ReportWire

Tag: us federal government

  • Biden administration considers raising refugee ceiling in next fiscal year, source says | CNN Politics

    Biden administration considers raising refugee ceiling in next fiscal year, source says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration is considering raising the number of refugees who could be admitted to the United States next year, according to a source familiar with the discussions, as the program ramps up and is on track to meet higher admissions.

    Immigration has been a politically sensitive issue for President Joe Biden, but the admission of refugees to the US generally has bipartisan agreement. This week, the issue is likely to be at the forefront again as Biden addresses world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly and reasserts leadership on the world stage, where the US has historically led on accepting refugees.

    The refugee ceiling dictates how many refugees can be admitted to the US, but the administration doesn’t have to hit that number. Last year, Biden set the number at 125,000. Officials will fall short of meeting that goal, but a recent uptick in admissions has fueled renewed optimism in the program among refugee advocates.

    Sources cautioned that the administration is likely to maintain the 125,000-refugee cap in the coming fiscal year, but even so, getting close to that goal in the months to come would mark a significant milestone.

    “This coming fiscal year feels like a transition from an aspirational target to a realistic expectation,” said Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a refugee resettlement organization.

    The US had for years outpaced other countries in refugee admissions, allowing millions into the country since the Refugee Act of 1980. But the program took a hit under former President Donald Trump, who slashed the number of refugees allowed to come to the US, and during the coronavirus pandemic, which resulted in a temporary suspension on resettlement.

    In a statement marking World Refugee Day this year, Biden underscored his administration’s efforts to rebuild the refugee admissions program and said the US planned to welcome 125,000 refugees next year.

    “Welcoming refugees is part of who we are as Americans – our nation was founded by those fleeing religious persecution. When we take action to help refugees around the world, and include them, we honor this past and are stronger for it,” Biden said.

    The refugee cap requires consultation with Congress before the end of the fiscal year. Senior administration officials are expected to meet with lawmakers at the end of the month, according to another source familiar.

    “The Department of State shares the President’s vision of a U.S. refugee resettlement program that reflects the generosity and core values of the United States. We do not have anything to share at this time on the FY 2024 Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions,” a State Department spokesperson said in a statement.

    In his first months in office, Biden raised the ceiling to 62,500 after swift criticism over the administration’s initial plan to maintain the lower Trump-era cap. The administration later lifted the cap to 125,000, which is in line with a commitment he made in a foreign policy address at the State Department in 2021.

    The refugee admissions process is arduous and can take years to complete. As of August 31, the US admitted 51,231 refugees, according to the latest federal data. While far short of the 125,000 ceiling, admissions since last October are more than double of all fiscal year 2022.

    “In the past 11 months alone, more people have found safety on US soil through this pathway than the previous three fiscal years combined,” O’Mara Vignarajah said, referring to the refugee admissions program.

    There are more than 35 million refugees worldwide, according to the United Nations refugee agency.

    Refugee advocates credit Biden administration efforts to address bottlenecks in the system, as well as a new program that allows groups of private citizens to sponsor refugees from around the world, for the uptick.

    Erol Kekic, senior vice president of programs at Church World Service, a refugee resettlement organization, described the gradual monthly increases in admissions as an “encouraging sign.”

    “All of those combined have generated really, a lot of new numbers that would not have been able to come without some of these changes,” Kekic said.

    But while more refugee admissions are welcomed by resettlement agencies, issues, like obtaining affordable housing for those who arrive, persist.

    “It’s still been challenging for the resettlement agencies and that’s mostly because of the affordable housing crisis in the country,” Hans Van de Weerd, senior vice president for Resettlement, Asylum, and Integration at the International Rescue Committee.

    “Even in the places where we have new offices, affordable housing is often really, really hard. That’s a problem for Americans, but it’s also a problem for refugees,” he added.

    Mark Hetfield, president and CEO of HIAS, a resettlement organization, echoed those concerns.

    “There’s definitely room for all of us to do more but we’re limited by housing, so we have to have more creative solutions,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden previews 2024 message by warning that Trump’s movement is a threat to American democracy | CNN Politics

    Biden previews 2024 message by warning that Trump’s movement is a threat to American democracy | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden issued blunt new warnings about ongoing existential threats to US democracy in a major address Thursday, sharpening the central argument in his potential rematch with Donald Trump and asking voters to prioritize the health of American institutions.

    “There’s something dangerous happening in America now,” Biden said during his speech in Arizona, where he was also honoring his friend, the late Republican Sen. John McCain. “There’s an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs of our democracy: The MAGA movement.”

    “There’s no question that today’s Republican Party is driven and intimidated by MAGA Republican extremists,” he said, using the acronym for Trump’s political movement. “Their extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy as we know it.”

    The stark message was Biden’s most forceful attempt at calling out Trump’s antidemocratic behavior since the former president was criminally charged for his attempts to subvert the 2020 election results. It offered a taste of Biden’s forthcoming reelection message, one centered on Trump’s own words and actions as threats to democracy. Biden said his predecessor was guided not by the Constitution or decency, but by “vengeance and vindictiveness.”

    As indictments and arrests of the former president piled up over the summer, Biden remained mostly silent on his predecessor, wary of appearing to intervene in Justice Department business. His most substantive comment on Trump’s myriad legal issues was a sarcastic remark about his mugshot in the Fulton County, Georgia, case.

    But as Trump’s prohibitive lead in the Republican primary remains unchanged – and as Biden’s own standing remains mired in low approval – the president is sharpening his attacks on his most likely 2024 rival as a danger to democracy. Thursday’s speech served as yet another sign that the days of trying to keep Trump at an arm’s length are long gone.

    “Trump says the Constitution gave him the right to do whatever he wants as president,” Biden said, referencing his most likely GOP challenger by name. “I’ve never heard presidents say that in jest.”

    He alluded to Trump’s recent suggestion that Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could be executed, and said Republican silence on the comment was “deafening.”

    Stopping the erosion of democratic institutions and values was central to Biden’s decision to run for president in 2020, it will again be core to his reelection campaign, officials said, as he looks to energize voters and donors who have otherwise appeared lukewarm about a rematch between the two men.

    “We should all remember: Democracies don’t have to die at the end of a rifle. They can die when people are silent, when they fail to stand up,” Biden said.

    Senior Biden advisers had mulled over the timing and location of Thursday’s speech for weeks. Previously, Biden has sought to harness the symbolic settings of Independence Hall and Gettysburg to issue warnings about the state of American democracy.

    Advisers eyed similar sites pegged to American history on the East Coast before settling on Tempe, Arizona, in part as a way to honor the late Republican Sen. John McCain, whom Biden was friends with for decades and referred to as a “brother.” Biden announced funding to construct the McCain Library, honoring his longtime friend.

    Arizona was also a center of Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, and a state where voters rejected candidates who denied the results two years later. That effort loomed large in the president’s message.

    “I believe in free and fair elections and peaceful transfer of power. I believe there’s no place in America – none, none, none – for political violence,” Biden said.

    Biden’s advisers also selected the day after the second Republican primary debate, hoping to insert Biden into a news cycle otherwise dominated by the GOP contest. Trump skipped the debate, delivering a speech in Michigan instead as he looks to cut into Biden’s support among union workers.

    The speech came at a moment of political uncertainty for Biden, as he faces persistent questions about his age, disapproval of his handling of the job and an indictment of his son, Hunter. House Republicans held their first hearing in an impeachment inquiry into Biden on Thursday.

    Many senior Democrats believe once voters come to see the 2024 election as a contest between Biden and Trump, the stakes will be clearer and the current president’s standing will improve.

    At one point in his speech, Biden was interrupted by climate activists as he urged the audience to “put partisanship aside, put country first.” Kai Newkirk, one of the protesters, had stood up and called on Biden to take further action to address fossil fuels.

    “I tell you what, if you shush up, I’ll meet with you immediately after this,” Biden said, before resuming remarks.

    “Democracy is never easy – as we just demonstrated,” he joked.

    Newkirk added in a statement later Thursday that he did not hear the president’s offer to meet with him but that he would have “gladly” accepted.

    “I worked hard to elect President Biden, and conscience compelled me to interrupt his speech today to ask why he has yet to declare a climate emergency,” he said in a post on X.

    Top Biden donors, many of whom have agitated for more forceful attacks on Trump at this early stage in the campaign, were informed of the plans for Thursday’s speech by senior Biden advisers during a fundraising retreat in Chicago earlier this month. Biden began previewing his address to donors behind closed doors last week.

    In those remarks, Biden debuted new warnings about his predecessor’s potential return to the White House, testing the material off-camera as he and his team were preparing for Thursday’s address.

    “Let there be no question: Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy. And I will always defend, protect, and fight for our democracy. That’s why I running,” he said at a Broadway theater last week.

    Two days later, he amplified his warnings to a group of lawyers – and said he was confident he could defeat Trump for a second time.

    “I’m now running again. Because guess what? I think that it’s likely to be the same fellow, and it’s likely that I think I can beat him again,” he said.

    Defending democracy is an issue Biden allies believe remains deeply resonant with voters, almost three years after the 2020 contest. The video announcing his reelection opened with footage of the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol.

    In the lead-up to the 2022 midterm elections, Biden delivered a resounding message in front of Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, warning of “MAGA forces” that “tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people.” Ahead of the speech, Biden convened his communications staff with a group of academics and historians – including Pulitzer Prize-winning author Jon Meacham, who has helped draft his highest-profile addresses – to reflect on the fragile state of the union and compile ideas.

    The White House remains in touch with several of those historians to continue generating ideas, according to officials.

    Democrats say the message worked. The administration and national Democrats have touted the results of the 2022 midterm elections, and the fact that a so-called red wave never materialized as many had predicted, as proof the president’s focus on themes like defending democracy struck a chord.

    Thursday’s remarks were billed by the White House as the president’s fourth major speech on the theme of democracy – Biden spoke to the issue last year to mark the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection, as well as days before the midterm elections.

    By also honoring McCain during his speech Thursday, Biden hoped to harken to an era of bipartisanship in Washington that has disappeared in recent years. The comparison is amplified given the current battle over government funding, which appears destined to result in a government shutdown by the end of the week.

    He was joined at the speech by McCain’s widow Cindy, other members of the McCain family and Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.

    However, one of the state’s senators, Kyrsten Sinema – who was a Democrat until she left the party last year to become an independent – said Biden should use his visit to Arizona to observe the situation at the southern border.

    “It’s well past time for President Biden to see the border crisis first hand and for the administration to do its job, secure the border, and keep Arizona safe. While he’s in Arizona, I’m calling on him to visit the border to actually understand how our communities shoulder the burden of his administration’s failure to address this crisis,” she said in a statement.

    McCain’s death was deeply personal and painful for Biden for a number of reasons, including the fact that McCain had been diagnosed with the same cancer that took the life of Biden’s son, Beau. After laying a wreath near the site where McCain’s plane was shot down in Hanoi this month, Biden said he missed his former Senate colleague.

    “He was a good friend,” Biden said.

    In his eulogy for McCain in the summer of 2018, Biden described his friend as having “lived by a different code – an ancient, antiquated code where honor, courage, integrity, duty were alive.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration formally designates military takeover in Niger as a coup | CNN Politics

    Biden administration formally designates military takeover in Niger as a coup | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration on Tuesday formally declared that the military takeover in Niger was a coup – a determination that will keep a significant amount of US military and foreign assistance to the West African nation on hold.

    The decision was made because “we’ve exhausted all available avenues to preserve constitutional order in Niger,” a senior administration official said Tuesday.

    Niger – once a key partner to the US – saw a breakdown of democratic order in late July when military putschists seized power and placed President Mohamed Bazoum under house arrest.

    In the months since, US and international partners have urged the military junta, which calls itself the National Council for Safeguarding the Homeland (CNSP), to restore democratic leadership, but those efforts have been rebuffed.

    CNN first reported last week that the formal coup determination was expected.

    As a result of Tuesday’s decision, the foreign assistance programs to the Nigerien government that were paused in August will remain suspended. In addition, $442 million in Millennium Challenge Corporation funding has been halted, the senior administration official said.

    Humanitarian assistance will continue, the official added.

    In addition, counterterrorism operations will remain paused, a second senior administration official said, as will US “activities to build the capacity of the Nigerien armed forces through security cooperation programs.” Other security cooperation that is not subject to restrictions because of the coup determination will also remain suspended until the coup leadership “takes action towards restoring democratic governance,” this official said.

    However, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) operations out of Agedaz Air Base will continue “focused on force protection, monitoring for threats to our forces, including threats from violent extremist organizations,” another official said.

    The second official noted that the US military presence in Niger had already been “consolidated” into two locations, and there are not plans at this time to change the force posture.

    US Ambassador to Niger Kathleen FitzGibbon, who arrived in the country in August, will remain, the first official said. She has not presented her credentials “but she is engaging in informal discussions with CNSP leaders, mainly to protect our staff and our interests and to handle logistical issues,” they said.

    “We’ve informed the CNSP already of our need to suspend certain assistance programs” due to the coup designation, the official said.

    On Monday, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke with Bazoum. The first official said they have no indication of when Bazoum might be released from house arrest, but indicated he may have to leave Niger.

    In the weeks following July’s military takeover, there were some concerns that Russian mercenary groups like the Wagner Group would try to take advantage of the situation, particularly given their presence in neighboring Mali.

