# data[].attributes.body
https://www.aclu.org/blog/racial-justice/race-and-criminal-justice/black-lives-matter-our-courtrooms-too

# data[].attributes.body
1. A case was denied by the supreme court in which  Moath Hamza Ahmed al Alwi, a Guantanamo Bay detainee who was captured by the U.S. military in 2001. Al-Awi argued that the 2001 AUMF could no longer serve as the basis for his detention eighteen years after his capture in a conflict that had now ended.
2. I think they
3. The judicial branch has the role to interpret the laws passed by congress and approved by the

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
United States Supreme Court

MOATH HAMZA AHMED AL-ALWI v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, (2019)

No. 18-740

Argued: Decided: June 10, 2019

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Statement of Justice Breyer respecting the denial of certiorari.

Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion cautioned that "[i]f the practical circumstances" of that conflict became "entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war," the Court's "understanding" of what the AUMF authorized "may unravel." Id., at 521. Indeed, in light of the "unconventional nature" of the "war on terror," there was a "substantial prospect" that detention for the "duration of the relevant conflict" could amount to "perpetual detention." Id., at 519-521. But as this was "not the situation we face[d] as of th[at] date," the plurality reserved the question whether the AUMF or the Constitution would permit such a result. Id., at 517-518.

Some 17 years have elapsed since petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, a Yemeni national, was first held at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the decision below, the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the Government that it may continue to detain him so long as "armed hostilities between United States forces and [the Taliban and al-Qaeda] persist." 901 F. 3d 294, 298-299 (2018). The Government represents that such hostilities are ongoing, but does not state that any end is in sight. Brief in Opposition 4-5. As a consequence, al-Alwi faces the real prospect that he will spend the rest of his life in detention based on his status as an enemy combatant a generation ago, even though today's conflict may differ substantially from the one Congress anticipated when it passed the AUMF, as well as those "conflicts that informed the development of the law of war." Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 521 (plurality opinion).

"The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case." United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482, 490 (1923). I would, in an appropriate case, grant certiorari to address whether, in light of the duration and other aspects of the relevant conflict, Congress has authorized and the Constitution permits continued detention.

MOATH HAMZA AHMED AL-ALWI v. DONALD J.
TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES,

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 18-740 Decided June 10, 2019

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Statement of Justice Breyer respecting the denial of certiorari.

Justice O'Connor's plurality opinion cautioned that "[i]f the practical circumstances" of that conflict became "entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war," the Court's "understanding" of what the AUMF authorized "may unravel." Id., at 521. Indeed, in light of the "unconventional nature" of the "war on terror," there was a "substantial prospect" that detention for the "duration of the relevant conflict" could amount to "perpetual detention." Id., at 519-521. But as this was "not the situation we face[d] as of th[at] date," the plurality reserved the question whether the AUMF or the Constitution would permit such a result. Id., at 517-518.

Some 17 years have elapsed since petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed al-Alwi, a Yemeni national, was first held at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the decision below, the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the Government that it may continue to detain him so long as "armed hostilities between United States forces and [the Taliban and al-Qaeda] persist." 901 F. 3d 294, 298-299 (2018). The Government represents that such hostilities are ongoing, but does not state that any end is in sight. Brief in Opposition 4-5. As a consequence, al-Alwi faces the real prospect that he will spend the rest of his life in detention based on his status as an enemy combatant a generation ago, even though today's conflict may differ substantially from the one Congress anticipated when it passed the AUMF, as well as those "conflicts that informed the development of the law of war." Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 521 (plurality opinion).

"The denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case." United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482, 490 (1923). I would, in an appropriate case, grant certiorari to address whether, in light of the duration and other aspects of the relevant conflict, Congress has authorized and the Constitution permits continued detention.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MOATH HAMZA AHMED AL-ALWI v. DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, (2019) The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Statement of Justice Breyer respecting the denial of certiorari.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-connecticut-juvenile-justice-20191118-4s5nqwpvu5bgzpki3ylqdx4duu-story.html

# data[].attributes.body
"For example, a New York state court judge has developed an opioid intervention court that, within hours of arrest, links participants with treatment services. In Florida, a large number of early childhood courts address the needs of very young children in child welfare cases with a special focus on understanding and responding to the often lifelong effects of early childhood trauma. Kentucky has created treatment and recovery teams that combine best practices in courts, child welfare, treatment and peer recovery. Montana judges are using new technologies to respond to the special needs of participants and the complications of providing treatment and services in rural and often remote communities."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Perspectives

By Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush |

Hon. Loretta Rush

In the early 2000s, when I was a juvenile judge, I began to see a significant increase in the number of babies going through opioid withdrawal at birth. The babies' symptoms were devastating: tremors, trouble sleeping, poor feeding, seizures, vomiting and diarrhea, to name a few. Upon further investigation, I learned that during pregnancy the mothers would go pill shopping at emergency rooms, dentists and doctors - often obtaining hundreds of OxyContins at a pop.

I have now grown to understand that this was the beginnings of our nation's opioid epidemic. At the time, I convened a meeting with local doctors and said that this was a problem. I was startled by their deflection of responsibility.

The Nature and Scope of the Problem

The enormity and breadth of the current opioid crisis is difficult to grasp. Despite knowing the national statistics well and reciting them in dozens of speeches, they never cease to grip my attention.

Every day more than 115 people in our country die from overdosing on opioids;

Drug overdose, driven primarily by opioids often containing fentanyl, is the leading cause of unintentional death in the United States - surpassing fatal motor vehicle crashes;

Each year, more people in the United States die of overdoses than those who died in the Vietnam War, the Korean War, or any armed conflict since World War II;

More than half of all Americans know someone who suffers from opioid addiction;

More than 11 million people abused prescription opioids in 2016. And last year, health care providers prescribed opioids at a rate of 66.5 prescriptions for every 100 Americans - totaling more than 214 million prescriptions. In nine states, the number of opioid prescriptions is greater than the number of residents in the state;

This is a uniquely American problem. Approximately 80 percent of the world's opioid drug supply is consumed in the United States;

The secondary impacts on children and families include dramatic increases in the number of children placed in foster care and a rising incidence of neonatal abstinence syndrome;

Finally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the total economic burden of prescription opioid misuse in the United States is over $78.5 billion per year, which includes the costs of health care, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and criminal justice involvement.

The Indiana Experience
As the Chief Justice of Indiana, I am acutely aware of the trauma and disruption that opioid use and abuse have inflicted on our communities. Families have been destroyed, lives irretrievably lost. I have become actively engaged in this issue, partly because our state is located in the region of the United States most severely impacted by the epidemic. My approach has been one of "all hands on deck."

In July, the Indiana Supreme Court convened a statewide Opioid Summit, bringing together almost 1,000 community stakeholders from all 92 counties. Working in judge-led teams, we focused on a comprehensive understanding of opioid addiction and learned about the best practices for treating Opioid Use Disorder, or OUD, particularly the essential use of medication-assisted treatment. We also urged communities to use the Sequential Intercept Model and mapping as a means to better understand the best times, locations and opportunities for successful intervention.

Extending our efforts beyond state borders, Indiana is a participating member of the Regional Judicial Opioid Initiative. This is a voluntary effort undertaken by judicial leaders from eight surrounding states that are similarly impacted by the opioid crisis. We are concentrating our efforts on cooperative engagements that address potential cross-border impediments to successful responses. These engagements include sharing information to increase our understanding of the issues, sharing data to improve outcomes, and sharing successful programs and practices that can be replicated in other jurisdictions.

The National Judicial Opioid Task Force

Opioid addiction is not confined to Indiana and surrounding states: It has swept into every community and has flooded every court across our country. This is a national crisis. But it is a situation in which well-reasoned, evidence-based judicial interventions can get people to treatment, deliver appropriate consequences, cut the destructive supply, support families and save lives.

Federal, state and local leaders have mobilized an attempt to address many of the primary impacts on our communities. But the secondary impacts on state court systems have yet to be fully acknowledged or addressed. Not only state criminal courts, but all jurisdictions - including juvenile and civil dockets - have been exponentially affected by the scope and magnitude of the problem. For example, a misdemeanor drug offense often results in a host of other issues that can spread across numerous courts. Those issues may involve eviction, removal of children, bankruptcy, conservatorship or other major life-altering matters. And the number of children placed in foster care has dramatically risen, outpacing many communities' capacity to provide the services that these children and their families need. State courts have also been facing a lack of adequate community-treatment options for those with OUD.

At the same time, according to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the No. 1 referral source to get addicted individuals to treatment is the criminal justice system. And 95 percent of all cases in our country are filed in state courts. So in developing a successful national policy response to the opioid epidemic, equipping state courts with the crucial resources to identify and respond to the need for treatment is essential.

In August 2017, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators established the National Judicial Opioid Task Force, or NJOTF, as part of the National Center for State Courts. The goal of the task force is to examine and develop responses to the opioid epidemic at the state court level. I am privileged to serve as the co-chair of the task force, along with Tennessee State Court Administrator Deborah Taylor Tate. We join an executive committee composed of other state chief justices and state court administrators. Other NJOTF members include trial and appellate judges and a wide spectrum of court employees and subject-matter experts. These members bring firsthand experience with our nation's opioid epidemic, including the impacts on and responses by the state courts. We are indebted to the State Justice Institute for the generous financial support for our work.

To guide our work developing tools and resources, the NJOTF adopted five overarching principles:

(1) A Comprehensive Approach: The justice system should lead the way in delivering solutions to the opioid epidemic and must be equipped to address the harms of substance use disorders for every person at every intersection point of the justice system. The courts should, in partnership and cooperation with other public and private actors, identify, encourage and employ a broad range of evidence-based interventions spanning the entire justice system.

(2) All Hands On Deck: Judges should maximize their roles as conveners, bringing together government agency and community stakeholders such as law enforcement, corrections, child welfare and schools. Educating all court personnel on the science of substance use and mental health disorders, effective treatment interventions, the impacts of trauma and appropriate court responses is imperative to this effort.

(3) Individualized Treatment and Services: Courts should use validated screening and assessment instruments to ensure that treatment services target the individual's needs. Individualized services may include treatment for substance use, mental health, adverse childhood experiences and other trauma, and co-occurring disorders along with psychiatric services and medication assisted treatment. Treatment should not be limited to only opioid use disorder, but on all substance use disorders because substance abuse trends show that the use of other dangerous drugs, including cocaine and methamphetamines, is also rising. Services should be available at all points in the justice system including diversion programs, drug courts, alternatives to incarceration, incarceration-based programs, naloxone access for overdose prevention, telehealth services, guardian and continuation services, and other evidence-based programs.

(4) Protecting Children and Supporting Families: Interventions should incorporate a continuum of treatment strategies along with recovery support services such as parenting classes, housing assistance, employment services and child care. Services should be accessible to vulnerable populations such as babies, adolescents, inmates, mentally ill persons, those with a history of trauma, and other historically underserved populations. Family support groups, peer recovery coaches and mentoring programs should be made readily available. Further, courts should encourage and adopt strategies to insure the expeditious placement of children in a safe, stable environment.

(5) Making a Difference and Measuring Success: The courts should use data-driven decision-making approaches and establish robust data collection and quality assurance to use data for objectively assessing performance.

Work is underway on a long list of tools, resources, bench cards, webcasts, podcasts, white papers, educational resources and policy recommendations - all of which will be made available as they are completed and published. An online resource center will be completed and available before the end of this year, but available now to the public is an excellent website -ncsc.org/opioidsandcourts - that provides a broad array of information and material geared toward the state court community. We are actively involved in collaboration and outreach efforts, including meetings with members of Congress, representatives of federal agencies, and a host of national organizations. To that end, I participated as the representative of state courts in a meeting of state and local officials at the White House Opioids Summit.

We are also excited to be collaborating with the Legal Services Corporation and are grateful for the excellent leadership provided by the LSC Opioid Task Force. Legal services attorneys - critically important to the work of state courts and the civil justice system - have a unique opportunity to play a significant role in the opioid crisis response. They work at the grassroots level with clients who need OUD treatment or related services for themselves, their children or other family members; and these attorneys are often aware of their clients' needs long before a court appearance. This ability to assess needs and assist clients in accessing services as early as possible is vital - and potentially lifesaving. We look forward to the LSC Task Force's final action on the other suggestions and recommendations currently under consideration. And we welcome the opportunity to learn from and make use of the LSC Task Force's efforts in the development of a comprehensive judicial branch response.

It's true: the tasks are daunting. But I am inspired by the innovative and insightful work taking place in courts across our country in response to the opioid crisis. For example, a New York state court judge has developed an opioid intervention court that, within hours of arrest, links participants with treatment services. In Florida, a large number of early childhood courts address the needs of very young children in child welfare cases with a special focus on understanding and responding to the often lifelong effects of early childhood trauma. Kentucky has created treatment and recovery teams that combine best practices in courts, child welfare, treatment and peer recovery. Montana judges are using new technologies to respond to the special needs of participants and the complications of providing treatment and services in rural and often remote communities. And courts in Tennessee are focusing on the needs of pregnant women with OUD and children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome; they have already experienced some promising results. In sum, judges, court employees, attorneys and other judicial partners are providing leadership in state and local opioid task forces that now exist in almost every state.

These efforts provide a hopeful beginning. We are dedicated to building on these successes, learning from our mistakes, and working collaboratively - with our judicial branch partners; legislative and executive colleagues; and local, state and federal governments - to commit the resources and craft the responses and solutions that are required. "All hands on deck."

The Honorable Loretta Rush is chief justice of Indiana and co-chair of the National Judicial Opioid Task Force. She was appointed to the Supreme Court of Indiana by Gov. Mitch Daniels in 2012 and named chief justice in 2014.

"Perspectives" is a regular feature written by guest authors on access to justice issues. To pitch article ideas, email expertanalysis@law360.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Portfolio Media Inc. or any of its respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How State Courts Are Fighting Our National Opioid Epidemic - Law360

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Perspectives By Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush | Hon. Loretta Rush In the early 2000s, when I was a juvenile judge, I began to see a significant increase in the number of babies going through opioid withdrawal at birth. The babies' symptoms were devastating: tremors, trouble sleeping, poor feeding, seizures, vomiting and diarrhea, to name a few.

# data[].attributes.body
This supreme court case could potentially set a precedent forbidding free speech in terms of supporting illegal immigration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1. COVID-19 Has Trapped Thousands of Parolees In Prison

2. The Supreme Court Can Only See Certain People's Suffering

3. Democrats Had an Opportunity to Grill Trump's Trumpiest Judge

4. How Other Countries' Courts are Handling the Pandemic

Freedom of speech is one of the few issues that could be said to have bipartisan support at the Supreme Court. While the justices might differ as to what exactly counts as "speech"- money, for example-they agree that it takes a lot for the government to overcome First Amendment objections.

Now the conservative justices have a chance to prove their commitment to that principle. The Supreme Court has agreed to take up United States v. Sineneng-Smith this term, a case that concerns a little-used provision of immigration law that forbids "encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to ... reside in the United States" when the encourager knows that person has no legal status.

The case seems straightforward enough: Immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith told her undocumented clients they could stay in the United States under a program she knew had ended. That was fraud, and the government ultimately convicted her for it.

But the government also convicted her on the encouragement provision, which on its face appears to criminalize any pro-immigration speech.

And that has the immigrant rights community worried that the court-with its recent record of unprecedented deference to the president on immigration matters-could greenlight the Trump Justice Department to criminalize routine legal work and political speech.

"An advocate or lawyer now has to worry, given the government's position in this case, that this language ... may trigger criminal liability just for correctly advising a noncitizen," said Manny Vargas, senior counsel for the nonprofit Immigrant Defense Project in New York City.

The 9 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made short work of rejecting Sineneng-Smith's appeal on the fraud convictions but reversed her encouragement convictions, finding that the government's interpretation of the statute criminalizes a large amount of constitutionally protected speech.

Writing for a three-judge majority, Judge A. Wallace Tashima said the provision could send a social media user to prison for encouraging undocumented people to stay until the law is changed, or a lawyer for telling her client that he has fewer due process rights outside the United States than inside. In so ruling, he had the help of a great many amicus briefs from immigration advocacy groups, attorney groups, and First Amendment advocates, mostly arguing that the encouragement provision criminalizes protected political speech and routine legal work.

Tashima's ruling dismissed claims from the federal government that the encouragement provision is not really a law against speech but requires "specific actions that facilitate" the entry or presence of an undocumented person. That's not what the statute says, Tashima wrote. Indeed, he noted that the federal government has already prosecuted at least one person who "advised the cleaning lady generally about immigration law" in U.S. v. Henderson, without any of the specific actions that the government said in Sineneng-Smith were required.

In Henderson, filed during the end of the George W. Bush administration, a Customs and Border Protection official knowingly employed an undocumented housekeeper, whom she advised not to leave the country because she would not be readmitted. According to the Massachusetts district judge overseeing the case, the government argued that an immigration lawyer who gave the same advice could be criminally prosecuted. The judge ultimately granted a new trial, but not on First Amendment grounds, which don't appear to have been raised.

Nor may courts let an unconstitutional law stand merely because the government promises not to use it, Tashima said.

"Indeed, [ Henderson] exemplifies why we cannot take the government's word for how it will enforce a broadly written statute," he wrote, "and suggests that any would-be speaker who has thought twice about expressing her views on immigration was not being paranoid."

The administration has already threatened to use these laws against sanctuary city officials who refuse to cooperate with immigrationenforcement.

Nonetheless, the government repeated its "conduct, not speech" argument in its petition for Supreme Court review. The appeal alone makes some advocates nervous.

"The fact that the U.S. is looking to get the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's finding ... is an indication that the government wants to use this provision," Vargas said.

Then there's the fact that that the Supreme Court took up Sineneng-Smith, even though it's not an obvious candidate for review. At least until now, the statute has rarely been used, despite having been in the Immigration and Nationality Act for decades. As a result, there's no circuit split and no case of any kind from other federal appeals courts. And if the government wants to prosecute immigration-related wrongdoing like trafficking, it has plenty of other statutes at hand.

Given that, Khaled Alrabe of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild found the cert grant "concerning." He's particularly worried about the possibility that attorneys will be too afraid of prosecution to give accurate legal advice.

"It's ultimately terrible for the undocumented individuals," said Alrabe, because attorneys may withhold important information out of fear.

It could even put lawyers in an ethical bind, advocates say, threatening them with prosecution for meeting their obligations to provide zealous and correct representation. For example, Vargas says, an undocumented person who marries a citizen can adjust her status to lawful, but if she leaves the United States, she won't be permitted to come back. Advising that client to stay would be an important part of representing her-but also potentially a felony.

"If you interpret the plain meaning of the statute as it is, then you'd be in violation of the statute for doing your job," Alrabe notes.

That's a reasonable concern under a presidential administration that has repeatedly arrested outspoken immigrant advocates. At least some people in the immigration law community see a political agenda. The administration has already threatened to use these laws against sanctuary city officials who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement.

"Naturally, immigrant advocates or lawyers have to worry about what the federal government's going to do with respect to effective, competent legal advocacy," Vargas said.

And the court's recent record on immigration, particularly its abdication of its duties to the free exercise clause in the travel ban case, may not offer much hope to immigrants and their advocates.

But in Sineneng-Smith, there's no national security fig leaf to hide behind, just a dispute about whether the statute means what it says. What the court's conservatives do about it will say a lot about their commitment to free speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court May Criminalize Immigrant Advocacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
COVID-19 Has Trapped Thousands of Parolees In Prison The Supreme Court Can Only See Certain People's Suffering Democrats Had an Opportunity to Grill Trump's Trumpiest Judge How Other Countries' Courts are Handling the Pandemic Freedom of speech is one of the few issues that could be said to have bipartisan support at the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Recently, justices from various states where the epidemic is especially severe met for the first Regional Judicial Opioid (RJOI) summit. They discussed possible solutions and action plans to combat the epidemic.
2. They are working on helping people get the help they need rather than throwing them in jail and putting them back on the streets.
3. All three branches actions are somewhat similar and all focus on making it easy for victims of the crisis to get help.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Opioid Epidemic and the Courts
Michelle White, Principal Court Consultant, National Center for State Courts Tara Kunkel, Principal Court Consultant, National Center for State Courts; Senior Fellow, Bureau of Justice Assistance Opioid abuse has been steadily increasing in the United States. State courts must partner with other organizations to confront this epidemic.
The misuse of opioids such as heroin, morphine, and other prescription pain medicines is a serious national problem. In 2015 one in ten Americans reported using an illicit drug in the past 30 days.[1] Marijuana use and the misuse of prescription pain relievers account for the majority of illicit drug use. Of the 21.5 million Americans 12 or older who had a substance-use disorder in 2014, 1.9 million had a substance-use disorder involving prescription pain relievers, and 586,000 had a substance-use disorder involving heroin.[2]

Widespread use of opioids has had a devastating impact on many communities. In 2014, more people died from drug overdoses than in any year on record, with 78 Americans dying every day from an opioid overdose. Drug overdose now surpasses motor-vehicle crashes as the leading cause of injury death in the United States. Most opioid-related overdoses involve prescription painkillers, but a growing number are the result of a powerful combination of heroin and fentanyl, a synthetic opioid often packaged and sold as heroin. Some of the largest concentrations of overdose deaths were in Appalachia and the Southwest, according to county-level estimates by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.[3]

One contributing factor behind the opioid epidemic is the increase in the use of prescription painkillers nationally. From 1991 to 2011, the number of opioid prescriptions dispensed by U.S. pharmacies tripled from 76 million to 219 million.[4] This increase in the use of opioids is unique to America. The United States represents less than 5 percent of the world's population but consumes roughly 80 percent of the world's supply of opioid drugs.[5] There is also wide variation from one state to another in opioid-prescribing rates. In 2012 twelve states had more opioid prescriptions than people: Alabama (142.9 per 100 people), Tennessee (142.8), West Virginia (137.6), Kentucky (128.4), Oklahoma (127.8), Mississippi (120.3), Louisiana (118), Arkansas (115.8), Indiana (109.1), Michigan (107), South Carolina (101.8), and Ohio (100.1).[6]

The impact of the opioid epidemic touches every aspect of our public safety and judicial system. Drug-related arrests involving opioids are skyrocketing. In many communities, court dockets and probation caseloads are filled with individuals with opioid-use disorders. Access to treatment, particularly medication-assisted treatment combined with cognitive behavioral interventions, is limited-particularly in rural communities. This epidemic also comes at a price. In 2015 the Ohio Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services began providing substance-abuse treatment in Ohio's prisons, spending an estimated $30 million per year on drug treatment in prisons, $4 million on housing for individuals in recovery, and $1 million over two years for naloxone to reverse drug overdoses. The Ohio State Highway Patrol spent over $2 million to expand and improve their crime lab to keep up with substance testing.

In addition to the impact of opioid abuse on the criminal courts, the nation's family courts and child welfare system are being deeply impacted. A recent report by the Administration for Children and Families shows that after years of decline, the number of children in foster care is rising. Nearly three-quarters of all states reported an increase in the number of children entering foster care from 2014 to 2015. The largest increases occurred in Florida, Indiana, Georgia, Arizona, and Minnesota. From 2012 to 2016, the percentage of removals nationally due to parental substance abuse increased 13 percent to 32.2 percent.

The judiciary can play a critical role in addressing the opioid epidemic. In August 2016, representatives from the Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia courts convened for the first-ever Regional Judicial Opioid (RJOI) Summit. The judicial summit brought together multidisciplinary delegates from each state to develop a regional action plan and consider regional strategies to combat the opioid epidemic. RJOI member states continue to work both within their home states and regionally to share promising practices, as well as to implement the objectives of the regional action plan. Courts are encouraged to work with partners in similar ways to:

Invest in local, state, and regional multidisciplinary, system-level strategic planning to identify policies or practice changes that can improve treatment engagement and reduce the risk of overdose death. Judges are particularly effective at using their convening power to bring together a variety of agencies and community stakeholders. The sequential intercept model is an effective approach to identifying gaps and opportunities for diverting criminal-justice-involved people to treatment. Communities are encouraged to not focus singularly on heroin use but to focus on substance-use disorders in general. A recent CDC study found that nearly all people who used heroin also used at least one other drug; most used at least three other drugs.[7]

Implement law-enforcement diversion programs, prosecutor diversion programs, or both to deflect or divert individuals with substance-use disorders from the criminal justice system into treatment at the earliest possible point.

Expand court diversion and sentencing options that provide substance-abuse treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Problem-solving courts, such as adult drug courts or veterans treatment courts, are the most notable examples of effective approaches.

Incorporate strategic screening questions designed to identify criminal-justice-involved individuals at high-risk for overdose death into all criminal-justice-agency intake forms. Specifically, research suggests that individuals with a history of non-fatal overdoses, individuals with a history of opioids in combination with benzodiazepines like Xanax (alprazolam) and Soma (Carisoprodol), and individuals with an opioid-use disorder recently released from a confined environment (e.g., residential treatment or incarceration) are at particular risk for overdose death. This population should be prioritized for treatment and overdose-prevention services, such as naloxone access.

On January 24, 2017, the Bureau of Justice Assistance released funding for a "Comprehensive Opioid Abuse Program." Through this solicitation, courts and their partners may implement overdose outreach projects, technology-assisted treatment programs, and diversion and alternatives to incarceration. The grants are due April 25, 2017. A copy of the solicitation can be found here.

The National Center for State Courts is cosponsoring an upcoming meeting to be held on February 28, 2017, Promoting a Comprehensive Response to the Opioid Epidemic: Funding, Effective Design and Implementation, Research and Evaluation, in Washington, D.C. Grant funding opportunities will be discussed at this meeting. Register here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Opioid Epidemic and the Courts Michelle White, Principal Court Consultant, National Center for State Courts Tara Kunkel, Principal Court Consultant, National Center for State Courts; Senior Fellow, Bureau of Justice Assistance Opioid abuse has been steadily increasing in the United States. State courts must partner with other organizations to confront this epidemic.

# data[].attributes.body
1) There is a case that the supreme court agrees with the city of San Jose in arguing for building housing that's more affordable for people, while the builders are more interested in just building nice structures.
2)I think it's good that the court agrees with building to make more affordable housing as opposed to building for the sake of making more buildings, It's helpful for the judicial group to be in favor of the city in getting more affordable  housing.
3)The judicial branch might not be effective as the other branches because it'll take longer to process stuff and the other branches are quicker in taking action of these issues.

