When the Supreme Court hears arguments on November 5 in President Donald Trump’s tariff case, the justices won’t just be weighing a constitutional question—they’ll be deciding the fate of billions of dollars in global commerce.
The case, which challenges Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed under emergency powers, has become a defining moment for business leaders navigating a volatile trade landscape already reshaped by uncertainty, inflation, and geopolitical rivalry.
As former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar noted at Fortune’s Most Powerful Women conference, the Supreme Court now faces a “hard question” about whether to disrupt a sitting president’s signature economic policy after it has already reshaped the global trade landscape.
“Even if the tariffs had never been able to take effect, now that they have come in and changed the status quo, the court might ultimately really have pause and concern before disrupting the President’s economic policy in this way,” she told Fortune’s Michal Lev-Ram.
The potential economic fallout from reversing Trump’s tariff policy may ultimately guide the Court’s hand. “The government is coming to court and saying, ‘We would have to unwind billions or trillions of dollars. It could bankrupt our nation,’” Prelogar added. “It would be incredibly disruptive to try to scramble those eggs,” referring to the billions of dollars already collected and distributed under the policy.
Trump’s move to impose 10% reciprocal tariffs on all imports—rising to as high as 50% for major trading partners—under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) marked one of the most aggressive uses of executive trade authority in U.S. history. His administration has since reportedly collected $158 billion in tariffs, arguing that striking them down would “impossible to ever recover” and destabilize ongoing trade negotiations. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated that if the top court goes against the administration, the U.S. “would have to give a refund on about half the tariffs, which would be terrible for the Treasury,” in an interview with NBC.
Lower courts have disagreed, ruling that Trump overstepped his statutory and constitutional bounds. In three separate opinions, federal judges concluded that IEEPA does not authorize the president to unilaterally impose what amounts to a massive tax on imports. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 7–4 decision, said plainly that “absent a valid delegation by Congress, the President has no authority to impose taxes,” emphasizing that tariffs—long considered a congressional power—require clear legislative authorization.
If the Court strikes down the tariffs, companies could see immediate relief in import costs—but the economic ripple effects would be complex. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that overturning the tariffs would wipe out $2.8 trillion in projected government revenue through 2035, potentially forcing cuts or higher borrowing costs that could squeeze businesses elsewhere.
Currently, U.S. consumers and businesses are feeling the weight of tariffs most, according to a report by Goldman Sachs. The analysis estimated U.S. consumers are shouldering up to 55% of the costs stemming from Trump’s tariffs, even though the president has repeatedly claimed that the tariffs on imports exclusively tax foreign enterprises. Goldman’s research also found that U.S. businesses pay 22% of the cost of the tariffs, while foreign exporters contribute only 18% of the cost.
While Wall Street might initially celebrate tariff relief especially in heavily impacted sectors, broader uncertainty around U.S. trade policy could linger, especially as Trump has signaled he would pivot to other legal authorities, like Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, to reimpose tariffs on specific industries should the Court not rule in his favor.
Even if the law is on the challengers’ side, the pragmatic economic and executive power concerns, according to Prelogar, make the case’s outcome “almost a coin toss.” Trade and legal experts previously predicted between a 70-80% chance the high court would rule against the Trump administration and expect a decision by the end of the year. According to them, the justices may not follow traditional ideological divides.
Whether Trump’s tariffs survive or fall, one outcome is certain: the decision will redefine how executives plan in an era where law and economics collide. The Court’s ruling, expected by year’s end, will either restore Congress’s trade prerogatives, or confirm that the president’s emergency powers can reach deep into the heart of global commerce.
Lily Mae Lazarus
Source link
OPINION: By Carl E. Douglas
Thirty years ago, when the verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial was announced, half the nation exhaled in relief and the other half gasped in disbelief. I was there, a member of the defense team many dubbed the “Dream Team.” I remember vividly the polarized emotions that followed. But I also remember something else—something we have since lost: a respect for the rule of law.
Back then, as contentious and polarizing as the Simpson case was, our nation’s leadership set a tone of restraint and respect. President Bill Clinton, who almost certainly disagreed with the jury’s decision, did not attack the jurors, question their intelligence, or undermine their legitimacy. He did not label the verdict a miscarriage of justice. He respected the process, and in doing so, set an example for the country.
No one was shot in the streets because of the O.J. verdict. There were no uprisings or riots. There were no political leaders pouring gasoline on the fire of public anger. People disagreed—strongly—but then they moved on. Our democracy held firm, not because the trial was universally accepted, but because our leaders respected the system and the public followed their lead.
That is what troubles me most about where we are today. The polarization of 1995 pales in comparison to the division we see now. Social media has turned every courtroom into a national battleground, and political leaders too often seize upon moments of controversy to inflame, not to calm.
Were the Simpson trial to happen in 2025, I fear the outcome would be far darker. Today, we live in a climate where even former FBI directors are prosecuted in apparent acts of political vindictiveness. Our leaders denigrate jurors, prosecutors, and judges when verdicts or rulings don’t go their way. The rule of law—the bedrock of our democracy—has been dragged into partisan warfare. That should alarm us far more than a single high-profile verdict ever could.
The Simpson case was, in many ways, the perfect storm: race, celebrity, sex, and mystery, all wrapped up in a televised spectacle. America couldn’t look away. We love to see our heroes rise, and perhaps we love even more to watch them fall. That’s why the trial captivated the world. Even so, when the dust settled, Americans accepted the jury’s decision, however grudgingly. Our country was stronger for it.
Thirty years later, I can’t say the same about our democracy. The Simpson verdict tested America’s nerves. But America passed that test. Today, I’m not sure we would.
That, I hope, is what we remember on this anniversary: not just the case itself, but how we as a country responded to it—with respect, with restraint, and with an understanding that our system of justice, imperfect as it is, only works if we all agree to uphold it.
Because if we lose that, we lose far more than any one trial.
Carl E. Douglas is an award-winning civil rights attorney and founding partner of Douglas / Hicks Law who served on O.J. Simpson’s “Dream Team,” helping secure his acquittal in 1995.
Contributor
Source link
Marc Benioff has become the latest Silicon Valley tech leader to signal his approval of President Trump, saying that the president is doing a great job and ought to deploy the National Guard to deal with crime in San Francisco.
The Salesforce chief executive’s comments came as he headed to San Francisco to host his annual Dreamforce conference — an event for which he said he had to hire hundreds of off-duty police to provide security.
“We don’t have enough cops, so if they [National Guard] can be cops, I’m all for it,” he told the New York Times from aboard his private plane.
The National Guard is generally not allowed to perform domestic law enforcement duties when federalized by the president.
Last month, a federal judge ruled that Trump’s use of National Guard soldiers in Los Angeles violated the Posse Comitatus Act — which restricts use of the military for domestic law enforcement — and ordered that the troops not be used in law enforcement operations within California.
Trump has also ordered the National Guard to deploy to cities such as Portland, Ore., and Chicago, citing the need to protect federal officers and assets in the face of ongoing immigration protests. Those efforts have been met with criticism from local leaders and are the subject of ongoing legal battles.
President Trump has yet to direct troops to Northern California, but suggested in September that San Francisco could be a target for deployment. He has said that cities with Democratic political leadership such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles “are very unsafe places and we are going to straighten them out.”
“I told [Defense Secretary] Pete [Hegseth] we should use some of these dangerous cities as training for our military, our national guard,” Trump said.
Benioff’s call to send National Guard troops to San Francisco drew sharp rebukes from several of the region’s elected Democratic leaders.
San Francisco Dist. Atty. Brooke Jenkins said she “can’t be silent any longer” and threatened to prosecute any leaders or troops who harass residents in a fiery statement on X.
“I am responsible for holding criminals accountable, and that includes holding government and law enforcement officials too, when they cross the bounds of the law,” she said. “If you come to San Francisco and illegally harass our residents, use excessive force or cross any other boundaries that the law prescribes, I will not hesitate to do my job and hold you accountable just like I do other violators of the law every single day.”
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) also took to X to express indignation, saying, “we neither need nor want an illegal military occupation in San Francisco.”
“Salesforce is a great San Francisco company that does so much good for our city,” he said. “Inviting Trump to send the National Guard here is not one of those good things. Quite the opposite.”
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie’s office offered a more muted response, touting the mayor’s efforts to boost public safety in general, but declining to directly address Benioff’s remarks.
Charles Lutvak, a spokesperson for the mayor, noted that the city is seeing net gains in both police officers and sheriff’s deputies for the first time in a decade. He also highlighted Lurie’s efforts to bring police staffing up to 2,000 officers.
“Crime is down nearly 30% citywide and at its lowest point in decades,” Lutvak said. “We are moving in the right direction and will continue to prioritize safety and hiring while San Francisco law enforcement works every single day to keep our city safe.”
When contacted by The Times on Friday night, the office of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who vociferously opposed the deployment of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, did not issue a comment in response to Benioff.
Benioff and Newsom have long been considered friends, with a relationship dating back to when Newsom served as San Francisco’s mayor. Newsom even named Benioff as godfather to one of his children, according to the San Francisco Standard.
Benioff has often referred to himself as an independent. He has donated to several liberal causes, including a $30-million donation to UC San Francisco to study homelessness, and has contributed to prior political campaigns of former President Obama, former Vice President Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Hillary Clinton.
However, he has also donated to the campaigns of former House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain, both Republicans, and supported tougher-on-crime policies and reducing government spending.
Earlier this year, Benioff also praised the Elon Musk-led federal cost-cutting effort known as the Department of Government Efficiency.
“I fully support the president,” Benioff told the New York Times this week. “I think he’s doing a great job.”
Clara Harter
Source link
On August 3, 1970, prosecutors in Los Angeles were in the second week of presenting their murder case against Charles Manson and three young women accused of killing the actress Sharon Tate and six others. A thousand miles away, at the Federal Building in Denver, President Richard Nixon was attending a conference on crime control for federal and state officials. Nixon, with Attorney General John Mitchell standing at his side, worried aloud that the Administration’s “batting average” in convincing Congress to enact crime legislation had been “very poor.” He mentioned that he had just watched “Chisum,” a new John Wayne movie, and mused about why Westerns were so appealing. “One of the reasons is, perhaps—and this may be a square observation—is that the good guys come out ahead in the Westerns; the bad guys lose,” Nixon suggested.