    “I’m sure that they (the Wagner Group) would like to try and look for openings in Niger to see if they could take advantage,” the first official said Tuesday.

    “So far, we have not seen any evidence that they have succeeded, and I think largely because the CNSP recognizes that there would be nothing positive that could result from their involvement,” they said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    Redistricting fights in these 10 states could determine which party controls the US House | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Around the country, politicians are waging high-stakes battles over new congressional lines that could influence which party controls the US House of Representatives after the 2024 election.

    In North Carolina, the Republicans who control the state legislature have crafted a map that could help them flip at least three seats. Democrats, meanwhile, could pick up seats in legal skirmishes now playing out in New York, Louisiana, Georgia and other states.

    In all, the fate of anywhere from 14 to 18 House seats across nearly a dozen states could turn on the results of these fights. Republicans currently hold just a five-seat edge in the US House. That razor-edge majority has been underscored in recent weeks by the GOP’s chaotic struggle to elect a new speaker.

    “Given that the majority is so narrow, every outcome matters to the fight for House control in 2024,” said David Wasserman, who follows redistricting closely as senior editor and elections analyst for The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter.

    And with fewer competitive districts that swing between the political parties, Wasserman added, “every line change is almost existential.”

    Experts say several other factors have helped lead to the slew of consequential – and unresolved – redistricting disputes, just months before the first primaries of the 2024 cycle.

    They include pandemic-related delays in completing the 2020 census – the once-a-decade population count that kicks off congressional and state legislative redistricting – as well as a 2019 Supreme Court ruling that threw decisions about partisan gerrymandering back to state courts.

    In addition, some litigation had been frozen in place until the US Supreme Court’s surprise ruling in June, which found that a Republican-crafted redistricting plan in Alabama disadvantaged Black voters in the state and was in violation of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act.

    That decision “is functionally reanimating all of these dormant cases,” said Adam Kincaid, the president and executive director of the National Republican Redistricting Trust, which supports the GOP’s redistricting efforts.

    Kincaid said it’s too soon to tell whether Republicans or Democrats will emerge with the advantage by Election Day 2024. In his view, either party could gain or lose only about two seats over redistricting.

    In many of the closely watched states where action is pending, just a single seat hangs in the balance, with two notable exceptions: North Carolina and New York, where multiple seats are at stake. Republicans control the map-drawing in the Tar Heel State, while the job could fall to Democrats in New York, potentially canceling out each party’s gains.

    “Democrats kind of need to run the table in the rest of these states” to gain any edge, said Nick Seabrook, a political scientist at the University of North Florida and the author of the 2022 book “One Person, One Vote: A Surprising History of Gerrymandering in America.”

    Here’s a state-by-state look at recent and upcoming redistricting disputes that could shape the 2024 race for control of the US House:

    In one of the cycle’s highest-profile redistricting cases, a three-judge panel in Alabama approved a map that creates a second congressional district with a substantial Black population. Before the court action, Alabama – which is 27% Black – had only one Black-majority congressional district out of seven seats.

    The fight over the map went all the way to the Supreme Court – which issued a surprise ruling, affirming a lower-court opinion that ordered Alabama to include a second Black-majority district or “something quite close to it.” Under the map that will be in place for the 2024 election, the state’s 2nd District now loops into Mobile to create a seat where nearly half the population is Black.

    The high court’s 5-4 decision in June saw two conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, side with the three liberals to uphold the lower-court ruling. Their action kept intact a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act: that it’s illegal to draw maps that effectively keep Black voters from electing a candidate of their choice.

    The ruling has reverberated around the country and could affect the outcome of similar court cases underway in Louisiana and Georgia that center on whether Republican-drawn maps improperly diluted Black political power in those states.

    Given that Black voters in Alabama have traditionally backed Democrats, the party now stands a better chance of winning the newly reconfigured district and sending to of its members to Congress after next year’s elections.

    The new map – approved in recent days by the lower-court judges – also could result in two Black US House members from Alabama serving together for the first time in state history.

    A state judge in September struck down congressional lines for northern Florida that had been championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, ruling that the Republican governor’s map had improperly diluted Black voting power.

    This case, unlike the Alabama fight decided by the US Supreme Court, centers on provisions in the state constitution.

    The judge concluded that the congressional boundaries – which essentially dismantled a seat once held by Al Lawson, a Black Democrat, that connected Black communities across a northern reach of the Florida – violated the state’s Fair Districts amendments, enacted by voters. One amendment specifically bars the state from drawing a district that diminishes the ability of racial minorities “to elect representatives of their choice.”

    Arguments before an appeals court are slated for later this month, with litigants seeking a decision by late November. The case is expected to land before the all-Republican state Supreme Court, where DeSantis appointees hold most seats.

    A separate federal case – which argues that the map violates the US Constitution – is pending.

    But observers say the outcome of the state litigation is more likely than the federal case to determine whether Florida lawmakers must restore the North Florida district, given the state constitution’s especially strong protections for the voting rights of racial minorities and the lower burden of proof required to establish that those rights were abridged.

    A redistricting case now before a federal judge could create a more competitive seat for Democrats in the Atlanta suburbs.

    The plaintiffs challenging the congressional map drawn by Georgia Republicans argue that the increasingly diverse population in the Peach State should result in an additional Black-majority district, this one in the western Atlanta metro area. A trial in the case recently concluded and awaits a final ruling by US District Judge Steve Jones.

    In 2022, Jones preliminarily ruled that some parts of the Republicans’ redistricting plan likely violated federal law but allowed the map to be used in that year’s midterm elections.

    A separate federal case in Georgia challenges the congressional map on constitutional grounds and is slated to go to trial next month.

    Currently, Republicans hold nine of the 14 seats in Georgia’s congressional delegation. Black people make up a majority, or close to it, in four districts, including three in the Atlanta area.

    The Kentucky Supreme Court could soon decide whether a map drawn by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature amounts to what Democrats assert is an “extreme partisan” gerrymander in violation of the state’s constitution.

    Much of the case focuses on disputes over state legislative maps, but the congressional lines also are at stake, with critics saying lawmakers moved Kentucky’s capital city – Democratic-leaning Frankfort – out of the 6th Congressional District and into an oddly shaped – and solidly Republican – 1st District to help shore up Republican odds of holding the 6th District.

    The 6th District, represented by GOP Rep. Andy Barr, was one of the more competitive seats in Kentucky under its previous lines. (Democrat Amy McGrath came within 3 points of beating Barr in 2018; last year, Barr won a sixth term under the new lines by 29 points.)

    A lower-court judge already has ruled that the Republican-drawn map does not violate the state’s constitution.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Alabama could pave the way for a new congressional map in Louisiana ahead of the 2024 election, but the case has quickly become mired in appeals.

    Although Black people make up roughly a third of the state’s population, Louisiana has just one Black lawmaker in its six-member congressional delegation.

    A federal judge threw out the state’s Republican-drawn map in 2022, saying it likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Republican officials in the state appealed to the US Supreme Court, which put the lower-court ruling on hold until it decided the Alabama case, which it did in June this year.

    Once the high court weighed in on the Alabama case, the legal skirmishes again lurched to life in Louisiana.

    Louisiana Republicans have filed an appeal with the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and successfully halted a district court hearing to discuss imposing a new, court-ordered map.

    On Thursday, the US Supreme Court declined to allow the federal district judge to move forward with discussions about drawing a new map while the appeal advances through the courts.

    GOP state officials say, among other things, that they are seeking time to redraw the map themselves. Critics of the state’s original map argue that Republicans are using legal maneuvers to delay a new redistricting plan, which could result in a second Democratic-leaning seat.

    Legal battles that drag on risk judges invoking the so-called Purcell Principle, a doctrine that limits changing voting procedures and boundaries too close to Election Day to guard against voter confusion.

    “Some of the reason it becomes too late is because, in many of these cases, the state is prolonging the litigation … and buying more time with an illegal map,” said Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at the liberal-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

    Republicans in New Mexico say the congressional lines drawn by the Democrats who control state government amount to an illegal gerrymander under the state’s constitution.

    At stake: a swing district along the US border with Mexico. If Republicans prevail, the seat – now held by a Democratic Rep. Gabe Vasquez – could become more favorable to Republicans.

    A state judge recently upheld the map drawn by Democrats, but the New Mexico Supreme Court is expected to review that order on appeal.

    Republicans flipped four US House seats in New York in the 2022 midterm elections, victories that helped secure their party’s majority in the chamber.

    Current legal fights in the Empire State over redistricting, however, could erase those gains.

    A state court judge oversaw last year’s process of drawing the current map following a long legal battle and the inability of New York’s bipartisan redistricting commission to agree on new lines. But Democrats scored a court victory earlier this year when a state appellate court ruled that the redistricting commission should draw new lines.

    Republicans have appealed that decision, and oral arguments are set for mid-November before New York’s Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. The commission’s map-making also is on hold.

    If Democrats prevail, it could make it easier for their party to pick up as many as six seats now held by Republicans.

    North Carolina’s legislature, where Republicans hold a supermajority, has drawn new congressional lines that observers say could prove a windfall for the GOP and boost the party’s chances of retaining its House majority next year.

    The state’s current House delegation is split 7-7 between Democrats and Republicans.

    A map that state lawmakers recently approved puts three House Democrats in what one expert called “almost impossible to win” districts.

    The affected Democrats are Reps. Jeff Jackson, who currently represents a Charlotte-area district; Wiley Nickel, who holds a Raleigh-area seat; and Kathy Manning, who represents Greensboro and other parts of north-central North Carolina.

    A fourth Democrat, Rep. Don Davis, saw his district retooled to become more friendly toward Republicans while remaining competitive for both parties.

    State-level gains in the 2022 midterm elections have given the GOP new sway over redistricting in this swing state. Last year, Republicans flipped North Carolina’s Supreme Court, whose members are chosen in partisan elections. The new GOP majority on the court this year tossed out a 2022 ruling by the then-Democratic leaning court against partisan gerrymandering.

    A map that had been created after the Democratic-led high court’s ruling resulted in the current even split in the state’s House delegation.

    Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper does not have veto power over redistricting legislation.

    A redistricting case pending before the US Supreme Court centers on the future of a Charleston-area seat held by Republican Rep. Nancy Mace, who made headlines recently for joining House GOP hard-liners in voting to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker.

    Earlier this year, a three-judge panel concluded that lines for the coastal 1st Congressional District, as drawn by state GOP lawmakers, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

    The Republican lawmakers appealed to the US Supreme Court. And, during oral arguments earlier this month, several justices in the court’s conservative majority expressed skepticism that South Carolina officials had engaged in an improper racial gerrymander and seemed inclined to reinstate the lawmakers’ map.

    The state Supreme Court, in a case it heard in July, is considering whether it even has the authority to weigh in on map-drawing decisions by the GOP-controlled state legislature.

    Republican state officials argue that the court’s power over redistricting decisions is limited.

    Advocacy groups and a handful of voters are challenging a congressional map that further carved up Democratic-leaning Salt Lake County between four decidedly Republican districts.

    Doing so, the plaintiffs argued in their lawsuit, “takes a slice of Salt Lake County and grafts it onto large swaths of the rest of Utah,” allowing Republican voters in rural areas and smaller cities far away from Salt Lake to “dictate the outcome of elections.”

    Redistricting fights over congressional maps are ongoing in several other states – ranging from Texas to Tennessee – but those cases might not be resolved in time to affect next year’s elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration defends communications with social media companies in high-stakes court fight | CNN Business

    Biden administration defends communications with social media companies in high-stakes court fight | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington, DC
    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration on Thursday defended its communications with social media giants in court, arguing those channels must stay open so that the federal government can help protect the public from threats to election security, Covid-19 misinformation and other dangers.

    The closely watched court fight reflects how social media has become an informational battleground for major social issues. It has revealed the messy challenges for social media companies as they try to manage the massive amounts of information on their platforms.

    And it has highlighted warnings by independent researchers, watchdog groups and government officials that malicious actors will continue to try to disrupt the country’s democracy by flooding the internet with bogus and divisive material ahead of the 2024 elections.

    In oral arguments before a New Orleans-based federal appeals court, the US government challenged a July injunction that blocked several federal agencies from discussing certain social media posts and sharing other information with online platforms, amid allegations by state governments that those communications amounted to a form of unconstitutional censorship.

    The appeals court last month temporarily blocked the injunction from taking effect. But the outcome of Thursday’s arguments will determine the ultimate fate of the order, which placed new limits on the Departments of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services and other federal agencies’ ability to coordinate with tech companies and civil society groups.

    If upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the injunction would suppress a broad range of public-private partnerships and undermine the US government’s mission to protect the public, the Biden administration argued.

    “For example, if there were a natural disaster, and there were untrue statements circulating on social media that were damaging to the public interest, the government would be powerless under the injunction to discourage social media companies from further disseminating those incorrect statements,” said Daniel Tenny, a Justice Department lawyer.

    Now, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit is set to decide how executive agencies may respond to those threats.

    At issue is whether the US government unconstitutionally pressured social media platforms into censoring users’ speech, particularly when the government flagged posts to the platforms that it believed violated the companies’ own terms of service.

    During more than an hour of oral arguments Thursday, the three judges handling the appeal gave little indication of how they would rule in the case, with one judge asking just a couple of questions during the hearing. The other two spent much of the time pressing attorneys for the Biden administration and the plaintiffs in the case on issues concerning the scope of the injunction and whether the states even had the legal right – or standing – to bring the lawsuit.