# data[].attributes.headline
London police ban on Extinction Rebellion was unlawful, court finds

# data[].attributes.subject
London police ban on Extinction Rebellion was unlawful, court finds

# data[].attributes.body
1. They are reviewing a law banning  public demonstrations for climate change
2. This is a good move because it's checking the power of their legislative committee.
3. The Executive branch acts upon rules set by the legislative branch and if there are disputes it is regulated by the Judicial Branch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Lawyers for the protest group say those arrested illegally could claim thousands in compensation
The UK's High Court overturned a city-wide protest ban against Extinction Rebellion protests on Wednesday, rendering illegal arrests that took place under it.
Lord justice James Dingemans and justice Martin Chamberlain said the Met had used powers beyond the reach of the law, Section 14 of the 1986 public order act, which can only apply to single assemblies.

The judges ruled that the movement's uprising, which brought much of central London to a standstill, constituted multiple, physical assemblies despite being organised under the umbrella of one movement.

Extinction Rebellion art seized by police includes Ron Mueck skull

Imposed after a week of disruptions in London, the ban instructed "any assembly to linked to Extinction Rebellion 'Autumn Uprising' (publicised as being from 7th October to 19th October at 1800 hours) [to] cease their protests within London by 2100 hours 14 October".

A string of public figures sympathising with the movement had requested the judicial review of the ban, which abruptly rendered Extinction Rebellion's eight day occupation of Trafalgar Square illegal. These included Green peer Jenny Jones, Labour MPs David Drew and Clive Lewis, Green MEP Eleanor Chowns, Labour activist Adam Alnutt, Green MP Caroline Lucas and environmental journalist George Monbiot.

"We're delighted with today's result," Extinction Rebellion lawyer Tobias Garnett told reporters outside the court. "It indicates our belief that the police's blanket-ban was unprecedented and now unlawful on our right to protest. It's a victory for those who want to draw the government's attention to what the scientists have been telling us for decades, which is: that the planet is warming, that we're in the midst of the sixth mass extinction, that we are responsible and we have a very short time to do something about it."

"Rather than criminalising Extinction Rebellion's activists, we call on the government to tell the truth and act now on this ecological emergency," Garnett said.

Emmanuel Macron's war on climate activism

Protesters could now sue the Met for wrongful imprisonment and receive compensation. Jules Carey, a lawyer from Bindmans who acted for the protest group, estimated the number of arrests that took place under the ban at "around 700 people".

Carey told the Guardian each compensation claim could be several thousands of pounds. "It's a very expensive mistake for the Metropolitan police."

"This judgment is a vindication of those who have sought to defend our crucial right to protest," Monbiot said. "Non-violent civil disobedience is essential to democratic politics - in fact there would be no democratic politics without it. The attempt by the Metropolitan Police to shut down civil protest was a direct assault on democracy. I am delighted it has been struck down."

Chown, who said she was arrested on 7 October "for doing nothing more than standing more on Trafalgar Square", described the judgment as an immense victory for the right to assembly and to protest, which are cornerstones of democracy"

"It does outline that in some ways the courts can be our friends and the police have to be really careful of how they use their powers with demonstration," Sarah Lunnon, a member of the movement's political circle, told CHN. "I don't think activists always recognise that"

Earlier in October, Joanna Gilmore, an academic specialising in public order law at the University of York, told CHN that a successful overturn of the ban would not spell the end of Extinction Rebellion's troubles. "If they stop arresting people under Section 14, they'll start arresting people under other offences such as aggravated trespass offences. There's a broad range of powers they can draw upon."

The police would be able to issue the Section 14 order again, this time refining the terms of the act by perhaps narrowing the ban to a smaller geographic area

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
London police ban on Extinction Rebellion was unlawful, court finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lawyers for the protest group say those arrested illegally could claim thousands in compensation The UK's High Court overturned a city-wide protest ban against Extinction Rebellion protests on Wednesday, rendering illegal arrests that took place under it.

# data[].attributes.headline
H. Edward Flentje: Anti-abortion activists threaten judicial independence

# data[].attributes.subject
H. Edward Flentje: Anti-abortion activists threaten judicial independence

# data[].attributes.body
1- “Earlier this year the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the Bill of Rights in the state constitution guarantees each Kansan "personal autonomy," which includes "the ability to control one's own body" and allows a woman to determine "whether to continue a pregnancy.”

2- good !!

3- bro i don’t even know

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two justices of the Kansas Supreme Court recently announced their retirements, and well-established constitutional procedures are now underway to fill those vacancies.

In a desperate, preemptive strike, anti-abortion activists interjected themselves into the selection process and declared two candidates under consideration ideologically unfit to fill a position on the Kansas Supreme Court.

Kansans should be assured, however, that this political dustup will not derail the constitutionally mandated process. For now, three candidates, including one of the targeted candidates, Chief Judge Evelyn Wilson of the Shawnee County District Court, have been properly screened, found to be qualified, and forwarded to Gov. Laura Kelly, who must select one for final appointment to the Court.

The unusual, last-minute gambit comes as little surprise as abortion opponents have in recent years had their way with state lawmakers, specifically former Gov. Sam Brownback and Republican legislative majorities, in enacting numerous measures that restrict access to abortion.

However, these activists have tried but failed to bend the Kansas Supreme Court to their will. They have been blocked by the Kansas Constitution, which establishes an independent judiciary and prescribes that "qualifications," not politics, should determine who sits on the state's highest court.

More than 60 years ago, Kansas voters overwhelmingly adopted a constitutional amendment designed to reinforce judicial independence and remove partisan political considerations from the selection of justices to the Kansas Supreme Court. That constitutional language provides for a "non-partisan" Supreme Court Nominating Commission to screen candidates and nominate "three persons possessing the qualifications of office" to the governor for consideration and appointment of one of those to the court. Once appointed, each Supreme Court justice periodically stands before voters in a statewide retention election to determine whether the justice should be retained on the court.

This constitutional procedure, often termed "merit selection," has repeatedly been embraced by Kansas voters. Each of the 25 justices appointed based on qualifications has stood for retention on one or more occasions and been retained by voters. Each of the nine Kansas governors elected in this period - five Republicans and four Democrats - has appointed at least one justice to the Court.

These constitutional safeguards stand in the way of anti-abortion activists and their desire to realign the Kansas judiciary more to their political liking. Kansans for Life and its allies have sought to undo these provisions and have mounted repeated attacks on the court. They have advocated abandoning merit selection of justices, conducted postcard campaigns to oust justices in retention elections, cheered lawmakers threatening the court with budget cuts and impeachment, and now have tried to blackball prospective court candidates. These actions have garnered headlines but to date have not altered the court's independence.

Earlier this year the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the Bill of Rights in the state constitution guarantees each Kansan "personal autonomy," which includes "the ability to control one's own body" and allows a woman to determine "whether to continue a pregnancy." The court's decision potentially jeopardizes recently enacted abortion restrictions and gives new urgency to anti-abortion interests that seek to control the court.

Kansans should rest assured that for now the selection of new justices for the Supreme Court will proceed steadily on the basis of merit. They should remain vigilant, however, as special interests, such as abortion opponents, make another push to politicize the court and threaten the independence of the state's judicial branch.

Ed Flentje is an emeritus professor of political science at Wichita State University. He can be reached at ed.flentje@gmail.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
H. Edward Flentje / Special to GateHouse Kansas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
H. Edward Flentje: Anti-abortion activists threaten judicial independence

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two justices of the Kansas Supreme Court recently announced their retirements, and well-established constitutional procedures are now underway to fill those vacancies. In a desperate, preemptive strike, anti-abortion activists interjected themselves into the selection process and declared two candidates under consideration ideologically unfit to fill a position on the Kansas Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
tion doctor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html

2. These actions are good. The Judicial Branch should be making sure that states aren't inadvertently trying to limit access to abortion.

3. Judicial branch has the power to challenge laws made by the executive and legislative branch.

# data[].attributes.headline
Where The Supreme Court Stands On Gun Laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Where The Supreme Court Stands On Gun Laws

# data[].attributes.body
1.  "The court is saying that there's an individual right to bear arms, made clear that there are limitations on that right, just as there are limitations on other constitutional rights... And in addition, the court also seemed to say that particularly dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited, like military assault-style weapons."

2.  They are good because according to the source, it states that: "The court could, by default, be the answer to setting national parameters on complex issues like who gets access to guns and how."  These are all good possibilities but the court really hasn't addressed that many gun-related cases in recent years.

3.  I'm not too sure because I think they are all the same.

https://www.npr.org/2018/03/04/590670128/where-the-supreme-court-stands-on-gun-laws

# data[].attributes.body
The judicial branch is currently starting to work towards a decision, hasn't actually reached Supreme Court yet. I think this is an important case to win, because everyone should have the right to a basic education, and opposers are just arguing that while the situation is bad, they don't actually have right to an education, so it can't violate that right.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
After two years of struggling to pass any of his community college classes, Jamarria Hall, 19, knows this for certain: His high school did not prepare him.

The four years he spent at Detroit's Osborn High School were "a big waste of time," he said, recalling 11th and 12th grade English classes where students were taught from materials labeled for third or fourth graders, and where long-term substitutes showed movies instead of teaching.

What's less certain, however, is whether Hall's education in Detroit's long-troubled school district was so awful, so insufficient, that it violated his constitutional rights.

That's the question now before a federal appeals court that heard arguments last month in one of two cases that experts say could have sweeping implications for schools across the country.

The cases, now snaking their way through the federal courts, could yield "enormous, almost earth-shattering change in terms of educational funding and educational opportunity," said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina whose research has focused on educational rights and constitutional law.

The Detroit case was filed in 2016 on behalf of Hall and other students who attended rodent-infested, crumbling schools that lacked certified teachers and up-to-date textbooks. It argued that appalling conditions, including an eighth grader who taught math to his classmates for a month after his teacher quit, denied students a basic right to literacy.

A similar case was filed on behalf of students in Rhode Island last year, asserting that they were denied a basic civics education.

If either case succeeds and is ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court, Black said, it would establish for the first time that students have a "fundamental right" to an education that meets minimum standards of quality.

"It would lay down a huge marker in terms of how all the states across the nation fund or don't fund their schools," Black said.

And that would give new power to students.

"Every school in the country would be affected," said Michael Rebell, a Teachers College, Columbia University professor who brought the Rhode Island case. "It would mean that students in other urban areas or rural areas that think they're getting a totally inadequate education would have a basis to go to federal court and say, 'Our system isn't teaching basic literacy and we have a right to it.' There could be a lot of litigation."

The case heard Thursday in Cincinnati before a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals put the blame for Detroit students' troubles on the state of Michigan. The state had taken control of Detroit's main school district from the locally elected school board for much of the last two decades, while encouraging scores of new charter schools to open and siphon students away.

But many charter schools in the city also face alarming conditions. The suit reflects that by including students from both kinds of schools.

One teacher, Renee Schenkman, said she helped the lawyers in the case document conditions in her charter school, Experiencia Preparatory Academy, which has since closed.

Schenkman, who taught second and third grade, detailed conditions like broken glass on the vacant lot the school used as a playground and a burst pipe in her classroom that was cordoned off in hopes that children wouldn't get too close.

Most of the time she was there, she said, she wasn't given a curriculum.

"I had to Google how to teach phonics," Schenkman said.

The school often lacked money to pay for basic supplies, she added.

"It's a terrible feeling," she said, choking up as she talked about her students. "I started teaching because I care so much about kids and education, and to feel like I had none of the tools to do that, none of the support to do that, and to be faced with kids who are very eager to be there and to be part of the class, and to see that they're falling so far behind, that was the hardest thing."

As one of the only Spanish speakers on staff, Schenkman was called to translate at many family meetings where parents were told their children were years behind academically.

"It was really heartbreaking," she said. "I just feel like this is not the kids' fault. ... We should be able to provide them with safe facilities where they can learn."

In the hourlong arguments of the Detroit case in federal court last week, there was little dispute about the conditions alleged in the lawsuit.

Even the attorney representing the defendants, who include Michigan's governor and members of its elected board of education, acknowledged the schools in Detroit were unacceptable three years ago, when the suit was filed. However, Raymond Howd, the Michigan assistant attorney general, representing the state, argued that "there's a difference between a serious problem" and one that violates students' rights.

That's what makes the students' argument such a difficult one to make legally.

The Detroit case - which was renamed Gary B. et al v. Whitmer, after Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, was elected last year, replacing her predecessor, Rick Snyder, as the top defendant - was already thrown out by a district court judge who found that while the allegations were alarming, that did not mean the conditions in Detroit schools were unconstitutional. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the circuit court.

There is no mention of the word "education" in the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has held in the past that there is no constitutional right to education or to equally funded schools.

The court, in a 5-4 decision in the 1973 San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez case, rejected a complaint from poor students who argued that their rights were being violated because San Antonio's property-tax-based school funding system favored students whose families were more affluent.

But supporters of the Detroit and Rhode Island cases argue that their cases are different because the students in Detroit and Rhode Island aren't just receiving a subpar education - they're receiving an education so inadequate that they can't realistically exercise established constitutional rights, such as the right to vote and to participate in their nation's democracy.

The court in the Rodriguez case acknowledged that students have a right to vote and to free speech and agreed that you need "some quantum of basic education to exercise these important constitutional rights," Rebell said. But the students in the Rodriguez case never claimed that their schools weren't meeting their basic needs.

"They just said they're not getting enough money," Rebell said. "So now we're 46 years later and the plaintiffs in the Detroit case are essentially saying to the federal courts that whatever that quantum of education is that you need to exercise your constitutional rights, it's got to mean basic literacy skills. And all the reasons they set forth in the complaint are saying kids in Detroit are not getting those basic constitutional rights."

Martha Minow, a former dean of Harvard law school and the author of a book about the legacy of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, said the education system in Michigan violates the Constitution because some school districts in the state fail to provide even a minimal education while others, including those in affluent suburbs of Detroit, are providing a much higher quality education.

"Some people are getting an education and other people are not, and that's discrimination," said Minow, who filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Detroit students.

"It might be a different world if we had a state that did not offer education to anybody, but there are people in the suburbs who are getting a very good education, so they're creating a second-class caste system, a group of students who have no chance of having entree to good jobs and to be effective citizens and to be able to govern their lives."

While inequities like these exist in many parts of the United States, some states have addressed such imbalances in the wake of court rulings that established the right to education under state constitutions. Those rulings have forced state legislatures to find more equitable ways to distribute education dollars.

In other states, including Michigan, Rhode Island, Florida and Illinois, courts have rejected claims of a right to education. Those are the states that would see the biggest impact if these federal cases are successful.

It's not clear, however, how likely it is that the Detroit case will succeed. The federal appeals court typically takes several months to issue an opinion. If the circuit court judges decide to reinstate the case, it could go back to the trial court or make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some advocates acknowledge that the current conservative makeup of the court might not make it favorable to cases like these, but Mark Rosenbaum, one of the attorneys for the Detroit students, is hopeful.

"The Supreme Court has said affirmatively that you cannot compel people to do something and then not deliver on what you said you can deliver on," he said. "You can't put children in school for six or seven hours a day on compulsory education laws and then not deliver an education any more than you can put a patient in a mental hospital and then not provide treatment."

Still, the case is complicated, made more so by the election last year of Whitmer, who argues that the state has already addressed the situation in Detroit schools by returning the main school district to a locally elected school board in 2017, and by spending millions of dollars in 2016 to create a new school district - the Detroit Public Schools Community District - that is free from the crippling debts that nearly bankrupted the predecessor district, the Detroit Public Schools.

The new district now has a well-regarded superintendent who has implemented a number of changes, including a new curriculum. Higher teacher salaries are starting to chip away at the teacher shortage and test scores are inching up.

"There's no longer a continuing constitutional violation," Howd said in court.

The students, however, say the case has little to do with whether the Detroit schools are incrementally better. They say they have already suffered long-term harm.

"You're taking a discrete set of innocent children and saying to them, 'We're not going to provide you with access to the basic tools, books and everything that will allow you to read,'" Carter Glasgow Phillips, the attorney who argued on behalf of the students told the court last week. "We're saying to you: You are now stigmatized for all time. The fact that you went to Osborn High School will stigmatize you for the rest of your life because you never had an opportunity to be in a position to read and that will affect everything that goes on in that human's life henceforth."

Hall didn't decide to go to Osborn because he thought the school would be great. He'd gotten into Detroit's higher-performing selective high schools, he said, but chose Osborn because his father was the basketball coach there.

"I didn't think the curriculum would be that bad," he said.

But as soon as he walked through the bank of metal detectors at the school door on his first day, he knew something wasn't right.

"I remember walking into the hallway and seeing garbage cans catching drips from the ceiling," he said. "Seeing the lack of books and how the classroom had bars and things on the window and could barely open, and the aroma from I don't know what. It's just a kind of toxic sickness in the air."

Now he's attending a community college in Florida, where he moved after graduating near the top of his class in 2017. But he has already failed two classes as he struggles to keep up.

"It feels like I've lost an opportunity or lost four years of my life," Hall said. "It's really despicable for me to live in America and to have a chance at the American dream and to be able to live in a society where everybody should have the same opportunity and to know that it's not happening for me."

Hall's not alone. Few of his classmates are in college, though some are still trying, he said.

"I keep losing friends every day to jail and death," he said. "It takes a toll on the whole community."

"You're not educated," he added, "and you don't understand why."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schools so broken they violate student rights? This Detroit lawsuit could be 'earth-shattering'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After two years of struggling to pass any of his community college classes, Jamarria Hall, 19, knows this for certain: His high school did not prepare him. The four years he spent at Detroit's Osborn High School were "a big waste of time," he said, recalling 11th and 12th grade English classes where students were taught from materials labeled for third or fourth graders, and where long-term substitutes showed movies instead of teaching.

# data[].attributes.body
As of now the Judicial Branch doesn't seem to be doing much to help the housing crisis specifically in the Bay Area. There were many bills that May shot down though that would promise quick reforms for housing.

the actions taken against the plans to build new homes is sort of bad, yet sort of good at the same time. The plans proposed consisted of Billions of $ revenue that the state would generate and 1/3 of their total would be spent on homes. May has to also take into consideration the payments for the rest of California's assets as well, such as electricity and water being run through the state.

The Legislative branch and the Executive branch together did more that what the Judicial branch has done, as it doesn't seem that the Judicial branch is committing much to help California with its housing crisis.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The city of San  Jose is waiting to see if the supreme court will hear their case regarding affordable housing. The supreme court had already sided with San Jose in June , as they are against the developers.
2. This is a good action if the supreme court hears this case because it could lead to less "inclusionary zones" with housing all over California.
3. The Judicial branch will talk more time to make an action rather than a law they will need more information but the result will be greater

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/opinion/trump-supreme-court.html
My article is about how Trump thinks that he is superior to the criminal justice system. He thinks that because he is the president, he does not have to be tried under the criminal justice system. Trump thinks that he's above the law, and the Supreme Court (judicial system) wants to make sure that he knows he's not. I think this is a warranted action because Trump should know what rights he has and should not step over the boundaries as a president.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Minnesota Judicial Branch launched a new management system using technology for court interpreters
2. I think these actions are good because they help the court interpreters manage profile information, scheduling, payments, and reports
3. The Executive and the Legislature do not have technology like the Judicial branch does for their court interpreters

# data[].attributes.headline
Alabama Abortion Ban Is Temporarily Blocked by a Federal Judge

# data[].attributes.subject
Alabama Abortion Ban Is Temporarily Blocked by a Federal Judge

# data[].attributes.body
1) The actions currently taking place in the judicial branch is the actions of blocking the Alabama Abortion ban due to Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama idea that it violates Supreme Court precedent and “defies” the Constitution.
2) I think these actions are bad because the people have been advocating for this ban for a while and Alabama is not taking in any of their ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Alabama law, which would have forbidden abortions in almost every instance, was scheduled to take effect on Nov. 15.

People gathered at the Alabama State Capitol during the March for Reproductive Freedom against the state's new abortion law, the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, in Montgomery, Ala., in May. Credit... Michael Spooneybarger/Reuters

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a near-total ban on abortions from taking effect next month in Alabama, ensuring the procedure remains legal and available in the state while the case winds its way through the courts.

In ruling against the Alabama law - the most far-reaching anti-abortion measure passed by state lawmakers this year - Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama wrote that it violates Supreme Court precedent and "defies" the Constitution.

Alabama was among several states to approve restrictive laws designed to provoke a renewed legal battle over abortion rights, with the aim to reach the United States Supreme Court and topple Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion up to the point when a fetus is viable outside the womb, usually about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Federal judges in six other states have blocked laws that would ban abortions after what becomes the fetus's heartbeat can be detected from going into effect, and judges in two other states have temporarily blocked laws that would ban abortions after 18 weeks. Alabama's law would have gone into effect Nov. 15.

Tuesday's ruling was anticipated. When she signed the bill into law in May, Alabama's governor, Kay Ivey, conceded that the legislation was likely "unenforceable." Still, she said it would prompt courts to "revisit this important matter."

Opponents of the law hailed Tuesday's ruling as a positive development as the case pushed ahead. They also said it came as a relief to the women who believed that the procedure had already been outlawed in their state.

"Abortion remains legal in Alabama," Randall Marshall, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said in a statement following the ruling. "The state's repeated attempts to push abortion out of reach by enacting unconstitutional laws restricting abortions have already cost taxpayers nearly $2.5 million. This ill-advised law will cost taxpayers more money."

The legal challenge to Alabama's law was mounted by the A.C.L.U. and Planned Parenthood on behalf of Dr. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Huntsville, Ala., who provides abortions.

In a statement on Tuesday, Dr. Robinson said the care she and her staff provide was "essential health care."

"These ruthless attacks from anti-abortion politicians have no place in Alabama," she said.

Supporters of the law denounced the decision.

"This is judicial activism, pure and simple," said State Senator Clyde Chambliss, a Republican lawmaker who was a sponsor of the legislation.

Still, supporters recognized that the injunction was a necessary part of the larger legal confrontation that they believe could serve as a lever for overturning Roe v. Wade.

"As we have stated before, the state's objective is to advance our case to the U.S. Supreme Court," Steve Marshall, the state's attorney general, said in a statement. There, he said, the state would submit evidence that the landmark abortion cases of Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were "wrongly decided and that the Constitution does not prohibit states from protecting unborn children from abortion."

Alabama's law, called the Human Life Protection Act and drafted by leaders of the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition, calls for a sweeping ban, including in cases of rape and incest, and threatens doctors who perform the procedure with felony charges and up to 99 years in prison. The law includes an exception for instances where a mother's health is at serious risk.

"This legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians' deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ms. Ivey, a Republican, said as she signed the law, which had stirred debate even among fellow Republicans.

The tide of anti-abortion legislation across the country came on the heels of last year's Supreme Court appointment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, a move that buoyed conservatives.

Legislatures in Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi and Georgia were among the states that passed laws banning abortion after a heartbeat is detected, measures that could effectively prohibit abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, when many women do not yet know they are pregnant. Lawmakers in Utah and Arkansas approved 18-week bans.

The laws were all blocked by preliminary injunctions issued by federal judges. Louisiana also passed a so-called heartbeat bill, but it contained a stipulation that it would not be enforceable until a federal appellate court rules on Mississippi's similar law.

Legal scholars said that anti-abortion lawmakers and activists had in the past largely stuck to methodically chipping away at abortion rights, such as laws passed in Louisiana and Texas that required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The Supreme Court struck down the Texas law in 2016, but it agreed this month to hear a challenge to the Louisiana law, making it the first abortion case to reach the court since the addition of President Trump's appointments of Mr. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch.

Legal scholars said the Louisiana case stood to reshape the constitutional principles governing abortion rights. But it also reflected a rising clash over tactics.

Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of the forthcoming book "Abortion and the Law," described the long prevailing approach to which some states still subscribe: "It would be better to have a death of a thousand cuts rather than go for the home run."

Still, she noted the recent wave of more ambitious legislation, like the Alabama law, that may or may not rise to the Supreme Court.

"Other states clearly think it's worth the risk," she said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alabama Abortion Ban Is Temporarily Blocked by a Federal Judge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Alabama law, which would have forbidden abortions in almost every instance, was scheduled to take effect on Nov. 15. A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a near-total ban on abortions from taking effect next month in Alabama, ensuring the procedure remains legal and available in the state while the case winds its way through the courts.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Supreme Court is being asked to make a decision surrounding Trump and the immunity of the president since he is being asked for his tax returns, but he doesn't want to release them
2.Currently, lower courts are denying Trump this, which I think is good since we should have rule of law. Otherwise, it could make way for a sort of tyranny
3.Well, the Executive is involved since the extent Trump's immunity is in question, and they worry it might impact the branch negatively if the information is released, distractions. The Legislative is conducting the investigation, the House in particular, asking for these tax returns.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Does President Trump have immunity from criminal investigation or prosecution, as his lawyer asserts? The answer is no, and now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make that clear.

Earlier this month, a three-judge panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held unanimously that any immunity President Trump may enjoy does not prevent the Manhattan district attorney from subpoenaing his tax preparer to provide eight years of his corporate and personal tax returns.

The legal issue was a narrow one, but that didn't stop his lawyers from arguing that the president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution and even investigation while president. One went so far as to affirm in oral argument that Mr. Trump could commit, as one of the judges put it, "a crime, no matter how heinous" with impunity while president - like shooting someone on Fifth Avenue.

Now the president has appealed the tax ruling to the Supreme Court. In their petition to the court, Mr. Trump's lawyers argued that "whether the President is absolutely immune" from state criminal proceedings "is an important and unsettled issue of federal law that the Court should resolve."

Narrow as the appeals court ruling was, the Supreme Court should take up the president's invitation and rule broadly - to correct one of the most vexing and dangerous misinterpretations of the Constitution during the Trump era: that the president is, in effect, above the law.

The constitutional basis for a claim of absolute immunity is overwhelmingly weak. No part of the Constitution explicitly supports the idea; it is silent on the issue. Instead, the president's legal team largely appeals to the reasoning in two memos from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel - memos written during the Nixon and Clinton administrations. Both came to the same conclusion: As the Clinton Justice Department memo said, "the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting president would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."

That's one interpretation. But two Supreme Court cases - United States v. Nixon and Clinton v. Jones - put Mr. Trump's claim of absolute immunity on rocky footing.

In the Nixon case, the court ruled unanimously that a president must comply with a criminal subpoena - in that case, an order to turn over the infamous Watergate tapes. In reaching their decision, the justices did acknowledge the existence of some presidential privilege but rejected Nixon's claim of absolute privilege in the case because it "cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice."