Then Nixon shifted to the Manson trial, and what he believed was a contrary tendency, especially among the young, to “glorify and to make heroes out of those who engage in criminal activities.” That attitude, Nixon lamented, had been on display in the front-page coverage of Manson. “Here is a man who was guilty, directly or indirectly, of eight murders without reason,” he said. (One murder was tried separately.) “Here is a man yet who, as far as the coverage was concerned, appeared to be a rather glamorous figure, a glamorous figure to the young people who he had brought into his operations.”
Chaos ensued. The sitting President had done something that then seemed an unthinkable breach of ethics: he had opined on the guilt of a criminal defendant. As Jeff Guinn described it in “Manson,” his 2013 biography, “Within moments, Nixon’s remarks flashed across national wire services.” The jury for the Manson trial was sequestered and prohibited from reading newspapers or watching TV news, Guinn explained, “so prosecutors felt reasonably certain that the jurors wouldn’t immediately learn what the president said.” That didn’t stop defense lawyers from demanding a mistrial; surely, they argued, jurors would see the front-page headlines: “MANSON GUILTY, NIXON DECLARES,” blared the Los Angeles Times; “NIXON’S TATE TRIAL FUROR,” said the Los Angeles Herald Examiner. Ronald Hughes, a lawyer for one of the women accused alongside Manson, said, “When the President of the United States finds it necessary to comment on the guilt or innocence of a defendant, it indicates that defendant is past the point of getting a fair trial.” (The judge overseeing the case said that he saw no basis for declaring a mistrial.)
For their part, Administration officials scrambled to walk back the gaffe. As the New York Times described the events, minutes after “the assembled newsmen rushed to file their reports,” the White House press secretary, Ronald Ziegler, summoned them to a damage-control session. The President, Ziegler insisted, had intended to use the word “alleged”; he hadn’t meant to express a view on Manson’s guilt or innocence. Mitchell, the Attorney General, weighed in, asserting that Nixon had not “made a charge or implied one.” The President, en route back to Washington, had Mitchell and the White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, draft a statement backing down even further. “We had quite a time on Air Force One trying to work out a correction,” Nixon’s chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, wrote in a diary entry. The plane circled while the President’s men hashed out the language. “The last thing I would do is prejudice the legal rights of any person, in any circumstances,” Nixon’s statement read. “To set the record straight, I do not know and did not intend to speculate as to whether the Tate defendants are guilty, in fact, or not. All of the facts in the case have not yet been presented. The defendants should be presumed to be innocent at this stage of their trial.”
The Manson episode surfaces now and again, when a President oversteps in commenting on pending cases. It came up in 1988, when Ronald Reagan was criticized for saying that he expected two former national-security aides indicted in the Iran-Contra affair, Oliver North and John Poindexter, would be acquitted. “I still think Ollie North is a hero,” Reagan said. “I just have to believe that they’re going to be found innocent because I don’t think they were guilty of any law-breaking or any crime.” (North and Poindexter were both found guilty of multiple charges, but their convictions were vacated on appeal.) Even in that situation, with the President speaking out on behalf of his own aides, the White House was rattled. Chief of staff Howard Baker, playing cleanup, said that Reagan was volunteering only “personal views” and that his “official position is that the system must operate.”
Democratic Presidents have made similar blunders—and faced some backlash. When the Obama Administration was under fire for seeking to return the accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the United States for trial, in 2009, President Barack Obama offered a blustery defense: “I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.” Former law professor that he was, Obama quickly backpedalled. “What I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome,” he clarified. “I’m not prejudging.” (Mohammed is facing charges before a military commission in Guantánamo Bay; the case is still pending.) In 2021, during jury deliberations in the trial of the former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, who was ultimately convicted of murdering George Floyd, President Joe Biden said that he was “praying the verdict is the right verdict, which is—I think it’s overwhelming, in my view.” Biden took pains to add, “I wouldn’t say that unless the jury was sequestered now, not hearing me say that.” When quizzed about the appropriateness of the remarks, the White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, claimed that Biden was not “weighing in on the verdict.”
All these loose-lipped Presidents, of course, look like models of reticence compared with Donald Trump. He has opined on prosecutions with relish, at length, and with no evidence of being hamstrung by presumption-of-innocence niceties. Nixon’s point about the problem of casting Manson as a celebrity was, at bottom, a paean to the importance of an orderly judicial process. His language, in retrospect, was milquetoast. And, of note, Nixon was commenting on a state-level prosecution. Trump, by contrast, has demanded that his own Department of Justice pursue individuals whose guilt he has pronounced obvious in advance.
Ruth Marcus
Source link
WASHINGTON — Chicago is emerging as the latest testing ground for President Trump’s domestic deployment of military force as hundreds of National Guard troops were expected to descend on the city.
The president said Wednesday that Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson should be jailed for failing to support federal agents, and continued to paint a dark and violent picture of both Chicago and Portland, Ore., where Trump is trying to send federal troops but has so far been stonewalled by the courts.
“It’s so bad,” Trump said at the White House on Wednesday. “It’s so crazy. It’s like the movies … where you have these bombed-out cities and these bombed-out people. It’s worse than that. I don’t think they can make a movie as bad.”
Pritzker this week characterized Trump’s depiction of Chicago as “deranged” and untrue. Federal agents are making the community “less safe,” the governor said, noting that residents do not want “Donald Trump to occupy their communities” and that people of color are fearful of being profiled during immigration crackdowns.
Trump has taken issue with Democrats in Illinois and Oregon who are fighting his efforts, and has twice said this week that he is willing to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 if local leaders and the courts try to stop him. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller also contended this week that a court ruling blocking Trump’s deployments to Portland amounted to a “legal insurrection” as well as “an insurrection against the laws and Constitution of the United States.”
In a televised interview Monday, Miller was asked about his remarks and asked whether the administration would abide by court rulings that stop the deployment of troops to Illinois and Portland. Miller responded by saying the president has “plenary authority” before going silent midsentence — a moment that the host said may have been a technical issue.
“Plenary authority” is a legal term that indicates someone has limitless power.
The legality of deployments to Portland and Chicago will face scrutiny in two federal courts Thursday.
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear an appeal by the Trump administration in the Portland matter. A Trump-appointed judge, Karin Immergut, found the White House had not only violated the law in activating the Oregon National Guard, but it also had further defied the law by attempting to circumvent her order, sending the California National Guard in its place.
That three-judge appellate panel consists of two Trump appointees and one Clinton appointee.
Meanwhile, in Illinois, U.S. District Judge April Perry declined Monday to block the deployment of National Guard members on an emergency basis, allowing a buildup of forces to proceed. She will hear arguments Thursday on the legality of the operation.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of Trump’s top political foes, has joined the fight against the president’s deployment efforts.
The Trump administration sent 14 members of California’s National Guard to Illinois to train troops from other states, according to court records filed Tuesday. Federal officials have also told California they intend to extend Trump’s federalization of 300 members of the state’s Guard through next year.
“Trump is going on a cross-country crusade to sow chaos and division,” Newsom said Wednesday. “His actions — and those of his Cabinet — are against our deeply held American values. He needs to stop this illegal charade now.”
By Wednesday evening, there were few signs of National Guard troops on the streets of Chicago. But troops from other states, including Texas’ National Guard, were waiting on the sidelines at an Army Reserve Center in Illinois as early as Tuesday.
In anticipation of the deployment, Pritzker warned that if the president’s efforts went unchecked, it would put the United States on a “the path to full-blown authoritarianism.”
The Democratic governor also said the president’s calls to jail him were “unhinged” and said Trump was a “wannabe dictator.”
“There is one thing I really want to say to Donald Trump: If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me,” Pritzker said in an interview with MSNBC.
As tensions grew in Chicago, Trump hosted an event at the White House to address how he intends to crack down on antifa, a nebulous left-wing anti-facist movement that he recently designated as a domestic terrorist organization.
At the event, the president said many of the people involved in the movement are active in Chicago and Portland — and he once again attacked the local and state leaders in both cities and states.
“You can say of Portland and you can say certainly of Chicago, it is not lawful what they are doing,” Trump said about the left-wing protests. “They are going to have to be very careful.”
Johnson, the mayor of Chicago, slammed Trump for saying he should be jailed for his actions.
“This is not the first time Trump has tried to have a Black man unjustly arrested,” Johnson posted on social media. “I’m not going anywhere.”
Pritzker continued to attack Trump’s efforts into the evening, accusing the president of “breaching the Constitution and breaking the law.”
“We need to stand up together and speak up,” the governor said on social media.
Times staff writer Melody Gutierrez in Sacramento contributed to this report.
Ana Ceballos, Michael Wilner
Source link
ESSEX — When residents attend the Nov. 17 special Town Meeting, they may be voting on several articles now being considered by the Planning Board.