    Before them is not only the request to reverse the lower court injunction, but also one from the administration to issue a more lasting pause on that injunction while the judges weigh the challenge to it.

    In briefs submitted to the court ahead of Thursday’s hearing, the Biden administration argued that a lower court judge was wrong to have identified the government communications with social media companies as potentially, in his words, “the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ [sic] history.”

    “There is a categorical, well-settled distinction between persuasion and coercion,” the administration’s lawyers wrote, adding that the lower court “equated legitimate efforts at persuasion with illicit efforts to coerce.”

    The administration’s opponents in the case, which include the states of Missouri and Louisiana, have argued that the federal government’s communications with social media companies are a violation of the First Amendment because even “‘encouragement short of compulsion’ can transform private conduct [by social media companies] into government action” that infringes on users’ speech rights.

    “Every one of these federal agencies has insinuated themselves into the content moderation decisions of major social media platforms,” D. John Sauer, an attorney representing the state of Louisiana, told the judges on Thursday. Hypothetically speaking, he added: “The Surgeon General can say, ‘All this speech is terrible, it’s awful.’ …. But what he can’t do is pick up the phone and say, ‘Take it down.’”

    In addition to the states, five individuals are also plaintiffs in the suit. They include three doctors who have been critical of state and federal pandemic-era restrictions, a Louisiana woman who claims she was censored by social media companies for her online criticisms of Covid health measures and a man who runs a far-right website known for pushing conspiracy theories.

    Much of Thursday’s oral arguments hinged on the definition of coercive communication and how courts have analyzed government pressure against private parties in past cases.

    But the states also claimed that there could be a pathway to finding a constitutional violation if the court agreed that social media companies, in heeding the administration’s calls to action, had been effectively turned into agents of the US government.

    In the past month, after District Judge Terry Doughty issued his injunction, current and former US officials, along with outside researchers and academics, have worried that the order could lead to a chilling effect for efforts to protect US elections.

    “There is no serious dispute that foreign adversaries have and continue to attempt to interfere in our elections and that they use social media to do it,” FBI Director Christopher Wray testified to the House Judiciary Committee in July. “President Trump himself in 2018 declared a national emergency to that very effect, and the Senate Intelligence Committee — in a bipartisan, overwhelmingly bipartisan way — not only found the same thing but called for more information-sharing between us and the social media.”

    Ohio Republican Rep. Jim Jordan, the panel’s chair, remains unconvinced. Earlier this week, he and other Republican lawmakers filed their own brief to the appeals court, accusing the Biden administration of a campaign to stifle speech.

    “On issue after issue, the Biden Administration has distorted the free marketplace of ideas promised by the First Amendment, bringing the weight of federal authority to bear on any speech it dislikes—including memes and jokes,” Jordan and the other lawmakers wrote. “Of course, Big Tech companies often required little coercion to do the Administration’s bidding on some issues. Generally eager to please their ideological allies and overseers in the federal government, these companies and other private entities have repeatedly censored accurate speech on important public issues.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress poised for messy September as McCarthy races to avoid government shutdown | CNN Politics

    Congress poised for messy September as McCarthy races to avoid government shutdown | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    GOP hardliners in the House are eager to play a game of chicken over the end-of-the-month deadline to fund federal agencies, seeking to force the White House and Senate to make a choice: Accept a slew of conservative priorities or risk a debilitating government shutdown.

    And caught in the middle, once again, is Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

    In a private conference call last week, McCarthy urged his colleagues to back a short-term spending deal to avoid an October 1 shutdown and instead focus their energy on the larger funding fight later in the fall, sources on the call told CNN. His argument: The year-long spending bills to fund federal agencies would be better suited to enact cuts and policy changes they have demanded, including on hot-button issues like border security and immigration policy.

    And, he argued, if they spend too much time squabbling among themselves, they’ll end up getting jammed by senators in both parties and forced to accept higher spending levels than they’d like.

    “It’s a great place to have a very strong fight and to hold our ground,” McCarthy told his colleagues, according to a person on the call, referring to having an immigration fight on the bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security – not on short-term funding legislation that the far-right House Freedom Caucus is pushing to use as a bargaining chip.

    As the Senate returns this week after its August recess, and the House reconvenes next week, the two chambers have little time to resolve major differences over funding the government. The two sides are hundreds of billions of dollars apart after McCarthy backed away from a previous deal he cut with the White House and later agreed to pursue deeper cuts demanded by his right-flank.

    Now, the two sides will have to work together to punt the fight until potentially early December and pass a short-term funding bill – all as Congress faces other key end-of-the-month deadlines, such as an extension of federal aviation programs, and as a potential impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden looms in the House.

    None of it will be that easy.

    The White House and senators from both parties want to tie the short-term funding bill to $24 billion in aid to Ukraine and with another $16 billion in much-needed funds for communities ravaged by a spate of natural disasters. But a contingent of vocal House conservatives are furiously opposed to quickly passing more aid to Ukraine – while GOP sources said McCarthy privately voiced displeasure at the White House for formally unveiling its funding request during the congressional recess and not briefing lawmakers.

    Moreover, to pass legislation in the House by a majority vote, the chamber must first approve a rule – a procedural vote that is typically only supported by the majority party and opposed by the minority party. Yet several hard-right conservatives told CNN they are prepared to take down the rule over the spending bill if their demands aren’t met.

    That would leave McCarthy with a choice: Either side with conservative hardliners and set up a major clash with the White House or cut a deal with Democrats and pass the spending bill by a two-thirds majority, a threshold that would allow them to approve the bill without having to adopt a rule first but could force McCarthy to give more concessions to Democrats.

    But if he works with Democrats to circumvent his far-right, McCarthy risks enraging the very members who have threatened to push for a vote to oust him from the speakership.

    GOP Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who leads one of the appropriations subcommittees, acknowledged that they’ll need Democratic support for both a short-term spending patch and for any longer-term bills to fund the government – which he said could put McCarthy in a predicament.

    “The challenge for McCarthy, and I’ll be real honest with you, is that if he works with the Democrats, obviously, the Democrats are not going to do it for free. They want something. So, it’s going to be a compromise – one of those really bad words in Washington for some reason,” Simpson told CNN. “Then you’re going to find a resolution introduced on the floor to vacate the chair.”

    One GOP lawmaker acknowledged there have been conversations among conservative hardliners about using a “motion to vacate” – a procedural tool that forces a floor vote to oust the speaker – to gain leverage in the funding fight, if they feel like McCarthy isn’t sticking to his spending promises or gives too much away to Democrats.

    A few on the right, who were furious with McCarthy over his bipartisan debt ceiling deal, briefly floated the idea of triggering a motion to vacate this summer, but then dialed back their threat when it became clear there wasn’t much support for the move.

    McCarthy allies say the hard-liners are playing with fire.

    GOP Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a Nebraska swing district won by Biden, said of the right’s hardline approach to spending: “It’s not realistic.”

    “This theory that you gotta have 100% (of what you want), and if you don’t get 100, you’ll take zero – it’s not that the way it works,” he added. “And it’s not good for the country.”

    Part of the McCarthy strategy to get conservative hardliners on board is to channel their energy on other matters that won’t lead to an end-of-the-month shutdown.

    In recent weeks, McCarthy has tried to use the right’s desire to investigate and impeach Biden as part of his argument against a shutdown, warning that their probes into the administration would have to come to a halt if the government were to shut down.

    Meanwhile, the House will consider its homeland spending bill on the floor the week they return from recess, giving the right a fresh opportunity to offer amendments and shape their party’s border policy — and train their focus away from the must-pass short-term extension.

    Democrats are already trying to pin the blame on any shutdown on the House GOP.

    “When the Senate returns next week, our focus will be on funding the government and preventing House Republican extremists from forcing a government shutdown,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a letter to his colleagues on Friday.

    How McCarthy deals with the immediate spending demands remains to be seen, including whether he’ll agree to pair the short-term spending bill with any aid to Ukraine.

    While Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is a staunch advocate for Ukraine aid, McCarthy has been more circumspect amid loud calls from his right-flank against pouring more money into the war-torn country.

    And as he toured Maui on Saturday, McCarthy acknowledged the need for more disaster relief aid, though it’s unclear if he will separate that package from Ukraine funding — even as the White House and senators in both parties want them to move together.

    Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, leader of the conservative Republican Study Committee, told CNN that disaster relief and Ukraine “need to be separated.”

    “The president needs to come forward, or the speaker, leadership of the Republican Party, the Democrat Party need to come together to share with the American people what we’re doing, what’s the outcome of this?” Hern said.

    Simpson said of tying Ukraine aid to the short-term spending bill: “That’s a tougher sell. Particularly in our conference.”

    But advocates of more Ukraine aid say that the longer that Congress waits, the more difficult it will be to approve money needed to deter Russian aggression and the brutality of Vladimir Putin’s war.

    “I think we need to get that done because we’re not going to get it done next year, right?” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat. “Once you get truly into the presidential cycle, everything gets that much more difficult.”

    Hard-line conservatives are already threatening to make McCarthy’s calculus more complicated if he cuts a short-term spending deal with Democrats. Several of them are already threatening to oppose any rule if the bill falls short of their demands – a tactic that they have employed this Congress to bring the House to a halt. It would take just five Republicans to take down a rule, assuming all Democrats vote against it as they typically do.

    Rep. Ralph Norman – who serves on the House Rules Committee, where such a procedural step would originate – told CNN he hasn’t made up his mind yet on the rule.

    But the South Carolina Republican said he has concerns about the supplemental request for Ukraine aid, which he said needs to be offset, as well as top-line funding levels for their remaining spending bills.

    “There is no appetite for getting our financial house in order by anyone of either party,” he said.

    Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, another hardliner, also hinted that he may vote against both the short-term spending bill and the rule, but when asked for clarification by CNN, he said: “I’m on a very different decision calculus than this.”

    Gaetz didn’t respond to a follow-up question about what he meant, but later posted on social media a long list of grievances he has with GOP leadership – including on spending issues – and ended his post with: “We are going to have to seize the initiative and make some changes.”

    Some have made their demands directly known to GOP leaders, including Virginia Rep. Bob Good, who said on last week’s conference call that lawmakers shouldn’t fear a potential shutdown, according to a source on the call.

    Other Republicans made clear they want no part of a shutdown – something California Rep. Darrell Issa said is “not constructive.”

    “We will get there,” Issa said of funding the government. “Now if we get there earlier without a shutdown, the American people are better served.”

    When asked how the next few months will shake out, Simpson had some words of warning: “I tell people: buckle up. It’s going to be crazy for September, October, November, December,” Simpson said. “The next four months are going to be wild.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Going to food banks. Canceling after-school activities. How federal workers will manage a government shutdown | CNN Politics

    Going to food banks. Canceling after-school activities. How federal workers will manage a government shutdown | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The last time the federal government shut down five years ago, Jesse Santiago found himself standing in line at his local food bank, rationing medication and falling behind on his mortgage payments, which ultimately cost him his home.

    Santiago, who has worked as a Transportation Security Administration officer at Houston’s airport since 2002, likes his job and takes pride in keeping Americans safe when they fly. But he’s outraged that Congress once again is on the brink of letting the federal government shut down, throwing him and his fellow federal workers into financial and emotional chaos.

    “Imagine serving the American people only to have to beg for food,” said Santiago, who lives with his husband in Cleveland, Texas, and has started stocking up on canned beans and other nonperishable food in case this impasse drags out. “I refuse to stand in food lines again while working for the federal government.”

    Santiago is among several million federal employees who will stop being paid if lawmakers cannot agree on funding the federal agencies by the start of the coming fiscal year on October 1. Some, like Santiago, are considered essential workers and have to go to work regardless. Others will be furloughed until Congress passes a spending package, which took more than a month during the 2018-19 shutdown.

    Hundreds of people wrote to CNN to express their views about the looming shutdown. Several said they were concerned about taking trips to national parks, including a bride-to-be who is holding her wedding at one in mid-October, while many senior citizens said they were terrified they wouldn’t get their monthly Social Security checks. (In fact, Social Security payments continue during shutdowns.)

    Some charitable organizations are already offering to help federal workers get through their payless period. Earlier this week, chef Jose Andres said his World Central Kitchen restaurants in Washington, DC, would provide food to federal employees during a shutdown, as they did during the previous impasse.

    Among the hardest hit by government shutdowns are federal employees, who won’t get paid until Congress funds their agencies, and federal contractors, who don’t receive back pay. Many wrote of the toll the last shutdown – the longest on record – took on them and their concerns that they and their families will likely have to go through this again.

    For Carrie Martin, who works in the finance department of the National Institutes of Health, potentially losing her paycheck comes at a tough time. Not only is she shelling out more for groceries, rent and other essentials because of inflation, but she’ll have to start making student loan payments of a little more than $700 a month in October.

    “Not knowing when I will get my next paycheck is very stressful considering I am living paycheck to paycheck,” said Martin, who earned a master’s in health administration degree from George Washington University this spring. “Adding student loans back into my bills is making it 10 times worse.”

    Plus, she said it’s difficult to work under such uncertain conditions. She and her colleagues have been putting in extra hours preparing for the end of the current fiscal year and the start of the next one.

    “Preparing for something that may not happen takes a lot of energy out of you,” said Martin, who is also still adjusting to living on one income after her wife passed away last year.