In his Supreme Court confirmation hearing last year, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had been called to account for his musings about limiting or even reversing United States v. Nixon, sought to reassure senators when he called the decision one of the "greatest moments in Supreme Court history." Even so, Justice Kavanaugh discussed the case in the narrowest of terms, as the right to subpoena "for information"- the tapes - in the context of a criminal trial. Elsewhere in the hearing, though, he did defend the broad principle associated with the Nixon case, telling lawmakers, "No one is above the law in our constitutional system."

Clinton v. Jones, decided unanimously as well, also undermines the myth of presidential immunity and undercuts the argument in the Justice Department memos. The court ruled that the president does not have immunity from civil lawsuits - in this case for sexual harassment when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas - that arise from private actions unrelated to his official duties as president. The court rejected the argument made by President Clinton's lawyers that allowing a civil indictment would so badly hinder the functioning of the executive branch that the president should be immune from legal action. The judiciary and the executive branch could work together to "accommodate" the president's "busy schedule," the justices said. They also dismissed the argument that their decision would unleash a flood of frivolous lawsuits - an argument now being recycled by Mr. Trump's lawyers - as mere speculation.

Despite President Trump's antipathy toward the Clintons, his legal team has drawn heavily from the Clinton Justice Department memo - especially its argument that a criminal trial would render the president too distracted to govern. Of course, the impeachment proceedings he is currently facing are doubtless distracting, but that didn't stop the framers from including that remedy in the Constitution.

Mr. Trump's lawyers cite in their defense of absolute immunity the Supreme Court ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which said the president was entitled to "absolute immunity" from damages in civil suits on matters that pertain to a president's official duties. But the tax matter before the court involves a criminal investigation, not a lawsuit, and focuses on hush-money payments made to two women just before the 2016 presidential election, when Mr. Trump was a private citizen.

In his brief second inaugural address in 1793, George Washington imagined what should happen were he to disregard his oath of office, saying that "besides incurring constitutional punishment" - presumably a reference to impeachment - he should be "subject to the upbraidings of all" who were witnesses to his swearing-in.

To Washington, the dignity of the office depended on the president respecting constitutional limits. By calling for punishment were he to violate his oath, Washington made clear that the values of the new republic stood above the self-interest of the president. That principle applies in this case too. There is enormous danger to the country when its most powerful official believes he can get away with a crime.

President Trump and his successors must be told in no uncertain terms that they can be held to criminal account if they break the law.

Corey Brettschneider is a political-science professor at Brown and a visiting law professor at Fordham. He is the author of "The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The Supreme Court Should Tell Trump He Is Not Above the Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Does President Trump have immunity from criminal investigation or prosecution, as his lawyer asserts? The answer is no, and now the Supreme Court has the opportunity to make that clear.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court will hear Google’s appeal in massive copyright suit brought by Oracle

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court will hear Google’s appeal in massive copyright suit brought by Oracle

# data[].attributes.body
1. Currently, the Supreme Court is preparing to hear a case about Google stealing 11,500 lines of code from Oracle programs and deploying it to android users. Google is being accused of copyright and can face billions of dollars in fines.
2. I believe that the court deciding to review this case is a good decision, but the influence they are under is detrimental to their actions. For example, the court is being urged by other big tech companies to make a decision favoring Google while the Trump administration wants the court to side with Oracle. This can negatively impact the ability of the Court Judges to remain unbiased in their decision.
3. The executive branch will enforce the decision made within the judicial branch, and the legislative branch will reevaluate the laws written in the Constitution if the judicial decision requires it to be altered in some way.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/supreme-court-will-hear-copyright-suit-between-google-and-oracle.html

# data[].attributes.body
1) There is debate surrounding making a separate court for immigration issues so that political ideology does not affect immigration law.
2) I like this idea. I feel like Trump's ideologies are too radical and are causing harm.
3) Trump wants to simply deport people while this new system would allow for more cases to be heard.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York

# data[].attributes.body
1. The most recent judicial activity involving gun policy is the Supreme Court case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York.
2. This case revolves around a new law passed by New York City that limits where people are permitted to bring guns.
3. The Legislature of New York City is trying to get the case out of the Supreme Court as soon as possible. The Judicial Branch insists on hearing this case despite the fact that the law has been rescinded.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade - and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.

The case centers on an unusual - and recently changed - New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.

Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules - all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in.Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.

The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference.

New York State Rifle, in other words, is of two-fold importance. It is important because the Supreme Court's current majority is likely to expand the scope of the Second Amendment significantly if they decide the merits of this case. But it is also important because the debate over whether to dismiss this case will offer a window into the psychology of the Court's Republican majority.

The argument that New York State Rifle must be dismissed as moot is very strong. Should the Supreme Court move forward with the case, it will only add to fears -including fears that were recently raised by Justice Sonia Sotomayor -that the Court is bending the rules in order to achieve conservative outcomes.

Why gun rights advocates have so much to gain

A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Court's internal deliberations.

In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.

Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" all remain valid, as are bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons."

In a November interview with the New York Times' Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for " some important changes" to Scalia's original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens's urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller "should not be taken to cast doubt" on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy's intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.

But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.

Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbia's government passed legislation banning semi-automatic "assault weapons" and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court's Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case - Heller v. District of Columbia - was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.

Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that "both D.C.'s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller." (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)

And Kavanaugh's dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.

Kavanaugh opposes the consensus view among federal courts

Heller, as mentioned above, was the first Supreme Court case in American history to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own firearms. Since Heller, moreover, the Court's only handed down one significant Second Amendment opinion. And that 2010 opinion, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, merely held that states must comply with the same Second Amendment regime as the federal government.

The Supreme Court's Second Amendment jurisprudence, in other words, is underdeveloped. In Heller, the majority basically hit a reset button that wiped out the Court's prior Second Amendment decisions, which held that the " obvious purpose" of this amendment was "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," not an individual right to bear arms.

Heller replaced this older frameworkwith an uncertain new framework that emphasized an individual right to self-defense. But the Supreme Court has done little to develop that framework since Heller.

Yet, while the justices have largely avoided big guns cases, the lower courts cannot. And a consensus view emerged among the federal appeals courts regarding how the Second Amendment should be read.

At least 10 such courts apply what United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Judge Stephen Higginson describes as a " two-step analytic framework." Under this framework, "severe burdens on core Second Amendment rights" are subject to "strict scrutiny," the most skeptical level of review that courts typically apply in constitutional cases. "Less onerous laws, or laws that govern conduct outside of the Second Amendment's 'core,'" are subject to a more permissive test known as "intermediate scrutiny."

Thus, major burdens on gun owners are especially likely to be struck down, while less consequential burdens are more likely to be upheld.

Kavanaugh, for his part, rejects this consensus framework altogether. In his 2011 dissent, he argued that the consensus view should be abandoned for a different test - "courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny." While it's unclear how Kavanaugh's test would apply in every individual case, the fact that Kavanaugh took a position well to the right of his two Republican colleagues strongly suggests that his test would invalidate more gun laws than would the consensus framework.

New York State Rifle, moreover, offers someone like Kavanaugh the perfect vehicle to upend the consensus framework because the (now repealed) rule at the heart of this case imposes only a minimal burden on gun owners.

New York offers two kinds of handgun licenses. A "carry" license permits gun owners to carry a handgun for "target practice, hunting, or self-defense." Meanwhile, a less permissive "premises" license permits a gun owner to "have and possess in his dwelling" a handgun. Premises license holders, however, may only bring the gun outside of their home for limited reasons, which include bringing the gun to seven specific gun ranges to practice shooting.

The plaintiffs in New York State Rifle, each of whom has a premises license, raise a very narrow challenge to this framework. As a federal appeals court explained, some of them "seek to transport their handguns to shooting ranges and competitions outside New York City." One of them also owns two homes, and he wishes to be able to transport one gun between those two homes.

New York State Rifle, in other words, involves what Judge Higginson described as a "less onerous law" that governs "conduct outside of the Second Amendment's 'core.'" This isn't a grand showdown over when and where people can carry guns - or whether they bring a gun into their own home. It's a small legal dispute about little more than whether lawmakers can require certain gun owners to practice shooting at certain specified gun ranges.

And yet, this very smallness is what makes New York State Rifle so dangerous to the consensus framework. The rule at the heart of this case is the very sort of gun restriction that the consensus framework is likely to treat as insignificant. And that gives the Supreme Court an ideal vehicle to hold that judges should treat all gun laws with skepticism - even very minor ones.

The battle over mootness

All of this said, there is a strong argument that New York State Rifle must be dismissed as moot. Article III of the Constitution provides that the "judicial power" only applies to "cases" and "controversies," meaning that federal courts may only hear live legal disputes between parties.

But New York City changed its rules to let people with premises licenses do what the plaintiffs in this case want to do. And the New York state legislature also passed a law providing that gun owners with premises licenses may bring their gun to "another dwelling or place of business of the licensee where the licensee is authorized to have and possess such pistol or revolver," to "an indoor or outdoor shooting range that is authorized by law to operate as such," or to "a shooting competition at which the licensee may possess such pistol or revolver consistent with" the law.

So the plaintiffs won! They asked for specific, narrow relief, and the state legislature gave it to them. There's no longer a legal dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case, and that makes the case moot.

But a few amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court suggest that the case should not be dismissed under a doctrine known as "voluntary cessation." Broadly speaking, this doctrine allows a court to continue to hear a case after a defendant voluntarily quits the behavior that led to them being sued. The point of this doctrine is to prevent a defendant from dodging lawsuits by doing something illegal, ceasing their illegal activity for long enough to dismiss any lawsuits challenging that activity, and then resuming their illegal actions as soon as the lawsuits are dismissed.

Yet, as a group of legal scholars explain in their own amicus brief, that doctrine does not apply here. The defendant in this case is New York City. But a law preventing the city from reinstating the challenged rules was enacted by New York state. It would be impossible, in other words, for the city to resume its allegedly illegal conduct because a higher power stripped the city of its ability to do so.

We could know as soon as next week whether the Supreme Court will dismiss the case - or whether it will add to JusticeSotomayor's fears that the Court is ignoring its own ordinary procedures, in this case by finding away around the mootness doctrine.

Yet even if the case is dismissed, such a decision will only delay a reckoning on the Second Amendment. Eventually, the justices will hear a gun rights case that is not moot. And when that happens, Justice Kennedy won't be around to inject a note of caution into the Court's opinion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York , the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade - and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.

# data[].attributes.body
https://khn.org/news/federal-appeals-court-takes-up-case-that-could-upend-u-s-health-system/

1. The actions that they are taking are very very slow, they are gathering data and getting multiple opinions on whether or not the Affordable Care Act should be ended or strengthened.
2. The actions they are taking are good, but they are slow. Although their ultimate goal is good, the process is taking a long time and no actions are really being taken. The groups that are trying to influence these actions are mainly President Trump as well as other groups/ organizations of people advocating for equal healthcare.
3. The actions of executive and legislative directly correlate, as all of them have different opinions and actions that they want to make based on the issue. Since the ACA was from a past president there are many past laws and precedents that need to be considered in order to make the best situation for all the people in America.

# data[].attributes.headline
Education issues related to DACA supreme court cases

# data[].attributes.subject
Education issues related to DACA supreme court cases

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the DACA case. If it rules in favor of Trump's repeal of DACA, then around 9000 teachers will b removed from their jobs.
2. If DACA is repealed then many, many teachers who are recipients of DACA will lose their jobs. This will incredibly detrimental to students not only because of the instability the loss of a teacher causes but because of the void that would be left in teaching english language learners especially.
3. DACA was originally an executive order set in the Obama administration and every other law that's attempting to fix the immigration crisis is stymied in congress. There's no really current alternative to DACA, which was supposed to be a temporary fix anyway, and getting rid of it would have disastrous consequences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump administration, the future for teachers like Vicente Rodriguez and some 660,000 immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, would be in doubt.

"I made it my life's mission to make sure students would never, ever experience such events and hardship in pursuit of education as I did," he said to thousands of people gathered in front of the steps of the high court Tuesday as the justices began considering the Trump administration's efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

Rodriguez, who is a teaching assistant and DACA recipient from San Bernardino, California, is one of an estimated 20,000 teachers, assistant teachers and those in the process of being certified to become teachers who are protected under DACA in school districts all across the country.

The Photos You Should See - Nov. 2019

"I aspire to be the source that tells my students that college and higher education are truly achievable, that high school is not the end of their academic career," said Rodriguez, who works with students with disabilities and is in the process of earning his master's degree.

As the Supreme Court justices consider whether the Trump administration has the authority to repeal the Obama-era protection, school officials in communities across California, Texas, Arizona, New York and other places with large immigrant populations are bracing for the potential exodus of teachers like Rodriguez, who they've come to depend on to provide comfort, empathy and stability to students whose lives have been upended by the intensified anti-immigration agenda.

"For me, against all the odds to get to become a teacher, it's doable," Rodriguez says in an interview after his speech. "I want to be a source that motivates them, that empowers them and at the same time help their world become a little bit better."

The court's opinion is expected next year, and should the justices side with the Trump administration, allowing it to dismantle the program, recipients could be at risk of deportation.

In an amicus brief filed in October by the National Education Association, the 3.2 million member teachers union argued that the deportation of DACA recipients would send schools into a tailspin as some 9,000 teachers in the classroom today would abruptly disappear and the thousands of additional DACA recipients working toward certification to help fill teacher shortages in hard-to-staff schools, like those with lots of bilingual students, would no longer be available.

"Without DACA renewals, the status of thousands of educators will expire on different dates throughout the school year," the brief reads. "Teachers and staff will abruptly disappear from classrooms to the distress of their students and to the measurable detriment of educational outcomes. In addition, educational institutions across the country rely on thousands of DACA educators to help remedy significant teacher shortages, provide mentorship and role models to students, and diversify the teaching corps."

If that happens, Rodriguez says, there wouldn't be many teachers in San Bernadino who look like the students they teach.

"There wouldn't be teachers who look a lot like them," he said. "How would they find that connection with a teacher? They don't share the same cultural values. How will teachers make that connection?"

For Karina Alvarez, a second-grade teacher at Edgewood Independent School District, just outside San Antonio in Texas, being forced from her classroom wasn't just a possibility. While awaiting the delayed renewal of her DACA work permit, she was forced to temporarily resign.

Alvarez, who work with students who are learning English, was inside the Supreme Court for the arguments Tuesday. She spoke to the crowd after about what the administration's anti-immigration agenda signals to the students she teaches.

"I remember their faces the next day and it was sad seeing them," she said about the day after the 2016 presidential election that sent Trump to the White House. "They knew. They heard conversations at home. One of my students said, 'Will I have to go back to Mexico, because the leader of this country doesn't like Mexico.'"

The Trump administration ended the DACA program in September 2017, but a number of federal judges have blocked the action. The White House argues that its decision to end the program is not reviewable by the courts and even if it was, DACA itself was a breach of authority by the previous administration and is unconstitutional.

"Politicians like President Barack Obama, and before him Republicans and Democrats alike, understood that immigration is the heartbeat of america," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, who joined the throngs of people outside the Supreme Court Tuesday. "We have to get back to that place. But in the interim, in the meantime, we have to use every bit of power we can, including the courts, to try to create fairness for DACA recipients."

The AFT represents thousands of teachers and nurses who are DACA recipients, she said.

"What I do need to say to the president of the United States, to those in Congress who have no heart, is that we will fight to make sure this country finds its heart again, finds its soul again," she said. "Our country has been a country of immigrants. The educators of this country will say that over and over again."

The justices are expected to issue a decision on the matter in 2020, potentially just months before the presidential election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Schools Fear Deportation of DACA Recipient Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Trump administration, the future for teachers like Vicente Rodriguez and some 660,000 immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, would be in doubt.

# data[].attributes.headline
trump makes his promises come true...but can't pass the judicial branch

# data[].attributes.subject
trump makes his promises come true...but can't pass the judicial branch

# data[].attributes.body
1. President trump promised changes to the prices of health care in the United States. However, the judicial branch has repeatedly blocked the plans of the president. The judges are not happy with the presented changes and have not let the case pass "“They’re pushing the boundaries on what is legally acceptable while not doing themselves any favors on the process"

2. I think it is a good thing that they are not passing the plans of the president because they do not agree that they're not constitutional in relation to the privacy policies with individual companies (especially small home run companies).

3. Each side has their own opinions, Trump wants different things than the judicial branch but it is necessary for it to go through congress in order to be passed.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivering-promise-make-healthcare-prices-transparent/ (executive branch )

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/3/29/18286779/trump-health-care-federal-judge-obamacare-medicaid (judicial branch and their influence on the choices being made)

# data[].attributes.body
The article is about the Supreme Court that will hear a health care case in December, but its decision on risk corridors (Risk Corridors are a mechanism to minimize the year-end losses of insurers who covered a disproportionate share of sicker, often older, insured customers) won’t affect the ACA. So the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Moda Health Plan, Inc. v U.S., a case about the Affordable Care Act’s risk corridors program. "Dozens of insurance companies are arguing that they are owed $12 billion in risk corridor payments associated with their participation in the early years of Obamacare. The Court will hear arguments in the case on December 10 and likely make a decision this spring. The Court’s decision will have a one-time effect on the bottom line of many insurers. But how the Court resolves this backward-looking dispute about a now-expired program will not meaningfully change how the Affordable Care Act or health insurance markets operate in the future."
2. I think it is important to support the insurance companies to make sure that as many people as possible can have insurance so that  they can afford health care. Therefore I think it is good that the judicial branch is taking this seriously and chose to take on the case.
3. The Executive and Legislative branch focus more on what can change, like new laws and improvements with programs etc, while the judicial branch makes sure that these laws and programs are followed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court to Hear School Choice Case 

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court to Hear School Choice Case 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2019-06-28/supreme-court-to-hear-school-choice-case

1. Currently, the Supreme Court, which is the head of the Judicial Branch, is hearing a court case.  Basically, in Montana, some tax money was going towards scholarships for private schools.  Montana decided to stop these scholarships, and some people disagreed with it.

Just as a side note, in 2002, the Supreme Court Ruled that state level voucher programs were constitutional, so now the SC will decide whether or not it is constitutional for these voucher programs to apply to religious programs/schools.

2. I think that it is good that the SC is hearing this case.  This case will set a future precedent on whether or not religious schools should be receiving government money.

3. The judicial branch is hearing a case that is trying to argue that an action of the legislative branch was wrong.

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court Orders Pause in Landmark Climate Change d By Youth

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court Orders Pause in Landmark Climate Change d By Youth

# data[].attributes.body
A group of people from ages 11-22 argue that US government has policies that contribute to climate change, which is denying their right to a healthy environment. They are filing a lawsuit that limits fossil fuel extraction and curb greenhouse gas emissions. However, this lawsuit was only going through the state courts and a Supreme court justice decided to take part in it and try and stop the lawsuit. I think that the group of people that are trying to create change in the government is good and is a right cause. This is different from the actions of the other branches because this one is trying to limit the government powers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
21 children and young people are suing the United States government over policies they say contribute to climate change

smithsonian.com

The Supreme Court has taken the unexpected step of pausing a landmark climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young people, which had been trudging through the legal system since 2015.

Late last week, as Brady Dennis reports for the Washington Post, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ordered a stay in the suit Juliana v. US, which was supposed to go to trial on October 29 at the United States District Court in Oregon. The Chief Justice's order marks yet another surprising turn in what has proven to be an unusual and contentious legal case. Michael Gerrard, an environmental law professor at Columbia University, tells Dennis that it is "extremely rare, if not unprecedented" for Supreme Court justices to enjoin a trial that is still making its way through the lower courts.

"Ordinarily they'll wait for the lower court to rule," Gerrard adds.

It is not clear how long the stay will be in effect, according to John Schwartz of the New York Times.

The lawsuit's plaintiffs, who range in age from 11 to 22, argue that U.S. government policies have contributed to climate change, thereby denying them their "fundamental" right to a healthy environment. Young people, they say, are the ones who will have to contend with the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming should nothing change, and so their lawsuit seeks to compel the government to limit its support for fossil fuel extraction and support policies that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. government, the president and various other official departments and agencies are named as defendants.

Both the Obama and Trump administrations have tried to put a stop to the lawsuit, arguing that the court is not the right place to deal with this matter. The case is "an attempt to redirect federal environmental and energy policies through the courts rather than through the political process," as Trump administration lawyers wrote when they made their last-minute effort to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene in the case, according to Dennis. But lower courts had previously allowed the lawsuit to go ahead.

A main source of contention is whether or not a safe climate should be considered a civil right. "I have no doubt that the right to a climate system capable of sustaining human life is fundamental to a free and ordered society," Judge Ann Aiken, who was scheduled to hear the case on the 29th, wrote in a 2016 ruling that dismissed a motion to halt the lawsuit.

But others disagree. Jeffery Wood, a Justice Department attorney, recently said during a law conference that the right to a safe climate "simply does not exist," reports 's Umair Irfan.

The fact that the Supreme Court has stepped in to stop the lawsuit, even if temporarily, is "certainly a signal that the court is uncomfortable with the underlying legal theory of the Juliana case," Ann Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the University of California Los Angeles, tells Irfan.

What happens next remains to be seen. According to Schwartz of the Times, the Supreme Court can dismiss the litigation, but it is unlikely to do so "at this early stage." On Monday, lawyers for the plaintiffs filed a 103-page response arguing that the application to stay the case should be "swiftly denied," in part because "a stay of trial in the district court will disrupt the integrity of the judiciary's role as a check on the political branches and will irreparably harm these childen."

Like this article?
SIGN UP for our newsletter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Orders Pause in Landmark Climate Change Case Led By Youth

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
smithsonian.com The Supreme Court has taken the unexpected step of pausing a landmark climate change lawsuit brought by 21 young people, which had been trudging through the legal system since 2015. Late last week, as Brady Dennis reports for the Washington Post , Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration in its efforts to shut down a program protecting about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers."

1. Currently, policies like DACA are being debated in the supreme court. Currently they are debating wether DACA was a legal action, and if Trump's administration can remove it, are being discussed.
2. I don't know that much about DACA, but I do think it would be very unfair to kick all the dreamers out of the country.
3. I think they are doing similar things, trying to limit immigration on multiple fronts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The justices are considering whether the Trump administration can shut down a program that shields about 700,000 young immigrants from deportation.

A rally in support of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Tuesday. Credit... Erin Schaff/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration in its efforts to shut down a program protecting about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers.

The court's liberal justices probed the administration's justifications for ending the program, expressing skepticism about its rationales for doing so. But other justices, including President Trump's two appointees, indicated that they would not second-guess the administration's reasoning and, in any event, considered its explanations sufficient.

"I assume that was a very considered decision," Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said of a second set of justifications offered by the administration in a memorandum last year after its decision to end the program was challenged in court.

Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said he saw little point in requiring the administration to come forward with better or more elaborate reasons. "What good would another five years of litigation over the adequacy of that explanation serve?" he asked.

Still, the justices agreed that the young people who signed up for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, were sympathetic and that they and their families, schools and employers had relied on it in good faith. "I hear a lot of facts, sympathetic facts, that you've put out there, and they speak to all of us," Justice Gorsuch said.

And while Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that the administration was on solid legal footing in saying the program was unlawful, he said the Supreme Court could rule in a humane way, minimizing the hardships people participating in the program would face if it were ended.

"It's not always the case when the government acts illegally in a way that affects other people," he said, "that we go back and untangle all of the consequences of that." The program, he suggested, could be wound down in measured steps.

Chief Justice Roberts added that both the Obama and Trump administrations have said they would not deport people eligible for the program, meaning that the main practical questions if the program is ended would be their ability to work legally, obtain driver's licenses and the like.

"The whole thing was about work authorization and these other benefits," the chief justice said. "Both administrations have said they're not going to deport the people."

The arguments in the case, one of the most important of the court's term, addressed the president's power over immigration, a critical issue for Mr. Trump and a divisive one, especially as it has played out in the debate over DACA, a program that has broad, bipartisan support.

The program, announced by President Barack Obama in 2012, allows young people brought to the United States as children to apply for a temporary status that shields them from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years and is renewable, but it does not provide a path to citizenship.

In the past, Mr. Trump has praised the program's goals and suggested he wanted to preserve it. "Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military?" he asked in a 2017 Twitter post.

But as the court took up its future on Tuesday, Mr. Trump struck a different tone. "Many of the people in DACA, no longer very young, are far from 'angels,'" he wrote on Twitter. "Some are very tough, hardened criminals."

In fact, the program has strict requirements. To be eligible, applicants had to show that they had committed no serious crimes, had arrived in the United States before they turned 16 and were no older than 30, had lived in the United States for at least the previous five years, and were in school, had graduated from high school or received a G.E.D. certificate, or were an honorably discharged veteran.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the DACA recipients were justified in relying on Mr. Trump's earlier statements. Mr. Trump, she said, had been "telling DACA-eligible people that they were safe under him and that he would find a way to keep them here."

Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, said the program was by its nature an interim step.

"DACA was always meant to be a temporary stopgap measure that could be rescinded at any time, which is why it was only granted in two-year increments," he said. "So I don't think anybody could have reasonably assumed that DACA was going to remain in effect in perpetuity."

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer said that many people and groups had indeed relied on the program to continue indefinitely, judging by the supporting briefs filed in the three cases before the court, including the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587.

"There are 66 health care organizations," he said. "There are three labor unions. There are 210 educational associations. There are six military organizations. There are three home builders, five states plus those involved, 108, I think, municipalities and cities, 129 religious organizations and 145 businesses."

The roots of the decision to shut down the program figured in the argument, as the justices parsed two sets of rationales from successive heads of the Department of Homeland Security.

After contentious debates among his aides, Mr. Trump announced in September 2017 that he would wind down the program. He gave only a single reason for doing so, saying that creating or maintaining the program was beyond the legal power of any president.

"I do not favor punishing children," Mr. Trump said in his formal announcement of the termination. But, he added, "the program is unlawful and unconstitutional and cannot be successfully defended in court."

That decision was reflected in a bare-bones memo from Elaine C. Duke, then the acting secretary of homeland security. She offered no policy reasons for the move, just that DACA was unlawful.

Theodore B. Olson, a lawyer for the DACA recipients, said the memo allowed the administration to avoid taking political heat on the issue. "The administration did not want to own this decision," he said.

Mr. Francisco disagreed. "We own this," he said.

Mr. Francisco pointed to a second memo, issued last year by Kirstjen Nielsen, the homeland security secretary at the time. It mostly relied on the earlier rationales in Ms. Duke's memo, but added one more, about the importance of projecting a message "that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws against all classes and categories of aliens."