In a posting to its page on the town’s website, www.essexma.org, the Planning Board offers details of the articles it plans to present at fall Town Meeting.
kAmqFE 367@C6 }@G] `f[ 2 C6BF:C65 AF3=:4 962C:?8 7@C E96 AC@A@D65 2CE:4=6D H:== E2<6 A=246 5FC:?8 E96 !=2??:?8 q@2C5UCDBF@jD >66E:?8 ?6IE (65?6D52J ~4E] `d[ 😕 E96 E9:C5 7=@@C 2F5:E@C:F> 2E %@H? w2==[ b_ |2CE:? $E] %96 >66E:?8 H:== DE2CE 2E f A]>] %9@D6 F?23=6 E@ 2EE6?5 E96 AF3=:4 962C:?8 >2J 6>2:= :?AFE 2?5 4@>>6?ED E@ k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@iA=2??:?83@2C5o6DD6I>2]@C8QmA=2??:?83@2C5o6DD6I>2]@C8k^2m]k^Am
kAm%96 AC@A@D65 2CE:4=6D H@F=5 C6G:D6 E96 s@H?E@H? +@?:?8 s:DEC:4E E@ >66E E96 C6BF:C6>6?ED @7 E96 |q%p r@>>F?:E:6D {2H[ 2=D@ @H? 2D $64E:@? bp @7 E96 +@?:?8 p4E[ >2<6 2 492?86 E@ =:>:E E96 @H?6CD9:A @7 2446DD@CJ 5H6==:?8 F?:ED[ 567:?6 E96 @G6CD:89E @7 3F:=5:?8 96:89ED 2?5 2==@H 7@C 2DD@4:2E6 >6>36CD E@ D6CG6 @? E96 !=2??:?8 q@2C5]k^Am
kAm~E96C AC@A@D2=D 42== 7@C 2 4=2C:7:42E:@? @7 E96 C68F=2E:@? @7 D:8?D @? C@@7D[ 2=E6C AC@G:D:@?D @7 DA64:2= A6C>:ED 2?5 4@CC64E 2? 6CC@C 😕 E96 3J=2H C682C5:?8 2446DD@CJ 3F:=5:?8 96:89ED]k^Am
kAmp >@5:7:42E:@? 😀 36:?8 AC@A@D65 E@ E96 >F=E:72>:=J FD6 😕 E96 s@H?E@H? s:DEC:4E[ H9:49 H:== :?4C62D6 E96 ?F>36C @7 F?:ED[ 2==@H65 3J C:89E 367@C6 2 DA64:2= A6C>:E 😀 C6BF:C65[ 7C@> 7@FC E@ D:I[ 2?5 H9:49 H:== 6=:>:?2E6 2 >:?:>F> =@E D:K6 7@C E92E D2>6 FD6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ !=2??:?8 q@2C5 r92:C {:D2 ~’s@??6==]k^Am
kAm“%9:D 😀 ?646DD2CJ E@ >66E E96 DE2E6’D |q%p bp K@?:?8 C6BF:C6>6?ED 7@C >F=E:72>:=J 9@FD:?8[” D96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm(9:=6 E96 |6EC@A@=:E2? pC62 !=2??:?8 r@F?4:= :?:E:2==J 7@F?5 E96 s@H?E@H? +@?:?8 s:DEC:4E H2D 😕 4@>A=:2?46[ E9:D DAC:?8 E96 E@H? H2D ?@E:7:65 :E 5:5 ?@E >66E 2 56?D:EJ C6BF:C6>6?E[ ~’s@??6== D2:5]k^Am
kAmp=E9@F89 tDD6I 😀 4@?D:56C65 😕 E96 42E68@CJ 7@C 4@>A=:2?46[ 36:?8 2 D>2== E@H? H:E9 ?@ |q%p 724:=:E:6D[ E96 E@H? 😀 DE:== C6BF:C65 E@ >66E E96 56?D:EJ C6BF:C6>6?E[ D96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm“%96 !=2??:?8 q@2C5 H@C<65 H:E9 E96 |p!r 282:? @? E9:D 2?5 E96 AC@A@D65 D@=FE:@? 😀 H92E E96:C C6AC6D6?E2E:G6D[ @FC E@H? A=2??6C 2?5 @FC 3@2C5 >6>36CD 4@?D:56C65 E@ 36 E96 =62DE :>A24E7F= C@FE6 E@ 4@>A=:2?46[” ~’s@??6== D2:5] “p=E9@F89 E96C6 😀 ?@ @E96C C62D@? E92? >66E:?8 E96 DE2E6’D C6BF:C6>6?ED 7@C E9:D 492?86[ :E’D 6DD6?E:2= E92E E9:D 2CE:4=6 A2DD]”k^Am
kAm%96 DE2E6 92D 366? A6?2=:K:?8 >F?:4:A2=:E:6D E92E 5@ ?@E 25@AE 4@>A=:2?E K@?:?8 3J 42?46=:?8 8C2?E >@?6J 2?5 @E96C DE2E6 7F?5:?8 2?5[ 😕 D@>6 42D6D[ :>A@D:?8 DF3DE2?E:2= 7:?6D]k^Am
kAmp?@E96C D:8?:7:42?E 2CE:4=6[ ~’s@??6== D2:5[ H@F=5 C6BF:C6 E92E p446DD@CJ sH6==:?8 &?:ED Wps&DX C6>2:? 😕 4@>>@? @H?6CD9:A H:E9 E96 AC:?4:A=6 5H6==:?8 E@ H9:49 E96J 4@??64E65]k^Am
kAm“%9:D 😀 E@ AC6G6?E A6@A=6 7C@> 3F:=5:?8 2? ps& 2?5 E96? ‘4@?5@:?8’ :E[ D@ E92E :E H@F=5 ?@ =@?86C 36 2 C6?E2= AC@A6CEJ[” D96 D2:5] “%96 :?E6?E @7 E96 DE2E6 =2H H2D E@ :?4C62D6 E96 DE@4< @7 C6?E2= 9@FD:?8[ E@ AC@G:56 >@C6 @AA@CEF?:E:6D 7@C A6@A=6 H9@ 2C6 ?@E 😕 2 A@D:E:@? E@ AFC492D6 2?5 364@>6 9@>6@H?6CD]”k^Am
kAmp?@E96C 2CE:4=6 H@F=5 255 EH@ 2DD@4:2E6 >6>36CD E@ E96 !=2??:?8 q@2C5]k^Am
kAm“%96D6 D62ED H@F=5 36 2AA@:?E65 2?5 E96D6 2DD@4:2E6D H@F=5 @?=J 36 42==65 FA@? E@ D:E 2D G@E:?8 >6>36CD H96? 2? 6=64E65 3@2C5 >6>36C W@C >6>36CDX 6:E96C ?665D E@ C64FD6 E96>D6=G6D 3642FD6 @7 36:?8 2? 23FEE6C @C @E96C 4@?7=:4E @7 :?E6C6DE 2?5^@C 2C6 ?@E 23=6 E@ 2EE6?5 2?J 2?5 2== @7 E96 >66E:?8D E92E :?4=F56 2 962C:?8 7@C 2 DA64:2= A6C>:E @?=J[” ~’s@??6== D2:5]k^Am
kAm%H@ >@C6 2CE:4=6D H@F=5 255C6DD 5:>6?D:@?2= C6BF:C6>6?ED — @?6 A6CE2:?:?8 E@ E96 567:?:E:@? @7 3F:=5:?8 96:89ED 2?5 2?@E96C E@ >@5:7J 9@H D:8?D @? C@@7D 2C6 4@?D:56C65 – :?4=F5:?8 FA52E:?8 E96 =2?8F286 😕 E96 3J=2H E@ 36 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 E@H?’D 3F:=5:?8 :?DA64E@C]k^Am
kAm~E96C 2CE:4=6D H:== 36 @776C65 2:>65 2E C6@C82?:K:?8 “6I:DE:?8 >2E6C:2= 😕 E96 3J=2H[” ~’s@??6== D2:5[ 255:?8 “4=2C:7:42E:@?D 2?5^@C 4@CC64E:@?D” H:== 36 4@?D:56C65 2E DA64:2= %@H? |66E:?8]k^Am
kAm%@H? p5>:?:DEC2E@C qC6?592? +F3C:4<: D2:5 96 5@6D ?@E 6IA64E 2CE:4=6 ?F>36CD H:== 36 2DD:8?65 E@ E96 >62DFC6D F?E:= E96 q@2C5 @7 $6=64E>6? >66E 2?5 D:8? E96 E@H? H2CC2?E ~4E] a_]k^Am
kAm$E6A96? w282? >2J 36 4@?E24E65 2E hfgefdaf_g[ @C k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@iD9282?o8=@F46DE6CE:>6D]4@>QmD9282?o8=@F46DE6CE:>6D]4@>k^2m]k^Am
By Stephen Hagan | Staff Writer
Source link
SALEM — The trial of a wounded North Andover police officer could get underway as early as January, after an Essex County Superior Court judge pushes for the case to be tried sooner rather than later.
Kelsey Fitzsimmons’ lawyer, Timothy Bradl, and state prosecutor James Gubitose agreed to a pretrial assignment conference Nov. 25 to set a trial date after a pretrial conference Tuesday with her lawyer absent from the courtroom.