    Other federal workers are already planning to cut back their spending.

    Nicole, a federal law enforcement officer in southern Missouri, said she won’t be able to throw a party for her 6-year-old son whose birthday is in early October. She had hoped to invite a dozen or so children since he just entered kindergarten and is starting to make friends. Instead, her son will just have cake and presents at home with his parents, grandparents and younger brother.

    “I’ll probably feel more sad than he will,” said Nicole, who did not want her last name used because of the nature of her job. “I don’t want to tap into my savings and not pay my bills.”

    Even though her husband will continue to be paid since he works in the restaurant industry, Nicole said the family will have to make sacrifices, including not signing up her older son for after-school activities, such as basketball and painting. And they’ll skip going to fall festivals in their area.

    During the last shutdown, they bought fewer groceries, reduced their cable plan and paid a decent amount of late fees on bills. Plus, they had to take out a loan from their local credit union, though at least they didn’t have to pay interest on it.

    “That was probably one of the worst things we’ve been through,” said Nicole, who still has to report to work during a shutdown.

    The stress from the 2013 impasse prompted Rob, who was a federal police officer in Washington, DC, at the time, to leave federal service. He had to work long shifts without knowing when he’d see his next paycheck.

    A decade later, Rob decided to return to the federal workforce so he could get a better-paying job than the one he has working security at a local retailer. He is currently behind on his rent and car payments and depends on food stamps to feed his family, including his 4-year-old daughter.

    Just last week, he accepted a position as a police officer at a Veterans Health Administration hospital with a tentative start date of November 5. But if the government shuts down, he fears his paperwork and medical reviews will be delayed so he’ll have to wait longer to begin the job he desperately needs.

    “This was a light at the end of the tunnel for us,” said Rob, who now lives outside of Boston and did not want his last name used for fear of losing his job offer. “I just want to work. I just want to serve my country, do my job.”

    Many federal contractors, meanwhile, are gearing up to give up their paychecks completely until Congress resolves the impasse.

    Theresa Springer of Pittsburgh is a senior consultant for a small management consulting firm that works with various federal agencies. During the last shutdown, she and her coworkers were able to take paid time off, so her income didn’t suffer even though it cost her employer hundreds of thousands of dollars. The company is making the same offer again this year, giving her around two weeks of breathing room before she stops being paid.

    Though Springer said she has the savings to get her through, she will have to watch her spending and may have to delay some purchases if there is a shutdown. Regardless, she’s irritated at lawmakers’ inability to govern and thinks they should forgo their paychecks.

    “My emergency fund is for emergencies, not for the federal government not being able to get their act together,” she said.

    The situation is also tough for small businesses that depend on federal employees, like Sue Doyle’s Home Sweet Home Cleaning Services in Columbia, Maryland. Between 10% and 20% of her clients work for the government, and many cancel their appointments during shutdowns.

    During shutdowns, Sue Doyle temporarily loses many of her clients who work for the federal government.

    Not only does that hurt her income, it cuts into the earnings of her seven employees. Doyle tries not to lay anyone off, opting instead to reduce all of their schedules. While most understand, they are frustrated because they also have bills to pay, she said.

    “A shutdown has a trickle-down consequence,” said Doyle, who is already talking to a bank about a business loan so she can cover her expenses during the impasse. “Hopefully, my employees won’t have more than one day off a week.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • US intel agencies hunt for evidence of Iranian role in Hamas attack on Israel | CNN Politics

    US intel agencies hunt for evidence of Iranian role in Hamas attack on Israel | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The US intelligence community is digging through its stores of data and tasking the nation’s spy agencies to hunt for fresh clues to determine whether Iran played a direct role in Saturday’s deadly attack on Israel by Hamas, a senior Biden administration official said Tuesday.

    Even as the US believes Iran is “complicit” in the attack, given its years of support to the Palestinian militant group, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Tuesday that the administration still does not have direct evidence linking Tehran to the planning and execution of the assault.

    “We’re looking to acquire further intelligence,” Sullivan told reporters at the White House. “But as I stand here today, while Iran plays this broad role – sustained, deep and dark role in providing all of this support and capabilities to Hamas – in terms of this particular gruesome attack on October 7, we don’t currently have that information.”

    Privately, multiple intelligence, military and congressional officials with access to classified intelligence tell CNN the same thing that Sullivan said publicly: No direct evidence has been found indicating Iran was directly involved.

    “Waiting to see if we get a smoking gun in the intel,” said one military official.

    Israeli intelligence is also going back and examining previous evidence, a senior Israeli official told CNN.

    “I doubt that Iran had no knowledge whatsoever,” the official said. “We’ve seen meetings and we’ve seen the close coordination between them.”

    US and Israeli intelligence had no advance warning of the attack – something US officials say is stunning given the scale of the assault – and now, the Biden administration is treading cautiously.

    Iran has for years been Hamas’ chief benefactor, providing it with tens of millions of dollars, weapons and components smuggled into Gaza, as well as broad technical and ideological support.

    Hamas maintains a degree of independence from the Iranian regime. Tehran doesn’t have advisers on the ground in blockaded Gaza, according to former security officials and other regional analysts, and it doesn’t command the group’s activities.

    But the unprecedented scale of the weekend’s attack – combined with analysts’ broad belief that Iran sees the attack as a net positive for its interests in the region – have fueled questions of whether Hamas could have pulled off such a sophisticated operation without direct Iranian assistance.

    “We spend a lot of time and resources worrying about what Iran is doing and how to counter what Iran is doing,” a State Department official said. “This certainly opens up a new chapter in that discussion.”

    In 2022, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said publicly that the group had received about $70 million from Iran that year and that it used the money to build rockets. A State Department report from 2020 found that Iran provided about $100 million annually to Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas.

    Former US officials say there is little question the massive stockpile of weapons used in Saturday’s attack was acquired and assembled with help from Iran.

    “Hamas didn’t build the guidance system and those missiles in Gaza,” said retired Gen. Frank McKenzie, the former commander of US Central Command. “They got them from somewhere. And the technology assistance to put it together certainly came from Iran – where else would it have come from?”

    Still, the Biden administration has for days stopped short of attributing a role in the tactical planning and execution of the attack to Tehran, and current and former US intelligence analysts who spoke to CNN cautioned that past Iranian support to the group isn’t enough evidence to prove its direct involvement.

    “Even if they didn’t give the instruction, you see it in the support,” said Zohar Palti, the former head of the Political-Military Bureau at Israel’s Ministry of Defense. “Is Hamas a complete Iranian proxy that does everything Iran wants? No. But the relationship is much closer than it was even three years ago.”

    Tehran has denied any involvement in the attack, even as it has lauded it publicly. Israel has also expressed caution publicly.

    “We have no evidence or proof” that Iran was behind the attack, Maj. Nir Dinar, a spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces, told Politico on Monday. “We are 100 percent sure that the Iranians were not surprised.”

    Privately, some US officials believe it’s likely Iran had at least some involvement in the planning of the attack. But those personal assessments are largely based on the belief that Iran would likely look for any opportunity to disrupt the fragile negotiations that had been in the works to normalize relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saturday’s attack is widely seen as having endangered those talks.

    Other analysts say it’s equally likely that Iran would have wanted to maintain its distance from any Hamas operation against Israel — even if it was aware of the attack in advance.

    It is not in Iran’s interest to have more direct involvement, said Norm Roule, the former national intelligence manager for Iran at the CIA.

    “Iran identifies regional proxies and then provides them with the political, financial and security support to dominate their particular geography,” Roule said. “Iran encourages military operations, but its proxies manage those actions.”

    Fire burns in Ashkelon, Israel. after rockets were launched from the Gaza Strip on October 7, 2023.

    It’s possible that Iran provided some operational and planning support in advance of the attack, but that it told Hamas, “You’re on your own once it happens,” said Mike Knights, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute who specializes in Iran-backed proxy groups.

    “This looks like Hamas learned some very significant new tricks from someone else and that may well have been the Iranians,” Knights said. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Iran is up for broadening the war.”

    The relationship between Iran and Hamas has evolved over the years. In the early days of the Syrian civil war a decade ago, Hamas and Iran found themselves on opposite sides of the conflict.

    For years, the two had a fraught relationship driven by two different Islamist ideologies: Sunni Muslim Hamas and Shia Muslim Iran. But Hamas saw Iran’s influence expanding in the region, especially as America’s shrinking role in the Middle East created a power vacuum for Tehran to exploit, according to Michael Milshtein, the former head of the Department for Palestinian Affairs in the Israeli military’s intelligence directorate.

    More recently, Tehran has stepped up the training assistance it provides Hamas inside Iran, according to a former Western defense official. “Iran was being more proactive in logistics and training of these people,” the former official said. “They’ve gone full on in last few years … with explicit desire to destabilize” the region.

    According to Knights, the closest relationship that Shia Iran now has with any Sunni group is Hamas. Tehran has “provided Hamas with precision loitering munitions drone systems that it has not even provided the Iraqi militias, (with) which it has had relationships since the 1980s.”

    “This suggests a level of actual operational arming, training, equipping that we’ve only previously seen with Lebanese Hezbollah, and then with the Houthis in Yemen,” Knights said.

    But Hamas is not a proxy of Iran, Milshtein said. Unlike terror groups such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas maintains a large degree of independence from Tehran, even as the assistance has dramatically expanded.

    “Hamas became comfortable getting close to Iran,” Milshtein said, but the relationship remains largely based on military cooperation. Hamas received Iranian weapons and military technology, and learned from the Iranians about planning operations. But the power to make a decision remained with Hamas’ leadership.

    “Everything we have seen in the last four days, we can’t say it’s an Iranian plan or an Iranian effort,” Milshtein said. “It’s a Hamas plan that got Iranian help.”

    US intelligence officials are also working to understand Hamas’ immediate motivation for launching the attack. Unlike the Palestinian Authority, the militant group does not recognize Israel and is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state.

    Broadly, the more than 2 million residents of the Gaza Strip live in crowded and substandard conditions, partly as a result of a yearslong Israeli blockade and recurring airstrikes on the densely populated enclave.

    McKenzie and others said Hamas was likely motivated by its own parochial cause more than it was by any interest in disrupting normalization talks.

    “I think the Hamas calculation is very little on normalization,” McKenzie said. “I think it’s less the larger geostrategic things in the theater.

    “It’s the Hamas-Israeli relationship, not the larger, ‘What does this mean to Saudi Arabia?’”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 21 US service members suffered minor injuries in recent drone attacks, Pentagon says | CNN Politics

    21 US service members suffered minor injuries in recent drone attacks, Pentagon says | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A total of 21 US service members reported “minor injuries” as a result of drone and rocket attacks on coalition military bases in Iraq and Syria last week, according to the Pentagon.

    “Between Oct. 17-18 (ET), 21 US personnel received minor injuries due to drone attacks at Al Assad Airbase, Iraq, and Al-Tanf Garrison, Syria,” Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said Wednesday. “All members returned to duty.”

    Defense officials told CNN earlier Wednesday that while all of the personnel have since returned to duty, several continue to be monitored for any additional side effects or injuries. The number of injured personnel has risen as more US troops have reported symptoms in the days following the attacks.

    “It is important to note, in some cases, service members may report injuries such as (traumatic brain injury) several days after attacks occur, so numbers may change. We will continue to work closely with US Central Command to provide updates as appropriate,” Ryder said.

    CNN previously reported that multiple troops sustained minor injuries from the attacks, though the exact number was unclear.

    Ryder said Tuesday that US and coalition forces have been attacked at least 10 separate times in Iraq, and three separate times in Syria since October 17, via a mix of one-way attack drones and rockets. US officials have attributed the attacks to Iranian proxy groups operating in the region and have warned of a potential for significant escalation by these groups in the near term.

    NBC News was first to report the number of minor injuries in Syria and Iraq.

    Officials told CNN earlier this week that at this point, Iran appears to be encouraging the groups rather than explicitly directing them. One official said Iran is providing guidance to the militia groups that they will not be punished – by not getting resupplied with weaponry, for example – if they continue to attack US or Israeli targets.

    The attacks have ramped up amid the US’ support for Israel in its war against Hamas and intensified following a hospital blast in Gaza that Palestinian militants and Israel have blamed on each other. US intelligence officials said on Tuesday that the explosion happened when a rocket launched by a Palestinian militant group broke apart in midair and the warhead fell on the hospital.

    Iran supports a number of proxy militia groups in countries across the region through the IRGC-Quds Force, and Tehran does not always exert perfect command and control over these groups. How willing those groups are to act independently is a “persistent intelligence gap,” noted one source.

    But a senior defense official said the US believes that the proxies are being funded, armed, equipped and trained by Iran, and the US therefore holds Tehran responsible for their actions.

    Officials across the administration have reiterated in recent days that the US is preparing for a potential escalation, preparing both defense and offensive capabilities should it become necessary to respond.

    The US has around 2,500 troops in Iraq and around 900 in Syria as part of the anti-ISIS coalition, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in a statement last weekend that he was deploying additional air defense systems to the region in response to the attacks, including a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system and additional Patriot batteries.

    Iran warned on Sunday that the situation could escalate. In a conference with his South African counterpart Naledi Pandor in Tehran, Iran’s Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian said that the Middle East is like a “powder keg,” according to quotes published by state-aligned Tasnim news.