That policy justification, Mr. Francisco said, was sufficient even if the administration was mistaken in its legal rationale.

Michael J. Mongan, California's solicitor general, who argued in favor of the program, disagreed, calling Ms. Nielsen's new rationale "a boilerplate assertion."

Mr. Olson acknowledged that it was theoretically possible for the Trump administration to end the program without violating the law. Asked by Justice Kavanaugh if "the executive has the legal authority to rescind DACA," Mr. Olson said yes.

But Mr. Olson said the administration's justifications for doing so had to make sense, particularly given what was at stake.

"The government's termination of DACA triggered abrupt, tangible, adverse consequences and substantial disruptions in the lives of 700,000 individuals, their families, employers, communities and the armed forces," he said. "That decision required the government to provide an accurate, reasoned, rational and legally sound explanation. It utterly failed to do so."

Listen to 'The Daily': A Small Act of Rebellion

How one defiant memo is now at the center of a Supreme Court case addressing deportation protections for nearly 700,000 Dreamers.

Back to The Daily

transcript

Listen to 'The Daily': A Small Act of Rebellion

Hosted by Michael Barbaro, produced by Luke Vander Ploeg, Jonathan Wolfe and Annie Brown, and edited by M.J. Davis Lin and Lisa Tobin

How one defiant memo is now at the center of a Supreme Court case addressing deportation protections for nearly 700,000 Dreamers.

michael barbaro

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is "The Daily." [MUSIC]

Today, the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments about whether the Trump administration acted legally when it tried to shut down DACA. Julie Davis on why the outcome of the case may turn on a small act of rebellion by one of the president's own aides.

It's Tuesday, November 12th.

Julie Davis, how exactly did DACA become the subject of a Supreme Court case?

julie davis

Well, since President Trump was a candidate -

julie davis

- he campaigned basically saying that DACA, which was this program that Barack Obama created in 2012 for undocumented people who had been brought to the United States as children, was illegal.

julie davis

He was going to get rid of it, which, of course, would mean that they would be vulnerable to deportation.

julie davis

So he came into office saying he was going to do this, but actually very quickly, started talking very differently about the program.

archived recording

I want to ask about undocumented immigrants who are here in this country. Right now, they're protected as so-called Dreamers. Should they be worried?

archived recording (donald trump)

They shouldn't be very worried. They are here illegally. They shouldn't be very worried. I do have a big heart. We're going to take care of everybody.

julie davis

And so he was already kind of making noises like maybe he didn't mean what he said on the campaign trail.

julie davis

And then he kept on talking that way.

julie davis

And kind of alarmed some of his more hardline advisors like Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions and the attorney general that he had not meant what he had said about being tough on immigration and not meant what he had said about being tougher on enforcement than his predecessors.

julie davis

So President Trump's more hardline advisors, the people who want to end DACA and end it for good, are very concerned that he's been waffling about it publicly. They're concerned that he's going to walk back from even wanting to terminate the program at all. So they set a meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House. It's late summer, August, 2017. They're going to end the program. They just have to figure out how. And into that room walks someone who is not at all on the same page, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Elaine Duke.

michael barbaro

And who is Elaine Duke beyond that title? I don't feel like I really remember her name.

julie davis

So Elaine Duke is a procurement specialist at the Department of Homeland Security, who, when John Kelly is picked to be the White House Chief of Staff, all of a sudden, unexpectedly, becomes the Acting Secretary. She's not a political person. She is not a Trump loyalist. She certainly does not share the same world view on immigration matters as Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions and the rest of the people around that table. And in fact, she has a pretty positive view of immigrants and immigration. In her free time, she sometimes volunteers at an immigrant aid group that's affiliated with the Catholic Church. I mean, she is just not necessarily board with this whole push. But as it turns, out she is critically important to the discussion that's happening in this room, because as acting Secretary of Homeland Security, it's her department, in the end, that carries out the program. And it is she who will have to be the one to sign the memo if they're going to end it.

michael barbaro

So what does Elaine Duke think that this meeting is about? What does she think is going to get accomplished here?

julie davis

She basically thinks this is a meeting to discuss policy options with regard to DACA. And as soon as she gets into the room and sits down and the meeting starts, she very quickly realizes that this is not that at all. She realizes that what this is is basically a procedural ambush, and she is the one being ambushed.

michael barbaro

Meaning these immigration hardliners have made up their minds, and they are looking at her and saying, get on board.

julie davis

Right, and to Elaine Duke, she feels under siege, because they're essentially saying, we're going to end this program, and you're going to be the one to issue the memo killing it. And she feels as if she's been offered a choice that she can't make and she's not prepared to make, and she basically tells them that. She says, you know, this is my area. I'm the acting secretary, and you're not going to tell me what to do.

michael barbaro

So what happens?

julie davis

What happens afterward is that she is under immense pressure not only from people at the White House, but also from people inside her own department, who are allies of Stephen Miller. She's being told that this is an illegal program, that it's completely unconstitutional, and that this administration will never defend it. But she wants to follow the law, and so she says, fine, I will do it. I'm ending the program, but ordinarily, in a case like this, you'd have the secretary of the department that was ending the program lay out an extensive memo for all the policy reasons why they were ending this program. This memo was much more bare bones. It essentially just laid out Jeff Sessions's declaration that was illegal and unconstitutional.

julie davis

And said, in light of that, we're ending the program. [MUSIC]

michael barbaro

So she leans entirely on a little bit of language from the Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying that this is illegal. That's it.

julie davis

That's right.

michael barbaro

Why is this language important?

julie davis

It's important because of what it doesn't say. And it turns out that the way that Elaine Duke wrote this memo was kind of a ticking time bomb that has brought us all the way to this issue of DACA being before the Supreme Court today. [MUSIC]

michael barbaro

We'll be right back.

Julie, what exactly do you mean that the wording in Elaine Duke's memo became a kind of ticking time bomb? Why is that?

julie davis

It's important because of what happens next.

julie davis

Jeff Sessions goes out at the Justice Department and announces that the program is ending, and immediately, two things happen. [CHANTING] There are huge protests all over the country. [CHANTING] People demonstrating against ending DACA.

julie davis

Very quickly -

julie davis

As these suits wind their ways through the court, it becomes apparent pretty quickly that the way in which the Trump administration chose to do this, the bare bones memo that Elaine Duke issued, becomes a legal vulnerability.

By declining to cite any policy reasons for ending the program, they essentially have a much weaker argument to put before the courts than they would otherwise. What they're essentially doing is saying, our rationale for ending this program is that it's illegal and unconstitutional, which means that if a judge or if a series of judges disagrees with that assessment, you're done, and you've lost. And in fact, that is what starts to happen.

michael barbaro

So providing a policy rationale for ending DACA is a stronger legal case than just saying, we don't think DACA is legal. It's kind of a backup in case that argument falls apart. And that's exactly what Elaine Duke would not provide in her letter.

julie davis

That's right. If she had been willing to say, at the time, as Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller and others were, that DACA is the wrong policy because it promotes illegal immigration, because it makes our country less safe, because it is a perverse incentive for people to try to get into the country without authorization, if she had said any of those things, then that would have given the judges in these cases something to latch on to as a rationale, a defensible reason for having ended this program. But she didn't do that, because she wasn't willing to sign on to any of that. And so what they were left with was the simple assertion that this program is not constitutional.

michael barbaro

This seems like a highly solvable problem for the administration, right? I mean why not, as they keep losing these court cases, kind of fill in the rationale afterward? Like basically, go into their homework and say, oh, I left off that last thing, and now I'm going to add it.

julie davis

Well, actually, that's exactly what the Trump administration does. In the spring of 2018, this is after Elaine Duke has left the administration. They have a new homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, who has been confirmed. She submits a supplemental memo that lays out some of the policy reasons that Elaine Duke had not been willing to and says that failing to end it would send the wrong message about clear and consistent enforcement of immigration laws.

michael barbaro

And does that supplemental letter work?

julie davis

Not really. The judge in the case basically says that it has some logical flaws, and overall, it's just too little too late. You can't go back and kind of reverse engineer a reason for having made a policy decision. But what it really is is an effort by the president and his advisors to send a political message. He wants to do what he promised. And so the effort is to kind of follow through with that pledge no matter what the consequences. He can still show people that he's fighting to do what he said he would do. He's being stymied by the courts. He's being battled by the Democrats, whatever it might be. But he's trying to deliver on his promise.

michael barbaro

Right, so he's able to publicly keep his promise, even if the way he tries to keep the promise means that the thing itself never actually happens.

julie davis

Right. So for instance, while this is all going on, DACA never really ends. As these court cases continue to win their way through the process, the program keeps getting extended and extended and extended. So you have this program that's frozen in time, that is not accepting any new people, but it's also not ending.

michael barbaro

So Julie, when the Supreme Court hears arguments on DACA today, what is the court deciding, and how does it relate to the story that you have told us about Elaine Duke and the memo that she wrote?

julie davis

What the Supreme Court is going to rule on is whether or not President Trump had the power to do what he did, to terminate DACA, and to do it in the way that he did it. And that is where Elaine Duke's memo comes in, because in order to argue to the court that they were on legitimate solid footing for ending the program, the courts have said, at least thus far, that essentially you have to point to policy reasons. Why? This is a legitimate use of presidential power, and if you can't point to those, then you haven't met the burden for a legitimate termination of the program.

michael barbaro

I wonder if you think that Elaine Duke knew what she was doing back in the summer of 2017, when she refused to use the language of the hard line immigration folks around her in that room, and, instead, inserted a kind of poison pill, what you call the ticking time bomb, into this memo and into the Trump administration's entire approach to DACA.

julie davis

That's a great question I don't really think so. I think that Elaine Duke, at the time, understood that this program was going to end. She understood her role in the process. She just didn't feel like she could see her way clear to putting her name on a memo that had a bunch of policy arguments that she didn't buy into and that she didn't see as legitimate. I don't think she expected that all these years later, her memo could be the reason that this program actually might survive.

michael barbaro

It's hard not to see the parallels between what Elaine Duke did or didn't do with what we are seeing happen now in the impeachment process. Career government officials, who are told to carry out an order from the president and who are deeply reluctant to do so. And the way that they handle that ends up having very significant implications and outcomes down the line.

julie davis

Yeah, and it's fascinating to see the different ways in which officials respond to these directives. You have some people saying, let's try to go along with it as much as we can, except when it is illegal, except when it seems really inappropriate. Let's maybe bury this transcript in a server so that people won't get wind of what seems really wrong to us. But they're all sort of figuring out different ways to maneuver around what they think is the wrong course of action. What we see with the Ukraine matter is they essentially were able to steer around the entire team of foreign policy people and diplomats who were supposed to be handling foreign policy toward Ukraine. And the difference here is that they really needed Elaine Duke, as the acting secretary, to sign this memo. If she hadn't signed it, they couldn't in the program. So the outcome was very different there, But I think the dynamic was very similar.

michael barbaro

You're saying in this case, there was no steering around the career government official. There was no circumventing Elaine Duke.

julie davis

Right, when you're trying to end a giant program that is operated by a big federal agency, there's really no way to cut the secretary out of that process, whereas when you're making a decision about a foreign aid package to a tiny country, it turns out there are lots of different ways to maneuver around the people who are supposed to have input into that decision.

michael barbaro

This makes me think about all the times that President Trump says that he needs his people in the right jobs all across the administration. And when he complains about holdovers from previous administrations and says that these people they get in the way, they muck things up, they don't carry out his vision. He's kind of right.

julie davis

Yeah, he kind of is right, because when people in these positions are not personally loyal to him, personally beholden to the president, and when they don't fundamentally share his view of policy matters, you can get outcomes like this.

michael barbaro

So Julie, turning back to the Supreme Court and to the justices who will hear this case today, what do we expect will happen?

julie davis

Well, it seems from everything we know, the Supreme Court, which now has a conservative majority, will rule 5 to 4 in favor of the Trump administration and say that the president has wide latitude to make these decisions, that he was within his rights to end DACA, that it was done appropriately. But if that's not the decision, if it goes the other way, it will have a lot to do with the fact that Elaine Duke refused to do exactly what the administration wanted her to do. [MUSIC]

michael barbaro

Julie, thank you very much.

julie davis

Thank you, Michael.

michael barbaro

Oral arguments in the DACA case begin this morning at 10:00 AM. If the court rules against the Trump administration, DACA is expected to remain intact, protecting hundreds of thousands of from deportation. If the court rules for the administration, the White House could shut down DACA, stripping Dreamers of their legal protections and leaving them vulnerable to deportation. Much of the reporting for this episode was done for a book by Julie Davis and Mike Shear, Border Wars - Inside Trump's Assault on Immigration.

We'll be right back.

Here's what else you need to know today.

michael barbaro

All four leaders of Bolivia's government - the president, the vice president, the head of the senate, and the leader of the Chamber of Deputies - have resigned amid widespread protests demanding their removal.

michael barbaro

The resignations followed a decision by the country's longtime president, Evo Morales, to bend the country's laws to stand for a fourth term and to insist he had won that fourth term, despite widespread reports of election fraud.

As of Monday, Bolivia, South America's poorest country, had no leader, and protesters had broken into the president's home and ransacked [MUSIC]

That's it for "The Daily." I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.

The Trump administration's argument that the program was unlawful was based on a 2015 ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans. But that decision concerned a different, much larger program. Lower courts have ruled that the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration's legal analysis.

On Tuesday, Justice Sotomayor appeared to agree, saying that said she had not seen an adequate explanation for the termination. "This is not about the law," she said. "This is about our choice to destroy lives."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that it was impossible to disentangle the administration's legal rationale from its later policy justification. "We don't know how she would respond," Justice Ginsburg said of Ms. Nielsen, "if there were a clear recognition that there was nothing illegal about DACA."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court Appears Ready to Let Trump End DACA Program

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The justices are considering whether the Trump administration can shut down a program that shields about 700,000 young immigrants from deportation. WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court's conservative majority appeared ready on Tuesday to side with the Trump administration in its efforts to shut down a program protecting about 700,000 young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers.

# data[].attributes.body
One of the parts of the criminal justice system is the courts. The court has the authority to make decisions based on law.Criminal cases are heard by trial courts with general jurisdictions. Usually, a judge and jury are both present. It is the jury’s responsibility to determine guilt and the judge’s responsibility to determine the penalty, though in some states the jury may also decide the penalty. Unless a defendant is found “not guilty,” any member of the prosecution or defense (whichever is the losing side) can appeal the case to a higher court. In some states, the case then goes to a special appellate court; in others it goes to the highest state court, often known as the state supreme court.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/alamo-sociology/chapter/reading-the-criminal-justice-system/

# data[].attributes.body
relates to teh criminal justce systems as one it parts isThe judicial branch of the U.S. government is the system of federal courts and judges that interprets laws made by the legislative branch and enforced by the executive branch.

# data[].attributes.body
Questions:
1. There is no present Judicial actions on terrorist. However, after the attacks on the twin towers, the Judicial Branch decided not to overview the actions taken by the other two branches on national security measures. They are going to focus on people's rights and make sure that no one gets searched and violated from authorities.
2. The Judicial branch actions are valid because agencies were going to be looking for a specific race and are going to discriminate. Authorities may abuse their power and carry out the law unethicly.
3.  Congress and Executive branch are enforcing national security measures. Also, planning for future military response.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wisconsin Lawyer
Vol. 75, No. 12, December 2002

The Evolving Judicial Response to the War on Terrorism

Following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, does the United States need to relinquish some civil liberties to remain safe? If so, which liberties and who decides? Does the judicial branch take a back seat to the executive and legislative branches and their determinations on how the nation should fight terrorism? Or is this the time that the courts' scrutiny is most essential?

by Kendall W. Harrison

The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact." Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 37 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

* * *

eptember 11, 2001, changed the face of America. The horrific events of that tragic day have challenged the country's sense of security, its trust of those unlike us, and its faith in the future. But the long shadows of Sept. 11 stretch beyond any individual's sense of personal well-being. They have placed America's constitutional legacy under great strain as well.

The United States is waging an unprecedented and undefined "war" on terrorism. Congress has contributed to the war effort with its passage of the USA Patriot Act but otherwise has largely ceded control of the battle against terrorism to President George W. Bush. In the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, Congress granted President Bush authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks" or "harbored such organizations or persons." More recently, Congress gave President Bush authorization "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to - (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

The U.S. Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General John Ashcroft, has largely tried to eliminate any judicial involvement in the war on terrorism, taking the position that federal judges have no jurisdiction to review executive branch decisions on national security measures. But the courts are not sitting idle while the Justice Department independently draws the line between national security and individual liberty. Instead, federal judges are taking an increasingly active role in resolving questions of individual constitutional rights, rights that come under immense pressure during times of war. Decisions such as Korematsu v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the World War II internment of Japanese-Americans, are reminders that the nation's sense of what national security requires during the heat of battle can look exaggerated through the lens of time. In making national security decisions, however, the executive branch must act without the benefit of hindsight.

No post-Sept. 11 terrorism cases have yet reached the U.S. Supreme Court. When they do, perhaps as early as the end of this current term, the difficulty of reconciling individual liberties with national security during times of war will not be lost on Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who, in 1998, wrote a book on the subject, All the Laws But One: Civil Liberties in Wartime. He has stated:

"While we would not want to subscribe to the full sweep of the Latin maxum inter arma silent leges - in time of war the laws are silent - perhaps we can accept the proposition that though the laws are not silent in wartime, they speak with a muted voice."

Does the country need to relinquish some civil liberties to remain safe? If so, which liberties? The question of where to draw the appropriate line between national security and individual liberty is exceptionally difficult. Yet perhaps an even more complicated question is who should draw that line. Does the judicial branch necessarily take a back seat to Congress and President Bush and their determinations regarding how the nation should fight terrorism? Or is this the time when the courts' scrutiny is most essential?

This article briefly examines some of these questions in light of three specific areas in which the federal courts have faced the individual liberty/national security tension in the post-Sept. 11 world: closed immigration proceedings; secret detentions; and the definition of enemy combatants. (A fourth area, involving the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's rejection of some of the attorney general's new guidelines for terrorism searches and wiretaps, is fascinating, but beyond the scope of this article.)

These cases cut to the core of American constitutional democracy. With a remarkable 88 percent of Wisconsin residents approving President Bush's performance in the war on terrorism, Wisconsin attorneys should keep a careful eye on the consequences of that war effort. The decisions made now about the appropriate division of power between the political and judicial branches of government regarding terrorism will remain long after al-Qaida is vanquished.

Closed Immigration Proceedings

On Sept. 21, 2001, less than two weeks after the terrorist attacks, Chief Immigration Judge Michael Creppy issued a directive to all U.S. immigration judges and court administrators, informing them that the attorney general had "implemented additional security procedures for certain cases in the Immigration Court." Under the "Creppy Directive," as it has become known, the attorney general has the authority to designate an immigration case as one of "special interest." Once the attorney general makes that designation, all proceedings in the case become closed to the news media and the public (including the deportee's family members). Courts are forbidden from even "confirming or denying whether (a special interest case) is on the docket or scheduled for a hearing." The Creppy Directive does not require particularized reasons for closing a given deportation proceeding.

In the year that followed the Creppy Directive, the attorney general designated approximately 600 immigration matters as special interest cases. It did not take long for special interest designations to be challenged. Two of these challenges have already reached the federal courts of appeals. On Aug. 26, 2002, in Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the blanket closing of deportation proceedings pursuant to the Creppy Directive was unconstitutional. Six weeks later, in Ashcroft v. North Jersey Media Group Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached the opposite conclusion.

The Sixth Circuit opinion is replete with eloquent rhetoric, extolling the importance of open government:

"A government operating in the shadow of secrecy stands in complete opposition to the society envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution."

"Democracies die behind closed doors."

"By the simple assertion of 'national security,' the Government seeks a process where it may, without review, designate certain classes of cases as 'special interest cases' and, behind closed doors, adjudicate the merits of these cases to deprive noncitizens of their fundamental liberty interests."

Openness is especially critical in deportation proceedings, explained the court, because the political branches of government can deport noncitizens based on reasons as simple as their race or beliefs. The Bill of Rights, which protects American citizens from such treatment, does not apply to noncitizens. Thus, "[t]he only safeguard on this extraordinary governmental power [of deportation] is the public, deputizing the press as the guardians of their liberty."

The court readily acknowledged the government's compelling interest in preventing terrorism and agreed that the executive branch was much better positioned than the judicial branch to understand how to accomplish that goal. Nonetheless, the court found that the Justice Department had not sufficiently explained why national security concerns could not be addressed case by case. The Sixth Circuit saw no reason that the Justice Department could not seek to keep sensitive intelligence information confidential, as the need arose, in individual cases.

The Third Circuit ruled otherwise, in a decision far more circumspect about the role of openness in deportation proceedings. The court found that the principle of Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, a case relied upon by the Sixth Circuit in Detroit Free Press that firmly established the public's right to attend criminal proceedings, did not extend to deportation proceedings. The history of deportation proceedings, said the Third Circuit in North Jersey Media Group, contained no long tradition of openness. Moreover, any positive role that public access might play in these proceedings did not outweigh the critical national security interests at stake. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Anthony J. Scirica agreed with his colleagues that the judiciary should give the executive branch considerable deference in these matters but sided with the Sixth Circuit in finding that national security interests could be protected case by case.

With this clear circuit split on the first major post-Sept. 11 terrorism issue, U.S. Supreme Court review is highly likely. If the Court accepts review of one or both of these cases, its ultimate ruling will depend, in large part, on whether it views the "war" on terror as equivalent to more traditional wars during which it has accorded the political branches considerable leeway to take whatever measures they deem appropriate. If another large-scale terrorist attack occurs on American soil, or United States military forces become bogged down in prolonged conflict in Iraq, the Court will be hesitant to rule against the president. The fact that Congress has explicitly authorized President Bush to fight the war on terror also makes substantial judicial deference likely. Nonetheless, some justices may not want to simply rubber-stamp the president's and the attorney general's decisions about the constitutional sacrifices necessary to maintain national security.

Secret Detentions

One of the hallmarks of American democracy has long been its prohibition on secret arrests and detentions. The United States has avoided the midnight "disappearances" that have plagued Latin American and other countries. Generally, when the government arrests someone in this country, it enters his or her name in an arrest log open to the public and provides him or her an initial appearance or arraignment before a judge, which also is open to the public. People do not languish in prison without being charged and without their families knowing of their plight. Sept. 11 has raised questions about this simple, yet bedrock, concept.

Within six weeks of that fateful day, the Justice Department had "detained" many more than 1,000 people in connection with terrorism-related investigations - without making public the precise number of people arrested, their names, their attorneys' names, the reasons for their detention, or their location. Despite demands from some members of Congress, and civil liberties and media organizations, the Justice Department refused and still refuses to release all this information.

Accordingly, on Oct. 29, 2001, the Center for National Security Studies and other groups and individuals filed Freedom of Information Act requests with the FBI, the INS, and the Office of Information Privacy, asking for certain categories of information:

the identities of each detainee, the circumstances of the detention or arrest, and the charges brought against the detainee;

the identities of the detainees' attorneys; and

the identities of the courts involved and any orders issued, along with the government's rationale for holding each individual.

In response to these requests, the Justice Department eventually acknowledged that it had detained 751 individuals on immigration violations and 129 people on federal criminal charges. Only one individual had been charged specifically in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks.

For most of the individuals detained on immigration violations, the government disclosed their places of birth, their citizenship status, and the nature of the immigration charges. The government refused, however, to disclose their names, the dates and locations of their arrests and detentions, the names of their attorneys, and the dates of release for those released.

With respect to the individuals charged criminally, the Department of Justice released their names, as well as the dates charges were filed, the nature of the charges filed, the dates any of them were released, and their lawyers' identities. It refused to disclose, however, the dates and locations of their arrests and subsequent detentions. The Department of Justice released no information regarding individuals held on material witness warrants.

Not satisfied, several public interest groups brought a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in the District Court of the District of Columbia seeking the rest of the information they had requested. The Justice Department asserted that any further disclosure would interfere with law enforcement proceedings and endanger national security. The court accepted that argument but only in part:

"The Court fully understands and appreciates that the first priority of the executive branch in a time of crisis is to ensure the physical security of its citizens. By the same token, the first priority of the judicial branch must be to ensure that our Government always operates within the statutory and constitutional constraints which distinguish a democracy from a dictatorship."

Expressing considerable skepticism in response to the government's asserted need for blanket secrecy, the court ordered the disclosure of the identities of the immigration and criminal detainees and their attorneys. Nonetheless, it refused to force the Justice Department to provide the dates or locations of arrest or the locations of detention or release, accepting the government's contention that, with this information, terrorist organizations might be able to piece together a pattern of the government's investigation. This theory, known as the "mosaic theory," posits that terrorists might use seemingly innocuous, disparate pieces of information to build a picture of what the United States is doing to combat terrorism and thereby expose governmental weaknesses and possibly render detention facilities vulnerable to attack.

The district court has stayed its order pending appeal, recognizing that disclosure of the names would effectively moot any appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on Nov. 18, 2002. The court's acceptance or rejection of the mosaic theory will directly affect other terrorism-related cases and will signal just how much secrecy the war on terror demands.

Enemy Combatants

Two American citizens, Yaser Hamdi and José Padilla, are presently being held, indefinitely and incommunicado, in United States military facilities. The government maintains that the men are "enemy combatants," and that despite their status as American citizens, they are entitled to none of the constitutional protections available to criminal defendants. Instead, they are subject to the laws of war and military detention. Accordingly, the government contends that there is no need to file charges against Hamdi or Padilla or to provide them the right to counsel.

Hamdi, who, like John Walker Lindh, apparently had "affiliated" himself with the Taliban, surrendered to Northern Alliance Forces in Afghanistan in late 2001 and eventually was transferred to the Norfolk Naval Station Brig in Virginia in April 2002. Padilla was arrested by FBI agents in Chicago on May 8, 2002, and transferred to New York. The government maintains that Padilla was in Afghanistan and Pakistan after the Sept. 11 attacks, and that he met with senior al-Qaida operatives to discuss plans to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the United States. On or about June 9, 2002, President Bush signed an order directing that Padilla be detained indefinitely for interrogation. Padilla then was transferred to the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina.

Both men have filed habeas corpus petitions through counsel with whom they are not permitted to communicate. When Hamdi's habeas action was filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, the judge issued an order providing Hamdi's appointed attorney unmonitored access to him. The court stayed its decision while the Justice Department appealed. In its appellate brief, the Justice Department argued that the federal judiciary could not even review the executive branch's designation of an American citizen as an enemy combatant: "[G]iven the constitutionally limited role of the courts in reviewing military decisions, courts may not second-guess the military's determination that an individual is an enemy combatant and should be detained as such."

