ReportWire

Tag: Supreme

  • Oregon Supreme Court Ruling Leads To Dismissal Of More Than 1,400 Criminal Cases Statewide – KXL

    [ad_1]

    The Oregon Supreme Court ruled this week that criminal cases must be dismissed if the state fails to provide a court-appointed attorney within set time limits, a decision that will immediately result in the dismissal of more than 1,400 cases across Oregon.

    In its opinion in State v. Roberts, issued Tuesday, the court held that misdemeanor cases must be dismissed if a defendant is not appointed an attorney within 60 days, and felony cases must be dismissed if no attorney is provided within 90 days. The court said the remedy is required to protect defendants’ constitutional right to counsel.

    State officials say the ruling will have an immediate and widespread impact. According to prosecutors, 1,465 cases statewide are subject to dismissal under the decision, including 915 cases in Multnomah County and 263 in Washington County.

    The cases affected include charges such as drug trafficking, aggravated theft, firearms and weapons offenses, felony driving under the influence of intoxicants, and strangulation, prosecutors said. They warned that the dismissals will affect crime victims and public safety.

    In a joint statement, prosecutors said they respect the court’s ruling and agree that access to legal representation is a fundamental right. However, they argued that the decision fails to account for the rights of victims and the public, and highlights what they describe as a long-standing breakdown in Oregon’s public defense system.

    “Oregon’s public defense system is broken,” the statement said, adding that the state has struggled for years to ensure that defendants are appointed lawyers in a timely manner.

    The ruling comes amid an ongoing shortage of public defenders in Oregon, which has left hundreds of defendants without legal representation at various points in the criminal process. State officials and lawmakers have convened work groups and emergency task forces in recent years to address the issue.

    Prosecutors disputed claims that the crisis is driven by a lack of funding or an overwhelming number of cases. They pointed to state spending of more than $300 million per year on public defense, which they said is nearly four times the national per-capita average. They also noted that hourly rates for public defenders in Oregon rank among the highest in the country, and that statewide criminal case filings are about 15% lower than they were before the crisis began.

    Despite those figures, the problem has persisted, they said.

    Prosecutors said their offices have taken steps to reduce the strain on the system, including modifying charging practices, creating special resolution dockets, and implementing efficiency measures. They also said they have participated in legislative hearings and advisory groups and supported proposals they believed would help address the shortage.

    After four years of what they described as a continuing crisis, prosecutors said they believe a long-term solution must come from state leadership. They welcomed Gov. Tina Kotek’s appointment of Jessica Sanchagrin as permanent director of the Office of Public Defense Services, but said immediate action is needed to prevent further case dismissals.

    They called on the governor and the agency’s leadership to implement short-term solutions quickly, warning that the consequences of inaction are already being felt in courts across the state.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Man shot during armed robbery inside Miami Design District store, police say

    [ad_1]

    Three men are facing charges in connection with an armed robbery in the Miami Design District on Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, police say.

    Three men are facing charges in connection with an armed robbery in the Miami Design District on Saturday, Jan. 3, 2026, police say.

    Miami Herald File

    Three men were arrested after a person was robbed of his $22,000 gold chain and shot in the stomach inside the Supreme streetwear store in the Miami Design District, according to police.

    Miami police officers were sent to an emergency around 4:20 p.m. Saturday at the store, 45 NE 41st St., which displays a skate bowl suspended over the main floor, an arrest affidavit said.

    They found a man with a gunshot wound, who briefly told officers about the robbery before he was taken to Jackson Memorial Hospital. The man told a police investigator at the hospital that he was shopping when three men approached him.

    He recognized the men “because they are all from the Atlanta area and have had problems with each other,” the affidavit said.

    An argument broke out. One of the men is accused of walking behind the victim, ripping the chain off his neck and running.

    The victim ran after him, and one of the men shot him in the stomach, the affidavit said. The three men got in a white Mercedes-Benz, which was being driven by a fourth man, and left.

    Detectives later found the car at a dead-end portion of Northeast 10th Avenue.

    Police arrested Jamar McKay, who police say snatched the gold chain, Omarion Phillips, and the alleged getaway driver, Kevieon Smith, on Saturday night. . The gunman was not taken into custody at that time.

    A Miami Police spokesperson did not respond to requests Monday for comment on whether the gunman was still at large.

