueling a nationwide opioid crisis.

    On Thursday, the high court rejected a controversial settlement that would have sent hundreds of millions of dollars to Massachusetts, New Hampshire and other states for treatment programs and victims of the opioid epidemic, but that also shielded the Sacklers from any future lawsuits.

    Gov. Maura Healey, who in 2018 as attorney general filed the first lawsuit against Purdue and the Sacklers, said she will continue to push for relief for the families “who have been hurt in this crisis and for the communities that desperately need these resources for prevention, treatment and recovery.”

    “Today’s decision will never erase the role that Purdue and the Sacklers had in creating the opioid crisis, destroying the lives of American families, and exploiting a broken legal system to protect their billions,” Healey said in a statement.

    Attorney General Andrea Campbell vowed that the Sacklers “must and will be held responsible, and, in the wake of this decision, we will use every power available to us to make sure that occurs.”

    “It is no secret that members of the Sackler family, through their control of Purdue, fueled the opioid crisis, devastating countless lives in the pursuit of profit,” she said.

    The deal rejected by the high court was to be financed largely by the company being converted into a public benefits corporation, with profits used to fight the opioid crisis. The Sacklers were supposed to kick in up to $6 billion, but would be shielded from any future civil liability claims.

    In a statement, the Sackler family suggested they will likely pursue negotiations to settle claims by state attorneys general and other parties to the now-defunct deal.

    “The unfortunate reality is that the alternative is costly and chaotic legal proceedings in courtrooms across the country,” they said in a statement. “While we are confident that we would prevail in any future litigation given the profound misrepresentations about our families and the opioid crisis, we continue to believe that a swift negotiated agreement to provide billions of dollars for people and communities in need is the best way forward.”

    The high court’s 5-4 rejection of the agreement focused on the limitations of the U.S. bankruptcy system.

    “The Sacklers seek greater relief than a bankruptcy discharge normally affords, for they hope to extinguish even claims for wrongful death and fraud, and they seek to do so without putting anything close to all their assets on the table,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.

    “Describe the relief the Sacklers seek how you will, nothing in the bankruptcy code contemplates it,” he added.

    But in a minority opinion, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined with Chief Justice John Roberts in declaring that the court’s decision will have a “devastating” impact on thousands of victims of the nation’s opioid crisis.

    “As a result, opioid victims are now deprived of the substantial monetary recovery that they long fought for and finally secured after years of litigation,” Kavanaugh wrote.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Cambridge, said the Supreme Court’s ruling closed a bankruptcy “loophole” that would have allowed the Sacklers to avoid more financial liability, but said “that doesn’t make things right for the millions of people who have lost loved ones to opioid overdoses.”

    “This is a first step toward accountability for the Sackler family,” she said. “It’s time for the Sacklers to pay up.”

    Healey’s 2018 lawsuit, which was signed onto by dozens of other states, alleged the Sacklers reaped billions of dollars as their company misled prescribers and patients in order to boost sales of their addictive medications.

    Massachusetts still is grappling with a deadly wave of addiction that has claimed thousands of lives from overdoses, despite a declining number of deaths.

    There were 2,125 opioid-related deaths in 2023, a 10% decline over the previous year, according to the state Department of Public Health.

    Experts say many of those addictions started with pain pills, usually prescribed by a doctor.

    Massachusetts was slated to get about $110 million from the deal with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family, which would have added to hundreds of millions of dollars from other multistate settlements with opioid makers and distributors. The money is devoted for drug treatment and prevention efforts.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link