kAm!F3=:4 :?E6C6DE 😕 E96 42D6 E:65 FA E96 4@FCE’D C6>@E6 2446DD[ 5:2=:? A9@?6 =:?6 7@C E96 AC6EC:2= 4@?76C6?46[ ;2>>:?8 E96 DJDE6> 2?5 56=2J:?8 E96 4@FCE AC@4665:?8D] %96 4@FCE @C56C65 2== 7FEFC6 4@FCE 2AA62C2?46D E@ 36 😕 A6CD@? 7@C 4@F?D6= 27E6C E96 AF3=:4’D :?E6C6DE “@G6CH96=>65” 2?5 “56DEC@J65” E96 4@FCE’D 42A24:EJ E@ 8:G6 E96 AF3=:4 @?=:?6 2446DD]k^Am
kAmu:EKD:>>@?D[ ag[ @7 }@CE9 p?5@G6C H2D :?5:4E65 2?5 2CC2:8?65 😕 pF8FDE @? 2 492C86 @7 2DD2F=E 3J >62?D @7 2 52?86C@FD H62A@? DE6>>:?8 7C@> 2 D9@@E:?8 😕 96C 9@>6 yF?6 b_]k^Am
kAm!@=:46 D2:5 D96 H2D D9@E 3J 2? @77:46C 27E6C A@:?E:?8 2 8F? 2E @?6 @7 E96 C6DA@?5:?8 @77:46CD H96? E96J H6?E E@ 96C 9@>6 E@ 56=:G6C 2 C6DEC2:?:?8 @C56C 2?5 92G6 96C C6=:?BF:D9 4FDE@5J @7 96C :?72?E D@? E@ 96C E96?7:2?4é] u:EKD:>>@?D 4=2:>65 D96 H2D D9@E 3J A@=:46 H9:=6 A@:?E:?8 2 8F? 2E 96C @H? 9625 😕 2 72:=65 DF:4:56 2EE6>AE]k^Am
kAmu:EKD:>>@?D 92D C6>2:?65 ;2:=65 H:E9@FE 32:= D:?46 $6AE] “ 27E6C $FA6C:@C r@FCE yF586 z2E9=66? |4r2CE9J}6J>2? C6G@<65 96C 9@FD6 2CC6DE 2?5 E6C>D @7 C6=62D6 7@==@H:?8 u:EKD:>>@?D D66<:?8 @7 C6=:67 7C@> 2=4@9@= E6DE:?8 5F6 E@ A2:?]k^Am
kAmtDD6I $FA6C:@C r@FCE yF586 %9@>2D sC6D49=6C 2D<65 qC25= 2 D:>A=6 BF6DE:@? E@ ECJ E@ @A6? E96 7:CDE 2EE6>AE 2E E96 962C:?8]k^Am
kAm“(9J 2C6 J@F ?@E 96C6n” sC6D49=6C D2:5 E@ qC25=[ H9@ C6>@E6=J 42==65 :?E@ E96 4@FCE 962C:?8]k^Am
kAmu:EKD:>>@?D’ 42D6 H2D ?@E 962C5 F?E:= `_idd 2]>] 2D E96 C6>@E6 2446DD =:?6 5:DCFAE65 E96 `c AC@4665:?8D 7C@> DE2CE:?8 @? E:>6 2D :E H2D @G6CH96=>65 3J A6@A=6 ECJ:?8 E@ =:DE6? :?]k^Am
kAm“%9:D 42D6 92D 96=5 FA @FC A9@?6 =:?6D 4C62E:?8 25>:?:DEC2E:G6 AC@3=6>D[” sC6D49=6C D2:5] “xE 92D 56=2J65 @FC AC@4665:?8D]”k^Am
kAm“W(6X 42?’E =6E E92E 92AA6? E92E E96 DFAA@CE6CD 😕 2?J 42D6 92G6 E96 23:=:EJ E@ :?E6C76C6 H:E9 E96 4@FCE’D 23:=:EJ E@ 4@?5F4E 3FD:?6DD[” sC6D49=6C D2:5]k^Am
kAmu:EKD:>>@?D’ DFAA@CE6CD 5@??65 AFCA=6 2?5 7:==65 @?6 D:56 @7 E96 4@FCEC@@>] $96 5:5 ?@E 2AA62C G:2 2 G:56@ @C A9@?6 42== 7@C E96 AC6EC:2= 4@?76C6?46]k^Am
kAmsC6D49=6C ?@E65 E96C6 H2D 2 8C@FA @7 A6@A=6 😕 A6CD@? H9@ D9@H65 :?E6C6DE 😕 E96 42D6[ H9:49 96 D2:5 H2D ?@E E96 AC@3=6> 3FE C2E96C H92E H2D 92AA6?:?8 H:E9 E96 A9@?6 =:?6]k^Am
kAmsC6D49=6C :?7@C>65 qC25= 96 ?66565 E@ 86E E@ 4@FCE %F6D52J 2?5 H@F=5 ?@E AC@4665 H:E9 E96 962C:?8 F?E:= 96 D9@H65 FA] qC25= E@=5 E96 ;F586 96 H2D F?56C E96 :>AC6DD:@? E92E E96 962C:?8 H2D 2 8C@FA A9@?6 42==]k^Am
kAmqFE =6DD E92? a_ >:?FE6D =2E6C[ E96 ;F586 42==65 E96 42D6 282:? 2?5 DEC6DD65 9@H 6G6CJ 7FEFC6 4@FCE 962C:?8 ?66565 E@ 36 😕 A6CD@? 7@C E96 =2HJ6CD] u:EKD:>>@?D 😀 E@ 2AA62C 3J G:56@4@?76C6?46 😕 }@G6>36C]k^Am
kAmsC6D49=6C D2:5 E96 42D6 ?665D E@ 36 EC:65 2?5 H2?E65 E@ D6E 2 EC:2= 52E6 2D 62C=J 2D ?6IE H66<[ G:6H:?8 :E 2D ?@E 2 4@>A=:42E65 42D6[ =:<6=J @?=J ?665:?8 EH@ 52JD E@ 4@>A=6E6]k^Am
kAmw6 25565 E92E qC25= 92D AF3=:4=J DE2E65 u:EKD:>>@?D’ 5676?D6 2?5 92D 5@?6 D@ “G6CJ AF3=:4=J]” %96 ;F586 D2:5 E96C6 H2D 8@@5 C62D@? E@ ECJ E96 42D6 AC@A6C=J H:E9 E96 42D6 36:?8 DEC2:89E7@CH2C5 2?5 u:EKD:>>@?D 😕 ;2:=]k^Am
kAmqC25= 2?5 vF3:E@D6 H6C6 2D<65 :7 E96J H6C6 C625J E@ D6E 2 EC:2= 52E6] vF3:E@D6 D2:5 :E 56A6?565 @? :7 E96 5676?D6 H:== 42== 2 A@DEA2CEF> 6IA6CE]k^Am
kAms:D4@G6CJ H2D?’E 4@>A=6E6 ;FDE J6E 7@C E96 5676?D6 E62>[ qC25= D2:5[ 2?5 9:D E62> >2J >2<6 >@E:@?D C682C5:?8 H:E?6DD6D] w6 28C665 H:E9 E96 ;F586 E92E E96 EC:2= H@F=5 ?@E 36 =6?8E9J] w6 25565 E92E 96 5@6D ?@E E9:?< E96C6 😀 2 >6?E2= 962=E9 5676?D6 3FE E96C6 2C6 >6?E2= 962=E9 :DDF6D 😕 E96 42D6]k^Am
kAmsC6D49=6C D2:5 :7 E96 =2HJ6CD 2C6 23=6 E@ 28C66 @? 2 EC:2= 52E6[ E96 4@FCE H@F=5 DFC6=J 244@>>@52E6 2 E:>6 😕 y2?F2CJ]k^Am
kAm“tG6CJ3@5J’D :?E6C6DE 😀 E@ 86E E9:D 42D6 EC:65[” sC6D49=6C D2:5]k^Am
kAm~? %F6D52J[ DE2E6 AC@D64FE@CD 2=D@ 7:=65 EH@ ?@E:46D @7 5:D4@G6CJ] %96 :E6>D :?4=F56 E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E6 !@=:46 42D6 C6A@CE 2?5 :?E6CG:6H C6A@CE 2D H6== 2D E96 }@CE9 p?5@G6C !@=:46 2?5 u:C6 56A2CE>6?ED’ :?4:56?E C6A@CE] p?@E96C :E6> :?4=F56D 2 C67FD2= 7@C 4@?D6?E E@ D62C49 3J yFDE:? pJ=2:2?[ E96 72E96C @7 u:EKD:>>@?D’ 49:=5] w6 7:=65 E96 C6DEC2:?:?8 @C56C 282:?DE 96C[ 52E65 yF?6 b_]k^Am
kAm}@CE9 p?5@G6C A@=:46 42==D 7C@> yF?6 h 2?5 2EE249>6?ED 7C@> E96 A@=:46 2?5 h“ 42==D 7C@> pJ=2:2? 2C6 2=D@ :?4=F565 😕 E96 5:D4@G6CJ =:DE]k^Am
By Angelina Berube | Staff Writer
Source link
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday heard a free-speech challenge to state laws against “conversion therapy” and sounded likely to rule the measures violate the 1st Amendment.
California and more than 20 other states have adopted laws to forbid licensed counselors from urging or encouraging gay or transgender teens to change their sexual orientation or gender identity.
The laws were adopted in reaction to a history of dangerous and discredited practices, including treatments that induced nausea and vomiting or administered electric shocks.
Lawmakers and medical experts said such efforts to “cure” LGBTQ+ teens were cruel and ineffective and caused lasting harm. But these “talk therapy” laws have been challenged by a number of Christian counselors who believe they can help young people who want to talk about their feelings and their sexual identity.
The court on Tuesday heard an appeal from Kaley Chiles, a counselor from Colorado Springs, Colo. She says she is an evangelical Christian, but does not seek to “cure” young people of a same-sex attraction or change their gender identity.
She sued, alleging the state law seeks to “censor” her conversations and threatens her with punishment.
She lost before a federal judge and a U.S. appeals court, both of whom said the state has the authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prevent substandard healthcare.
But the Supreme Court voted to hear her appeal.
“This law bans voluntary conversations, censoring widely held views on debated moral, religious and scientific questions,” her attorney James Campbell said in his opening.
The justices, both conservative and liberal, appeared to agree the Colorado law violated the 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech.
“What’s being regulated here is pure speech,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Moreover, he said, the state law enforces a double standard. It would punish a licensed counselor who agrees to talk to a teenage client who wants to “overcome same-sex attractions,” but not if she encourages the teen to accept or affirm those attractions.
Justice Elena Kagan said she too saw a potential 1st Amendment violation. And Justice Sonia Sotomayor said there was less evidence that talk therapy alone has caused real harm.
She also questioned whether the Colorado counselor had standing because she was not charged with violating the law. But none of the others endorsed that idea.
In defense of the law, Colorado state solicitor Shannon Stevenson said the law applies only to licensed counselors. It does not extend to others, including religious ministers.
The practice of medical care “is a heavily regulated area. A doctor doesn’t have a 1st Amendment right to give wrong advice to patients,” she said.
But most of the justices said the 1st Amendment does not permit the state to punish counselors because their views do not align with the state’s.
What about the era when “homosexuality was professionally considered to be a mental health disorder?” asked Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Could the state by law have punished a “regulated licensed professional for affirming homosexuality?”
The state’s attorney agreed that may have been possible based on the standard of care at the time.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and others suggested counselors could still face a medical malpractice lawsuit, even if the court rules the state law violates the 1st Amendment.
The Trump administration joined the case on the side of the Colorado counselor and urged the court to rule for her on free-speech grounds.
In 2012, California was the first state to adopt a ban on conversion therapy for minors. In signing the measure, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. referred to such therapy as “junk science” that led to depression and suicide.
The measure was challenged on free-speech grounds, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it on the basis that it regulated medical treatment by professionals.