    “Any miscalculation in continuing genocide and forced displacement can have serious and bitter consequences, both in the region and for the warmongers,” Abdollahian said, referring to the US and Israel.

    The Iranian foreign minister also warned the US and Israel that “if crimes against humanity do not stop immediately, there is the possibility at any moment that the region will go out of control.”

    CORRECTION: This headline and story have been corrected to reflect an updated statement from the Pentagon on the number of US service members injured in recent drone attacks.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Possible deal to free American prisoners in Iran called for shuttle diplomacy — from hotel to hotel | CNN Politics

    Possible deal to free American prisoners in Iran called for shuttle diplomacy — from hotel to hotel | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Closing in on a deal to free five Americans detained in Iran, US and Iranian delegations gathered in separate hotels in Doha – within sight of each other, but not within earshot – as Qatari diplomats shuttled back and forth trying feverishly to broker an elusive agreement between the two.

    None of the conversation played out in face-to-face meetings between the US and Iran over more than a year of on-and-off hotel meetings in the Qatari capital, a US official familiar with the negotiations told CNN.

    Instead, Qatari officials relayed messages back and forth, with some of the logistical work happening in the most discreet way possible, according to a US official familiar with the negotiations – via text thread between the Qataris and the US diplomats.

    The indirect talks were part of a two-year process that brought about the deal announced this week, a potential diplomatic breakthrough between bitter adversaries who don’t even talk to each other.

    The overall contours of the deal’s roadmap began to crystallize in Doha about six months ago, after two-and-a-half years of intensive on-and-off indirect discussions between Washington and Tehran. And on Thursday, those intense efforts yielded the first sign of payoff, when Iran released four Americans who had been detained in the notorious Evin Prison and moved them into house arrest.

    “It’s a positive step that they were released from prison and sent to home detention. But this is just the beginning of a process that I hope and expect will lead to their return home to the United States,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said after the transfer was announced.

    If that plays out as agreed, the intricate diplomacy will have produced a momentous agreement between long-time adversaries whose relationship has been strained by Iran’s growing nuclear program and its alleged human rights abuses.

    Befitting the relationship, the path has been thorny, according to accounts shared with CNN by several sources familiar with the talks. The United States and Iran don’t have diplomatic relations, and public overtures by Washington to engage directly with Tehran on the matter were rebuffed.

    Instead, the US had to pursue indirect avenues, relying on partners in the Middle East and Europe including Qatar, Oman, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, all of whom served as interlocutors for the two sides over the course of the past two and a half years.

    US officials approached the negotiations with the understanding that there were “no guarantees” with the Iranians, according to a source familiar with the negotiations. But as things seemed to fall into place, the US government began reaching out to Congress and to family members.

    It was not until a couple of days before the transfer to house arrest that the American side realized the plan was going into motion. A fifth American was already under house arrest.

    On Wednesday, the US had “what (appeared) to be concrete information” that the first step in the deal – moving the four Americans out of Evin Prison and into house arrest – would be taken on Thursday, the source familiar with the negotiations said.

    Still, officials were wary.

    “There are certainly elements of the Iranian system that do not want this to happen,” the source warned.

    When Thursday came, US officials had a direct line to the Swiss Ambassador in Iran for updates as to progress on the ground, the US official said. Swiss diplomats serve as the protecting power – the eyes and ears on the ground – for the US in Iran.

    Early in the afternoon Thursday Washington time, National Security Council Spokesperson Adrienne Watson announced the White House had “received confirmation that Iran has released from prison five Americans who were unjustly detained and has placed them on house arrest.”

    The path forward now has been described as a step-by-step process, and American officials stress that the indirect negotiations are ongoing and sensitive.

    One component of the deal is an expected prisoner swap between the US and Iran, and another involves making $6 billion in Iranian funds that have been in a restricted account in South Korea more readily available for “non-sanctionable trade” of goods like food and medicine by moving them to restricted accounts in Qatar. Sources tell CNN the funds came from oil sales that were allowed and placed into accounts set up under the Trump administration.

    One source briefed on the agreement said the process to transfer the funds to Qatar is likely to take 30 to 45 days, and two sources said the money would go through Switzerland before getting to Qatar.

    The implementation won’t be easy. The US Treasury will be heavily involved, as the transfer of Iranian funds to Qatar is expected to take weeks to complete particularly because the US is not lifting any sanctions in order to facilitate the transfer, sources said.

    The indirect negotiations involved officials from across the Biden administration, including the State Department and the White House, and they closely involved the US Treasury Department, the official said. Treasury’s involvement made the process more arduous at times, but was necessary to be sure that any agreement would maintain strict oversight of the Iranian funds, the official added.

    The process to get to this point – with the end goal of securing the Americans’ release – has been a long road for Biden administration officials. Sources said that bringing the Americans back home had been a priority from the outset of President Joe Biden’s tenure.

    The three Americans publicly known to be in the deal – Siamak Namazi, Morad Tahbaz and Emad Shargi – had been imprisoned for years before Biden took office, with Namazi being arrested when Biden was vice president and left behind in a deal secured under the Obama administration.

    Now, US officials say the work continues, but they are cautiously optimistic that the five could be coming home.

    “My belief is that this is the beginning of the end of their nightmare and the nightmare that their families have experienced,” Blinken said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Americans are united in their negative perception of national politics, new Pew report finds | CNN Politics

    Americans are united in their negative perception of national politics, new Pew report finds | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Americans’ outlook on national politics is best summarized as “dismal,” according to a wide-ranging new Pew Research Center report released Tuesday.

    “Americans have long been critical of politicians and skeptical of the federal government,” the report’s authors write. “But today, Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon. Majorities say the political process is dominated by special interests, flooded with campaign cash and mired in partisan warfare.”

    Just 14% of US adults, the survey finds, believe that most elected officials care about the thoughts of people like them. Only 15% believe all or most currently serving elected officials ran for office even in part out of a desire to serve the public, while a majority say they think most were motivated by the desire to “make a lot of money.” And just 26% see the quality of candidates for political office over the past several years as good, down 21 points from just five years ago.

    Just 27% of Americans describe the country’s political system as working even somewhat well today, with only 37% expressing even some confidence in this system’s future. An open-ended question asking Americans to describe politics these days in one word or phrase yielded overwhelmingly negative responses, ranging from “divisive” and “corrupt” to the kind of invective rarely found in analysis written by think tanks. Asked to describe a strong point of the American political system, more than half of respondents either denied that the system had any or skipped the question altogether.

    Americans’ low regard for political institution persists across a somewhat dizzying range of findings. Among them: Just 26% rate Congress favorably, and fewer than half (44%) say that voting in elections is a highly effective way to change the country for the better. On a personal level, 65% of Americans say they frequently feel exhausted when thinking about politics and 55% that they feel angry, with a tenth or fewer feeling hopeful about or excited by the topic.

    As the Pew report highlights, this disaffection is particularly notable in that it “comes at a time of historically high levels of voter turnout in national elections.” It also comes even as Americans continue to draw increasingly sharp distinctions between the parties: 54% say they see a great deal of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties, a number that’s considerably higher than it was several decades ago.

    There’s more than six decades of data from various pollsters to suggest that one measure – public trust in the federal government – is at one of its lowest ebbs since pollsters began asking the question in the late 1950s, with only 16% of Americans now saying they trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time.

    In 1958, when the National Election Study first began polling the topic, roughly three-quarters of Americans said they trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or at least most of that time. That widespread trust gradually eroded over the course of the next few decades, dropping to just about 27% in the Carter era, before segueing into a pattern of smaller declines and upswings. The last time a majority of the public expressed confidence in the government was just after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001; since 2007, the share saying they can usually trust the government has remained lower than 30%.

    Public opinion of the legislative branch has followed a similar trajectory. From the mid-1980s through the early 2000s, the Pew report notes, views of Congress were largely positive. But opinions of Congress have now remained underwater for more than a decade, with unfavorable ratings of the institution reaching a near-record high in the latest round of polling.

    Increasingly, pollsters have found Americans’ views divided along partisan lines, even on seemingly apolitical topics like ratings of the economy. According to the Pew Research report, Republican-aligned adults are 40 percentage points likelier than their Democratic-aligned counterparts to say that the federal government – currently headed by a Democratic president – is doing too much on issues best left to the states, and 26 points likelier to express anger toward the federal government.

    But in many cases, public unhappiness with the political system spans both parties, suggesting something deeper at play than a statement of discontent with the current crop of incumbents. Nearly identical majorities of Democratic- and Republican-aligned adults, 85% and 87% respectively, consider it a good description of the US political system to say that “Republicans and Democrats are more focused on fighting each other than on solving problems,” and both sides give identically poor favorability ratings to the currently divided Congress.

    At the same time, Americans are also weary of conversations focused on partisanship: 57%, including similar majorities in both parties, say there’s too much attention paid to disagreements between Republicans and Democrats these days.

    While most Americans still hold a positive view of at least one of the two parties, an increasing share of the public dislikes both political parties. A record-high 28% of Americans view both Republicans and Democrats unfavorably, little changed from a year ago, but up from just 6% when Pew first asked the question in 1994. This disaffection is particularly widespread among adults younger than 50, with 35% of them saying they dislike both parties.

    A substantial minority of all adults, 37%, say they’re sympathetic to the wish that there were more political parties to choose from. But the latest poll also finds “considerable skepticism that having more parties would make it easier for the country to solve its problems.” Only 26% of US adults think that new parties would make problem-solving easier, with similar shares saying either that it would make things harder (24%) or have little impact (25%). And only one-third think it’s even somewhat likely that an independent candidate will win the White House any time in the next 25 years.

    As broad as Americans’ discontent with government is, it does have some limits. More than half of Americans say their local elected officials (56%) and their state’s governor (51%) are doing good jobs, for instance. A 56% majority say they usually feel that there’s at least one candidate for political office who shares most of their views, and 57% believe that voting by people like them has at least some effect on the country’s future direction.

    Other Pew studies have found that most Americans continue to count the US as among the world’s greatest countries and to express broad satisfaction with the state of their own community. Other polling has found that Americans remaining largely satisfied with most aspects of their own day-to-day-existence.

    There are also limits on the extent to which most Americans perceive politics as impinging on their lives. Per Pew’s classification, only 35% of Americans are highly engaged with politics – meaning that they frequently follow news about government and current affairs, express high level of interest in politics and frequently talk about politics with others. This group experiences political life in a way that’s notably different from other Americans. Those who are highly politically engaged, for instance, are 20 points likelier than those with low engagement to say there are clear solutions to most big issues facing the country today, and 25 points likelier to see a great deal of difference between the two main political parties.

    Among all US adults, while about two-thirds say that who is president makes a big difference to the nation’s standing in the world (67%) and to the mood of the country (65%), only about half (52%) see the presidency as similarly central to the health of the economy – and just 24% say that it makes a big difference to their own personal life.

    The Pew Research Center report is based primarily on a July 10-16 survey among 8,480 adults, with a margin of sampling error of +/- 1.5 percentage points. The survey was conducted online, using the nationally representative American Trends Panel.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    Major Supreme Court cases to watch in the new term | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Looking at an upcoming Supreme Court term from the vantage point of the first Monday in October rarely tells the full story of what lies ahead, but the docket already includes major cases concerning the intersection between the First Amendment and social media, gun rights, racial gerrymandering and the power of the executive branch when it comes to regulation.

    The court will still determine if it will hear oral arguments on issues such as medication abortion and transgender rights, not to mention the possibility of a flurry of emergency requests related to the 2024 election.

    Here are some of the key cases on which the court will hear oral arguments this term:

    After the Supreme Court issued a major decision last year expanding gun rights nationwide, lower courts began reconsidering hundreds of firearms regulations across the country under the new standard crafted by Justice Clarence Thomas that a gun law passes legal muster only if it is rooted in history and tradition.

    On the heels of that decision, a federal appeals court invalidated a federal law that bars an individual who is subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing a firearm. That law, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “is an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted.”

    The Biden administration has appealed, saying the ruling “threatens grave harms for victims of domestic violence.”

    In 2019, nearly two-thirds of domestic homicides in the United States were committed with a gun, according to Everytown for Gun Safety.

    Lawyers for Zackey Rahimi, a man who was prosecuted under the law in 2020 after a violent altercation with his girlfriend, have urged the justices to let the lower court opinion stand, arguing in part that there is no law from the founding era comparable to the statute at hand.

    Racial gerrymandering: South Carolina congressional maps

    Justices will consider a congressional redistricting plan drawn by South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature in the wake of the 2020 census. Critics say it was designed with discriminatory purpose and amounts to an illegal racial gerrymander.

    The case focuses the court’s attention once again on the issue of race and map drawing and comes after the court ordered Alabama to redraw the state’s congressional map last term to account for the fact that the state is 27% black. The decision, penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, surprised liberals who feared the court was going to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    In the latest case, the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott, are challenging the state’s congressional District 1 that is located along the southeastern coast and is anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset, though a Republican recaptured the seat in 2020.

    The person who devised the map has testified that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting age population of the district was likely viewed during the drafting process.

    A three-judge district court panel struck down the plan in January, saying that race had been the predominant motivating factor. “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.”

    Expert explains why Justice Thomas’ gifts from wealthy friends are problematic

    In the latest attack against the so-called administrative state, the justices are considering whether to overturn decades old precedent to scale back the power of federal agencies, impacting how the government tackles issues such as climate change, immigration, labor conditions and public health.