The Fourth Circuit agreed in large part, but it refused to grant the executive branch blanket authority on enemy combatant designations. The court explained that although courts need to extend considerable deference to the executive branch on such designations, they do not have to cede all oversight. The court nevertheless reversed the district court's decision to allow Hamdi access to counsel and instructed it to give appropriate deference to the executive branch. The habeas petition remains pending, with the district court having ruled on remand, even after the Fourth Circuit's decision, that the sole authority the government has tendered to support Hamdi's continued detention - a two-page, nine-paragraph affidavit - is insufficient. The Fourth Circuit heard oral argument on the Justice Depart-ment's appeal of that decision on Oct. 28, 2002. Hamdi is supported by a coalition of 18 civil liberties groups and 139 law professors, as well as an American Bar Association task force.

Padilla's habeas petition, filed in the Southern District of New York, has not yet been the subject of any rulings. Nonetheless, the Justice Department and Padilla's counsel and amici have engaged in a heated brief-writing battle. The Justice Department has raised several procedural concerns - whether Padilla has named the proper respondents, for example, and whether the Southern District of New York has jurisdiction over Padilla, who now is held in South Carolina. In addition, the government has backed off slightly on its argument, articulated in Hamdi, that the courts have no role in reviewing enemy combatant designations. Now, the government maintains that the judicial branch owes "great deference in matters of national security and military affairs, and deference is particularly warranted in respect to the exceptionally sensitive and important determination at issue here."

The U.S. Supreme Court will, in all likelihood, review one or both of these cases. The separation of power stakes are simply too high to allow lower courts to have the final word. As with the closed immigration proceedings cases, moreover, the Court will almost certainly speak with multiple voices when it issues its final ruling.

Conclusion

The executive branch is engaged in a jurisdictional struggle with the judicial branch over the war on terrorism. Attorney General Ashcroft and other administration officials do not want the courts second-guessing their decisions about how best to preserve national security. Interestingly, the attorney general has expressed the belief that keeping the courts out of the terrorism battle will ultimately preserve civil liberties rather than endanger them: "The fight against terrorism is a fight to secure civil liberties. Security secures something and what we're securing is freedom .... Our effort is not to impair civil liberties but to save them."

The attorney general's comments echo those of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, set forth at the outset of this article. Are Ashcroft and Jackson correct? Do Americans risk the loss of all civil liberties if a few constitutional corners are not cut in this time of terror? Although there is no clear answer, Americans should at least acknowledge the gravity of this question, the resolution of which will leave an indelible mark on the nation's constitutional history.

Kendall W. Harrison, U.W. 1995, is an attorney with LaFollette Godfrey & Kahn, Madison, concentrating in commercial, insurance, constitutional, and appellate litigation, as well as media law. He is also a lecturer in constitutional law at the U.W. Law School. He can be reached at com kharrison gklaw gklaw kharrison com. This article grew out of a presentation the author gave to the James E. Doyle Chapter of the American Inns of Court on Sept. 18, 2002.

Endnotes

Retired New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis reminded the Wisconsin legal community of that precise obligation in a Sept. 30, 2002, speech at the U.W. Law School. Aaron Nathans, Rights Being Trampled, Writer Says, Cap. Times, Oct. 1, 2002, at 3A.

10 Tamara Audi, U.S. Held 600 for Secret Rulings, Detroit Free Press, July 18, 2001, at www.freep.com/news/mich/secret18_20020718.htm.

43 These documents, and many others pertaining to the cases discussed in this article, can be found at the terrorism section of www.findlaw.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolving Judicial Response to the War on Terrorism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, does the United States need to relinquish some civil liberties to remain safe? If so, which liberties and who decides? Does the judicial branch take a back seat to the executive and legislative branches

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump signing a law in helping the opioid crisis. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump signing a law in helping the opioid crisis. 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Trump signed the the support for Patients and Communities Act.
2. The action the executive took was a good thing. I would like to see the executive branch to take a federal level of action in creating boundaries and rules with the excessive use of opioids.
3. Both branches took similar actions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Almost a year after declaring the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping legislative package that lawmakers and public health experts believe will help curb the growing crisis in the United States.

"Together we are going to end the scourge of drug addiction," Trump said at a bill-signing ceremony at the White House. "Or at least make an extremely big dent in this terrible, terrible problem."

Moments before signing the bill, known as the SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, the president called the package the "single largest bill to combat the drug crisis in the history of our country."

The legislative package directs funding to federal agencies and states so they can make increasing access to addiction treatment a priority, and sets in place interventions to help mitigate the crisis, like preventing overprescription and training law enforcement to intercept shipments, including the deadly and highly addictive drug fentanyl, at U.S. borders.

Wednesday's bill signing marked a yearslong effort by both the legislative and executive branch to respond to the growing opioid crisis, which killed more than 48,000 Americans in 2017, according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, it will be remembered as a major bipartisan feat at the end of another congressional term that many consider to be the most divisive and bitterly partisan one yet.

Democrats applauded the law Wednesday as a step in the right direction, though many said the legislation did not go far enough to confront the epidemic. Some, like Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, warned that Republican threats to undo Medicare and Medicaid would only increase the death rate.

"Despite touting this new law today, President Trump and Congressional Republicans continue to threaten to undermine the health care that Americans rely on for opioid treatment," Pallone said in a statement. "It is disingenuous at best to promise relief to people struggling with opioid addiction while also attempting to cut funding for Medicaid and eliminate protections for people with pre-existing conditions, which include opioid use disorder."

Congress and the White House sat down for the first time to discuss combating the epidemic last October ahead of a number of congressional hearings by the House and the Senate on the subject.

The bipartisan approach on Capitol Hill led to a mostly hands-off but supportive process from the White House, which often tends to intervene in contentious legislative battles like health care, taxes and immigration, according to congressional sources.

One Republican congressional source familiar with the process told NBC News that the administration made a priority of directing funds to discover a nonaddictive painkiller and combating overprescription by giving patients smaller doses of opioids in "blister packs."

"The administration was supportive, gave us very timely technical assistance and helped shape bills that were being negotiated while also giving us plenty of space to negotiate with Democrats," another Republican Congressional aide said.

The widespread reach of the crisis, which has struck red and blue states in equal measure and devastated urban and rural communities alike, united hundreds of lawmakers to hold hearings and propose legislation that would shape the SUPPORT bill. Passing the legislation proved to be good ammunition for lawmakers campaigning for re-election in November, as candidates battled over who could provide more solutions to the crisis.

Trump himself talked up the bill at a recent campaign rally in Lebanon, Ohio, but falsely claimed that the legislation came to fruition with "very little Democratic support."

Under the shadows of Justice Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court confirmation hearings in early October, both the House and the Senate passed the compromise bill with overwhelming majorities. Only eight House members and one senator, Mike Lee, R-Utah, voted against the landmark legislation this month.

Earlier Wednesday, Kellyanne Conway, the president's counselor, contradicted the president's comments, telling reporters outside the White House that every Democratic senator, including those eyeing potential 2020 bids, voted for the opioid bill "because this is the crisis next door" for all Americans.

Public health experts have applauded the bill for increasing access to treatment, which they argue is a key step to curbing the epidemic. One of the measures removes an old provision that did not allow those with substance abuse issues to access mental health facilities with more than 16 beds for treatment under Medicaid. The bill also creates a grant program for states to help recovery centers and addiction specialists increase their quality of care.

But some experts, like Keith Humphrey, a Stanford professor who helped both House and Senate staff in crafting the legislation, said Congress did not address deep-rooted issues in the health care system that would truly transform the crisis. He said the opioid law does not come close to the scale of measures passed in less contentious congressional eras aimed at combating HIV/AIDs, for example.

"It's not the time to be leisurely, and saying that we'll get there eventually is not sufficient as an answer," Humphrey said of decreasing overdose deaths. "If it takes another year, that's another 60 or 70,000 people in their graves. That's not good enough."

Lawmakers and aides see the SUPPORT law as the first step of many to combat the epidemic, which killed more Americans than guns and cars in 2017. The House continues to investigate the role of opioid distributors and plans to release a report on potential misconduct in the coming weeks.

The White House on Wednesday also touted new private sector initiatives from companies like Amazon, which said it has programmed its Alexa voice service to answer questions about opioids and addiction, and insurance giant Blue Cross Blue Shield, which will establish a national toll-free hotline to help Americans locate treatment centers.

Emergent BioSolutions, a biopharmaceutical company, will offer free Narcan nasal spray, which can help reverse an opioid overdose, to over 16,500 public libraries and 2,700 YMCAs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump signs sweeping opioid bill with vow to end 'scourge' of drug addiction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Almost a year after declaring the opioid epidemic a public health emergency, President Donald Trump on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping legislative package that lawmakers and public health experts believe will help curb the growing crisis in the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
This article goes into Beto O'Rourke's promises as pertaining to the criminal justice system. Currently, there is a high prison population and mass incarceration is something all Democratic candidates are looking to reform. I think that there definitely be some change in the system, and more efforts put into rehabilitation. At the state level, I would like more opportunities offered for those released from prison. These actions differ to the actions of legislature in that they are surrounding a different topic, since I looked at impeachment inquiry and the system last week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke would end mass incarceration by repealing portions of the 1994 crime bill and investing $500 million into a pilot program to develop alternatives to incarceration, his campaign said in a plan released Monday.

The former Texas congressman focuses on ending mass incarceration while reforming the criminal justice system to prioritize rehabilitation.

"It's unacceptable that America, the home of the free, locks up more of our own than any other country on the face of the planet, as we continue to have the world's largest prison population - disproportionately comprised of people of color," O'Rourke said.

In addition to calling for a repeal of portions of the 1994 crime bill, O'Rourke said he would ban private, for-profit prison systems and end the cash bail system.

O'Rourke joins many of his fellow 2020 candidates in calling for the private-prison ban, including former Vice President and Sens. (I-Vt.), (D-Mass.), (D-Calif.) and (D-N.J.).

He also said he'd set a goal to reduce incarceration by at least 25,000 inmates during his first term and would call on governors to set their own "aggressive" clemency goals.

O'Rourke added that he would restore the right to vote for formerly incarcerated individuals.

His plan also calls for abolishing the death penalty as part of O'Rourke's goal to "prioritize fair treatment and rehabilitation during incarceration." Nearly all Democrats running in the primary have said they would eliminate capital punishment.

O'Rourke said he would also expand access to health care and make Pell Grants available to prisoners and increase access to apprenticeship programs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
O'Rourke unveils criminal justice reform plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke would end mass incarceration by repealing portions of the 1994 crime bill and investing $500 million into a pilot program to develop alternatives to incarceration, his campaign said in a plan released Monday. The former Texas congressman focuses on ending mass incarceration while reforming the criminal justice system to prioritize rehabilitation.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Trump recently signed the SUPPORT for community and patients Act
2. I think that this act is beneficial to the victims of the opioid crisis and will hopefully produce a positive effect in the future.
3. the legislature actions were a lot more beneficial to the crisis in my opinion because they will ensure the companies are not illegally distributing the 🤬 and the quality of the areas will improve as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Together, we will face this challenge as a national family with conviction, with unity, and with a commitment to love and support our neighbors in times of dire need. Working together, we will defeat this opioid epidemic.
COMING TOGETHER TO COMBAT THE OPIOID CRISIS: Today, the White House is hosting an Opioid Summit to discuss the Administration-wide efforts to combat the opioid crisis.

The Opioid Summit will include individuals who have been affected by the opioid crisis and addiction- and recovery-focused organizations.

Members of President Trump's Administration will detail the actions they have undertaken to confront the opioid crisis on all possible fronts.
The Administration's efforts to address drug addiction and opioid abuse are focused on education and prevention, treatment and recovery, and law enforcement and interdiction.

Panels on the Administration's efforts to fight back against the opioid crisis will include:

Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery, and

Law Enforcement and Interdiction.

FIGHTING BACK: President Trump has made clear that his Administration will fight back against the opioid crisis facing our Nation.

President Trump has directed actions across the entire executive branch designed to target drug addiction and opioid abuse.

President Trump announced on October 26, 2017, that his Administration would declare the opioid crisis a Nationwide Public Health Emergency.
The declaration opened up avenues necessary to combatting the opioid crisis.

The President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis issued a final report on November 1, 2017, and the Administration has already begun acting on a number of the Commission's recommendations.

EDUCATION AND PREVENTION: President Trump's Administration is fighting back against the opioid crisis through education and prevention.

The President's Administration led a national "Take Back Day" which collected 456 tons of expired and unneeded prescription drugs, making it the most successful "Take Back Day" on record.
National Prescription Drug Take Back Day provides a means for disposing of prescription drugs while also educating the public about prescription drug abuse.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) became the first hospital system to release opioid prescribing rates. The VA began publicly posting information on opioids dispensed from VA pharmacies, along with VA's strategies to prescribe these pain medications appropriately.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering new ways to facilitate appropriate prescribing practices.

TREATMENT AND RECOVERY: The President's Administration has taken action to provide more treatment and recovery options for those struggling with opioid addiction.

The President's Budget proposes $3 billion in new funding in 2018 and $10 billion in new funding in 2019 for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to combat the opioid epidemic.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released consumer information that will help individuals seeking treatment for opioid dependence or withdrawal.

SAMHSA awarded $485 million State Targeted Response grants in FY 2017 to help States, territories and jurisdictions expand prevention, treatment and recovery support services for individuals with an opioid use disorder.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a new policy that gives States more flexibility to enact demonstration projects that include coverage of inpatient or residential addiction treatment programs in facilities not typically covered by Medicaid.

FDA approved a new buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment for opioid use disorder that requires monthly treatment, compared to other treatments requiring daily medication.

CDC's Enhanced State Opioid Overdose Surveillance grant program funding went to States to strengthen prevention efforts and better track opioid-related overdoses.

CDC also funded Prescription Drug Overdose: Prevention for States grants, a program that provides state health departments with resources and support needed to advance interventions for preventing prescription drug overdoses.

The Health Resources and Services Administration is expanding access to substance abuse treatment services through primary care providers in underserved communities.

LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTERDICTION: Under President Trump, Federal law enforcement has fought to curb the illegal importation and distribution of opioids that has helped fuel this epidemic.

This week Attorney General Sessions announced the creation of the Prescription Interdiction & Litigation (PIL) Task Force, which will focus on targeting opioid manufacturers and distributors who have contributed to the epidemic.

In January, Attorney General Sessions announced a new Joint Criminal Opioid Darknet Enforcement (J-CODE) Team tasked with helping law enforcement disrupt online sales of illicit opioids.

The Department of Justice launched a health care fraud crackdown that charged more than 400 defendants, including more than 120 for their role in prescribing and distributing opioids and other narcotics.

The Department of Justice secured its first-ever indictments against Chinese fentanyl manufacturers.

The President signed the INTERDICT Act on January 10, 2018, authorizing to enhance efforts to detect and interdict the supply of synthetic opioids such as fentanyl that are being illegally imported.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Donald J. Trump is Combatting the Opioid Crisis | The White House

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Together, we will face this challenge as a national family with conviction, with unity, and with a commitment to love and support our neighbors in times of dire need. Working together, we will defeat this opioid epidemic. COMING TOGETHER TO COMBAT THE OPIOID CRISIS: Today, the White House is hosting an Opioid Summit to discuss the Administration-wide efforts to combat the opioid crisis.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Trump Administration Sides With Nurses Who Object to Abortion

# data[].attributes.subject
The Trump Administration Sides With Nurses Who Object to Abortion

# data[].attributes.body
1) The following actions taken place by the executive branch is the right they are issuing about religion freedom laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, UVMMC broke the law, and needs to change its staffing policy on abortion procedures. In a statement, a spokesperson for UVMMC wrote that the medical center "has robust, formal protections that strike the appropriate and legal balance between supporting our employees' religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and making sure our patients are not denied access to safe and legal abortion."

This case is the latest signal that the Trump administration is pointedly championing the rights of religious Americans. As Roger Severino, the head of the Office of Civil Rights, told me in an interview, "Religious-freedom laws are the ones mentioned in the very first amendment to the Constitution-they have pride of place. And they have been neglected for too long."
Read: The man behind Trump's religious-freedom agenda for health care
Since taking over the Office for Civil Rights in 2017, Severino has consistently taken action to protect people's religious rights in health-care settings. According to Severino, UVMMC's alleged actions are part of a broader pattern at that medical center, and around the country, of health-care workers being forced to participate in procedures they find morally or religiously objectionable. When it comes to abortion and end-of-life procedures, these objections are often protected by law, including the Weldon Amendment and the Church Amendments. Severino claims that enforcement of these statues has been systematically neglected by previous administrations. In 2018, he established a new office dedicated to investigating claims made along these lines, and this spring, HHS finalized a rule designed to protect people with these kinds of objections.

While Barack Obama-era officials have maintained that they took conscience complaints seriously but received relatively few of them, Severino said his office has seen "a surge of complaints" in the two and a half years since Trump's election. In fiscal year 2018, according to numbers provided by HHS, the Office of Civil Rights received and dealt with more than 1,300 complaints alleging conscience violations or religious discrimination. Trump "has set the tone ... that this is going to be taken seriously by the federal government," Severino said. "If you don't tell the world that you're there to help, then people ... get frustrated and have nowhere to turn."

In this case, the nurse at UVMMC approached a conservative legal firm that has been closely allied with the Trump administration, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the firm helped her get in touch with HHS. The nurse's lawyer, Francis Manion, told me that her case is the most extreme example of this kind of discrimination he has encountered. "This is the first time we've ever represented somebody who was put in a position where she couldn't escape from it, even though her employer knew she was a conscientious objector," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Trump Administration Sides With Nurses Who Object to Abortion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, UVMMC broke the law, and needs to change its staffing policy on abortion procedures. In a statement, a spokesperson for UVMMC wrote that the medical center "has robust, formal protections that strike the appropriate and legal balance between supporting our employees' religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs, and making sure our patients are not denied access to safe and legal abortion."

# data[].attributes.body
The case of the Executive branch doing something specific to solve the California housing crisis isn't prominent as there hasn't been anything to include them to write about. As of currently the Legislature seems to be doing more in trying to fix the housing crisis/in this hand they are trying to find alternative ways to save space and to build higher and higher to incorporate more people in housing plots.

# data[].attributes.headline
Governer Gavin Newsom signed a law stating that high schools cannot ring 1st bell before 8:30

# data[].attributes.subject
Governer Gavin Newsom signed a law stating that high schools cannot ring 1st bell before 8:30

# data[].attributes.body
This is a step in the right direction, but it could backfire, as it could prevent students from getting to bed earlier, due to their whole schedule shifting later. As such, many school districts are frustrated, saying that the Governor does not know what is best universally throughout the state. I would like to see some sort of action to help students have a lighter workload, which could help fix sleep, rather than pushing everything back. This doesn't relate to the legislation I looked at last week, but does show that they are at least taking action.

# data[].attributes.headline
The President is trying to block to sue California's plan to join Quebec in cutting back on fossil fuel emissions. I personally think that by the President doing this actions demonstrates his attitude towards this issue, therefore showing people that this isn't such a big issue and by him mocking the scientists it doesn't look so good. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The President is trying to block to sue California's plan to join Quebec in cutting back on fossil fuel emissions. I personally think that by the President doing this actions demonstrates his attitude towards this issue, therefore showing people that this isn't such a big issue and by him mocking the scientists it doesn't look so good. 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Administration Sues to Block California's Climate Change Agreement With Quebec

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The administration tried to block California from engaging in efforts with Quebec, Canada to make an agreement towards cutting emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
Democrats are saying that the law that Trump passed is not significant enough; First step act.

# data[].attributes.headline
California Governor declares statewide emergency

# data[].attributes.subject
California Governor declares statewide emergency

# data[].attributes.body
1. The governor of California is declaring a statewide emergency and forcing more than 200,000 people to evacuate
2.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
california governor declares statewide emergency as wildfires spread - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California governor declares statewide emergency as wildfires spread

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Gov. Gavin Newsom declared a statewide emergency on Sunday as wind-whipped wildfires in the north and south of the state gobbled up land, destroyed homes and forced thousands of people to flee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California high schools will soon be barred frombeginning class before 8:30 a.m., under first-in-the-nation legislation signed into law Sunday night by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The public schools in America's most populous state have until July 1, 2021, to implement the new standard that bill author, state Sen. Anthony Portantino, insisted will "put our children's health and welfare ahead of institutional bureaucracy resistant to change," according to NBC Los Angeles.

"Shifting to a later start time will improve academic performance and save lives because it helps our children be healthier," said Portantino, a Democrat who represents the sprawling San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley suburbs of Los Angeles County.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
The legislation also bans middle schools from beginning before 8 a.m. A similar bill had been passed by lawmakers last year but was vetoed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown.

Backers of later start times claim teenagers, and their still-developing brains, need every extra minute of sleep possible.

The Los Angeles Unified School District - California's largest and the nation's second biggest school system - did not take a position on the bill before Sunday's signing, a district spokeswoman said.

"Now that it has been signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, we will closely evaluate the impacts to our schools in anticipation of the bill taking effect for the 2022-23 academic year," the LAUSD representative said on Monday, adding that most L.A. campuses now begin classes between 8 a.m. and 8:15 a.m.

If support for later start times gains momentum, it could someday have at least some impact on schools across the nation.

In America's largest public school system, the New York City Department of Education, "95 percent of schools" start at 8 a.m. and "the vast majority fall between" 8 a.m. and 8:20 a.m., a Board of Education spokeswoman said Monday.

Chicago Public Schools is the nation's third-largest system, where students also hit the books early. For example, 4,500-student Lane Tech High School rings class into session at 8 a.m. while the 3,400 students at Taft High School are at their desks bright and early at 7:45 a.m.

High schools in Miami-Dade County Public Schools, ring their first bell at 7:20 a.m., according to a district spokeswoman Monday. However, middle schoolers now get to sleep in, with the first bell not ringing until 9:10 a.m.

"Classes begin promptly" at 8 a.m. at Coronado High School, in Henderson, Nevada. Coronado is one of the biggest schools in the Las Vegas-based Clark County School District, America's fifth-largest school system.

Data compiled by the National Center for Education Statistics showed the average start time for public high schools in the United States was 7:59 a.m. and middle schools 8:04 a.m., according to the most recent survey taken in 2012.

Carol Kocivar, a past president of the California State PTA which backs later start times, called Newsom's signature on the bill an act of "historic support for our students."

She also tweeted Sunday that the PTA, "parents and medical professionals" believe a later start time is best "for the health and safety of our children."

The bill had been opposed by teachers and districts, which argued that start times should be solely at the discretion of local educators.

"We should not set the bell schedule from Sacramento," said Assemblyman Patrick O'Donnell, a Democrat from Long Beach and the chairman of the Assembly Education Committee. "Sacramento does not know best."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California to bar high schools from ringing the first bell before 8:30 a.m.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California high schools will soon be barred frombeginning class before 8:30 a.m., under first-in-the-nation legislation signed into law Sunday night by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The public schools in America's most populous state have until July 1, 2021, to implement the new standard that bill author, state Sen.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/11/politics/gavin-newsom-california-public-university-medication-abortion/index.html

Most recently, the California governor signed a bill that makes medical abortion more accessible on public California University campuses.

# data[].attributes.headline
President Donald J. Trump Is Protecting The Nation by Modernizing and Expanding Sanctions to Combat Terrorism

# data[].attributes.subject
President Donald J. Trump Is Protecting The Nation by Modernizing and Expanding Sanctions to Combat Terrorism

# data[].attributes.body
1. Trump is taking steps to expand and enhance the ability of the United States to sanction terrorists and those who finance them worldwide.
2. I think this executive order is pretty good because it deprives terrorist groups of financial, material, and logistical support. In that way, it is harder to they act. I think the Executive branch should guarantee that
3. Even though Trump is known for being extremist, I think this executive order is more fair in a way because the article about the legislature I've chosen, the law is a little bit dangerous since they could accuse someone for being a terrorist without a probable cause or evidences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology.
MODERNIZING SANCTIONS: President Donald J. Trump is taking steps to expand and enhance the ability of the United States to sanction terrorists and those who finance them worldwide.

Today, President Trump announced an Executive Order that modernizes our counterterrorism sanctions to better combat terrorists, their finances, and their facilitators.

This order significantly improves our ability to sanction supporters of terrorism and deprive them of financial, material, and logistical support.

The Departments of State and the Treasury are now able to more swiftly target leaders or officials of terrorist groups and their proxies.

Additionally, the Treasury can now sanction correspondent or payable-through accounts of foreign financial institutions who knowingly provide support to terrorists.

This is the most significant expansion of our counterterrorism sanctions authorities since the aftermath of 9/11.

Alongside the Order, the Trump Administration announced sanctions on 28 terrorist leaders, financiers, and affiliated companies associated with multiple terrorist organizations.

COMBATING TERROR WORLDWIDE: The Trump Administration is bolstering our capabilities and efforts to defend against and combat terrorism worldwide.

The Administration has aggressively used counterterrorism sanctions authorities to disrupt terrorist finances by targeting more than 400 individuals and entities worldwide.
Since 2017, the Trump Administration sanctioned more than 40 Hizballah and 50 al-Qa'ida and ISIS affiliated individuals and entities.

One-hundred percent of ISIS-held territory in Syria and Iraq has been freed from the terror group's malevolent rule.

The Administration has taken the fight to al-Qa'ida, aggressively targeting the group's leadership and countering their vile activities around the globe.

President Trump's maximum pressure campaign against Iran is greatly reducing the radical regime's access to funds it uses to spread terror and incite destruction.
New sanctions have significantly curtailed funding to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its Qods Force, and its proxies including Hizballah and HAMAS.

PROTECTING THE HOMELAND: The Trump Administration is committed to ensuring that America is secure and its citizens always remain safe from the threat of global terrorism.

This latest Executive Order is another example of President Trump's unwavering commitment to protect the United States from terror.

Last October, President Trump released a new National Strategy for Counterterrorism, the first robust and fully articulated strategy on counterterrorism since 2011.

At President Trump's urging, North Atlantic Treaty Organization members agreed to strengthen the alliance's counterterrorism authorities and capabilities.

After years of neglect, President Trump is strengthening our Nation's defenses by rebuilding our military and strengthening our defensive capabilities.