But the 1st Amendment has been used repeatedly to challenge laws involving LGBTQ+ people.
Twice in recent years, the Supreme Court has ruled for Colorado business owners who objected to providing service for a same-sex wedding.
One designed custom wedding cakes, and the other designed websites for weddings. They sued seeking an exemption from the state civil rights law that required businesses to provide equal service to customers without regard to sexual orientation.
They were represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that also represents Chiles.
In June, the court’s conservative majority ruled for Tennessee and upheld red-state laws that prohibit the use of puberty blockers and sex hormones for transgender teens.
The court’s opinion said it was deferring to the states because there was sharp debate over the proper treatment for young people with gender dysphoria.
The case heard Tuesday — Chiles vs. Salazar — was the first of two this term involving LGBTQ+ rights. In December, the justices will hear arguments on whether West Virginia may bar transgender school athletes from competing on girls’ sports teams.
David G. Savage
Source link
Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to the Trump Administration deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Portland, Oregon, after a federal district court blocked the attempted federalization of Oregon’s National Guard:“In response to a federal court order that blocked his attempt to federalize the Oregon National Guard, President Trump is deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Oregon. They are on their way there now. This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power. The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.This isn’t about public safety, it’s about power. The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.” —Governor Gavin NewsomTrump illegally sends California troops to OregonDespite a federal court order finding no legal basis to deploy state National Guard troops to the streets of Portland and ordering that control of the Oregon National Guard be returned to state command, the Trump Administration is now sending 300 federally controlled members of the California National Guard to Portland to take their place. The troops had originally been federalized months ago in response to unrest in Los Angeles — conditions that never necessitated their deployment in the first place, and have long since subsided anyway. Courts rebuke Trump’s lawlessnessIn its ruling yesterday, the federal judge appointed by President Trump rejected the Trump Administration’s justification for deploying federalized troops, writing in its order: “This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”The court found that the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guard were not “conceived in good faith” and were “simply untethered to the facts.”
Governor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to the Trump Administration deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Portland, Oregon, after a federal district court blocked the attempted federalization of Oregon’s National Guard:
“In response to a federal court order that blocked his attempt to federalize the Oregon National Guard, President Trump is deploying 300 California National Guard personnel into Oregon. They are on their way there now. This is a breathtaking abuse of the law and power. The Trump Administration is unapologetically attacking the rule of law itself and putting into action their dangerous words — ignoring court orders and treating judges, even those appointed by the President himself, as political opponents.
This isn’t about public safety, it’s about power. The commander-in-chief is using the U.S. military as a political weapon against American citizens. We will take this fight to court, but the public cannot stay silent in the face of such reckless and authoritarian conduct by the President of the United States.” —Governor Gavin Newsom
Trump illegally sends California troops to Oregon
Despite a federal court order finding no legal basis to deploy state National Guard troops to the streets of Portland and ordering that control of the Oregon National Guard be returned to state command, the Trump Administration is now sending 300 federally controlled members of the California National Guard to Portland to take their place. The troops had originally been federalized months ago in response to unrest in Los Angeles — conditions that never necessitated their deployment in the first place, and have long since subsided anyway.
Courts rebuke Trump’s lawlessness
In its ruling yesterday, the federal judge appointed by President Trump rejected the Trump Administration’s justification for deploying federalized troops, writing in its order:
“This historical tradition boils down to a simple proposition: this is a nation of Constitutional law, not martial law. Defendants have made a range of arguments that, if accepted, risk blurring the line between civil and military federal power — to the detriment of this nation.”
The court found that the President’s own statements regarding the deployment of federalized National Guard were not “conceived in good faith” and were “simply untethered to the facts.”
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.
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
By Damien Fisher | InDepthNH.org
Source link
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has ruled for a second time that the Trump administration may cancel the “temporary protected status” given to about 600,000 Venezuelans under the Biden administration.
The move, advocates for the Venezuelans said, means thousands of lawfully present individuals could lose their jobs, be detained in immigration facilities and deported to a country that the U.S. government considers unsafe to visit.
The high court granted an emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and set aside decisions of U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“Although the posture of the case has changed, the parties’ legal arguments and relative harms generally have not. The same result that we reached in May is appropriate here,” the court said in an unsigned order.
Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have denied the appeal.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. “I view today’s decision as yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” she wrote. “Because, respectfully, I cannot abide our repeated, gratuitous, and harmful interference with cases pending in the lower courts while lives hang in the balance, I dissent.”
Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had overstepped her legal authority by canceling the legal protection.
Her decision “threw the future of these Venezuelan citizens into disarray and exposed them to substantial risk of wrongful removal, separation from their families and loss of employment,” the panel wrote.
But Trump’s lawyers said the law bars judges from reviewing these decisions by U.S. immigration officials.
Congress authorized this protected status for people who are already in the United States but cannot return home because their native countries are not safe.
The Biden administration offered the protections to Venezuelans because of the political and economic collapse brought about by the authoritarian regime of Nicolás Maduro.
Alejandro Mayorkas, the Homeland Security secretary under Biden, granted the protected status to groups of Venezuelans in 2021 and 2023, totaling about 607,000 people.
Mayorkas extended it again in January, three days before Trump was sworn in. That same month, Noem decided to reverse the extension, which was set to expire for both groups of Venezuelans in October 2026.
Shortly after, Noem announced the termination of protections for the 2023 group by April.
In March, Chen issued an order temporarily pausing Noem’s repeal, which the Supreme Court set aside in May with only Jackson in dissent.
The San Francisco judge then held a hearing on the issue and concluded Noem’s repeal violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and and not justified.
He said his earlier order imposing a temporary pause did not prevent him from ruling on the legality of the repeal, and the 9th Circuit agreed.
The approximately 350,000 Venezuelans who had TPS through the 2023 designation saw their legal status restored. Many reapplied for work authorization, said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, and a counsel for the plaintiffs.
In the meantime, Noem announced the cancellation of the 2021 designation, effective Nov. 7.
Trump’s solicitor general, D. John Sauer, went back to the Supreme Court in September and urged the justices to set aside the second order from Chen.
“This case is familiar to the Court and involves the increasingly familiar and untenable phenomenon of lower courts disregarding this Court’s orders on the emergency docket,” he said.
The Supreme Court’s decision once again reverses the legal status of the 2023 group and cements the end of legal protections for the 2021 group next month.
In a further complication, the Supreme Court’s previous decision said that anyone who had already received documents verifying their TPS status or employment authorization through next year is entitled to keep it.
That, Arulanantham said, “creates another totally bizarre situation, where there are some people who will have TPS through October 2026 as they’re supposed to because the Supreme Court says if you already got a document it can’t be canceled. Which to me just underscores how arbitrary and irrational the whole situation is.”
Advocates for the Venezuelans said the Trump administration has failed to show that their presence in the U.S. is an emergency requiring immediate court relief.
In a brief filed Monday, attorneys for the National TPS Alliance argued the Supreme Court should deny the Trump administration’s request because Homeland Security officials acted outside the scope of their authority by revoking the TPS protections early.
“Stripping the lawful immigration status of 600,000 people on 60 days’ notice is unprecedented,” Jessica Bansal, an attorney representing the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, wrote in a statement. “Doing it after promising an additional 18 months protection is illegal.”
David G. Savage, Andrea Castillo
Source link
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide if licensed guns owners have a right to carry their weapons at public places, including parks, beaches and stores.
At issue are laws in California, Hawaii and three other states that generally prohibit carrying guns on private or public property.
Three years ago, Supreme Court ruled that law-abiding gun owners had a 2nd Amendment right to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon when they leave home.
But the justices left open the question of whether states and cities could prohibit the carrying of guns in “sensitive locations,” and if so, where.
In response, California enacted a strict law that forbids gun owners from carrying their firearm in most public or private places that are open to the public unless the owner posted a sign permitting such weapons.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down that provision last year as going too far, but it upheld most of a Hawaii law that restricted the carrying of guns at public places and most private businesses that are open to the public.
Gun-rights advocates appealed to the Supreme Court and urged the justices to rule that such restrictions on carrying concealed weapons violate the 2nd Amendment.
The court agreed to hear the case early next year.
Trump administration lawyers urged the justices to strike down the Hawaii law.
It “functions as a near-complete ban on public carry. A person carrying a handgun for self-defense commits a crime by entering a mall, a gas station, a convenience store, a supermarket, a restaurant, a coffee shop, or even a parking lot,” said Solicitor General D. John Sauer.
Gun-control advocates said Hawaii had enacted a “common sense law that prohibits carrying firearms on others’ private property open to the public.”
“The 9th Circuit was absolutely right to say it’s constitutional to prohibit guns on private property unless the owner says they want guns there,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation, at Everytown Law. “This law respects people’s right to be safe on their own property, and we urge the Supreme Court to uphold it.”
David G. Savage
Source link
Sephora, shoppers’ go-to spot for celebrity makeup brands and skincare essentials, is facing a hefty fine from California cities for alleged improper disposal of its leftover products.
The company, accused of mishandling hazardous waste at its retail locations, will pay nearly $78,000 to Sacramento County and to several California cities and counties. According to a news release from the Sacramento County district attorney’s office, the total settlement amount is $775,000.
“Our office is committed to protecting both the public and the environment, and we will hold companies accountable to ensure they operate responsibly and within the law,” Dist. Atty. Thien Ho said in the release.
Following an investigation, 24 city and district attorneys across the state filed a civil enforcement action. It alleged the makeup giant was mishandling damaged, returned and expired merchandise, which is considered hazardous waste according to state law.
The complaint alleges that the company failed to determine which items that were thrown out were used, expired, recalled or damaged and didn’t keep records of test results and waste management. The materials were also allegedly improperly managed and transported.
The judgment, settled in Sacramento County Superior Court, includes a $550,000 charge in civil penalties, $200,000 in cost recovery and $25,000 to the Environmental Enforcement and Training Account managed by the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Sephora started in 1969 as a small perfume shop in France. Over the years, it cemented itself as one of makeup’s main retailers, serving hundreds of millions of customers and becoming a multibillion-dollar company.