    At issue is an appeal from herring fishermen in the Atlantic who say the National Marine Fisheries Service does not have the authority to require them to pay the salaries of government monitors who ride aboard the fishing vessels.

    In agreeing to hear the case, the justices signaled they will reconsider a 1984 decision – Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council – that sets forward factors to determine when courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of the law. First, they examine a statute to see if Congress’ intent is clear. It if is – then the matter is settled. But if there is ambiguity – the court defers to the agency’s expertise.

    Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices that the agency was acting within the scope of its authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and said the fishermen are not responsible for all the costs. The regulation was put in place to combat overfishing of the fisheries off the coasts of the US.

    Representing the fishermen, former Solicitor General Paul Clement argues that the government exceeded its authority and needs direct and clear congressional authorization to make such a demand. “The ‘net effect’ of Chevron,” Clement said, is that it “incentives a dynamic where Congress does far less than the Framers anticipated, and the executive branch is left to do far more by deciding controversial issues via regulatory fiat”

    For the second time in recent years, the court is taking aim at a watchdog agency created to combat unfair and deceptive practices against consumers, in a case that could deal a fatal blow to the future of the agency and send reverberations throughout the financial services industry.

    At the center of the case at hand is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – an independent agency set up in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown that works to monitor the practices of lenders, debt collectors and credit rating agencies.

    Congress chose to fund the CFPB from outside the annual appropriations process to ensure its independence. As such, the agency receives its funding each year from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System. But the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals held last year that the funding scheme violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, that, the court said “ensures Congress’ “exclusive power over the federal purse.”

    According to the CFPB, the agency has obtained more than $18.9 billion in ordered relief, including restitution and canceled debts, for more than 195 million consumers, and more than $4.1 billion in penalties, in actions brought by the agency against financial institutions and individuals that have broken federal consumer financial protection laws.

    A handful of other agencies have similar funding schemes including the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

    Three years ago, the Supreme Court limited the independence of the CFPB by invalidating its leadership structure. A 5-4 court held that the structure violated the separation of powers because the president was restricted from removing the director, even if they had policy disagreements.

    Agency regulatory authority: Securities and Exchange Commission

    The justices are looking at the in-house enforcement proceedings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission in another case that invites the conservative majority to pare back the regulatory authority of federal agencies.

    The court’s decision could impact whether the SEC and other agencies can conduct enforcement proceedings in-house, using administrative courts staffed with agency employees, or whether such actions must be brought in federal court.

    On one side are critics of such agency courts who argue that they allow federal employees to serve as prosecutors, judges and jury, issuing rulings that could particularly hurt small businesses. On the other side are those who point out that several agencies, including the Social Security Administration, have such internal proceedings because the topics are often complex and the agency has more expertise than a federal judge.

    The case arose in 2013 after the SEC brought an enforcement action against George Jarkesy, who had established two hedge funds with his advisory firm, Patriot28, for securities fraud.

    The 5th Circuit ruled that the SEC’s proceedings deprive individuals of their Seventh Amendment right to a civil jury. In addition, the court said that Congress had improperly delegated legislative power to the SEC, which gave the agency unconstrained authority at times to choose the in-house administrative proceeding rather than filing suit in district court.

    In December, the court will examine the historic multibillion-dollar Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement with several states that would ultimately offer the Sackler family broad protection from OxyContin-related civil claims.

    Until recently, Purdue was controlled by the Sackler family, who withdrew billions of dollars from the company before it filed for bankruptcy. The family has now agreed to contribute up to $6 billion to Purdue’s reorganization fund on the condition that the Sacklers receive a release from civil liability.

    The Biden administration, representing the US Trustee, the executive branch agency that monitors the administration of bankruptcy cases, has called the plan “exceptional and unprecedented” in court papers, noting that lower courts have divided on when parties can be released from liability for actions that caused societal harm.

    “The plan’s release ‘absolutely, unconditionally, irrevocably, fully, finally, forever and permanently releases’ the Sacklers from every conceivable type of opioid-related civil claim – even claims based on fraud and other forms of willful misconduct that could not be discharged if the Sacklers filed for bankruptcy in their individual capacities,” Prelogar argued in court papers.

    For the second year running, the justices will leap into the online moderation debate and decide whether states can essentially control how social media companies operate.

    If upheld, laws from Florida and Texas could open the door to more state legislation requiring platforms such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to treat content in specific ways within certain jurisdictions – and potentially expose the companies to more content moderation lawsuits.

    It could also make it harder for platforms to remove what they determine is misinformation, hate speech or other offensive material.

    “These cases could completely reshape the digital public sphere. The question of what limits the First Amendment imposes on legislatures’ ability to regulate social media is immensely important – for speech, and for democracy as well,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute, in a statement.

    “It’s difficult to think of any other recent First Amendment cases in which the stakes were so high,” Jaffer added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republicans must overcome deep splits to choose a speaker as Israel crisis exposes failure to govern | CNN Politics

    Republicans must overcome deep splits to choose a speaker as Israel crisis exposes failure to govern | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans must mend gaping splits in their conference if they are to succeed in picking a new speaker – as dangerous global crises in Israel and Ukraine expose the steep cost of their malfunctioning majority.

    The two declared candidates, Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, must demonstrate their capacity to either control or co-opt hardliners who ousted Kevin McCarthy last week and are making the United States look like an ebbing superpower that cannot govern itself – let alone lead a world in turmoil.

    Republicans on Wednesday are meeting for internal secret ballot elections to determine who will become their nominee to be second in line to the presidency. But the gravity of outside events is apparently doing little to shake the GOP out of its endless internal conflict because serious doubts remain over whether either Scalise or Jordan can win the necessary overwhelming support of the Republican conference in an eventual floor vote of the full House.

    The House GOP already looked deeply negligent with time running out to stave off another government shutdown drama by the middle of next month. But if the House remains paralyzed much longer it will undermine the country’s capacity to respond to the horrific Hamas assault on Israel. And Ukraine’s battle to survive as a sovereign state will soon reach a critical point if its next aid package doesn’t make it through the House.

    Republican lawmakers met Tuesday night as Jordan and Scalise made their pitches. The situation is so fraught because the tiny House GOP majority means that a candidate for speaker can only lose four Republican votes and still win the gavel in a full House vote. Democrats refused to save McCarthy from a revolt by eight hardliners last week and on Tuesday named their leader, Hakeem Jeffries of New York, as candidate for speaker, suggesting they will sit on the sidelines again, content to expose the dysfunction in the GOP ahead of next year’s election.

    Rep. David Valadao, a California Republican who faces a tough reelection fight, said it could be difficult for either Scalise or Jordan to win outright. “I think both candidates are going to struggle. … But I don’t know exactly where their numbers are,” Valadao said. “It seems like they are both scrambling and they’re both working hard. So I don’t know if anyone is super confident right now.”

    The faces are different but the GOP fault line remains the same

    A week on from McCarthy’s rejection, after less than nine months as speaker, the fundamental fault line in the party remains as glaring as ever. Far-right Republicans have demands for massive spending cuts but fail to acknowledge that Democratic control of the Senate and the White House means that GOP leaders have no choice but to eventually compromise. McCarthy fell after using Democratic votes to pass a stopgap bill to keep the government open, fearing that Republicans would pay a harsh political price for a shutdown that could, over time, affect millions of Americans.

    The key question on Wednesday will be whether Scalise or Jordan can unite enough of the party behind them before a full floor vote, which could happen as soon as later that day. Republicans are conducting the initial process behind closed doors to avoid a repeat of the public demonstration of disarray that unfolded during the 15 rounds of balloting McCarthy required to win the top job in January. They’ll be debating and voting on a proposed change to conference rules to raise the threshold for winning the nomination – from a simple majority of the conference to a majority of the current House – as part of their effort to avoid January’s theatrics. Both Jordan and Scalise committed to supporting one another if they become the nominee, lawmakers said after Tuesday’s candidate forum.

    Rep. Mike Garcia of California warned after the forum that the fate of the speakership was still up in the air. “I think it’s 50/50 odds right now,” he said. Some of his colleagues were even more pessimistic. Rep. Kat Cammack of Florida said, “No one is close to 217.” Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who is backing Jordan, was asked the chances of a new speaker being selected Wednesday and replied: “I’d put it at 2%.”

    Jordan, a vehement supporter of Donald Trump who’s echoed his false claims of election fraud in 2020, has the former president’s backing. The Ohio Republican, who was a co-founder of the conservative Freedom Caucus, has devoted his chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to trying to prove Trump’s accusations that the government has been weaponized against him as he faces four criminal trials and is also a leading figure in the impeachment probe into President Joe Biden.

    Jordan said he had a plan to head off a new government funding cliff-hanger, but he’d have to reconcile the demands of right-wingers and also get such a measure through the Senate and the White House. “Nobody wants a shutdown,” Jordan said. Several lawmakers in the meeting said the Judiciary chairman said he’d pitch for a long-term stopgap plan that cut spending by 1% to allow time for passing individual spending bills.

    Rep. Don Bacon, a key moderate from Nebraska who is leaning Scalise’s way, suggested he was pleasantly surprised by Jordan’s argument. “Because of his past, I think we expected to hear the Freedom Caucus message. It was not that. It was very pragmatic,” Bacon said Tuesday.

    Scalise is also an authentic conservative and vocal supporter of Trump. (Both men voted against certifying Biden’s win in 2020.) But he’s known as less of a flamethrower than Jordan. And as a member of leadership with fundraising bona fides, he could be more palatable to moderate Republican lawmakers in more than a dozen districts that paved the way to the narrow GOP majority in last year’s midterms and that will be critical to its hopes in 2024. The Louisianan emerged from the meeting Tuesday evening warning that the country needed a Congress that can work. “What people have really liked about my approach is I’ve been a unifier,” he said, though such skills would face an extreme test if he wins the gavel.

    If neither Scalise nor Jordan is able to win sufficient support, there could be an opening for a compromise candidate that all wings of the party could get behind. Some freshmen have been pushing for a return of McCarthy. But the former speaker asked that he not be nominated in the race – without closing the door to getting his job back.

    “There are two people running in there. I’m not one of them,” the California Republican told CNN’s Manu Raju.

    Even if a new speaker does emerge on Wednesday, they will face the same relentless pressure imposed by a tiny majority, the split balance of power in Washington and a GOP that has riotously resisted the efforts of the last three Republican speakers to unify the conference and provide long-term governance.

    Most immediately, the victor will have to decide whether to try to amend the rule that any one member can call a vote to oust the speaker – a concession McCarthy had offered to hardliners in order to win the gavel in January. Then, looming a few weeks away, is a possible repeat of the crisis that led to McCarthy’s defeat and the current power vacuum in the House. Unless Congress passes more funding by November 17, the government will close down, creating a series of adverse consequences, including the possibility that troops go unpaid and public services are severely disrupted.

    To avoid this scenario, the House will either have to pass a series of complex spending bills in a month – a near impossibility given their size and the time wasted on the speaker’s race – or opt for another short-term spending patch that significant numbers of Republicans may oppose. Even if the House can manage to pass a spending plan, any measure acceptable to the entire House GOP is unlikely to win support in the Senate or the White House since hardliners are demanding cuts far below those previously agreed to by McCarthy and Biden earlier this year.

    A Speaker Scalise or Speaker Jordan – or whoever can get the job – would almost certainly have to make the same fateful choice that faced McCarthy. Do they shut down the government if they can’t jam concessions out of the White House or Senate? Or seek to punt the choice down the road with a temporary funding bill that will probably need Democratic votes to pass? Jordan’s approach that calls for 1% spending cuts would likely be a non-starter among Democrats, meaning he would need to convince moderate Republicans it was in their interests.

    The House must also soon wrestle with the president’s request for more than $20 billion in military aid to Ukraine as it fights the Russian invasion. Many Republicans oppose additional funding, and it’s another measure that would need Democratic votes to get through the House. The question has become even more complicated following the attack on Israel, with some Republicans arguing that the US should send the Jewish state as much help as it wants while being reluctant to continue propping up the Ukrainian war effort.

    Such is the complexity of the untamed nature of the GOP majority that further turmoil certainly lies ahead, even if Republicans somehow settle on a new speaker on Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Federal court strikes down Alabama congressional map after legislature snubbed Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    Federal court strikes down Alabama congressional map after legislature snubbed Supreme Court | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal court blocked a newly drawn Alabama congressional map on Tuesday because it didn’t create a second majority-Black district as the Supreme Court had ordered earlier this year.

    In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel, which had overseen the case before it reached the Supreme Court, the judges wrote that they were “disturbed” by Alabama’s actions in the case.

    The state had snubbed the Supreme Court’s order – a surprise 5-4 decision in June – that the maps should be redrawn. White voters currently make up the majority in six of the state’s seven congressional districts, although 27% of the state’s population is Black.

    “We are deeply troubled that the State enacted a map that the State readily admits does not provide the remedy we said federal law requires,” wrote the judges, two of whom were appointed by former President Donald Trump.

    Alabama officials on Tuesday filed notice that they are appealing the ruling.

    “While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we strongly believe that the Legislature’s map complies with the Voting Rights Act and the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court,” the office of Alabama Attorney General Steven Marshall said in a statement. “We intend to promptly seek review from the Supreme Court to ensure that the State can use its lawful congressional districts in 2024 and beyond.”