The President is securing our borders to defend against terrorists who seek to enter our country and threaten our communities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Donald J. Trump Is Protecting The Nation by Modernizing and Expanding Sanctions to Combat Terrorism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology. MODERNIZING SANCTIONS: President Donald J. Trump is taking steps to expand and enhance the ability of the United States to sanction terrorists and those who finance them worldwide.

# data[].attributes.headline
White House drafting executive order to tackle Silicon Valley’s alleged anti-conservative bias

# data[].attributes.subject
White House drafting executive order to tackle Silicon Valley’s alleged anti-conservative bias

# data[].attributes.body
1. Currently, the Executive Branch is taking action to expel anti-conservative biases within big tech companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.
2. I believe that these Executive actions are somewhat justified. It is stated that people have been banned from certain sites for their views, and people have been fired based on their conservative beliefs as well. However, I believe that a way to solve this problem would be to not share your political beliefs in the workplace - this would solve the issue of being fired for your political viewpoints.
3. These actions are similar to the Legislative actions being taken. The Legislative action I discovered was regarding how tech companies are being dishonest with their users about how their data is being used, and the Legislative branch is working to pass a bill to reform this system. This is similar to how the executive branch is trying to eliminate dishonest behavior within big tech companies.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/26/us/criminal-justice-democrats-south-carolina.html
1. Last year, Trump passed the First Step Act which is supposed to reform many aspects of the criminal justice system, such as incentives for success, confinement, and sentencing. Democrats do not think that the president is taking enough actions.
2. I think that they are good because they are trying to help inmates live a better and more fruitful life while in prison. He might be able to do more but I think that these initial actions are positive.
3. Compared to last week, these steps benefit inmates and the criminal justice system in general more so than the legislative actions to take the DNA of immigrants, as this seems to be worsening their quality of life while the First Step Act is benefiting them.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Trump is working towards fixing the housing crisis that is nationwide by creating a council which will help eliminate the barriers from housing development
2. This action is very good but it is not clear how effective it will be. It is a major problem in the bay are so more state action and help from the federal government would be very useful
3. This action is more general and is dealing with the nation as a whole which I think is very important and is progress

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/immigration-interior-enforcement-executive-order

1) Trump ordered for "Enhancing Public Safety", aka deporting more undocumented immigrants.
2) I think this bad because I think he is blaming the wrong group of people for the violence in the US. I think gun control is going to be more effective than this.
3) Like my legislature article, it talks about limiting the number of undocumented immigrants and making it easier to deport people.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: President Trump is being forced to make a decision regarding gun policy. A new bill has been introduced and approved in the House of Reps. This newly introduced bill requires all possible gun owners to undergo more intense background checks than previously established. The bill has not yet passed the Senate but has instead fallen to two filibusters (2013 and 2015). Thus, President Trump must soon decide on whether to support the new bill. However, supporting this bill will cause major strife with the NRA.

Padlet Questions:
1. The Executive Branch, meaning the President is currently having to decide on whether to support a bill involving gun policy.
2. I believe this is a lot of pressure to put on the president seeing as the House has already approved the bill and the majority of the Senate has verbally claimed to follow the president's lead. However, if the president decides to support such bill then he breaks almost all ties with the NRA. I would like the Executive Branch to base their decision on what they believe is best for the people, regardless of political motivations or consequences.
3. While the actions of the Executive Branch are not as extensive as the Legislature, decisions are made much quicker and are mainly dependent on the decisions of a single governing party/person. Instead of having two large groups of people debate issues that ultimately affect the entire country, all of the pressure falls on one person instead, the President.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Trump is expected to decide next week whether to defy the N.R.A. and embrace a bill expanding background checks for gun buyers.

Senators Joe Manchin III and Christopher S. Murphy, both Democrats, are long-time advocates of legislation expanding background checks. Credit... Anna Moneymaker/The New York Times

WASHINGTON - In a phone call with President Trump about gun safety legislation last week, Senator Joe Manchin III made an unusual offer: If Mr. Trump signed onto a background check bill that he and Senator Pat Toomey have been pushing for six years, the president could claim the naming rights for himself.

"This won't be Manchin-Toomey," Mr. Manchin recalled telling the president, referring to the measure that would expand background checks for gun buyers. "This is going to be the Common Sense Gun Bill of 2019 by President Trump."

With Mr. Trump expected to decide as early as next week whether he will defy the National Rifle Association and embrace a bill to expand background checks for gun purchases, Mr. Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, is hardly the only lawmaker appealing to the image-conscious president. In meetings and phone calls with Mr. Trump and his advisers, backers of various gun safety bills have been waging a full-scale Washington courtship rooted in policy, politics and a little bit of presidential ego.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer, the top two Democrats in Congress, tried to tap into Mr. Trump's penchant for drama, promising to join the president for a "historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden" if he abandoned his veto threat and got behind a more expansive, House-passed background checks bill.

Mr. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, has appealed to "inherent logic," he said, making the case "on the merits" of using backgrounds checks to keep guns from criminals during a string of conversations with the president, most recently at the White House Thursday.

And Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut and a central player in the background checks negotiations along with Mr. Manchin and Mr. Toomey, has told the president that with 90 percent of the public favoring expanded background checks, there would be "enormous benefit to him if he was willing to be the guy who brought this to completion."

When Mr. Manchin volunteered to take his name off the background checks bill, Mr. Murphy said, the three senators were huddled around a speakerphone, talking to Mr. Trump from Mr. Toomey's Capitol hideaway office.

"The president is a guy who thinks about branding," Mr. Toomey said. "I think we just want to make it clear to the president that if he was going to do this, that he should get credit for it."

Gun safety has long been one of the most intractable issues in Washington, but it catapulted to the forefront of the congressional agenda after a series of mass shootings over the summer. Democrats immediately demanded the Republican-controlled Senate pass a bill that had already moved through the House and would require all gun buyers undergo background checks. But that bill remains stuck in the Senate, where Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, refuses to take it up, citing Mr. Trump's veto threat.

The somewhat narrower Manchin-Toomey bill would extend background checks to all commercial sales, including those at gun shows and over the internet. But that bill has fallen twice to a Senate filibuster, once in 2013 and once in 2015. Only two Republicans who have previously voted in favor of it - Mr. Toomey and Senator Susan Collins of Maine - remain in the Senate today.

Despite those obstacles, the political landscape around gun safety does appear to be changing. The N.R.A. is in a weakened state, mired in internal conflict and facing investigations into possible abuse of its tax-exempt status. The gun safety movement is ascendant, fueled by student activism in the wake of last year's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

And several newly elected Republicans, including Senators Mitt Romney of Utah and Mike Braun of Indiana, have called for expanded background checks in the wake of the summer shootings. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a close ally of the president, is supporting a different type of gun safety legislation known as a "red flag" bill, and has warned Mr. Trump it was untenable to tell the public there was nothing he could do, "because the shootings are going to keep coming."

Ms. Collins, who said she has been in frequent contact with the president's advisers though not Mr. Trump himself, said he is convinced that "there are a lot of responsible, common sense gun safety provisions that could be bundled together that we could pass."

But both Republicans and Democrats agree that nothing will pass without Mr. Trump's support. The president is said to be reviewing a package of ideas presented to him by White House advisers. But he is keeping his views to himself, and his earlier public statements have been all over the map, in keeping with his history of flip-flops on the gun issue.

At first, after back-to-back massacres in El Paso and Dayton in early August, Mr. Trump said there was "tremendous" support for "really common-sense sensible, important background checks" and bragged that he could overcome the longstanding Washington gridlock on the issue.

"There's never been a president like President Trump," he said then.

"At that point, he was positively over the moon about background checks," said Mr. Murphy, who sponsors the Senate version of the House background checks bill.

But more recently, the president has walked back those enthusiastic comments, while critics of the Manchin-Toomey bill have raised two primary objections. They say the current system, which relies on federally-licensed firearms dealers conducting background checks, imposes a burden on rural buyers who live far from such dealers. And they warn that background check records could be used to create a national firearms registry, which they deeply oppose.

Earlier this week, William P. Barr, the attorney general, circulated a proposal on Capitol Hill designed to address those objections. The plan would create a new class of "licensed transfer agents" who would not sell guns, but would be authorized by the government to conduct background checks. And sellers, not firearms dealers or transfer agents, would retain the records, so they could not be used to create a registry.

In interviews, Senators Graham, Manchin, Toomey and Murphy all said Mr. Barr seemed serious, and that the plan formed the foundation of a potentially workable compromise.

"As long as it enables him to do his job and the Department of Justice to do it's job, I'm fine," Mr. Manchin said.

"I've told him what Barr is working on seems to be sensible to me," Mr. Graham said, recounting his most recent conversation with the president on the issue. "I don't know exactly what the final product is. I will support whatever the president supports."

But the White House took pains to distance itself from Mr. Barr's proposal, and emphasized that it does not have Mr. Trump's blessing.

And any compromise in the Senate will be difficult to achieve. Mr. Toomey will have to bring in his colleagues from the right, who are leery of anything that smacks of gun control, and Mr. Murphy will have to bring in his colleagues from the left, who are demanding Senate passage of the stricter House bill and do not want to hand the president any political victories just as Mr. Trump is seeking re-election.

"I said, 'Mr. President, I'm as hard-line as you come on guns, and so my hope is that if I signed onto a compromise, that other people may be willing to take a hard look at this," Mr. Murphy said.

In the meantime, proponents are hoping to appeal to Mr. Trump's oft-stated desire for a big deal.

"My gut tells me that the president wants to do something meaningful to do more to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them," Mr. Toomey said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawmakers Court Trump on Gun Safety, With Some Appealing to His Ego

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Trump is expected to decide next week whether to defy the N.R.A. and embrace a bill expanding background checks for gun buyers. WASHINGTON - In a phone call with President Trump about gun safety legislation last week, Senator Joe Manchin III made an unusual offer: If Mr. Trump signed onto a background check bill that he and Senator Pat Toomey have been pushing for six years, the president could claim the naming rights for himself.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thebalance.com/how-could-trump-change-health-care-in-america-4111422
This article explains what Donald Trump is doing with the current health care crisis. He has created appeals and other reforms that make some people unhappy and others happy. He has been working on health care issues and ideas since October 2017
1. Trump promised two things in relation to healthcare and he has yet to address either one:
- Keep existing Medicare and Social Security benefits intact.
- Offer a universal “market-based” plan.
2. It is good to know that they executive branch is stepping in and taking some actions in the health crisis  such as high costs, but it bad that Trump hasn't addressed two of his promises.
3. The executive branch is doing much less than the legislative branch that i looked at last week. The legislative made solid actions that led to immediate progress and improvement while the executive branch has been working on these reforms that he promised to have.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-signing-executive-order-health-care-costs-2019-06-24-live-updates/
1. The Executive branch just made an executive order that is requiring health costs to be more transparent and up front.
2. I think these actions are good, if they are used correctly it can solve a lot of issues for many people with money issues and misunderstandings when it comes to health costs and total cost of care. I think that the executive branch needs to make more detailed actions on how this will actually be followed through and how it can be monitored.
3. The executive actions are definitely more concrete and can happen quicker, the legislative actions are a lot broader and up for a lot more discussion/opposition.

# data[].attributes.body
The Trump administration is withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against some immigrants in the country illegally who have sought refuge in churches.
1.They are taking a lot of actions, most of them are trying to limit the amount of immigrants coming in etc.
2. I think doing so much in such a small amount of time is a bad thing, it could backfire on trump, and just overall it's changing America's position in the world, and is going to effect immigration from all over the world, not just Mexico and the Middle East.
3. I feel like this is just damage control, and that trump is still trying to limit immigration, even though he's making it easier on some certain immigrants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast

The Trump administration is withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against some immigrants in the country illegally who have sought refuge in churches.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has withdrawn the fines, ranging from $300,000 to nearly $500,000 for five immigrants living in the sanctuary conditions around the country, according to the National Sanctuary Collective, which works with the families.

Edith Espinal Moreno, who has been living in a church in Ohio over the last two years, received a notice in June from the ICE telling her that she owed $497,000 dollars for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.

Last week, she received another note from ICE withdrawing the fine.

"Following consideration of matters you forwarded for ICE review, and in the exercise of the its discretion under applicable regulations, ICE hereby withdraws the Notice of Intention to Fine," Lisa Hoechst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer wrote Espinal in the Oct. 17 letter.

NPR reported this summer that the Department of Homeland Security had sent out a batch of notices across the country to targeted individuals ordering them to pay fines of up to nearly $500,000 for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.

It was just the latest hard-line effort by the administration as it worked to clamp down on illegal immigration at the border and increase interior enforcement.

The latest round of letters withdrawing the fines are a significant reversal for the administration. When he took office in 2017, Trump signed an executive order that promised to begin collection of "all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States."

"This is a victory," Espinal told NPR in a phone interview.

Espinal said she could not believe how the U.S. government thought she would have almost half a million dollars. She has been living in sanctuary at an Ohio church since an immigration judge ordered her removed two years ago. The church, its congregation and the community have largely supported her and her family.

Espinal said she came to the United States from Mexico with her father when she was 16. She now has three children of her own, including two who are U.S. citizens. She said her whole life is in the United States and she cannot return to Mexico.

ICE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This summer, officials said the agency began issuing notices in December 2018 on a case-by-case basis, taking into account steps the individual has taken to fulfill court orders.

Pro-immigrant advocates charged the administration with trying to instill fear and confusion in immigrant communities, hoping they would leave. They reported similar letters being received by immigrants in similar situations in North Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Texas.

"For almost three years now these women in sanctuary have been on the front lines of taking on the Trump administration," Mohammad Abdollahi, advocate with the National Sanctuary Collective, said. "This victory shows that the women in sanctuary are not only fighting for themselves but everybody. Others should stand up with them."

Espinal's attorney, Lizbeth Mateo, called the fines exorbitant and illegal.

"We know we have strong legal arguments and ICE recognizes that, even if they claim that this decision was based only on discretion," Mateo said in a statement. "But even if that were the case, ICE has demonstrated with this that they have the power to exercise discretion - the same way they can use discretion to drop these fines, they can use it to release the sanctuary families."

While relieved to no longer be facing such steep fines, Espinal said she still doesn't feel safe and will continue to live under the protection of the church.

"We don't have any other option than to remain in sanctuary, or I'll be deported," Espinal said. "We have to keep fighting."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Administration Withdraws Huge Fines For Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast The Trump administration is withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against some immigrants in the country illegally who have sought refuge in churches. U.S.

# data[].attributes.headline
The  role of the executive branch on the criminal justice system.

# data[].attributes.subject
The  role of the executive branch on the criminal justice system.

# data[].attributes.body
The basic framework of the criminal justice system is provided by the legislative, judicial , and executive branches of government.

(Link)https://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-guides/criminal-justice/the-criminal-justice-system/the-structure-of-criminal-justice

# data[].attributes.body
1. Congress is trying to make a policy in which they can limit the Presidents power about sending troops and war.
2. The Executive Branch is not doing anything about the policies that are being brought up against them.
3. The Executive Branch are more alarming because they can keep us in war for a long, create a draft, and control the amount of forces outside the country. The Legislative branch is trying gain more insight on war topics and need agree with the President before any actions are taken.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This week, three Republicans and three Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced a new authorization for the use of U.S. military force in what has become a never-ending war on terrorism. It aims to provide lawmakers with the ability to rein in the president's power to deploy troops in what has become our forever war.

The current statutory authority, the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, has been flexible to the point of absurdity. Passed a week after the 9/11 attacks, it authorized a conflict originally designed as a legitimate retaliatory campaign against Al Qaeda. Four presidencies later, we are fighting in multiple countries and across two continents against groups not even in existence when the 2001 resolution was written.

While congressional action on a new authorization is certainly warranted and welcome, the authorization released last week will do very little to address the problem of potential executive overreach. The draft AUMF, in fact, again provides the White House with a blank check, under a cloak of transparency and accountability.

If there is one lesson Congress should have learned in nearly two decades since the 2001 AUMF, it is that a sunset, or cut-off date, is an essential component in dealing with asymmetrical warfare and enemies. In its absence, the president is granted the ability to fight the war as long as he or she chooses. Indeed, the only way Congress can terminate a war in such a situation is by rescinding the authority altogether or cutting off appropriations - two possibilities that are fantastical in today's political environment.

Unfortunately, the new authorization has no expiration date, an omission that will perpetuate the imbalance between the executive and legislative branches on matters of war and peace. And by leaving the date open-ended, it will be far easier for the war on terrorism to continue to spread to new territory.

In 2001, Congress wanted to ensure that the president had specific statutory authority to retaliate against Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks. As time as gone by, however, the executive branch has expanded the targets to include a long list of regional and local terrorist groups, from the Islamic State in Syria to Boko Haram in northern Nigeria.

The new AUMF not only codifies this expansive view, but does so in a way that makes a mockery of the goal of congressional oversight of war powers. It allows for the addition of "associated (or partner) forces" to the enemy roster, terms so ill-defined that the president, for all practical purposes, possesses unlimited power to bomb any terrorist group under the sun.

For example, the White House could attack a faction of tribesmen in the middle of Africa if it determined they had even slight contact with Al Qaeda. Organizations with local objectives are lumped together with those that have transnational aims, a dangerous interpretation that would easily pave the way for a permanent, ever more global conflict against all terrorists at any time and at any place.

But the greatest weakness in the new AUMF is that it gets the entire process of authorizing the use of military force backward.

The "declare war" clause in the Constitution makes it clear that any president who believes it is necessary for the United States to go to war overseas must make the case to the American people's elected representatives in Congress. Only after the legislative branch votes in favor of war can the commander in chief actually prosecute a conflict. The resolution offered by the Foreign Relations Committee inexplicably shreds this process for the sake of political convenience. Were the resolution to pass, the president could launch airstrikes or deploy American troops against a band of terrorists into another country without first gaining the legislative branch's assent. Instead, Congress would have to decide whether the action was unnecessary after that action was already taken.

Even the transparency requirements of the resolution are inadequate. The president, for example, must report to Congress on "all organizations, persons, or forces" he or she determines are partners of Al Qaeda, the Islamic State or the Taliban 30 days after the AUMF becomes law. The White House then would be bound to inform Congress within 48 hours if, at a later date, a new terrorist group was designated. But only Congress and not the American people must be notified. Whether we will know who we are fighting and why is left entirely to our lawmakers' discretion.

No draft authorization for the use of military force is perfect at first. If war resolutions were easy, a new one would already be in place. Yet the architects of the Constitution wisely believed that going to war should be a difficult decision. Sending U.S. service members into battle is the most serious vote a member of Congress will ever make. Engaging in the debate and getting the decision right is what we elect representatives to do.

As valiant as the latest effort is, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee should start over. The next attempt should clearly and explicitly define who the enemy is, set out specific geographic parameters as to where the U.S. military will fight and include a sunset date so the executive branch cannot extend the war on terrorism infinitely without getting the approval of Congress. Anything less would make the inequity between the executive and legislative branches worse, not better.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities. Twitter: @DanDePetris Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinionand Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Op-Ed: The new congressional authorization to fight terrorism still gives the president too much power

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, three Republicans and three Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee introduced a new authorization for the use of U.S. military force in what has become a never-ending war on terrorism. It aims to provide lawmakers with the ability to rein in the president's power to deploy troops in what has become our forever war.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Democratic 2020 Candidates Plan to Deal with Climate Change

# data[].attributes.subject
How Democratic 2020 Candidates Plan to Deal with Climate Change

# data[].attributes.body
My article isn't taking place in the Executive Branch, but the candidate's plan in the Executive Branch. Most of the planned actions that the candidates are proposing seem pretty justifiable. Some examples include Andrew Yang's plan to have more thorium based nuclear based energy, Elizabeth Warren's plan to deal with public lands, the military, trade, and US manufacturing in order to deal with climate change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MSNBC is hosting a dozen 2020 presidential contenders on Thursday and Friday for a climate change forum. The forum comes after the seven-hour CNN climate town hall earlier this month.

It's a sign of just how important climate change has become in the 2020 race. Polls show voters rating it as one of their highest priorities. The top candidates have issued comprehensive plans to address it. Television networks are giving it an unprecedented amount of airtime.

It's worth taking note of how much the public discussion has moved on climate change in a short amount of time. There was almost no talk of rising average temperatures and the consequences thereof among candidates ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Now, no Democrat who has eyes on the White House can come to the table without a credible plan to limit greenhouse gases, adapt to rising seas, and to ensure a just transition toward a clean economy.

Much of the credit for this surge in attention to climate change goes to activists from groups like the Sunrise Movement. With their signature climate policy framework, the Green New Deal, Sunrise set the agenda for the climate discussion among candidates earlier this year. And its persistent pressure against the Democratic National Committee's refusal to hold a climate change-specific debate is a big reason why two cable networks stepped up to invest so much airtime on climate change.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee also deserves much credit for this moment. Though he's now out of the race, his campaign's singular focus on climate change set the policy benchmark against which other candidates are being compared. Several candidates shouted him out in the CNN town hall, and many have sought his blessing.

As for the remaining candidates' plans, most agree that climate change demands a policy response to zero out the country's emissions. Where they differ is in how they want to get there, how they will draw on sources like nuclear power, how much federal government investment they need, and the political levers they'll use to enact their visions.

Here is how 2020 Democratic presidential candidates intend to fight climate change

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT): With Inslee gone, Sanders's plan to combat climate change has become the yardstick for judging the other proposals on the table.

He has adopted the Green New Deal branding for his own proposal, which has the largest price tag in the field of 2020 presidential climate ambitions: $16.3 trillion. The money, according to Sanders, will come from sources including income taxes from 20 million new jobs, taxes on fossil fuels, defense budget savings from no longer protecting oil shipping, and selling power via federal power marketing authorities.

That money would then be spent on measures like a climate resilience fund, deploying renewable energy, building a high-voltage direct current network, and supporting the United Nations Green Climate Fund.

The plan also calls for zeroing out emissions from transportation and power generation by 2030. Sanders also takes the most aggressive line against the fossil fuel industry. In addition to raising taxes on the industry and pursuing civil litigation, Sanders wants criminal prosecution of greenhouse gas emitters like Exxon Mobil.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA): Fighting corruption and the influence of money in politics has been the central theme of Warren's campaign for the White House. But rather than putting out one central climate change agenda, she has incorporated it into her proposals for public lands, the military, trade, US manufacturing, and climate risk disclosure. She also borrowed Inslee's vision for reaching 100 percent clean energy.

"When I first started thinking about how to describe what I will fight for when I run for president, I decided I wasn't going to do one climate plan," she said during the CNN climate town hall. "I decided I was going to try to look at climate in every part of the plans I'm working on."

By framing climate change as an issue of economics, public resources, and national security instead of just as an environmental issue, Warren is laying out a climate case for the general election, not just the primary. It would keep climate change as a front-burner issue, even in the event of a recession or an international conflict, while perhaps drawing in voters who don't see climate change as a top-tier concern.

Andrew Yang: The entrepreneur is an unconventional candidate compared to the slate of current and former public officials running for the White House. So it isn't too surprising that he has a unique approach to climate change.

In addition to his signature proposal of a $1,000 per month "Freedom Dividend," Yang has put out a long, technology-centered climate agenda that pursues energy sources like thorium-based nuclear energy. He aims to power the US completely by renewable energy by 2035 (it's unclear if nuclear, a clean but not renewable energy source, would be used toward that goal). The proposal also calls for research into some of the more controversial climate change mitigation approaches like geoengineering. This can include mirrors in space to reflect sunlight away or spraying particles into the air to cool the planet.

But unlike some of the other candidates, Yang is frank that there will be unavoidable consequences from climate change and that people will have to move as a result. His plan allocates $40 billion in grants for people in coastal areas to move inland, $30 billion for infrastructure like seawalls, and $25 billion for disaster planning. It's bleak, but arguably prudent.

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro: The fundamental injustice of climate change is that the people who contributed least to the problem stand to suffer the most. That's why Castro is framing climate change as an issue of civil rights.

His proposal calls for $10 trillion over 10 years for clean energy and resilience to get to net-zero emissions by 2045. It also calls for new laws to combat environmental discrimination, more civil litigation from the Environmental Protection Agency, and direct the federal government to proactively protect low-income communities and communities of color from pollution.

Castro has also called for creating a new classification for refugees fleeing climate-related disasters. More than 140 million may be displaced as a result of climate change by 2050 according to the World Bank, and Castro wants to create a mechanism to help people before a disaster strikes.

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA): During her time as California's attorney general, Harris launched an investigation into oil giant Exxon Mobil to see whether the company lied to investors and to the public about what it knew about climate change.

She is leaning on this experience prosecuting polluters in her plan to fight climate change. Her $10 trillion plan includes many of the conventional provisions like public and private investment in projects such as job training, repairing water infrastructure, and switching to clean energy. But it also includes expanded access to the legal system for people to hold greenhouse gas emitters accountable.

"Access to the courts is fundamental for Americans to hold polluters accountable," her climate plan reads. "By statutorily reinforcing standing for those harmed by pollution and strengthening counsel-access provisions, we can protect access to the courts for citizens seeking restitution for environmental and climate-related damages."

Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke: O'Rourke was the first 2020 Democrat out of the gate with a comprehensive climate change plan, publishing his proposal even ahead of Jay Inslee.

The proposal starts by setting a legally binding target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions across the US economy by 2050. It gets there by using executive powers to do things like re-enter the Paris climate agreement, limit methane leaks from oil and gas drilling, and set new energy efficiency standards. O'Rourke also wants to mobilize $5 trillion over 10 years to invest in clean energy and prepare vulnerable parts of the country for the changes in the climate we can't avoid.

O'Rourke called for a legally binding net-zero emissions standard by 2050 and supports cap-and-trade over a carbon tax. Like Yang, O'Rourke has also been blunt about the need to relocate people, a lesson learned after the flooding in Houston from Hurricane Harvey. "Let's as Americans invest in the people of Houston and the southeast of America and every community that's on the front lines of climate change, to rebuild where we can and to move where we must," he said during the CNN town hall.

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg: The youngest candidate in the race, the 37-year-old says he has a personal stake in the low-carbon future. "Because when we're talking about whether we hit this target of 2050, decarbonizing the economy," he said during the CNN town hall. "Lord willing I plan to be here. I would be in my 60s."

His suite of strategies to address climate change take pains to address impacts across all parts of the country, not just the coasts. He calls for equitable disaster relief funding, national extreme weather insurance, climate-smart agriculture, and regional hubs to increase resilience to local climate-related risks.

We can't stop natural disasters from striking, especially as we face the growing threat of climate catastrophe. But we can control how we prepare for and recover from them.