    McKay, 25, of Mobile, Alabama, is facing one count of armed robbery. Phillips, 20, of Atlanta, is accused of one count of accessory after the fact. Smith, 21, of Riviera Beach, allegedly committed one count of accessory after the fact and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    The men were being held at the Miami-Dade Turner Guilford Knight Correctional Center as of Monday afternoon, jail records show.

    [ad_2]

    Sofia Saric

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Keeps Trump’s National Guard Deployment Blocked In The Chicago Area, For Now – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to allow the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops in the Chicago area to support its immigration crackdown, a significant defeat for the president’s efforts to send troops to U.S. cities.

    The justices declined the Republican administration’s emergency request to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Judge April Perry that had blocked the deployment of troops. An appeals court also had refused to step in. The Supreme Court took more than two months to act.

    Three justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, publicly dissented.

    The high court order is not a final ruling but it could affect other lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s attempts to deploy the military in other Democratic-led cities.

    “At this preliminary stage, the Government has failed to identify a source of authority that would allow the military to execute the laws in Illinois,” the high court majority wrote.

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh said he agreed with the decision to block the Chicago deployment, but would have left the president more latitude to deploy troops in possible future scenarios.

    The outcome is a rare Supreme Court setback for Trump, who had won repeated victories in emergency appeals since he took office again in January. The conservative-dominated court has allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military, claw back billions of dollars of congressionally approved federal spending, move aggressively against immigrants and fire the Senate-confirmed leaders of independent federal agencies.

    Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker applauded Tuesday’s decision as a win for the state and country.

    “American cities, suburbs, and communities should not have to faced masked federal agents asking for their papers, judging them for how they look or sound, and living in fear that President can deploy the military to their streets,” he said.

    The White House did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment.

    In a dissent, Alito and Thomas said the court had no basis to reject Trump’s contention that the administration was unable to enforce immigration laws without troops. Gorsuch said he would have narrowly sided with the government based on the declarations of federal law enforcement officials.

    The administration had initially sought the order to allow the deployment of troops from Illinois and Texas, but the Texas contingent of about 200 National Guard troops was later sent home from Chicago.

    The Trump administration has argued that the troops are needed “to protect federal personnel and property from violent resistance against the enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    But Perry wrote that she found no substantial evidence that a “danger of rebellion” is brewing in Illinois and no reason to believe the protests there had gotten in the way of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

    Perry had initially blocked the deployment for two weeks. But in October, she extended the order indefinitely while the Supreme Court reviewed the case.

    The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview has been the site of tense protests, where federal agents have previously used tear gas and other chemical agents on protesters and journalists.

    Last month, authorities arrested 21 protesters and said four officers were injured outside the Broadview facility. Local authorities made the arrests.

    The Illinois case is just one of several legal battles over National Guard deployments.

    District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb is suing to halt the deployments of more than 2,000 guardsmen in the nation’s capital. Forty-five states have entered filings in federal court in that case, with 23 supporting the administration’s actions and 22 supporting the attorney general’s lawsuit.

    More than 2,200 troops from several Republican-led states remain in Washington, although the crime emergency Trump declared in August ended a month later.

    A federal judge in Oregon has permanently blocked the deployment of National Guard troops there, and all 200 troops from California were being sent home from Oregon, an official said.

    A state court in Tennessee ruled in favor of Democratic officials who sued to stop the ongoing Guard deployment in Memphis, which Trump has called a replica of his crackdown on Washington, D.C.

    In California, a judge in September said deployment in the Los Angeles area was illegal. By that point, just 300 of the thousands of troops sent there remained, and the judge did not order them to leave.

    The Trump administration has appealed the California and Oregon rulings to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Extends Its Order Blocking Full SNAP Payments, With Shutdown Potentially Near An End – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (AP) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended an order blocking full SNAP payments, amid signals that the government shutdown could soon end and food aid payments resume.

    The order keeps in place at least for a few more days a chaotic situation. People who depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to feed their families in some states have received their full monthly allocations, while others have received nothing.

    The Senate has approved a bill to end the shutdown and the House of Representatives could vote on it as early as Wednesday. Reopening the government would restart the program that helps 42 million Americans buy groceries, but it’s not clear how quickly full payments would resume.

    The justices chose what is effectively the path of least resistance, anticipating the shutdown will end soon while avoiding any substantive legal ruling about whether lower court orders to keep full payments flowing during the shutdown are correct.

    THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. AP’s earlier story follows below.

    It’s up to the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress to decide when full payments will resume under the SNAP food aid program that helps 1 in 8 Americans buy groceries, as some wonder how they will feed their families without government assistance.

    The Supreme Court is expected to rule Tuesday on a request from President Donald Trump’s administration to keep blocking states from providing full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, arguing the money might be needed elsewhere.

    The legal wrangling could be moot if the U.S. House adopts and Trump signs legislation to quickly end the federal government shutdown.

    The seesawing rulings mean that beneficiaries in some states have received their full monthly allocations while in others they have received nothing. Some states have issued partial payments.

    How quickly SNAP benefits could reach recipients if the government reopens or the Supreme Court orders full payments would vary by state. But states and advocates say that it’s easier to make full payments quickly than partial ones.

    Carolyn Vega, a policy analyst at the advocacy group Share Our Strength, also said there could be some technical challenges for states that have issued partial benefits to send out the remaining amount.

    An urgent need for beneficiaries
    In Pennsylvania, full November benefits went out to some people on Friday. But Jim Malliard, 41, of Franklin, said he had not received anything by Monday.

    Malliard is a full-time caretaker for his wife, who is blind and has had several strokes this year, and his teenage daughter, who suffered severe medical complications from surgery last year.

    That stress has only been compounded by the pause in the $350 monthly SNAP payment he previously received for himself, his wife and daughter. He said he is down to $10 in his account and is relying on what’s left in the pantry — mostly rice and ramen.

    “It’s kind of been a lot of late nights, making sure I had everything down to the penny to make sure I was right,” Malliard said. “To say anxiety has been my issue for the past two weeks is putting it mildly.”

    The political wrangling in Washington has shocked many Americans, and some have been moved to help.

    “I figure that I’ve spent money on dumber stuff than trying to feed other people during a manufactured famine,” said Ashley Oxenford, a teacher who set out a “little food pantry” in her front yard this week for vulnerable neighbors in Carthage, New York.

    SNAP has been the center of an intense fight in court
    The Trump administration chose to cut off SNAP funding after October due to the shutdown. That decision sparked lawsuits and a string of swift and contradictory judicial rulings that deal with government power — and impact food access for some 42 million Americans.

    The administration went along with two rulings on Oct. 31 by judges who said the government must provide at least partial funding for SNAP. It eventually said recipients would get up to 65% of their regular benefits. But it balked last week when one of the judges said it must fund the program fully for November, even if that means digging into funds the government said need to be maintained in case of emergencies elsewhere.

    The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to pause that order.

    An appeals court said Monday that full funding should resume, and that requirement is set to kick in Tuesday night unless the top court takes action again.

    Congressional talks about reopening government
    The U.S. Senate on Monday passed legislation to reopen the federal government with a plan that would include replenishing SNAP funds. Speaker Mike Johnson told members of the House to return to Washington to consider the deal a small group of Senate Democrats made with Republicans.

    Trump has not said whether he would sign it if it reaches his desk, but told reporters at the White House on Sunday that it “looks like we’re getting close to the shutdown ending.”

    Still, the Trump administration said in a Supreme Court filing Monday that it shouldn’t be up to the courts.

    “The answer to this crisis is not for federal courts to reallocate resources without lawful authority,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in the papers. “The only way to end this crisis — which the Executive is adamant to end — is for Congress to reopen the government.”

    The coalition of cities and nonprofit groups who challenged the SNAP pause said in a court filing Tuesday that the Department of Agriculture, which administers SNAP, is to blame for the confusion.

    “The chaos was sown by USDA’s delays and intransigence,” they said, “not by the district court’s efforts to mitigate that chaos and the harm it has inflicted on families who need food.”

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • The Hoodie: Identity. Power. Protest Opens.  at MODA Oct. 30

    [ad_1]

    The exhibit showcases the contextual journey of the hoodie, which includes how it has been antagonistically depicted.
    Photo by Noah Washington/The Atlanta Voice

    This week, the Museum of Design Atlanta (MODA) is showcasing the good, the bad, and the beautiful of one of the most recognizable and misunderstood garments in modern culture. The Hoodie: Identity. Power.  Protest. opening Thursday, Oct. 30, explores how a simple sweatshirt has come to embody questions of power, perception, and social identity across generations and geographies.