    Alabama officials also asked the three-judge court to freeze its opinion invalidating the congressional map but said they will formally ask the Supreme Court for a stay on Thursday.

    This redistricting battle – and separate, pending litigation over congressional maps in states such as Georgia and Florida – could determine which party controls the US House of Representatives after next year’s elections. Republicans currently hold a razor-thin majority in the chamber.

    The three federal judges overseeing the Alabama case on Tuesday ordered a special master to submit three proposed maps that would create a second Black-majority district by September 25.

    The panel wrote that it was “not aware of any other case” in which a state legislature had responded to being ordered to a draw map with a second majority-minority district by creating one that the state itself admitted didn’t create the required district.

    “The law requires the creation of an additional district that affords Black Alabamians, like everyone else, a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice,” and Alabama’s new map, they wrote, “plainly fails to do so.”

    JaTaune Bosby Gilchrist, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, which has been fighting the case, praised the ruling: “Elected officials ignored their responsibilities and chose to violate our democracy. We hope the court’s special master helps steward a process that ensures a fair map that Black Alabamians and our state deserve.”

    This summer, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, had affirmed an earlier decision by the three-judge panel and ordered the state to redraw congressional maps to include a second majority-Black district or “something quite close to it.”

    The Supreme Court’s surprise decision in Alabama – coming after the right-leaning high court has chipped away at other parts of the Voting Rights Act in recent years – has given fresh hope to voting rights activists and Democrats that they could prevail in challenges to other maps they view as discriminating against minorities.

    But the new map approved by Alabama’s Republican-dominated legislature – and signed into law by GOP Gov. Kay Ivey – in July created only one majority-Black district and boosted the share of Black voters in a second district from roughly 30% to nearly 40%.

    The pending cases center on whether GOP state legislators drew congressional maps after the 2020 census that weakened the power of Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act.

    Republicans control all statewide offices in Alabama and all but one congressional seat. The single Black-majority congressional district is represented by Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell, the state’s first Black woman elected to Congress.

    Alabama officials have argued that the map as redrawn by state lawmakers was aimed at maintaining traditional guidelines for congressional redistricting, such as keeping together communities of interest. And they have signaled that they hope to sway one of the Supreme Court justices who sided with the majority in June.

    The state’s briefs before the three-judge panel referenced a concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh – one of the two conservatives who sided with the liberal justices on the high court to vote against the original Alabama map – that questioned whether “race-based redistricting” can “extend indefinitely into the future.”

    The lower-court judges weren’t convinced by the state’s arguments.

    They wrote that after reviewing the concurrence, as well as a part of the Supreme Court’s ruling which Kavanaugh didn’t join, “We do not understand either of those writings as undermining any aspect of the Supreme Court’s affirmance; if they did, the Court would not have affirmed the injunction.”

    The judges also rejected Alabama’s argument that drawing a second Black-majority district would unconstitutionally constitute “affirmative action in redistricting.”

    “Unlike affirmative action in the admissions programs the Supreme Court analyzed in [this year’s affirmative action case], which was expressly aimed at achieving balanced racial outcomes in the makeup of the universities’ student bodies, the Voting Rights Act guarantees only ‘equality of opportunity, not a guarantee of electoral success for minority-preferred candidates of whatever race,’” the panel wrote.

    “The Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for Black voters – it merely prevents them from being kept down with regard to what is arguably the most ‘fundamental political right,’ in that it is ‘preservative of all rights’ – the right to vote.”

    Earlier, in a letter to state lawmakers, Marshall had argued that a separate Supreme Court ruling in June – after the high court’s Alabama redistricting decision came down – that ended affirmative action in college admissions meant that using a map in which “race predominates” would open up the state to claims that it was violating the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Huawei wants to go all in on AI for the next decade | CNN Business

    Huawei wants to go all in on AI for the next decade | CNN Business

    [ad_1]

    Editor’s Note: Sign up for CNN’s Meanwhile in China newsletter which explores what you need to know about the country’s rise and how it impacts the world.


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    Huawei has joined the list of companies that want to be all about artificial intelligence.

    For the first time in about 10 years, the Chinese tech and telecoms giant announced its new strategic direction on Wednesday, saying it would shift its focus to AI. Previously, the company had prioritized cloud computing and intellectual property, respectively, over two decade-long periods.

    Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s rotating chairwoman and chief financial officer, made the announcement in Shanghai during a company event.

    “As artificial intelligence gains steam, and its impact on industry continues to grow, Huawei’s All Intelligence strategy is designed to help all industries make the most of new strategic opportunities,” the company said in a statement.

    Meng said in a speech that Huawei was “committed to building a solid computing backbone for China — and another option for the world.”

    “Our end goal is to help meet the diverse AI computing needs of different industries,” she added, without providing details.

    Huawei’s decision follows a similar move by fellow Chinese tech giant Alibaba (BABA), announced earlier this month, to prioritize AI.

    Other companies, such as Japan’s SoftBank, have also long declared an intent to focus more on the fast-moving technology, and more businesses have jumped on the bandwagon this year due to excitement about platforms such as GPT-4.

    Meng returned to China in September 2021 after spending nearly three years under house arrest in Canada as part of an extradition battle with the United States. She and Huawei had been charged for alleged bank fraud and evasion of economic sanctions against Iran.

    The executive, who is also the daughter of Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei, was able to leave after reaching an agreement with the US Department of Justice and ultimately having her charges dismissed.

    Meng began her role as the rotating chairperson of the company in April and is expected to stay in the position for six months.

    News of Huawei’s strategic update came the same day the company was mentioned in allegations lodged by China against the United States.

    In a statement posted Wednesday on Chinese social network WeChat, China’s Ministry of State Security accused Washington of infiltrating Huawei servers nearly 15 years ago.

    “With its powerful arsenal of cyberattacks, the United States intelligence services have carried out surveillance, theft of secrets and cyberattacks against many countries around the world, including China, in a variety of ways,” the ministry said.

    It alleged that the US National Security Agency (NSA), in particular, had “repeatedly conducted systematic and platform-based attacks on China in an attempt to steal China’s important data resources.”

    Huawei declined to comment on the allegations, while the NSA did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular US business hours.

    The claims are especially notable because US officials have long suspected the company of spying on the networks that its technology operates, using it as grounds to restrict trade with the company. Huawei has vehemently denied the claims, saying it operates independently of the Chinese government.

    In 2019, Huawei was added to the US “entity list,” which restricts exports to select organizations without a US government license. The following year, the US government expanded on those curbs by seeking to cut Huawei off from chip suppliers that use US technology.

    In recent weeks, Huawei has added to US-China tensions again after launching a new smartphone that represents an apparent technological breakthrough.

    Huawei launched the Mate 60 Pro, its latest flagship device, last month, prompting a US investigation. Analysts who have examined the phone have said it includes a 5G chip, suggesting Huawei may have found a way to overcome American export controls.

    — Mengchen Zhang contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden teases forthcoming executive order on AI | CNN Business

    Biden teases forthcoming executive order on AI | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The White House plans to introduce a highly anticipated executive order in the coming weeks dealing with artificial intelligence, President Joe Biden said Wednesday.

    “This fall, I’m going to take executive action, and my administration is going to continue to work with bipartisan legislation,” Biden said, “so America leads the way toward responsible AI innovation.”

    Biden offered no details on the contents of the coming order, which the White House had first announced in July. But his remarks offer greater insight into his administration’s timing.

    Biden’s signing of the order would build on an earlier administration proposal for an “AI Bill of Rights.” Civil society groups have urged the Biden administration to require federal agencies to implement the AI Bill of Rights as part of any executive order on the technology. Meanwhile, the US Senate is continuing to educate lawmakers on artificial intelligence in preparation for months of legislative work on the issue.

    In Wednesday’s remarks during a meeting of the Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Biden described the recent conversations he’s had with AI leaders and experts.

    “Vast differences exist among them in terms of what potential it has, what dangers there are, and so, I have a keen interest in AI,” Biden said. “I’ve convened key experts on how to harness the power of artificial intelligence for good while protecting people from the profound risk it also presents.”

    “We can’t kid ourselves,” Biden continued. “[There is] profound risk if we don’t do it well.”

    Biden reiterated the United States’ commitment to working with international partners including the United Kingdom on developing safeguards for artificial intelligence.

    The meeting also saw presidential advisers showcasing to Biden several use cases for artificial intelligence. Maria Zuber, the panel’s co-chair, said the examples Biden would see during the meeting would include the use of AI to predict extreme weather linked to climate change; to “create materials that have properties we’ve never been able to create before”; and to “understand the origins of the universe, which is literally as big as it gets.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics

    Conservative justices suggest South Carolina GOP gerrymandering was based on politics, not race | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court’s conservatives expressed doubt at oral arguments Wednesday that South Carolina GOP lawmakers engaged in impermissible racial gerrymandering when they redrew congressional lines for a House seat to benefit Republicans.

    The case is one of several racial and political gerrymandering-related lawsuits that could impact which party controls the House after next year’s congressional elections.

    The district at issue was reworked in 2020 to benefit the GOP and current incumbent, Rep. Nancy Mace – one of the eight Republicans who voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as House speaker last week.

    The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and a Black voter named Taiwan Scott say the use of race dominated the decision-making process and that the state worked to intentionally dilute the power of Black voters. A federal court agreed, referring to the revised map as “bleaching.”

    Several of the conservative justices on Wednesday suggested that map drawers had taken politics into consideration, not race.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said those challenging the map had “no direct” evidence that race had predominated in the decisionmaking process. He said that there were no “odd-shaped” districts drawn and that there existed a “wealth of political data” that would justify the chosen boundaries. He said the challengers had only presented “circumstantial evidence” and suggested the court would be “breaking new ground” in its voting jurisprudence if it were to side with them.

    Justice Samuel Alito repeatedly suggested that a lower court had made serious legal error in invalidating the map by relying upon erroneous expert testimony. He said the Supreme Court could not “rubber-stamp” the district court’s finding and he noted that the individual charged with drawing the maps had years of experience and had worked for both Democrats and Republicans.

    Alito contended that there was “nothing suspicious” if a map drawer is aware of race as long as it is not a predominant factor when drawing lines.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch said there was “no evidence ” that the legislature could have achieved its “partisan tile in any other way.”

    For their part, the liberals on the court suggested that the Republican-controlled South Carolina Legislature adopted the maps by considering race as a predominant factor, in violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that Republicans were launching “pot shots” at the experts who claimed the maps could only be explained by race. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that the challengers are not required to produce a “smoking gun” to prove their point.

    The dispute comes as the justices this year ordered Alabama to redraw its congressional map to account for the states’ 27% Black voting population. That decision, penned by Roberts, came as a welcome relief to liberals who feared that the court was poised to make it harder for minorities to challenge maps under Section 2 of the historic Voting Rights Act. A federal court approved a new map last week that significantly boosts the Black population in a second district, which could lead to the pickup of a Democratic seat next year.

    The South Carolina case raises different questions rooted in the Constitution concerning when a state crosses the line between permissible partisan goals and illegal racial discrimination.

    The state chapter of the NAACP and Scott are challenging the state’s 1st Congressional District, located along the southeastern coast and anchored in Charleston County. Although the district consistently elected Republicans from 1980 to 2016, in 2018 a Democrat was elected in a political upset.

    Two years later a Republican candidate, Mace, regained the seat in a close race. When the state House and Senate began considering congressional reapportionment in 2021, the Republican majorities sought to create a stronger GOP tilt in the district, one of seven in the state. A new map could make the seat more competitive.

    After an eight-day trial featuring 42 witnesses and 652 exhibits, a three-judge district court panel in January held that District 1 amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because race was the predominant factor in the district’s reapportionment plan.

    “To achieve a target of 17% African American population,” the court said, “Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district.” The court referred at one point to the “bleaching” of Black voters out of the Charleston County portion of the district.

    “State legislators are free to consider a broad array of factors in the design of a legislative district, including partisanship, but they may not use race as a predominant factor and may not use partisanship as a proxy for race,” the court concluded.

    South Carolina Republicans, led by state Senate President Thomas Alexander, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the maps had not been drawn impermissibly based on race, but instead with politics in mind.

    The person who devised the map testified in federal court that he was instructed to make the district “more Republican leaning,” but that he did not consider race while drawing the lines. He did, however, acknowledge that he examined racial data after drafting each version and that the Black voting-age population of the district was viewed during the drafting process.

    “If left uncorrected, the panel’s holding would place States in an impossible bind by exposing them to potential racial gerrymandering liability whenever they decline to make majority-white, modestly-majority Republican districts majority-Democratic,” argued John Gore, a lawyer for the Republicans.

    Mace filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the high court in support of the Republicans, charging that the lower court “ignored one of the most important traditional districting principles – the preservation of the core of existing districts.”

    Joined by other GOP members of Congress from South Carolina, Mace argued that constituent services, voter education and the seniority of long-serving members of the House are “vital interests” and that the lower court was “bent on destroying the legislatures’ duly enacted and carefully negotiated map.”

    Lawyers for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund told the justices in court papers that the state impermissibly used race as a predominant factor when drawing the district.

    “Using race as the predominant means to sort voters is unconstitutional even if done for partisan goals,” they argued.