It operates over 2,700 stores in 35 countries worldwide, with over 100 locations in California. The company is still headquartered in France, with its U.S. arm operating out of San Francisco.
It is not the only business to face an environmental lawsuit.
In August, United Parcel Service Inc. and its affiliates were required to pay $1.7 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the district attorneys of 45 California counties.
That complaint alleged that UPS sent improperly labeled hazardous waste to area landfills. The suit came after a years-long investigation at 140 UPS locations in California.
The company had to pay $1.4 million in civil penalties, $140,000 in cost reimbursement and $205,000 that will go toward supplemental environmental projects, according to officials.
Cerys Davies
Source link
President Trump warned the country’s top ranking military officials Tuesday that they could be headed to “war” with U.S. citizens, signaling a major escalation in the ongoing legal battle over his authority to deploy soldiers to police American streets.
“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one-by-one,” Trump said in an address to top brass in Quantico, Va. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”
Commanders should use American cities as “training grounds,” the president said.
Trump’s words provoked instant pushback. Oregon has already filed a legal challenge, and experts expressed concern that what the president described is against the law.
“He is suggesting that they learn how to become warriors in American cities,” said Daniel C. Schwartz, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, who heads the legal team at National Security Leaders for America. “That should scare everybody. It’s also boldly illegal.”
The use of soldiers to assist with federal immigration raids and crowd control at protests and otherwise enforce civilian laws has been a point of contention with big city mayors and blue state governors for months, beginning with the deployment of thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles in early June.
That deployment was illegal, a federal judge ruled last month. In a scorching 52-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer barred soldiers under Trump’s command from carrying out law enforcement duties across California, warning of a “national police force with the President as its chief.”
Yet hundreds of troops remained on the streets of Los Angeles while the matter was under litigation. With the case still moving through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, hundreds more are now set to arrive in Portland, Ore., with another hundred reportedly enroute to Chicago — all over the objections of state and local leaders.
“Isolated threats to federal property should not be enough to warrant this kind of response,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The threat has to be really serious, and I don’t think the Trump administration has made that case.”
Others agreed.
“I’m tremendously worried,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Using the military for domestic law enforcement is something that’s characteristic of authoritarian regimes.”
Oregon’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Monday alleging the president had applied a “baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext” to send in the troops. Officials in Illinois, where the Trump administration has made Chicago a focal point of immigration enforcement, are also poised to file a challenge.
Although the facts on the ground are different legally, the Oregon suit is a near copy-paste of the California battle making its way through the courts, experts said.
“That’s exactly the model that they’re following,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.
Unlike the controversial decision to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in August, the Los Angeles and Portland deployments have relied on an esoteric subsection of the law, which allows the president to federalize troops over the objection of state governments in certain limited cases.
California’s challenge to those justifications has so far floundered in court, with the 9th Circuit finding in June that judges must be “highly deferential” to the president’s interpretation of facts on the ground. That case is under review by a larger panel of judges.
In a memo filed Monday, California Deputy Solicitor General Christopher D. Hu warned that the decision had emboldened the administration to deploy troops elsewhere, citing Portland as an example.
“Defendants apparently believe that the June 7 memorandum — issued in response to events in Los Angeles — indefinitely authorizes the deployment of National Guard troops anywhere in the country, for virtually any reason,” Hu wrote. “It is time to end this unprecedented experiment in militarized law enforcement and conscription of state National Guard troops outside the narrow conditions allowed by Congress.”
Experts warn the obscure 19th century law at the heart of the debate is vague and “full of loopholes,” worrying some who see repeated deployment as a slippery slope to widespread, long-term military occupations.
“That has not been our experience at least since the Civil War,” Schwartz said. “If we become accustomed to seeing armed uniformed service personnel in our cities, we risk not objecting to it, and when we stop objecting to it, it becomes a norm.”
The joint address to military leaders in Virginia on Tuesday further stoked those fears.
“We’re under invasion from within,” the president admonished generals and admirals gathered in the auditorium. “No different from a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.”
He touted the move in August to create a “quick reaction force” to “quell civil disturbances” — a decree folded into his executive order expanding the D.C. troop deployment.
“George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush and others all used the armed forces to keep domestic order and peace,” Trump said. “Now they like to say, oh, you’re not allowed to use the military.”
Those historic cases have some important differences with 2025, experts say.
When President Cleveland sent troops to break up a railroad strike and tamp down mob violence against Chinese immigrants, he invoked the Insurrection Act. So did 15 other presidents, including Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush.
Experts stress that Trump has pointedly not used the act, despite name-checking it often in his first term.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday largely avoided the theme of “enemies within,” instead extolling the “warrior ethos” at the heart of his military reform project. He railed against what he saw as the corrupted culture of the modern military — as well as its aesthetic shortcomings.
“It’s tiring to look out at combat formations and see fat troops,” Hegseth said. “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon. It’s a bad look.”
As deployments multiply across the country, experts said they were watching what the appellate division and ultimately the Supreme Court will decide.
“It will be a test for the Supreme Court,” Schwartz said. “Whether they are willing to continue to allow this president to do whatever he wants to do in clear violation of constitutional principles, or whether they will restrain him.”
Sonja Sharp
Source link
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday put off a decision on whether President Trump can fire Federal Reserve Govenor Lisa Cook and said it would hear arguments on the case in January.
The court’s action allows Cook to remain in her position, and it prevents Trump from taking majority control of the historically independent central bank board.
Last month, the president said he fired Cook “for cause,” citing mortgage documents she signed in 2021 confirming that two different properties were her primary residence.
But the flap over her mortgages arose as Trump complained that the Federal Reserve Board, including Cook, had not lowered interest rates to his satisfaction.
“We will have a majority very shortly,” Trump said after he fired Cook.
In September, Trump appointed Stephen Miran, the chair of of his White House Council of Economic Advisers, to serve a temporary term on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board. He joined two other Trump appointees.
Congress wrote the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 intending to give the central bank board some independence from politics and the current president.
Its seven members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, and they serve staggered terms of 14 years, unless “removed for cause by the president.”
The law does not define what amounts to cause.
President Biden appointed Cook to a temporary term in 2022 and to a full term a year later.
In August, however, Bill Pulte, Trump’s director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, alleged that Cook committed mortgage fraud when she took out two housing loans in 2021. One was for $203,000 for a house in Ann Arbor, Mich., and the second was for $540,000 for a condo in Atlanta. In both instances, he said she signed a loan document saying the property would be her primary residence.
Mortgage lenders usually offer a lower interest rate for a borrower’s primary residence.
Cook has not directly refuted the allegation about her mortgage documents, but her attorneys said she told the lender she was seeking the Atlanta condo as a vacation home.
Trump, however, sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25. “You may be removed, at my discretion, for cause,” citing the law and Pulte’s referral. “I have determined that there is sufficient cause to remove you from your position,” he wrote.
Cook refused to step down and filed a suit to challenge the decision. She argued the allegation did not amount to cause under the law, and she had not been given a hearing to contest it.
A federal judge in Washington agreed and blocked her firing, noting that unproven allegation of mortgage fraud occurred before she was appointed to the Federal Reserve.
By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court also refused to uphold her firing.
Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court on Sept. 18 arguing Congress gave the president the authority to fire a Fed governor he concludes she is not trustworthy.
“Put simply, the President may reasonably determine that interest rates paid by the American people should not be set by a Governor who appears to have lied about facts material to the interest rates she secured for herself — and refuses to explain the apparent misrepresentations,” wrote Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.
But the justices refused to act on an emergency appeal and decided they will give the case a full hearing and a written decision.
David G. Savage
Source link
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
ChatGPT could soon alert police when teens discuss suicide. OpenAI CEO and co-founder Sam Altman revealed the change during a recent interview. ChatGPT, the widely used artificial intelligence chatbot that can answer questions and hold conversations, has become a daily tool for millions. His comments mark a major shift in how the AI company may handle mental health crises.
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CyberGuy.com/Newsletter
Sam Altman, chief executive officer of OpenAI Inc. (Nathan Howard/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Altman said, “It’s very reasonable for us to say in cases of young people talking about suicide, seriously, where we cannot get in touch with the parents, we do call authorities.”
Until now, ChatGPT’s response to suicidal thoughts has been to suggest hotlines. This new policy signals a move from passive suggestions to active intervention.
Altman admitted the change comes at a cost to privacy. He stressed that user data is important, but acknowledged that preventing tragedy must come first.
Teens can easily access ChatGPT on a mobile device. (Jaap Arriens/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
The shift follows lawsuits tied to teen suicides. The most high-profile case involves 16-year-old Adam Raine of California. His family alleges ChatGPT provided a “step-by-step playbook” for suicide, including instructions for tying a noose and even drafting a goodbye note.
After Raine’s death in April, his parents sued OpenAI. They argued that the company failed to stop its AI from guiding their son toward harm.
Another lawsuit accused rival chatbot Character.AI of negligence. A 14-year-old reportedly took his own life after forming an intense connection with a bot modeled on a TV character. Together, these cases highlight how quickly teens can form unhealthy bonds with AI.
Adam Raine, a California teen, took his life in April 2025 amid claims ChatGPT coached him (Raine Family)
Altman pointed to global numbers to justify stronger measures. He noted that about 15,000 people take their own lives each week worldwide. With 10% of the world using ChatGPT, he estimated that around 1,500 suicidal individuals may interact with the chatbot weekly.
Research backs up concerns about teen reliance on AI. A Common Sense Media survey found 72% of U.S. teens use AI tools, with one in eight seeking mental health support from them.
In a blog post, OpenAI outlined steps to strengthen protections. The company said it will:
To guide these efforts, OpenAI created an Expert Council on Well-Being and AI. This group includes specialists in youth development, mental health and human-computer interaction. Alongside them, OpenAI is working with a Global Physician Network of more than 250 doctors across 60 countries.
These experts are helping design parental controls and safety guidelines. Their role is to ensure AI responses align with the latest mental health research.
A teen using ChatGPT. (Frank Rumpenhorst/Picture Alliance via Getty Images)
Within weeks, parents will be able to:
These alerts are designed to notify parents early. Still, Altman admitted that when parents are unreachable, police may become the fallback option.