    The hoodie is an item found in nearly every closet, yet it carries vastly different meanings depending on who wears it and where. 

    “What does it mean to wear a hoodie? Who am I when I wear a hoodie? Who is anybody else when they wear a hoodie?” asked MODA Executive Director and Co-Curator Laura Flusche, Ph.D. “And who gets to decide what a hoodie means at any given moment?”

    Mesh fabric and aluminum tubing. Photo by Noah Washington/The Atlanta Voice

    Originally presented in 2019 at the Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam, The Hoodie has been re-curated for Atlanta by Flusche and Dr. Regina N. Bradley, associate professor of English and African Diaspora Studies at Kennesaw State University. 

    “We saw that the Nieuwe Instituut in Rotterdam had put up an exhibition called The Hoodie,” Flusche explained. “We thought it was incredibly interesting, incredibly applicable to Atlanta. They invited us to take the theme and re-curate it to reflect what’s happening in Atlanta and the Southeast.”

    The Atlanta edition grounds the global story of the hoodie in Southern culture, connecting fashion, hip-hop, and protest. 

    “We were trying to figure out how to situate the South in the conversation about the hoodie,” said Bradley. “My areas of research are Southern hip-hop, so I was like, well, Southern hip-hop, duh. That gave me a deep dive into which artists really use the hoodie to symbolize something unique, something special.”

    Photo by Noah Washington/The Atlanta Voice

    Inside the galleries, visitors will find more than 50 hoodies displayed as both design objects and cultural artifacts. International brands such as Off-White by Virgil Abloh, Nike, Supreme, and GAP appear alongside Atlanta-based designers, including Atlanta Influences Everything, Brain Love, Kultured Misfits, Eastside Golf, and Grady Baby Company.

    Flusche said the local selection was intentional: “We started looking at what the streetwear brands in Atlanta are doing, who’s reclaiming some piece of Atlanta culture and using the hoodie as a vehicle for doing that,” she said. “That’s what informed how we reached out and figured out who we wanted.”

    For co-curator Bradley, one of the highlights was celebrating Atlanta’s homegrown creativity. “We wanted to make sure that we highlighted at least some of the incredible creatives and entrepreneurs in Atlanta,” she said. “We went down a rabbit hole, asking, who’s creating in Atlanta? Who has hoodies we can use for the exhibit?”

    Bradley also designed the Southern Hip-Hop and Superhero walls, where cultural icons like T.I., Jeezy, and Kriss Kross share space with comic-book figures such as Spider-Man, Luke Cage, and Angela Abar from Watchmen. “I’m just a comic book nerd,” she laughed. “We wanted to get the most iconic ones we could find,  especially in recent memory, and represent them here.”

    Graphic designer Hannah Shannon, who led the exhibition’s layout and visual presentation, said bringing The Hoodie to life was one of her favorite projects with MODA. With nearly a decade of experience in exhibition and graphic design, Shannon crafted the show’s panels, posters, and large-scale window graphics to match the curatorial vision. “All I had seen were the panels and the text,” she said. “So walking in and seeing everything installed, the objects, the colors, the scale,  it looked even better than I imagined.”

    For Bem Joiner, co-founder of Atlanta Influences Everything, one of the featured brands,  the exhibit marks a milestone for the city’s creative identity. “The fact that our hoodie would make it into a museum based on design, that’s a statement,” he said. “This started from a rant about Atlanta not being respected, and years later, it’s resonating large enough that MODA would say, ‘We want to place it on the wall.’ It feels good to be seen.”

    Joiner said the moment is bigger than fashion,  it’s about connection. “We believe that Atlanta,  the letters ATL, have agency,” he said. “Atlanta Influences Everything is the ideology of that agency. We’re hoping that folks come and not only see our stuff but also other local brands too. It’s amazing that a museum brought us all together.”

    For Bradley, seeing that connection come to life has been deeply meaningful. “I just wanted to do something different and unique,” she said. “Kind of stretches my abilities and what I have and haven’t done,  and this is the result. I’m just so very pleased with how it came out.”