Today, I'm proud to announce my plan for a new approach to disaster preparedness. https://t.co/PQkS87HAFi
- Pete Buttigieg (@PeteButtigieg) September 17, 2019

The plan would cost between $1.5 and $2 trillion and create instruments to limit greenhouse gases like a clean energy bank, tax credits for carbon capture, a transition fund for workers who might see their jobs disappear. The proposal also calls for a carbon tax with revenues distributed back to low- and middle-income Americans as a rebate.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): The Minnesota senator has published a climate agenda to " mobilize the heartland and leave no one behind." Her plan begins with executive actions to rejoin the Paris climate agreement, restore the Clean Power Plan, and sign legislation to reach net zero emissions by 2050. She estimated the cost of her proposal to be between $2 and $3 trillion, funded in large part by pricing carbon emissions.

Her tactics include a $1 trillion infrastructure package to modernize the power grid with union labor, retrofit buildings for energy efficiency, and implement new zoning policies with federal housing grants.

Klobuchar was skeptical about some of the elements of the Green New Deal, like reducing air travel, but she ultimately cosponsored the resolution. She also says that she will not ban fracking and is open to carbon capture for fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ): Booker has long framed environmental issues, including climate change, as social justice concerns. The transition toward clean energy needs to address the needs and grievances of marginalized communities.

His plans invests $3 trillion over ten years with the aim of reaching zero-carbon electricity production by 2030 and making the US economy carbon neutral by 2045. Booker wants to end fossil fuel development on public lands. He is also in favor of nuclear energy. "Right now nuclear is more than 50% of our non-carbon causing energy," Booker said. "People who think that we can get there without nuclear being part of the blend just aren't looking at the facts."

He also said that rejoining the Paris agreement isn't enough and that the United States needs to take a more aggressive leadership role on climate change on the international stage. Though he's a vegan, Booker said that he isn't coming for anyone's burgers, but says that US food production could be restructured in a way that's more sustainable and more just for the farmers themselves.

Former Vice President Joe Biden: Biden has the distinction of introducing the first climate change bill in the Senate, way back in 1986. A campaign advisor teased a climate strategy earlier this year that would be a " middle ground " approach to climate policy. He was then subjected to a torrent of criticism from environmental activists and some lawmakers.

The proposal that was finally released ended up roughly in line with those from other candidates, pegged to the 2050 deadline. The mechanisms for hitting the target include changes to the US tax code; job training and other equity provisions for those most impacted by climate change and the shift away from fossil fuels; and diplomatic pressure on other countries to reduce their emissions.

The agenda calls for $1.7 trillion in federal spending over the next decade on these policies. Biden has also pledged to refuse fossil fuel funding, backed the Green New Deal, and supported holding a climate change debate. And in the first primary debate in June, Biden highlighted his commitment to electrifying the US vehicle fleet. "I would immediately insist that we in fact build 500,000 recharging stations throughout the United States of America, working with governors, mayors and others, so that we can go to a full electric vehicle future by the year 2020 - by the year 2030," he said.

Tom Steyer: The billionaire venture capitalist, who has qualified for the October debate, has already poured millions of dollars of his own money into an impeachment ad campaign and started his own climate nonprofit, NextGen America. His plan to combat climate change centers on justice, for marginalized communities and globally.

"The United States must recognize both our historic responsibility for producing the bulk of planet-heating pollution and the great opportunity to lead the world by responding to this crisis," his plan read.

It calls for $2 trillion in federal investment over 10 years and net-zero emissions by 2045. That money would be spent on programs including $250 billion on community climate bonds and creating a civilian climate corps. The proposal also calls for a cabinet-level position to coordinate a national climate change response effort.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO): The Colorado senator has laid out not just an agenda but an " enforceable timeline " for climate action. Building on the net-zero by 2050 goal, Bennet wants to have a global climate summit in his first 100 days to set even more ambitious goals. (He does not explain what the summit will accomplish that dozens of similar summits haven't.)

He also calls for the creation of a climate bank to drive private sector financing of clean energy and climate resilience projects, to the tune of $10 trillion in the US and around the world. For utility customers, Bennet wants to establish the option of buying clean electricity.

However, Bennet's record on climate change might be tougher for environmental activists to support. He has backed natural gas as a "bridge fuel" and supported new pipelines. On the campaign trail, he has been circumspect about the Green New Deal, declining to support or criticize it outright. However, he has pledged not to take fossil fuel money or funding from corporate PACs.

Correction: An earlier version of the story misstated when Joe Biden first introduced his climate bill and when his campaign began publicly discussing a climate agenda.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A guide to how 2020 Democrats plan to fight climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MSNBC is hosting a dozen 2020 presidential contenders on Thursday and Friday for a climate change forum. The forum comes after the seven-hour CNN climate town hall earlier this month. It's a sign of just how important climate change has become in the 2020 race.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trump Signs Executive Order Reviewing Federal Role in Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Trump Signs Executive Order Reviewing Federal Role in Education

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-executive-order-reviewing-federal-role-education-n751476

# data[].attributes.body
Following up on Emily's report from last week, Secretary of Education DeVos has been officially held in civil contempt and fined $100,000 for collecting on student loans from the individuals who were defrauded by Corinthian Colleges. These lawsuits were filed the same day Democrats threatened DeVos with a subpoena, which is an investigation still ongoing with plans for hearings in November. Devos is being held in contempt for failing to comply with a preliminary injunction to stop collecting loans from Corinthian College students.

1. This matter is less of a question of executive action so much as what's happening to an executive office, though the executive education board  is working to reimburse victims of Corinthian College.
2. I think the education board is doing too little too late. They need to overhaul their system and figure out how Corinthian Colleges slipped through the cracks to begin with.
3. I was following up on the same issue that Emily brought up last week, though in that case it was about the House trying to subpoena DeVos rather than about what the education board is facing and what they're trying to do about it. This is kind of the main scandal going down in terms of education, beyond democrat president hopefuls lauding ideas about free college and the like.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/10/24/betsy-devos-contempt-violating-order-student-loans/4091621002/

# data[].attributes.body
1. This article is about President Donald Trump’s healthcare agenda that puts seniors and American patients first. The article mostly summarizes all the actions the president (executive branch) has been doing lately. Some examples are that last year, President Trump released a historic blueprint to drive down drug prices and Medicare Advantage premiums will drop next year to their lowest level since 2007, a 28 percent decrease since 2017 and The Trump Administration laid the foundation to start importing certain prescription 🤬 that are cheaper in other countries.
2. I think it is great that the president is trying to make health care cheaper and available for everyone.
3. The legislative branch was mostly about passing bills with restriction and similar while the executive branch seems to  work more with programs and budgeting and making improvements rather than complete changes like new laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Mark Lennihan/AP)

CLEVELAND - Two Ohio counties and four drug companies settled a landmark lawsuit over responsibility for the opioid epidemic Monday in a deal that could help push the parties toward a wide-ranging agreement on more than 2,400 similar claims filed across the country.

The $260 million settlement, reached just hours before opening arguments were scheduled to begin in the first federal lawsuit of the opioid era, will give Cuyahoga and Summit counties badly needed cash and anti-addiction medication. Those will be provided by mammoth opioid distributors McKesson Corp., AmerisourceBergen and Cardinal Health, and drug manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals, four of the defendants in the first case.

But the agreement also may help guide the next round of negotiating as drug companies and governments that have sued them continue efforts to resolve the remaining legal actions all at once. "Hopefully it's a first step. We learned a lot. I think the defendants learned a lot" as the case moved toward trial, said Joseph F. Rice, one of the lead attorneys for the cities and counties whose cases have been consolidated into one "multidistrict litigation" in the federal courthouse here.

"And I believe there are a lot of corporations involved in the opioid crisis . . . that recognize that it's time for them to contact us, and let's see if we can put everybody together and get a global settlement."

The Ohio deal ratchets up the pressure on plaintiffs and drug companies to reach a global settlement or, some argue, to cut their own deals sooner. If thehundreds of lawsuits filed by cities, counties, Native American tribes and others continue to be settled individually, the first jurisdictions are likely to get larger payouts, attorneys said.

"This is a national crisis that demands a national solution," said North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein said on a conference call Monday afternoon. "The trial date has now been resolved. It's in the past. And we can focus on coming up with what is going to do the best for our people."

But finding such a solution is posing challenges amid the tensions between the mostly private lawyers representing local governments and the elected state attorneys general, as well as between states devastated by the opioid crisis and those less affected.

In a moment of high drama Monday, U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster, who has pushed for that global settlement for nearly two years, took his seat at the bench at 9:01 a.m. and announced the two-county Ohio settlement, which had leaked to the media before he spoke.

"I hope very productive discussions continue and we don't lose the momentum that was created," Polster said.

Hours later, a bipartisan group of state attorneys general said they had reached a $48 billion agreement in principle with the same four companies and Johnson & Johnson for a much larger nationwide deal.

They said they would press cities and counties to back the global settlement - $22 billion in cash paid out over 18 years, and $26 billion in anti-addiction and drug treatment medication.

But that proposal is nearly the same one lawyers for the cities and counties rejected after 10 hours of bargaining Friday, and the lawyers were quick to say Monday that the sum is too small and the payout period much too long.

"They can keep repeating the same offer, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen, because it's not," said Paul J. Hanly Jr., another attorney for the cities and towns. "A majority of the towns and cities are opposed to this, and they are not going to accept it."

Democrats Stein of North Carolina and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania have been leading the negotiations for a proposed $48 billion national settlement, along with Republican attorneys general Herbert H. Slatery III of Tennessee and Ken Paxton of Texas.

In a conference call with reporters Monday, the four acknowledged the difficulty of persuading the cities and counties - as well as other attorneys general - to go along.

Asked on the call how many of their state counterparts were on board, the attorneys general declined to provide a number.

One proposal under discussion is to create a large national trust fund with rules under which cities, counties, states and others could apply for the money, said an attorney who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the idea is in its early stages. Polster or his designee might be tapped to control the fund, said the attorney.

More than 200,000 people have died of overdoses of prescription narcotics in the past two decades, and another 200,000 have succumbed to overdoses of heroin and illegal fentanyl, which is now the main driver of the worst drug crisis in U.S. history.

In August, an Oklahoma judge found health care giant Johnson & Johnson liable for fueling the opioid epidemic in the first state court trial of its kind and ordered the company to pay $572 million. Johnson & Johnson has appealed that decision.

Polster selected the two Ohio counties in Monday's trial as a "bellwether" case, one designed to determine, via a jury verdict, how other plaintiffs might fare. A trial could have cost the companies more than $8 billion if the counties were awarded all the money they were seeking.

In settling the case, however, the companies admitted no wrongdoing.

Greg McNeil, whose son became addicted to pain pills and died of a heroin overdose in 2015, said outside Polster's 18th-floor courtroom that families would have liked an apology from the companies.

"A settlement with an admission of wrongdoing would have begun to bring closure for families who have lost loved ones to the opioid epidemic," he said. "Sadly, that didn't happen."

Plaintiffs' attorneys said this and previous settlements were tantamount to an admission of culpability. "They paid over $323 million to these two counties," when previous settlements by Johnson & Johnson, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and other drug companies are included, Rice said. "One might say that's a pretty good admission."

Ilene Shapiro, county executive for Summit County, said the counties had sent a message to the drug industry.

"We started this originally to stop the [drug companies'] behaviors - to hold these folks accountable," she said. "Enough is enough. We've got people dying on our streets."

The three wholesale distributors released a joint statement saying that "while the companies strongly dispute the allegations made by the two counties, they believe settling the bellwether trial is an important steppingstone to achieving a global resolution and delivering meaningful relief.

"The companies expect settlement funds to be used in support of initiatives to combat the opioid epidemic, including treatment, rehabilitation, mental health and other important efforts."

Walgreens, a fifth defendant, did not take part in the settlement. Its trial was postponed until early next year, when it may be joined by other companies that were dropped from the first trial by mutual consent.

The company issued a statement saying that the allegations against it were very different from those against the others companies. "We never manufactured, marketed or wholesaled prescription opioid medications," the statement said. "Our pharmacists have always been committed to serving patients in the communities where they live and work."

A sixth defendant, Henry Schein Medical, which distributed a tiny amount of opioids in Summit County and was sued only by that jurisdiction, said it had also reached a deal. Under the plan, the company will donate $1 million to establish an educational foundation in Summit County that will develop best practices for the proper use of prescription opioids and will pay $250,000 of Summit County's legal expenses.

The two-county Ohio settlement follows the collapse of an extraordinary effort Friday to reach a deal coveringall the cases. Polster had summoned the chief executives of the distributors and representatives of the other two companies to his courtroom.

Also called were the plaintiffs' lawyers and the four attorneys general who represented dozens of states that have been negotiating separately with the drug companies.

Polster shuttled among the parties, trying to find common ground. But after about 10 hours of talks, the parties were still far apart.

Negotiations continued over the weekend between the two Ohio counties and the drug companies, Hanly said. As of late Saturday, the distributors were offering $90 million, and the counties were holding out for $250 million. For the plaintiffs, he said, $200 million was an important target. Eventually, he said, the distributors raised their offer to $215 million, and the plaintiffs accepted.

High-profile trial over who should pay for the opioid crisis begins Wednesday.

76 billion opioid pills: Newly released federal data unmasks the epidemic

The biggest civil trial in U.S. history will start with these Ohio counties

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Last-ditch opioid settlement in Ohio could open door for much larger deal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CLEVELAND - Two Ohio counties and four drug companies settled a landmark lawsuit over responsibility for the opioid epidemic Monday in a deal that could help push the parties toward a wide-ranging agreement on more than 2,400 similar claims filed across the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
House Democrats threaten Betsy Devos with subpeona

# data[].attributes.subject
House Democrats threaten Betsy Devos with subpeona

# data[].attributes.body
There were a chain of colleges that lost their accredidation, and continued to draw federal aid money, and teach and recruit students without telling them that any credits they acquired were most likely not going to be accepted by any other college. The Education Department took some action to help them, backdating a change in status to allow the schools to continue drawing aid. The House committee is investigating to understand what action the Department took, whether it was legal or not, and whether they had the right to take the action they took. The Department has been uncooperative, and now the house is threating subpeona to get the full understanding.

# data[].attributes.body
There is no action being taken which is very bad and can make the issue at hand worse. This article, it highlights the many different bipartisan opportunities that can be taken. An action that was stated in the article, and that can be taken into action is " Congress can help demonstrate international leadership on climate change by funding bilateral assistance and multilateral programs such as the Green Climate Fund."

# data[].attributes.body
1. The legislative actions that are currently taking place are Congress doing hearings for Reparations for black people in America.
2. The article said that it has a good chance of passing in the House of Representatives but little to no chance in passing in the Senate or Trump signing it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historic Reparations Hearings Finally Held by Congress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bill to establish a congressional commission regarding reparations for Black Americans finally gains momentum more than two decades after the measure was first introduced.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Currently there are a lot of actions taken place regarding limiting immigration into the US.
2. I feel like there are too many actions being taken place, and I feel like we are moving into a bad direction. I feel like taking so many actions and limiting immigration in so many ways in a short period of time could fire back in a major way.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/13/732103581/ban-on-abortion-funding-stays-in-house-bill-as-2020-democrats-promise-repeal

House Democrats are still retaining a ban on federal funding, despite supporting abortion as a concept.

Not v good because there are low-income women and young women who need access to abortion.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Trump administration wants to take DNA samples of immigrants in order to add them to the criminal justice system. They believe that they might commit crimes or do bad things. I have a neutral stance on these legislation actions because I think that they shouldn't assume bad behavior just because they're immigrants, but it may be dangerous to let everyone in with no background check. The federal government could create a law on privacy surrounding immigrants, as they shouldn't automatically have to put their DNA into the criminal system. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Trump administration wants to take DNA samples of immigrants in order to add them to the criminal justice system. They believe that they might commit crimes or do bad things. I have a neutral stance on these legislation actions because I think that they shouldn't assume bad behavior just because they're immigrants, but it may be dangerous to let everyone in with no background check. The federal government could create a law on privacy surrounding immigrants, as they shouldn't automatically have to put their DNA into the criminal system. 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/dna-testing-immigrants.html

# data[].attributes.body
1- The legislation already introduced the bill and it was already introduced to the House.
2- I agree with these legislative actions and I think they are good if they actually accuse people of suspects with reliable and probable clause. I think the government should guarantee

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We don't have a summary available yet.

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, and was published on Mar 27, 2019.

Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019

This bill authorizes domestic terrorism offices in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and requires specified steps to prevent and report on domestic terrorism.

The bill also authorizes a Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which shall coordinate with key public safety officials to promote information sharing and ensure an effective joint effort to combat domestic terrorism.

The joint terrorism task forces of the FBI and state, local, and regional fusion centers shall each, in coordination with the committee and such offices (1) share intelligence to address domestic terrorism activities; (2) conduct an annual, intelligence-based assessment of domestic terrorism activities in their jurisdictions; and (3) formulate and execute a plan to address and combat such activities.

DOJ, the FBI, DHS, and the Department of Defense shall establish an interagency task force to combat white supremacist and neo-Nazi infiltration of the uniformed services.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
S. 894: Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We don't have a summary available yet. The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress, and was published on Mar 27, 2019.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/dna-testing-immigrants.html
1. The Trump administration wants to start taking DNA/fingerprint samples of immigrants to put them into the criminal justice system
2. I am neutral about these legislative actions because even though I don't think that people should view all immigrants as criminals, it may still be dangerous to let all immigrants into the country.  The federal government could create a law on privacy surrounding immigrants, as they shouldn't automatically have to put their DNA into the criminal justice system.

# data[].attributes.headline
California to require abortion medication at public colleges

# data[].attributes.subject
California to require abortion medication at public colleges

# data[].attributes.body
1- some states are making laws that’ll make it easier to acquire an abortion whereas some places are trying to ban it all together

2- personally, the ones that are trying to ban abortion are,, bad lmao

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California will be the first state to require abortion medication on college campuses under a law signed Friday by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The law takes effect in 2023 and only applies to the 34 campuses in the University of California and California State University systems. But the law will only be implemented if a state commission can raise more than $10 million in private donations to pay for it.

Former California Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed a similar bill last year, arguing it was not necessary because abortion services were readily available off campus.

But Newsom, who took office in January, said the law is needed "as other states and the federal government go backward, restricting reproductive freedom."

Several Republican-led states, including Georgia, Kentucky and Mississippi, have passed laws banning abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected. Abortion-rights groups are challenging those laws in court.

"Abortion is a protected right, and it is important that everyone - including college students - have access to that right, if they so choose," said Democratic Sen. Connie Leyva, the bill's author.

Religious and anti-abortion groups opposed the bill, with Live Action President Lila Rose saying the law "turns universities into abortion centers." And Maria Jose Fernandez, legislative advocate for the California Catholic Conference, said the law is "trying to limit the alternatives for women."

"We're giving them the option to terminate a life, but what about those who want to continue on with that pregnancy? Where is the help for those women?" Fernandez said.

The medication is an option for women who are less than 10 weeks pregnant. The process requires taking two pills. The first pill, taken at the clinics, blocks the hormone progesterone. The second, taken a few days later at home, has an effect similar to a miscarriage.

More than 400,000 women attend public universities in the state.

Officials at the University of California and California State University did not take a position on the bill as it worked its way through the state Legislature. California State University spokesman Michael Uhlenkamp said the university will comply with the law by 2023.

University of California spokeswoman Sarah McBride said the university "believes students should have access to affordable and convenient reproductive health care of their choosing."

"The university is currently evaluating next steps and will implement the law accordingly," she said.

Also Friday, Newsom signed a law clarifying that Planned Parenthood can prescribe birth control via teleconference without a video chat, as they can in other states.

Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, said the bill signings show "that California understands reproductive health care is health care. And health care is a human right."

___

This story has been updated to correct the name of the anti-abortion advocacy group Live Action.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California to require abortion medication at public colleges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California will be the first state to require abortion medication on college campuses under a law signed Friday by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Withdrawing illegal immigration fines
2. Good since they were unreasonable

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast

The Trump administration is withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against some immigrants in the country illegally who have sought refuge in churches.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has withdrawn the fines, ranging from $300,000 to nearly $500,000 for five immigrants living in the sanctuary conditions around the country, according to the National Sanctuary Collective, which works with the families.

Edith Espinal Moreno, who has been living in a church in Ohio over the last two years, received a notice in June from the ICE telling her that she owed $497,000 dollars for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.

Last week, she received another note from ICE withdrawing the fine.

"Following consideration of matters you forwarded for ICE review, and in the exercise of the its discretion under applicable regulations, ICE hereby withdraws the Notice of Intention to Fine," Lisa Hoechst, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer wrote Espinal in the Oct. 17 letter.

NPR reported this summer that the Department of Homeland Security had sent out a batch of notices across the country to targeted individuals ordering them to pay fines of up to nearly $500,000 for "failing to depart the U.S. as previously agreed," among other factors.

It was just the latest hard-line effort by the administration as it worked to clamp down on illegal immigration at the border and increase interior enforcement.

The latest round of letters withdrawing the fines are a significant reversal for the administration. When he took office in 2017, Trump signed an executive order that promised to begin collection of "all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States."

"This is a victory," Espinal told NPR in a phone interview.

Espinal said she could not believe how the U.S. government thought she would have almost half a million dollars. She has been living in sanctuary at an Ohio church since an immigration judge ordered her removed two years ago. The church, its congregation and the community have largely supported her and her family.

Espinal said she came to the United States from Mexico with her father when she was 16. She now has three children of her own, including two who are U.S. citizens. She said her whole life is in the United States and she cannot return to Mexico.

ICE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. This summer, officials said the agency began issuing notices in December 2018 on a case-by-case basis, taking into account steps the individual has taken to fulfill court orders.

Pro-immigrant advocates charged the administration with trying to instill fear and confusion in immigrant communities, hoping they would leave. They reported similar letters being received by immigrants in similar situations in North Carolina, Utah, Virginia and Texas.

"For almost three years now these women in sanctuary have been on the front lines of taking on the Trump administration," Mohammad Abdollahi, advocate with the National Sanctuary Collective, said. "This victory shows that the women in sanctuary are not only fighting for themselves but everybody. Others should stand up with them."

Espinal's attorney, Lizbeth Mateo, called the fines exorbitant and illegal.

"We know we have strong legal arguments and ICE recognizes that, even if they claim that this decision was based only on discretion," Mateo said in a statement. "But even if that were the case, ICE has demonstrated with this that they have the power to exercise discretion - the same way they can use discretion to drop these fines, they can use it to release the sanctuary families."

While relieved to no longer be facing such steep fines, Espinal said she still doesn't feel safe and will continue to live under the protection of the church.

"We don't have any other option than to remain in sanctuary, or I'll be deported," Espinal said. "We have to keep fighting."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump Administration Withdraws Huge Fines For Some Immigrants In U.S. Illegally

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to The NPR Politics Podcast podcast The Trump administration is withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines against some immigrants in the country illegally who have sought refuge in churches. U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
Legislative Actions currently taking place in reltion to the dental health crisis: 

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the whistleblower and the process of Trump’s impeachment inquiry. Trump wants to find out the identity of this whistleblower, but the article argues that there must be protections to maintain them anonymous, and that it is dangerous to expose them. It’s sort of rule of law, where even though it is the president, he does not have special permissions to go around the law. To keep things fair in the legal and the criminal justice system, he has to be treated as any criminal, or the case might disappear, leaving the wrongs unaddressed. There are legislative actions to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, even though Trump wants to find them. I think it's good that they don't try to expose the identity, and that Trump should be treated the same in the criminal justice system. On a federal level, legislation should maintain the rights and safety of witnesses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An impeachment is no criminal trial, and the inquiry is merely an investigation to determine whether to charge. Still, President Donald Trump Donald John Trump Trump says he doesn't want NYT in the White House Veterans group backs lawsuits to halt Trump's use of military funding for border wall Schiff punches back after GOP censure resolution fails MORE and his supporters insist that during this early stage he get myriad protections that he claims are available to criminal defendants. Those are figments of his imagination.

Trump does not have a right to confront the whistleblower right now. If this case were in court, his threats would give the judge reason to put restrictions on his access to the witness. In organized crime trials and congressional hearings, our institutions have developed the tools to shield witnesses to defend the rule of law.

Investigators drive an investigation. Once they have amassed evidence, the prosecution steps in. During this process, a suspect has none of the rights the president asserts.

A suspect can opt to cooperate, in hopes of averting an indictment, or refuse to do so. The latter is the path the president has chosen. That gives him no special protections.

There is no right to confront any witness during an investigation. And our criminal justice process limits that right later if the defendant or his consorts appear to threaten a witness. Those procedures were developed and tested during organized crime trials.

The criminal justice system is regularly tasked with protecting crucial witnesses whose safety is endangered. Sometimes it fails spectacularly, and every failure harms the rule of law. Often it succeeds in assuring the trial testimony that is crucial for conviction and in protecting the witness's life.

Prosecutors depend on witnesses to make their cases. Cooperation can be life-threatening for eye witnesses to gang slayings, police informants, undercover agents and "moles." Sometimes offenders or their friends put out word that nobody testifying against them will survive it; for undercover officers, no such threat is needed, as the danger is obvious. Some witnesses are willing to take that risk; others are not. If they recant or "forget," if they disappear or refuse to testify, the case may be over. That is a win for crime and a defeat of law.

Prosecutors have expanded their tools to protect witnesses. They may temporarily relocate the witness to assure his or her appearance at trial. On the back end, federal prosecutors may promise entry into the federal witness protection program. It was developed to protect Mafia turncoats after their testimony. Soon, Takashi 6ix9ine may find himself in the program after his testimony against organized crime figures. Yet that program is an extreme measure for a high-profile witness whose life continues to be at risk after testifying.

To protect witnesses, courts occasionally agree to restrict the defendant's confrontation rights and the right to a public trial. Yet they do so only sparingly. Still they have allowed witnesses to appear in disguise, shielded by a fake beard and glasses. Some courts have denied the defendant access to a witness's name and home address. In yet other cases, courts have agreed to close the hearing to protect the witness. Those restrictions are often crucial for witnesses whose identity needs to be protected.

Limited restrictions on the defendant's confrontation rights serve to protect the integrity of our criminal justice system. Congress should adopt the same strategy. The congressional committees should be able to hear from the whistleblower in closed session or in disguise if needed.

Since the president, the target of the investigation, has threatened the whistleblower, there is powerful reason to continue to shield the whistleblower's identity both from him and the public. The mob was once thought all-powerful, but its influence and strength were negligible compared to those of the president.