ChatGPT can be used by teens for completing homework. (Kurt “CyberGuy” Knutsson)
OpenAI admits its safeguards can weaken over time. While short chats often redirect users to crisis hotlines, long conversations can erode built-in protections. This “safety degradation” has already led to cases where teens received unsafe advice after extended use.
Experts warn that relying on AI for mental health can be risky. ChatGPT is trained to sound human but cannot replace professional therapy. The concern is that vulnerable teens may not know the difference.
TEENS INCREASINGLY TURNING TO AI FOR FRIENDSHIP AS NATIONAL LONELINESS CRISIS DEEPENS
Parents should not wait for new features to arrive. Here are immediate ways to keep teens safe:
Ask open questions about school, friendships and feelings. Honest dialogue reduces the chance teens will turn only to AI for answers.
Use parental controls on devices and apps. Limit access to AI tools late at night when teens may feel most isolated.
Take advantage of new OpenAI features that connect parent and teen profiles for closer oversight
Reinforce that mental health care is available through doctors, counselors or hotlines. AI should never be the only outlet.
Post numbers for hotlines and text lines where teens can see them. For example, in the U.S., call or text 988 for the Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
Notice shifts in mood, sleep or behavior. Combine these signs with online patterns to catch risks early.
Think your devices and data are truly protected? Take this quick quiz to see where your digital habits stand. From passwords to Wi-Fi settings, you’ll get a personalized breakdown of what you’re doing right — and what needs improvement. Take my Quiz here: CyberGuy.com/Quiz
OpenAI’s plan to involve police shows how urgent the issue has become. AI has the power to connect, but it also carries risks when teens use it in moments of despair. Parents, experts and companies must work together to create safeguards that save lives without sacrificing trust.
Would you be comfortable with AI companies alerting police if your teen shared suicidal thoughts online? Let us know by writing to us at CyberGuy.com/Contact
Sign up for my FREE CyberGuy Report
Get my best tech tips, urgent security alerts, and exclusive deals delivered straight to your inbox. Plus, you’ll get instant access to my Ultimate Scam Survival Guide — free when you join my CyberGuy.com/Newsletter
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Copyright 2025 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved.
BOSTON — A state appeals court has sided with a medical worker and voodoo worshipper who was fired by University of Massachusetts Medical Health Care after her request for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine was rejected.
The ruling, issued Monday by the state Court of Appeals, overturns a Superior Court ruling that rejected a lawsuit filed by Rachelle Jeune against UMass Medical over its denial of a religious exemption in October 2021 as part of her employment as a surgical technician.
kAm“(6 4@?4=F56 E92E E96 A=2:?E:77’D DE2E65 36=:67D E92E 96C 3@5J 😀 2 E6>A=6 @7 v@5 2?5 E92E D96 AC2J65 E@ v@5 2?5 C646:G65 2 >6DD286 ?@E E@ C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?2E:@? H6C6 36=:67D E92E 2 EC:6C @7 724E 4@F=5 56E6C>:?6 H6C6 C6=:8:@FD 😕 ?2EFC6[” E96 7@FC;F586 A2?6= HC@E6 😕 E96 a`A286 CF=:?8]k^Am
kAmy6F?6[ H9@ 😀 @C:8:?2==J 7C@> w2:E:[ D2:5 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D E92E D96 😀 2 56G@FE r9C:DE:2? 2?5 G@@5@@ AC24E:E:@?6C H9@ 92D “D:?46C6” C6=:8:@FD @3;64E:@?D E@ E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] $96 2=D@ D2:5 D96 H2D 4@?46C?65 E96 G244:?6 H@F=5 “2=E6C” 96C 86?6E:4D]k^Am
kAm“x ?6G6C 5:5 ?@C x H:== EFC? >J 324< @? >@56C? >65:4:?6D 2?5 :ED AC24E:46D] w@H6G6C[ x 92G6 2=H2JD 4@?DF=E H:E9 >J q:3=6 7:CDE[ AC2J E@ >J v@5 7@C 8F:52?46 2?5 C6=J @? 9:D 962=:?8 A@H6C] |J 7:?2= 564:D:@? H:== 2596C6 E@ H92E 96 8F:56D >6 E@ 5@[” D96 DE2E65] “!C@4665:?8 H:E9 r~’xs`h H@F=5 36 2 D:? 282:?DE >J 4@?D4:6?46]”k^Am
kAmqFE &|2DD |6>@C:2=’D C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 4@>>:EE66 56?:65 96C C6BF6DE65 6I6>AE:@?[ D2J:?8 :E H2D 32D65 @? 72=D6 4=2:>D 23@FE E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] y6F?6 H2D 7:C65 😕 s646>36C a_a` 7@C C67FD:?8 E@ 86E E96 G244:?6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am
kAm“%9:D C6BF6DE6C 2DD6CED E96J 42??@E C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 32D65 @? E96:C r9C:DE:2? 72:E9 3642FD6 E96J H:== ‘86?6E:42==J 2=E6C’ E96:C 3@5J[” E96 4@>>:EE66 HC@E6 😕 C6;64E:?8 96C C6BF6DE] “%9:D 😀 A2E6?E=J 72=D6 – ?@?6 @7 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 86?6E:42==J 2=E6C E96 3@5J @C 492?86 2 A6CD@?’D s}p]”k^Am
kAm“#6=:2?46 @? 56>@?DEC23=J 72=D6 :?7@C>2E:@? 42??@E 36 2 32D:D 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 244@>>@52E:@?[” E96 A2?6= D2:5]k^Am
kAm$9@CE=J 27E6C[ y6F?6 7:=65 2 =2HDF:E 282:?DE &|2DD 4:E:?8 5:D4C:>:?2E:@? 3FE 2 $FA6C:@C r@FCE ;F586 :DDF65 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E C6;64E:?8 E96 =:E:82E:@?] %96 4@FCE CF=65 E92E D96 925 “72:=65 E@ 2CE:4F=2E6 2 D:?46C6=J 96=5 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67 E92E AC64=F565 96C 7C@> 86EE:?8 G244:?2E65” 2>@?8 @E96C C62D@?D 7@C E@DD:?8 @FE E96 =2HDF:E] w6C =2HJ6CD 2AA62=65]k^Am
kAm%96 2AA62=D 4@FCE C6G6CD65 E96 =@H6C 4@FCE’D 564:D:@? 😕 E96 CF=:?8 |@?52J[ D2J:?8 &|2DD |6>@C:2= “72:=65” E@ >66E E96 4C:E6C:2 7@C 56?J:?8 y6F?6’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 3J 56>@?DEC2E:?8 “2? F?5F6 3FC56? 2D 2 >2EE6C @7 =2H]”k^Am
kAm&|2DD |6>@C:2= 564=:?65 E96 4@>>6?E @? E96 A6?5:?8 =:E:82E:@? 3FE :DDF65 2 DE2E6>6?E D2J:?8 E96 @C82?:K2E:@? 😀 “AC@F5 @7 E96 96C@:4 677@CED 3J @FC 42C68:G6CD H9@ H@C<65 E:C6=6DD=J E9C@F89 E96 r~’xs`h A2?56>:4 F?56C E96 >@DE ECJ:?8 2?5 F?46CE2:? @7 E:>6D]”k^Am
kAm%96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5 &|2DD |6>@C:2= :>A=6>6?E65 2 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C 2== 6>A=@J66D “:? 244@C52?46 H:E9 7656C2= =2H 2?5 E@ AC@G:56 2 D276 6?G:C@?>6?E 7@C 2== >6>36CD @7 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ – :?4=F5:?8 E96 :>>F?@4@>AC@>:D65]” #6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 7C@> E96 G244:?6 >2?52E6 H6C6 C6G:6H65 2?5 2AAC@G65 “H96? 2AAC@AC:2E6[” E96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5]k^Am
kAmx? a_a`[ E96?v@G] r92C=:6 q2<6C :DDF65 2 >2?52E6 C6BF:C:?8 DE2E6 H@C<6CD E@ 2EE6DE E92E E96J 2C6 G244:?2E65 282:?DE r~’xs`h @C C6BF6DE 2 >65:42= @C C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? E@ AC6G6?E 7FCE96C :?764E:@?D] (@C<6CD 72465 5:D4:A=:?6[ :?4=F5:?8 E6C>:?2E:@?[ 7@C ?@E AC@G:5:?8 AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@?]k^Am
kAm}62C=J 2== @7 E96 DE2E6’D 9@DA:E2=D :DDF65 D:>:=2C G244:?2E:@? C6BF:C6>6?ED[ 2D H6== 2D AC:G2E6 2?5 AF3=:4 4@==686D[ :?4=F5:?8 2== &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |2DD249FD6EED 42>AFD6D]k^Am
kAm(9:=6 q2<6C’D G244:?6 >2?52E6 DFCG:G65 D6G6C2= =682= 492==6?86D[ 5@K6?D @7 DE2E6 H@C<6CD 7:=65 =2HDF:ED @G6C 36:?8 C6;64E65 7@C C6=:8:@FD @C >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?D] $@>6 @7 E96 =682= 492==6?86D[ :?4=F5:?8 @?6 7:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 DE2E6 EC@@A6CD[ H6C6 DF446DD7F=]k^Am
kAmv@G] |2FC2 w62=6J @77:4:2==J 6?565 E96 DE2E6’D 6>6C86?4J 564=2C2E:@? 😕 |2J a_ab – :?4=F5:?8 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C DE2E6 6>A=@J66D] qFE >2?J @7 E96 =2HDF:ED DE6>>:?8 7C@> 56?:2=D @7 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 92G6 =F>36C65 @? E96 4@FCED]k^Am
kAm~? q624@? w:==[ DE2E6 =2H>2<6CD 2C6 4@?D:56C:?8 2 AC@A@D2= E@ 6=:>:?2E6 2 D64E:@? @7 E96 DE2E6’D G244:?6 =2H E92E 2==@HD A2C6?ED H:E9 “D:?46C6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D” E@ 36 6I6>AE65 7C@> 2 C6BF:C6>6?E E@ DF3>:E AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@? E@ 6?C@== E96:C 49:=5C6? 😕 AF3=:4 D49@@=D]k^Am
kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 A=2? 2C8F6 E92E D@>6 A2C6?ED 2C6 >:DFD:?8 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 3642FD6 E96J 2C6 F?23=6 E@ 86E 2 >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?] %96 DE2E6 5@6D?’E 2==@H A6CD@?2= 6I6>AE:@?D E@ D49@@=C6BF:C65 :>>F?:K2E:@?D[ H9:49 5@?’E :?4=F56 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6]k^Am
kAmrC:E:4D @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 r2E9@=:4 r9FC49[ 2C8F6 E92E 6=:>:?2E:?8 E96 6I6>AE:@? H@F=5 36 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ 2?5 G:@=2E6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D]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
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link
BOSTON — A state appeals court has sided with a medical worker and voodoo worshipper who was fired by University of Massachusetts Medical Health Care after her request for a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine was rejected.