    [ad_2]

    Noah Washington

    Source link

  • The Jim Crow Era of Reproductive Freedom, Plus Tiffany Haddish’s Israel Trip

    The Jim Crow Era of Reproductive Freedom, Plus Tiffany Haddish’s Israel Trip

    [ad_1]

    Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay discuss the Alabama Supreme Court ruling that’s resulted in the halting of IVF treatments (5:18), before reacting to Tiffany Haddish’s trip to Israel (20:41). Then they break down a viral TikTok account called Biracial Lounge (38:16) before welcoming the founder of the X for Boys Life Preparatory School, King Randall I, to discuss a recent post on safety during police interactions (47:33).

    Hosts: Van Lathan and Rachel Lindsay
    Guest: King Randall I
    Producers: Donnie Beacham Jr. and Ashleigh Smith

    Subscribe: Spotify / Apple Podcasts / Stitcher

    [ad_2]

    Rachel Lindsay

    Source link

  • Mexican president suffers court reverse, tensions rise

    Mexican president suffers court reverse, tensions rise

    [ad_1]

    MEXICO CITY — Mexico’s Supreme Court struck down part of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s ‘jail, no bail’ policy Thursday.

    The court voted against mandatory pre-trial detention for people accused of fraud, smuggling or tax evasion. Because trials often take years in Mexico, the justices argued that being held in prison during trial was equivalent to being subjected to punishment before being convicted.

    Instead, prosecutors would have to convince judges there are valid reasons not to release people on their own recognizance — for example, by arguing that they may pose a flight risk. The justices may vote next week on whether the possibility of pre-trial release may be justified for other crimes.

    In 2019, López Obrador imposed mandatory pre-trial detention for a long list of crimes, and he views it as part of his crack-down on white collar criminals, like those accused of tax fraud. Mexico does not have cash bail, but before López Obrador changed the rules, judges could release suspects and require them to wear monitors, sign in at court or agree not to travel.

    The president has long railed about corrupt judges and court rulings he doesn’t like, and Thursday’s supreme court vote was likely to spark more vocal attacks by the president.

    Even before the ruling, López Obrador criticized the court for the widely expected Thursday vote.

    “How can judges, magistrates and justices be defending white collar criminals? How can it be that money triumphs over justice?” López Obrador said before the ruling. “What tremendous shamelessness!”

    The president has not been shy about accusing lower court judges of releasing drug and other suspects on procedural or technical points he clearly does not agree with. Underpaid, and often under threat, Mexican prosecutors often don’t bring strong cases, or make intentional or unintentional errors.

    “They free them because the prosecution case was poorly written, or for any other excuse, any other pretext,” the president said, “because they have become very, very, very fixated on the fine points of the law.”

    López Obrador has fought the courts, often attacking their legitimacy and singling out individual judges for scorn, because courts have often blocked some of the president’s key initiatives.

    Observers say the courts have acted because López Obrador has often shoved through laws that openly contradict the country’s Constitution or international treaties.

    Previously, the president has focused most of his wrath on lower courts. On Thursday at a press briefing with López Obrador, Ricardo Mejia, Mexico’s assistant secretary of public safety, said the administration would recommend bringing criminal charges against a judge who ordered the release of a suspected drug gang leader.

    But much of the president’s anger Thursday was directed at the Supreme Court, which is about to hear an appeal by a group that says government money and property should no longer be used to erect Christmas-season Nativity scenes, a staple in Mexico.

    The appeal says that the government’s participation in displaying Nativity scenes violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

    The president angrily rejected that, even though the court has not ruled on the issue yet.

    “That’s an example. Why should they go against the traditions, the customs of the people?” López Obrador said.

    López Obrador expanded the list of charges that require a suspect to be detained pending trial to 16, including some nonviolent crimes that may carry sentences of just a few months — far less than the amount of time most people spend awaiting trial.

    Only about two of every 10 people accused of a crime in Mexico are ever found guilty. That means that of the estimated 92,000 suspects held pending trial — often in the same cells with hardened criminals — around 75,000 won’t be convicted despite sometimes spending years locked up in Mexico’s crowded, dangerous prisons.

    Trials in Mexico can drag on for a surprisingly long time. Two men were recently released with ankle monitors after spending 17 years in prison while on trial for murder.

    Being put into Mexican prisons, which are overcrowded, underfunded and controlled by gangs, can be hell for those on pretrial detention, who often enter with no prison smarts or gang connections.

    The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention says that “mandatory pretrial detention violates international standards on human rights.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link