    They said the lower court made clear that the state “intentionally exiled more than 30,000 Black Charlestonians from CD1 predominately because of their race.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What judicial ethics rules say about Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle bankrolled by his friends | CNN Politics

    What judicial ethics rules say about Clarence Thomas’ lifestyle bankrolled by his friends | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    It’s undeniable that Justice Clarence Thomas’ friendships with billionaires willing to foot his bill on their vacations together have given the conservative jurist a lifestyle most Americans could only dream of.

    But determining whether Thomas violated ethics rules and laws by failing to disclose that hospitality is tricky.

    The law in question is the Ethics in Government Act, and how it should be applied to the extravagant travel that Thomas and other justices have been treated to has been a subject of debate.

    The debate centers on what counts as “personal hospitality” – i.e., accommodations and entertainment that judges are treated to personally by their friends – which does not have to be reported on annual financial disclosures under certain contexts.

    The Supreme Court’s critics note that, even if Thomas was not technically in violation of the rules, his pattern of accepting – and not reporting – lavish experiences such as skybox tickets to major sporting events and far-flung trips on mega-yachts shows that the high court cannot be trusted to police itself under the current standards. Some argue that more stringent ethical reforms – perhaps in the form of legislation – are needed.

    Further complicating the picture is that the regulations laying out when personal hospitality need not be reported have recently been tightened. Thomas’ defenders have pointed to those changes, announced earlier this year, to argue that the old regime did not require the justice to report the types of hospitality now under scrutiny. Thomas himself – in a rare statement released in April, when ProPublica published its first investigation into the extravagant travel perks he has received – noted that reworked ethical guidance and vowed to follow it going forward.

    But assessing whether the gifts and hospitality described in the latest ProPublica report – which puts the tally at 38 destination vacations, 26 private jet flights, eight helicopter trips and a dozen VIP tickets to sporting events – would require disclosure, either then or under the tightened rules, is a complicated question. It sometimes depends on details about how the high-end trips were financed that were not fully fleshed out by the report.

    “The question is: Who is absorbing the cost?” said Stephen Gillers, a New York University School of Law professor who has written extensively about legal ethics and rules.

    Thomas is not the only justice who has engaged in such jet-setting. When Justice Samuel Alito was the subject of a ProPublica report detailing a 2008 private flight he took to Alaska on a plane owned by a GOP megadonor, he argued in a preemptive essay published by Wall Street Journal’s opinion section that he was not required to disclose it under ethics rules in place at the time. Alito claimed that plane trip fit the definition of “facility” in the requirements’ exemptions for personal hospitality extended to judges “on property or facilities owned by (a) person”

    Ethics experts have pushed back on the idea that a private flight could be interpreted to fall under the term “facility.” The new guidance announced in March makes clear that going forward, private plane trips cannot be excluded from the reporting requirements because “substitutes for commercial transportation” are not part of the exemptions.

    ProPublica’s latest report, published Thursday, surfaces several helicopter trips that Thomas took apparently at the expense of his billionaire benefactors. Even under the new guidance, there could be some argument that certain helicopter trips may not require disclosure, according to Gillers, who gave the example of a helicopter ride over the Grand Canyon.

    Since such a ride would not be a replacement of a commercial flight, but instead a form of entertainment offered by a friend, disclosure could potentially be avoided. But another key question, under the new guidance, is whether the helicopter ride was being paid for personally by the friend of the judge.

    The new guidance states that accommodations offered to a judge that are not paid for out of the personal pocketbook of an individual – but through a third-party entity, which could include the friend’s company or another business – would require disclosure. If the person footing the cost is seeking a tax deduction for the expense of the accommodation or gift, that would also trigger a judge’s reporting requirement.

    Justice Roberts wrote ‘condescending’ letter to Senate when asked to testify about ethics

    That means if the helicopter rides described in the ProPublica report – which Thomas occasionally enjoyed in the mid-2000s because of his friendship with the late corporate titan Wayne Huizenga – were on a helicopter owned by Huizenga’s business, Thomas would have to disclose them under the new rules. Even if Huizenga owned the helicopter personally, if he put the cost of the rides toward a tax exemption, that would also mean Thomas’ helicopter jaunts would fall outside of the exemptions.

    Thomas’ friendships with oil baron Paul “Tony” Novelly and real estate mogul Harlan Crow have led to the billionaires hosting him on their mega-yachts. Those trips have included ventures with Novelly in the Bahamas and island-hopping with Crow in Indonesia. Since Thomas presumably was sleeping on the yachts, he can argue they’re covered by the disclosure exception for accommodations personally offered by friends.

    “Thomas could say that, just as a weekend at a country home at the invitation of a friend is personal hospitality, a week on my friend’s yacht is also personal hospitality. It’s just that one is on the land and one is on the water,” Gillers said.

    Another area of scrutiny in the new ProPublica report is tickets to major sporting events – often for skybox seats – that Thomas received from his wealthy friends. Government ethics experts quoted in the story raised the disclosure requirement for gifts valued at more than $415 as potentially problematic for Thomas.

    However, according to Gabe Roth, who heads the organization Fix the Court, the ethics questions over the tickets hinge more on the entertainment exemption for judges when they are receiving personal hospitality.

    “You could make the argument that sporting tickets count as entertainment,” said Roth, whose group advocates for ethics reform and more transparency in the judiciary.

    Thomas is not the only justice who has failed to report sporting event tickets on their disclosures. Justice Elena Kagan attended a University of Wisconsin football game – sitting in the Chancellor’s Box – in 2017 that went unreported on her disclosure for that year, according to a Fix the Court review.

    Still, ProPublica points to the example of 60 lower court judges who reported sporting event tickets on their annual forms between 2003 and 2019.

    It is a particularly complicated endeavor to decipher Thomas’ reporting obligations for the access he reportedly got, via his friendship with Huizenga, to an exclusive Florida golf course. The report describes a “standing invitation” Thomas had to the members-only course, the Floridian, but ProPublica said it was not clear whether Thomas was granted a full-fledged membership or whether he was just able to visit the course as a guest of Huizenga.

    However, there are signs pointing toward disclosure for judges who do receive gifted golf club memberships. In his filing for 2008, Chief Justice John Roberts reported honorary memberships to two golf courses – valued in the thousands of dollars – that he was gifted, while even noting in the disclosure forms that he didn’t use the memberships.

    “If that’s John Roberts’ interpretation of the federal disclosure law, I am going to side with him on this,” Roth said.

    The latest investigation into Thomas’ conduct also hit on an issue that has emerged around several of the justices: whether their activity with certain charities and other organizations violates ethical standards limiting judges’ participation in fundraising.

    ProPublica, piggybacking off recent reporting by The New York Times, dug into Thomas’ involvement with the Horatio Alger Association, which offers scholarships and mentorships to students, and which connected Thomas to some of the billionaire benefactors highlighted in the report.

    Thomas, according to The Times and ProPublica, facilitated events for the organization that were hosted at the Supreme Court, with the latest investigation reporting that access to one such event cost $1,500 or more in contributions per person.

    Under a set of ethics rules for the judiciary that are separate from the financial disclosure requirements, judges are barred from allowing the “prestige” of their office to be used for the purpose of fundraising.

    “You can attend an event of an organization, a non-profit that serves as a fundraiser,” Gillers said. “But the justice or judge cannot be identified as an attraction for people to come and donate money.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden announces Michael Whitaker as FAA pick | CNN Politics

    Biden announces Michael Whitaker as FAA pick | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden intends to nominate Michael Whitaker as administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, the White House announced Thursday.

    Whitaker has previously served as deputy administrator of the agency and is “currently the chief operating officer of Supernal, a Hyundai Motor Group company designing an electric advanced air mobility (AAM) vehicle,” the White House said in a statement.

    He also worked at InterGlobe Enterprises, an Indian travel conglomerate, as well as United Airlines and Trans World Airlines. Whitaker is a private pilot and holds a law degree, according to the White House.

    The nomination comes as Congress is scrambling to reauthorize funding for the FAA.

    Biden’s previous pick to lead the agency, Phil Washington, withdrew his nomination in March amid strong criticism from Republican lawmakers over a number of issues, including his slim aviation credentials and his potential legal entanglements. The White House also didn’t have the support of enough Democrats to move Washington’s nomination out of committee.

    A top union representing flight attendants praised the pick and called for a swift confirmation.

    “We congratulate Mike Whitaker on his nomination for FAA Administrator. We support the President’s decision and call on the Senate to move to swift confirmation,” Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson said in a statement.

    United Airlines also praised the move, highlighting Whitaker’s experience, in which he spent 15 years at the airline in a variety of roles.

    “Now more than ever, the FAA needs strong leadership. We are pleased that Michael Whitaker has been nominated for this critical role and look forward to working with him to improve our aviation system for our employees and customers. Mike has deep aviation expertise and a solid reputation as a problem solver. We urge the U.S. Senate to move swiftly on his confirmation process,” United Airlines spokesperson Sam Coleman said in a statement.

    The last Senate-confirmed administrator, Steve Dickson, stepped down in March 2022. Polly Trottenberg, the deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation, has been leading the FAA in an acting capacity since June.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What could happen if the government shuts down | CNN Politics

    What could happen if the government shuts down | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The prospect of a US government shutdown grows more likely with each passing day as lawmakers have yet to reach a deal to extend funding past a critical deadline at the end of the month.

    Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle are hoping to pass a short-term funding extension to keep the lights on and avert a shutdown. But it’s not at all clear that plan will succeed amid deep divisions over spending between the two parties and policy disagreements over issues such as aid to Ukraine.

    Here’s what to know if the government shuts down and what’s driving the current state of play:

    Government funding expires at the end of the day on Saturday, September 30 when the clock strikes midnight and it becomes October 1, which marks the start of the new fiscal year. (As shorthand, the deadline is commonly described as September 30 at midnight.)

    If Congress fails to pass legislation to renew funding by that deadline, then the federal government will shut down at midnight. Since that would take place over the weekend, the full effects of a shutdown wouldn’t be seen until the start of the work week on Monday.

    In the event of a shutdown, many government operations would come to a halt, but some services deemed “essential” would continue.

    Federal agencies have contingency plans that serve as a roadmap for what will continue and what will stop. For now, agencies still have time to review and update plans and it’s not possible to predict exactly how government operations would be impacted if a shutdown were to take place at the end of the month.

    Government operations and services that continue during a shutdown are activities deemed necessary to protect public safety and national security or considered critical for other reasons. Examples of services that have continued during past shutdowns include border protection, federal law enforcement and air traffic control.

    Federal employees whose work is deemed “non-essential” would be put on furlough, which means that they would not work and would not receive pay during the shutdown. Employees whose jobs are deemed “essential” would continue to work, but they too would not be paid during the shutdown.

    Once a shutdown is over, federal employees who were required to work and those who were furloughed will receive backpay.

    In the past, backpay for furloughed employees was not guaranteed, though Congress could and did act to ensure those workers were compensated for lost wages once a shutdown ended. Now, however, backpay for furloughed workers is automatically guaranteed as a result of legislation led by Sen. Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat, that was enacted in 2019. Employees deemed “essential” and required to work were already guaranteed backpay after a shutdown prior to the passage of that legislation.

    And federal employees aren’t the only ones who can feel the effects of a shutdown.

    During past shutdowns, national parks have become a major focal point of attention. Although National Park Service sites across the country have been closed during previous government shutdowns, many remained open but severely understaffed under the Trump administration during a shutdown in 2019. Some park sites operated for weeks without park service-provided visitor services such as restrooms, trash collection, facilities or road maintenance.

    “If you’re a government worker, it’s highly disruptive – whether you’re not going to work or whether you are,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. “If you’re somebody who wants to use one of the services that you can’t get access to … it’s highly disruptive. But for many people … all the things that they are expecting and used to seeing of government are still happening and the inconveniences and the kind of wasted time and wasted resources aren’t things that they see and feel directly.”

    There is a deep divide between the House and Senate right now over the effort to reach consensus on and pass full-year spending legislation as House conservative hardliners push for deep spending cuts and controversial policy add-ons that Democrats as well as some Republicans have rejected as too extreme.

    With the funding deadline looming, top lawmakers from both parties hope to pass a short-term funding extension known on Capitol Hill as a continuing resolution or CR for short. These short-term measures are frequently used as a stopgap solution to avert a shutdown and buy more time to try to reach a broader full-year funding deal.

    It’s not clear, however, whether there will be enough consensus to pass even a short-term funding bill out of both chambers before the end of the month as House conservatives rail against the possibility of a stopgap bill and have threatened to vote against one while demanding major policy concessions that have no chance of passing the Senate.

    A fight over aid to Ukraine could also take center stage and further complicate efforts to pass a short-term bill.

    Senate Democrats and Republicans strongly support additional aid to Ukraine, which could be included as part of a stopgap bill, but many House Republicans are reluctant to continue sending aid and do not want to see that attached to a short-term funding bill.

    The White House issued a stark warning this week that a shutdown could threaten crucial federal programs.

    In its warning, the White House estimated 10,000 children would lose access to Head Start programs across the country as the Department of Health and Human Services is prevented from awarding grants during a shutdown, while air traffic controllers and TSA officers would have to work without pay, threatening travel delays across the country. A shutdown would also delay food safety inspections under the Food and Drug Administration.

    “These consequences are real and avoidable – but only if House Republicans stop playing political games with peoples’ lives and catering to the ideological demands of their most extreme, far-right members,” the White House said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link