The ruling, issued Monday by the state Court of Appeals, overturns a Superior Court ruling that rejected a lawsuit filed by Rachelle Jeune against UMass Medical over its denial of a religious exemption in October 2021 as part of her employment as a surgical technician.
kAm“(6 4@?4=F56 E92E E96 A=2:?E:77’D DE2E65 36=:67D E92E 96C 3@5J 😀 2 E6>A=6 @7 v@5 2?5 E92E D96 AC2J65 E@ v@5 2?5 C646:G65 2 >6DD286 ?@E E@ C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?2E:@? H6C6 36=:67D E92E 2 EC:6C @7 724E 4@F=5 56E6C>:?6 H6C6 C6=:8:@FD 😕 ?2EFC6[” E96 7@FC;F586 A2?6= HC@E6 😕 E96 a`A286 CF=:?8]k^Am
kAmy6F?6[ H9@ 😀 @C:8:?2==J 7C@> w2:E:[ D2:5 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D E92E D96 😀 2 56G@FE r9C:DE:2? 2?5 G@@5@@ AC24E:E:@?6C H9@ 92D “D:?46C6” C6=:8:@FD @3;64E:@?D E@ E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] $96 2=D@ D2:5 D96 H2D 4@?46C?65 E96 G244:?6 H@F=5 “2=E6C” 96C 86?6E:4D]k^Am
kAm“x ?6G6C 5:5 ?@C x H:== EFC? >J 324< @? >@56C? >65:4:?6D 2?5 :ED AC24E:46D] w@H6G6C[ x 92G6 2=H2JD 4@?DF=E H:E9 >J q:3=6 7:CDE[ AC2J E@ >J v@5 7@C 8F:52?46 2?5 C6=J @? 9:D 962=:?8 A@H6C] |J 7:?2= 564:D:@? H:== 2596C6 E@ H92E 96 8F:56D >6 E@ 5@[” D96 DE2E65] “!C@4665:?8 H:E9 r~’xs`h H@F=5 36 2 D:? 282:?DE >J 4@?D4:6?46]”k^Am
kAmqFE &|2DD |6>@C:2=’D C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 4@>>:EE66 56?:65 96C C6BF6DE65 6I6>AE:@?[ D2J:?8 :E H2D 32D65 @? 72=D6 4=2:>D 23@FE E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6] y6F?6 H2D 7:C65 😕 s646>36C a_a` 7@C C67FD:?8 E@ 86E E96 G244:?6[ 244@C5:?8 E@ 4@FCE 5@4F>6?ED]k^Am
kAm“%9:D C6BF6DE6C 2DD6CED E96J 42??@E C646:G6 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 32D65 @? E96:C r9C:DE:2? 72:E9 3642FD6 E96J H:== ‘86?6E:42==J 2=E6C’ E96:C 3@5J[” E96 4@>>:EE66 HC@E6 😕 C6;64E:?8 96C C6BF6DE] “%9:D 😀 A2E6?E=J 72=D6 — ?@?6 @7 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6D 86?6E:42==J 2=E6C E96 3@5J @C 492?86 2 A6CD@?’D s}p]”k^Am
kAm“#6=:2?46 @? 56>@?DEC23=J 72=D6 :?7@C>2E:@? 42??@E 36 2 32D:D 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 244@>>@52E:@?[” E96 A2?6= D2:5]k^Am
kAm$9@CE=J 27E6C[ y6F?6 7:=65 2 =2HDF:E 282:?DE &|2DD 4:E:?8 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[ 3FE 2 $FA6C:@C r@FCE ;F586 :DDF65 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E C6;64E:?8 :E] %96 4@FCE CF=65 E92E D96 925 “72:=65 E@ 2CE:4F=2E6 2 D:?46C6=J 96=5 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67 E92E AC64=F565 96C 7C@> 86EE:?8 G244:?2E65” 2>@?8 @E96C C62D@?D 7@C E@DD:?8 @FE E96 =2HDF:E] w6C =2HJ6CD 2AA62=65]k^Am
kAm%96 2AA62=D 4@FCE C6G6CD65 E96 =@H6C 4@FCE’D 564:D:@? 😕 |@?52J’D CF=:?8[ D2J:?8 &|2DD |6>@C:2= “72:=65” E@ >66E E96 4C:E6C:2 7@C 56?J:?8 y6F?6’D C6BF6DE 7@C 2 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? 3J 56>@?DEC2E:?8 “2? F?5F6 3FC56? 2D 2 >2EE6C @7 =2H]”k^Am
kAm&|2DD |6>@C:2= 564=:?65 E96 4@>>6?E @? E96 A6?5:?8 =:E:82E:@?[ 3FE :DDF65 2 DE2E6>6?E D2J:?8 E96 @C82?:K2E:@? 😀 “AC@F5 @7 E96 96C@:4 677@CED 3J @FC 42C68:G6CD H9@ H@C<65 E:C6=6DD=J E9C@F89 E96 r~’xs`h A2?56>:4 F?56C E96 >@DE ECJ:?8 2?5 F?46CE2:? @7 E:>6D]”k^Am
kAm%96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5 &|2DD |6>@C:2= :>A=6>6?E65 2 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C 2== 6>A=@J66D “:? 244@C52?46 H:E9 7656C2= =2H 2?5 E@ AC@G:56 2 D276 6?G:C@?>6?E 7@C 2== >6>36CD @7 @FC 4@>>F?:EJ — :?4=F5:?8 E96 :>>F?@4@>AC@>:D65]” #6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 7C@> E96 G244:?6 >2?52E6 H6C6 C6G:6H65 2?5 2AAC@G65 “H96? 2AAC@AC:2E6[” E96 DE2E6>6?E D2:5]k^Am
kAmx? a_a`[ E96?v@G] r92C=:6 q2<6C :DDF65 2 >2?52E6 C6BF:C:?8 DE2E6 H@C<6CD E@ 2EE6DE E92E E96J 2C6 G244:?2E65 282:?DE r~’xs`h @C C6BF6DE 2 >65:42= @C C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@? E@ AC6G6?E 7FCE96C :?764E:@?D] (@C<6CD 72465 5:D4:A=:?6[ :?4=F5:?8 E6C>:?2E:@?[ 7@C ?@E AC@G:5:?8 AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@?]k^Am
kAm}62C=J 2== @7 E96 DE2E6’D 9@DA:E2=D :DDF65 D:>:=2C G244:?2E:@? C6BF:C6>6?ED[ 2D H6== 2D AC:G2E6 2?5 AF3=:4 4@==686D[ :?4=F5:?8 2== &?:G6CD:EJ @7 |2DD249FD6EED 42>AFD6D]k^Am
kAm(9:=6 q2<6C’D G244:?6 >2?52E6 DFCG:G65 D6G6C2= =682= 492==6?86D[ 5@K6?D @7 DE2E6 H@C<6CD 7:=65 =2HDF:ED @G6C 36:?8 C6;64E65 7@C C6=:8:@FD @C >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?D] $@>6 @7 E96 =682= 492==6?86D[ :?4=F5:?8 @?6 7:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 DE2E6 EC@@A6CD[ H6C6 DF446DD7F=]k^Am
kAmv@G] |2FC2 w62=6J @77:4:2==J 6?565 E96 DE2E6’D 6>6C86?4J 564=2C2E:@? 😕 |2J a_ab — :?4=F5:?8 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6 >2?52E6 7@C DE2E6 6>A=@J66D] qFE >2?J @7 E96 =2HDF:ED DE6>>:?8 7C@> 56?:2=D @7 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 92G6 =F>36C65 @? E96 4@FCED]k^Am
kAm~? q624@? w:==[ DE2E6 =2H>2<6CD 2C6 4@?D:56C:?8 2 AC@A@D2= E@ 6=:>:?2E6 2 D64E:@? @7 E96 DE2E6’D G244:?6 =2H E92E 2==@HD A2C6?ED H:E9 “D:?46C6 C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D” E@ 36 6I6>AE65 7C@> 2 C6BF:C6>6?E E@ DF3>:E AC@@7 @7 G244:?2E:@? E@ 6?C@== E96:C 49:=5C6? 😕 AF3=:4 D49@@=D]k^Am
kAmq24<6CD @7 E96 A=2? 2C8F6 E92E D@>6 A2C6?ED 2C6 >:DFD:?8 C6=:8:@FD 6I6>AE:@?D 3642FD6 E96J 2C6 F?23=6 E@ 86E 2 >65:42= 6I6>AE:@?] %96 DE2E6 5@6D?’E 2==@H A6CD@?2= 6I6>AE:@?D E@ D49@@=C6BF:C65 :>>F?:K2E:@?D[ H9:49 5@?’E :?4=F56 E96 r~’xs`h G244:?6]k^Am
kAmrC:E:4D @7 E96 AC@A@D2=[ :?4=F5:?8 E96 r2E9@=:4 r9FC49[ 2C8F6 E92E 6=:>:?2E:?8 E96 6I6>AE:@? H@F=5 36 5:D4C:>:?2E@CJ 2?5 G:@=2E6 :?5:G:5F2=D’ C6=:8:@FD 36=:67D]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
By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter
Source link