The stakes could not be higher for the country and our democracy. Mythical protections for the defendant should not paralyze our institutions. The lessons the judicial system has learned in the battle against organized crime should serve as a blueprint throughout the impeachment.

Congress would do a disservice to the rule of law if a crucial witness failed to testify out of fear. Let the whistleblower be disguised.

Nora V. Demleitner is the Roy L. Steinheimer Jr. Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, editor of the "Federal Sentencing Reporter," and lead author of a casebook on sentencing. Follow her on Twitter @NDemleitner.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Trump's mythical justice system and the whistleblower's disguise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An impeachment is no criminal trial, and the inquiry is merely an investigation to determine whether to charge. Still, President Donald Trump Donald John Trump Trump says he doesn't want NYT in the White House Veterans group backs lawsuits to halt Trump's use of military funding for border wall Schiff punches back after GOP censure resolution fails MORE and his supporters insist that during this early stage he get myriad protections that he claims are available to criminal defendants.

# data[].attributes.body
New legislation about the housing crisis was vetoed by governor Newson as he says the overall price of the operation wasn't ideal for the state's Annual budget. He proposed to companies to help pay for homes since the blame of displacing originates from workers with high end tech jobs for big companies.

The passing of the bill could be seen as a good thing, but it could be looked over by the federal level for approval. Newson vetoed it for its price tag, and he had a plan to have an alternative solution to the matter revolving the practice of building duplexes in single family neighborhoods and more apartments in cities. People look down upon this as some don't like having that living style.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2019/10/californias-2020-housing-laws-what-you-need-to-know
1. A rent cap bill is in the process of being passed. This bill prevents landlords from raising the price of rent whenever they feel like it and at unreasonable rates
2. These actions are good and working towards progress. More action towards building affordable housing would be helpful and effective maybe requiring input from federal level

# data[].attributes.body
Dental Health Crisis:

1. Legislative Actions currently taking place in relation to the dental health crisis:
The states are taking initiative to create more accessible dental care to those that are lacking. Some of these actions include assisting all states with dental notes, developing oral health workforce to provide services in the community and integrating oral health into the primary health care

2. What do you think about the actions being taken?
I am impressed that they are taking the steps to help address this problem by integrating it into standard and primary healthcare because dental care is actually really really important. the fact that they are taking the necessary steps to address the crisis is surprising and good to know that they care about the nations health

# data[].attributes.body
This article is about legislative actions taken about e-cigarettes and which is connected to the health care department since they cause so many lung diseases and according to the site "as of Oct. 1, 2019, no state legislature has acted to ban e-cigarettes or vaping devices.". However, for example Michigan made and Executive Order to ban online sellers and California has developed recommendations to reduce the availability of vaping devices to persons under 21 years of age. I think these are great legislative actions but I think they should do more because the problem still exists and is still very bad, causing severe and dangerous lung diseases.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  What are the Legislative Actions currently taking place in relation to your TOPIC?:
The "red flag" always allows private citizens to request court orders for officials to confiscate the firearms of people legally permitted to own them.  Those people need to be deemed by a judge to be a danger to themselves and to others whom own a gun.

2.  What do you think about these legislative actions?  Are the good/bad?  What types of actions would you like to see the Legislature take at the state of the Federal level?:
I think they are bad because there is no concise way on determining if the individual gun owner can be a threat.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The legislative actions are providing security utilities, improving cyber-security, and requiring government or companies to have more security policies.
2. I think that these legislative actions are good because I think that their should be security for technology in case people have their rights taken away or information being put out. I would like to see the legislature put more strict laws in each state in terms of cyber-security.

# data[].attributes.headline
New US Legislation Would Require Internet Giants to Disclose the Value of User Data

# data[].attributes.subject
New US Legislation Would Require Internet Giants to Disclose the Value of User Data

# data[].attributes.body
1. This article discusses a bill known as the Dashboard act being passed that states how big tech companies such as facebook and google will now be required to inform their users about how their data is being used.
2. This legislative action is good because for years tech companies have been dishonest with their users about how their data is being used, saying
that certain products are free when the user is actually paying for it using their data, which is supplied to them through the user's money. By passing this law, users will be able to make informed decisions about how their money and data is used. I would like to see this type of bill passed in other countries as well.
https://www.adweek.com/digital/new-united-states-legislation-would-require-internet-giants-to-disclose-the-value-of-user-data/

# data[].attributes.body
1) Congress is trying to figure out if there should be a cap on how many green cards can be issued to citizens of a certain country.
2) Different congress-people have different persons. Some are more liberal and think that all countries should have equal limitations, while others believe that restrictions should be put in place based on perceived threat.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Currently the legislative actions being taken include a school safety act passed in response to the parkland shooting. Proposed legislative actions surrounding increasing funding for schools (especially in high poverty areas), cracking down on charter schools, and taxes on millionaires and billionaires to fund these bills are what define Warren's push for presidency. The house is also investigating Betsy Devos for allowing a few shut-down colleges to keep teaching without informing students they are no longer accredited.

2. We don't think Warren's proposals will get anywhere in the divided congress especially given how interdependent they all are. The case with the unaccredited schools is such a mess that it's hard to figure out what needs to be done over overhauled.

# data[].attributes.body
The Justice Department said the proposed rule would be officially published on Tuesday and subject to 20 days of public comment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Reuters) - The Trump administration on Monday proposed taking DNA samples from immigrants detained by U.S. authorities, raising privacy concerns especially for asylum-seekers and minor offenders whose genetic information would go into an FBI database.

The Justice Department said the proposed rule would be officially published on Tuesday and subject to 20 days of public comment.

It represents the latest initiative by President Donald Trump's administration to reduce legal and illegal immigration, an issue central to his 2020 re-election campaign.

The rule proposes collecting DNA samples from any immigrant "detained under the authority of the United States," which could include first-time border crossers whose offense is a misdemeanor.

Trump administration officials have argued that the rule simply restores authority that had been suspended by the Department of Homeland Security under former President Barack Obama and that is authorized under a law passed by Congress in 2005.

In addition, DNA collection could help detect fraud and solve cold criminal cases, Trump immigration aide Stephen Miller has said. Trump has long linked his hardline anti-immigration policies to crime-fighting, even though multiple studies show immigrants commit less crime than native-born Americans.

Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union have raised privacy and civil liberties concerns, including that DNA samples can reveal information about relatives of the detained. The ACLU also said the rule changes the purpose of DNA collection from criminal investigation to surveillance of the population.

"This proposed change in policy is extraordinary in its breadth and transparent with its xenophobic goals," Naureen Shah, the ACLU's senior advocacy and policy counsel, said in a statement.

"It seeks to miscast these individuals, many of whom are seeking a better life or safety, as threats to the country's security. And it turns immigration detention, which is supposed to be civil and not punitive, into a proxy to strip these individuals of their privacy rights," Shah said.

The rule would create exceptions for foreigners being processed for legal entry to the United States, which could include asylum-seekers who apply at a legal port of entry but might not include those who cross the border illegally and apply for asylum upon being detained.

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for clarification.

There are also exceptions for those held briefly at a port of entry for additional screening, for those detained at sea, and for those detained where officials lack the means to collect samples.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
judicial process / court cases / court decisions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. proposes collecting DNA samples from detained immigrants

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Reuters) - The Trump administration on Monday proposed taking DNA samples from immigrants detained by U.S. authorities, raising privacy concerns especially for asylum-seekers and minor offenders whose genetic information would go into an FBI database. The Justice Department said the proposed rule would be officially published on Tuesday and subject to 20 days of public comment.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.apnews.com/a771c4a7d487498d9165fafab7f2dd9e
1. Congress is trying to put off their differences about Obamacare and instead focus on lowering the prices and regulations for people that already have healthcare and still have to pay a lot. This article specifically talks about drug requirements.
2. I think the legislative actions are good but personally I think there are a lot other more important actions that need to be taken instead of just drug laws.

Another good article for overall
https://www.forbes.com/sites/allbusiness/2019/07/07/5-key-healthcare-issues-pending-in-congress-new-rules-that-could-change-how-you-get-healthcare/#6edd3bb01ed9

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-house-passes-school-safety-bill-month-after-parkland-n856726

Basically, a bill was passed in 2018 saying that students, teachers, and other school staff will be trained to recognize school violence before it happens.  The bill was passed in response to the parkland shooting.  Throughout the article, several politicians who support this bill are referenced.

1. Currently, the legislature is saying that students/ school staff need to be taught how to recognize school violence before it happens.
2. While I think that this bill is a good idea in theory, I don't think that it will be effective.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change relating to bills and the Legislative Branch.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change relating to bills and the Legislative Branch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Democratic governor for California has vetoed a bill designed to roll back Trump-era cuts to environmental regulations, prompting anger from lawmakers and environmental groups.

Dubbed the "Trump insurance" bill, the legislation was designed to add a string of environmental and working rights legislation introduced by Barack Obama into California law.

The legislation would then run out in 2025 on the day Mr Trump would leave office if he won a second term - ensuring the state would live under the unaltered Obama policies for the duration of the 45th president's time in the White House.

However Governor Gavin Newsom described the legislation as "a solution in search of a problem" - and argued it would tie the state to old science without allowing space for new innovations which may affect future environmental policy.

He wrote in a veto note: "No other state has fought harder to defeat Trump's environmental policies, and that will continue to be the case."

However lawmakers and activists have accused the governor of not truly understanding the policy he vetoed, and "blinking" in the face of industry opposition.

The state senate's most senior Democrat Toni Atkins said: "The federal government continues to roll back regulations while climate change impacts roll on. I will keep working with my colleagues and the Governor to push back wherever possible."

Meanwhile Kathryn Phillips, Director for non-profit environmental organisation Sierra Club's California branch, called the veto "disappointing and illuminating".

Accusing the governor of bowing to the influence of special interest groups representing big business, she added: "With this veto, we are seeing more of the same overzealous alignment with interests that want to exploit natural resources without regard to the environment or the public interest.

"And we're seeing this alignment at a time when it presents serious risk to California.

"By vetoing this bill, the governor has sided with the industry interests who have embraced Trump's attacks on environmental protections."

California, the state of high-profile democratic senators Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein, has come under increasing fire from the Trump administration over environmental policy in attacks spurred on by comments from the president.

Last week Mr Trump said cities including Los Angeles were faced with "tremendous pollution" - blaming the state of waterways on homeless people.

The state is currently governed by an overwhelming majority of democratic politicians across all branches of government.

He added: "We're looking at San Francisco and we're looking at Los Angeles, and we're looking at all of the things that are happening. You know, there's tremendous pollution being put into the ocean because they're going through what's called the storm sewer that's for rainwater,"

The government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) went on to warn the state over water and air pollution - and threatened to withdraw California's federal road funding unless changes were made.

Referencing the Ukraine scandal that has led to impeachment proceedings being launched against Mr Trump, a spokesman for Mr Newsom told The Washington Post at the time: ""There's a common theme in the news coming out of this White House this week. The president is abusing the powers of the presidency and weaponising government to attack his political opponents,"

"This is not about clean air, clean water or helping our state with homelessness. This is political retribution against California, plain and simple."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California governor vetoes bill aimed at stopping Trump environment rollbacks

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Democratic governor for California has vetoed a bill designed to roll back Trump-era cuts to environmental regulations, prompting anger from lawmakers and environmental groups. Dubbed the "Trump insurance" bill, the legislation was designed to add a string of environmental and working rights legislation introduced by Barack Obama into California law.

# data[].attributes.body
1. The Legislation Actions taken from the Senator of Arizona, fixed a bill so that the person who killed people in El Paso could get charge with domestic terrorism. There is a lot of controversy because in the States courtroom, they cannot legally charge someone with terrorism, only the federal government can.

2. I agree with the bill that Mcsally is going to pass because people who have killed multiple civilians need to see the full spectrum of their crime. Their needs to be more laws like these so that then terrorist can think twice about their actions and know that they are going to get sentenced to the maximum punishment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The distinction may seem semantic, but words matter. Terrorism is an innately political category of crimes. Formally applying the term to some perpetrators but not others risks signaling that some forms of political violence are less serious than others. Supporters of a domestic-terrorism statute say it would fix that. "For too long we have allowed those who commit heinous acts of domestic terrorism to be charged with related crimes that don't portray the full scope of their hateful actions," McSally said in a statement. "That stops with my bill."

McSally's seven-page bill would add the crime of domestic terrorism to federal law for the first time. It covers a range of standard criminal offenses if they are committed "with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence, affect, or retaliate against the policy or conduct of a government." Committing manslaughter or kidnapping under those terms could bring a life sentence; a person convicted of murder under the statute could face the death penalty. The statute also applies if a defendant conspires to commit one of the acts or makes an attempt to do so.

Murder and kidnapping are relatively easy to define. Other parts of the proposed statute, however, are troublingly vague. One provision allows federal prosecutors to bring charges if a defendant "creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by intentionally destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property." Note that a person does not have to actually cause serious bodily injury to face charges. They merely have to create the possibility of it by damaging property for political reasons. The offense carries up to a 15-year sentence.

It's not hard to imagine the government using these tools against Americans who take part in large-scale protests or who carry out acts of civil disobedience. Federal prosecutors spent a year and a half pursuing riot-related charges against a few dozen protesters who smashed windows and damaged cars during President Donald Trump's inauguration. The Justice Department also brought charges against Native American activists who protested the Dakota Access pipeline in Standing Rock, North Dakota, in 2016, alleging they started fires and built illegal roadblocks. The extreme sentences attached to the crimes would give prosecutors significant leverage over defendants to strike a plea deal even if they believe the case is unjust.

History also gives pause. The federal government has a mixed record at best when it comes to defining what constitutes domestic terrorism. The Hoover-era FBI's campaign to harass civil rights activists and infiltrate antiwar groups in the 1950s and 1960s is still within living memory. In the 1990s and early 2000s, the FBI described ecoterrorism as the "number one domestic terrorism threat" and faced criticism from its inspector general in 2010 for inappropriately monitoring nonviolent groups like Greenpeace and PETA. More recently, the Bureau responded to the Black Lives Matter movement's rise by warning about the possibility of domestic terrorism from "black identity extremists," a spurious category at best.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The distinction may seem semantic, but words matter. Terrorism is an innately political category of crimes. Formally applying the term to some perpetrators but not others risks signaling that some forms of political violence are less serious than others. Supporters of a domestic-terrorism statute say it would fix that.

# data[].attributes.body
Democratic candidate Elizabeth Warren proposed a plan to overhaul American education systems last Tuesday. Her proposed bills included increasing funding for schools in high poverty areas, invest more funding into the Americans with Disabilities Education Act, crack down on charter schools, raise teacher pay, eliminate use of standardized testing in decisions regarding shutting down schools, student debt forgiveness, and a variety of other programs. Funding these programs would require another series of programs implementing 2% taxes on millionaire and 3% taxes on billionaires. The likelihood of all of these bills passing, or even a couple of them to be frank, is questionable given our legislative system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Her plan also would eliminate use of test scores for high-stakes decisions and end federal funding for new charter schools

Warren, who in some recent polls has topped the other 18 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, would steer U.S. education policy away from that of President Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who have said their priority is expanding alternatives to traditional public schools.

"To keep our traditional public school systems strong, we must resist efforts to divert public funds out of traditional public schools," Warren said in the plan. She pointed to charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately operated (and which Warren once supported), and to DeVos-backed voucher and tuition tax-credit programs that use public money for private and religious school education.

"We should fight back against the privatization, corporatization, and profiteering in our nation's schools," she said in her plan, which was applauded by the leaders of the two major teachers unions.

Warren, who has touted dozens of plans for the country, said she would pay for her education vision with a proposed "wealth tax." It would levy a 2% tax on wealth above $50 million and a 3% tax on wealth above $1 billion. Some economists and other Democratic candidates have said the tax would not raise as much as Warren said it would and could not pay for everything she plans.

A representative of the Warren campaign said Sunday that Warren would use the wealth tax to pay for the new education plan as well as for previously announced initiatives to provide universal child care and early learning opportunities, cancel most student college debt and offer free tuition at public colleges.

And now, the representative said, other plans Warren had intended to use the wealth tax to cover - to end the opioid crisis, to create a small-business equity fund, and to invest in election security and administration - will be funded by closing the "stepped-up basis" loophole on the tax on inherited assets. Warren says that move will raise more than $100 billion over 10 years.

It is unclear whether her funding proposals will cover the more than $1 trillion in initiatives that Warren has advanced for pre-K through college. But Warren has staked out a vision for pre-K through 12th grade that is at least as expansive as any other candidate's in the Democratic race.

Warren's plan most resembles that of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who has offered what he calls a Thurgood Marshall Plan for Public Education. It includes rethinking the way public schools are funded, giving a major boost in funding to schools in high-poverty areas and freezing all federal money for new charter schools. Former vice president Joe Biden's education plan is less detailed but includes more spending for schools in high-poverty districts.

America's public schools are funded heavily, though not exclusively, through property taxes, with the result being that poorer neighborhoods have less to spend on their schools. Federal money intended to help those school systems doesn't come close to closing the gap. Warren said she wants to change that formula and work toward an equitable funding system as she pours more money into schools in high-poverty neighborhoods.

Warren's plan takes aim at some of the most systemic problems in education, including segregated classrooms and neighborhoods and low teacher pay. It recognizes that student achievement is affected by factors outside the classroom and calls for changing policies on housing, energy and broadband availability that Warren said affect the ability of students to get a quality education.

It would:

-Quadruple federal Title I funding for schools in high-poverty neighborhoods, which would add $450 billion over the next 10 years - and change the way that funding is implemented so that the neediest students benefit.

-Fund the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act at the level the federal government originally promised - 40% of the total cost of educating students with disabilities - which would add $20 billion a year in new federal grants and expand IDEA funding to young children.

-End federal investment in charter school expansion, ban for-profit charter schools and ensure existing charter schools are subject to the same transparency and accountability requirements as traditional public school districts. Warren also supports making school districts the only authorizers of charter schools and promises to "crack down on union-busting and discriminatory enrollment, suspension, and expulsion practices in charter schools."

-Reinstate Obama-era protections for transgender students under federal law that were revoked by Trump and take other steps to protect LGBTQ students and faculty.

-Invest federal dollars to raise teacher pay and strengthen the bargaining power of teacher unions.

-Eliminate use of standardized test scores for high-stakes decisions. The plan says, "As president, I'll push to prohibit the use of standardized testing as a primary or significant factor in closing a school, firing a teacher, or making any other high-stakes decisions, and encourage schools to use authentic assessments that allow students to demonstrate learning in multiple ways."

-Cancel student breakfast and lunch debt and provide free and nutritious school meals.

-Ban the storing and selling of student data.

-Expand social-emotional learning.

-Offer $100 billion in grants to transform 25,000 public schools into community schools, which provide family support and health and social services to students.

The plan won applause from the presidents of the two major teachers unions - Lily Eskelsen García of the National Education Association and Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers - but neither has endorsed a Democratic candidate.

Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a professor specializing in educational policy and law, said Warren's plan is "designed to move away from the baseless schemes grounded in test-based accountability and school choice, shifting to long-term, sustainable investment that would genuinely increase kids' learning opportunities."

But supporters of charter schools said Monday they were disappointed with Warren's proposal.

"Elizabeth Warren's unfortunate rejection of the Obama legacy on public charter schools is fundamentally at odds with her party," Amy Wilkins, senior vice president of advocacy at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement. "President Obama increased funding for the federal Charter Schools Program more than any other president, and the majority of rank-and-file Democrats understand this funding is critical to support the education of underserved students."

The Obama administration was a big supporter of charters as were many in the Democratic Party. But there has been a backlash in recent years amid scandals in the charter sector and Trump's appointment of DeVos, who once called traditional public schools "a dead end." Polls show varying levels of support for charters, depending on how the question is asked, and some key Democratic groups began to call for moratoriums on charter expansion as reports increased about how some traditional school districts were losing important funding to them.

Biden, who was vice president during the Obama administration's embrace of charters, said recently at a union forum: ""The bottom line is it siphons off money for our public schools, which are already in enough trouble."

Over the years, Warren has changed positions on some education issues. She once supported charter schools but in 2016 opposed an initiative in Massachusetts - funded mostly by Republicans - to lift a cap on the number of charters.

In 2015, she co-sponsored an amendment to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the successor to the No Child Left Behind law, that explicitly called for the use of standardized test scores to hold schools "accountable." Now, she doesn't want test scores to be used to decide on whether a school should close.

In a 2003 book, she advocated for a fully funded voucher program that would enable children to attend any public school of their choosing (although not private or religious schools). But her new plan says nothing about it.
This article was written by Valerie Strauss, a reporter for The Washington Post.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Warren calls for billions of new dollars to reform pre-K-12 schools, fight privatization | The Daily Republic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Her plan also would eliminate use of test scores for high-stakes decisions and end federal funding for new charter schools Warren, who in some recent polls has topped the other 18 candidates running for the Democratic nomination, would steer U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
http://theconversation.com/why-the-uk-needs-its-own-black-lives-matter-moment-to-wake-up-to-police-racism-100998

# data[].attributes.body
The Trump Administration put in place another restriction on immigration, denying those who can't afford health care US visas. This article was posted on the Guardian which gives the perspective of those outside the US.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Immigrants applying for US visas will be denied entry into the country unless they can prove they can afford health care within 30 days of entering or can't pay for it themselves, according to a proclamation signed by President Trump.

The new rule, which comes into force on 3 November, will be applied to people seeking immigrant visas, not those in the US already. It does not apply to those seeking asylum seekers, refugees or children.

But it would apply to the spouses and parents of US citizens. That could have an impact on families who are trying to bring their parents to the US.

The proclamation said immigrants will be barred from entering the country unless they are to be covered by health insurance within 30 days of entering or have enough financial resources to pay for any medical costs.

The Trump administration is trying to move away from a family-based immigration system and into a merit-based system, and Friday's proclamation is another effort to limit immigrant access to public programs.
'These people aren't just statistics': behind the year's most personal look at immigration
The Trump administration earlier this year made sweeping changes to regulations that would deny green cards to immigrants who use some forms of public assistance. The White House also directed officials to recover income-based welfare payments from sponsors, and proposed a rule requiring verification of immigration status for anyone seeking access to public housing benefits.

The required insurance can be purchased individually or provided by an employer, and it can be short-term coverage or catastrophic.

Medicaid for the poor doesn't apply and an immigrant will not be able to obtain a visa if using the Affordable Care Act's subsidies when buying insurance. Those subsidies are paid for by the federal government.

"While lawful immigrants qualify for ACA subsidies, they'll be stuck in a catch-22 because subsidized coverage does not qualify as insurance under the proclamation," tweeted Larry Leavitt, executive vice president for health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation, a health care policy thinktank.

Larry Levitt (@larry_levitt)
Qualifying insurance that immigrants can have includes unsubsidized individual insurance, employer coverage, or short-term insurance (which generally excludes people with pre-existing conditions).

Trump has made cutting legal and illegal immigration a centerpiece of his presidency. The Trump administration said last month that it planned to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee program.

The White House said in a statement that too many non-citizens were taking advantage of the country's "generous public health programs", and that immigrants contribute to the problem of "uncompensated health care costs".

According to the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan immigration thinktank, 57% of US immigrants had private health insurance in 2017, compared with 69% of US-born, and 30% had public health insurance coverage, compared with 36% of US-born.

The uninsured rate for immigrants dropped from 32%t to 20% from 2013 to 2017, since the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, according to Migration Policy Institute.

There are about 1.1 million people who obtain green cards each year.

"This new attempt at an immigration ban is as shameless as it is stunning," tweeted Doug Rand, a former Obama administration official who is the co-founder of Boundless Immigration. "It will be chaotic to implement and guaranteed to separate US citizens from their legal immigrant spouses and other close relatives."
Reuters and Associated Press contributed to this report. Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US immigrants will be denied entry if they can't afford health care

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Immigrants applying for US visas will be denied entry into the country unless they can prove they can afford health care within 30 days of entering or can't pay for it themselves, according to a proclamation signed by President Trump.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BALTIMORE - Alyse and Elmer Sanchez were thrilled when they survived their "green card" interview, a crucial step in obtaining lawful status in the United States. She texted her family from the immigration office as relief washed over her: The officer had agreed that their marriage is legitimate.

Moments later, Elmer was in shackles, detained pending deportation to his native Honduras, leaving her alone with their two little boys.

"We feel it was a trap, a trick, to get us there," Alyse said.

The Sanchezes have joined five other couples in a class action accusing federal agents of luring families to marriage interviews in Baltimore, only to detain the immigrant spouse for deportation.

Federal regulations allow U.S. citizens like Alyse to try to legalize the status of spouses like Elmer, who has been living in the country illegally. Thousands of families are doing it: Records show the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services approved 23,253 provisional unlawful presence waivers, the final documents spouses, children or parents of citizens need before leaving the country and applying to rejoin their families legally.

But the American Civil Liberties Union says a growing number of officers have "cruelly twisted" the rules by detaining immigrant spouses following marriage interviews. The ACLU is pursuing a similar complaint in Massachusetts and says dozens of detentions also have happened at field offices in New York, Virginia, Florida, Illinois and California.

The Maryland case is assigned to U.S. District Judge George J. Hazel, who already reversed the deportation of a Chinese man detained after a successful marriage interview in Baltimore. Ruling just before Wanrong Lin landed in Shanghai last November, Hazel said the government can't use the process "as a honeypot to trap undocumented immigrants who seek to take advantage of its protections."

Alyse told The Associated Press her family's life "just seemed so perfect."

She and Elmer, now 31 and 41, began dating in 2013, after he learned she was selling her car and showed up at her door. He bought it, and they married that year. They have two sons, 4 and 2, and live in the Washington suburb of Kensington, Maryland, where he owns a home-remodeling company. She works at a veterinary clinic in nearby Sandy Spring.

"Everyone has their ups and downs in their relationships, but ours has been pretty smooth," she said. "... He's been there for every important event in my life. He's been the most important event in my life."

Court records show Elmer had been ordered in absentia to be deported in September 2005, after missing an immigration hearing he said he was never notified of. After consulting with lawyers, Alyse submitted paperwork to get her husband a green card in September 2018. Their notice for the May 7 appointment said the required interview was "solely to confirm the bona fides of the couple's marriage," according to the lawsuit.

Obama-era regulations provide for this, even for people with deportation orders. The months-long process typically requires couples to demonstrate the legitimacy of their marriage as part of the first step. If the couples pass the interview and earn other approvals, immigrant spouses eventually must travel abroad for a visa interview at a U.S. consulate. Only if they receive a visa can they return to the U.S. legally.

It's unclear how many individuals have successfully become permanent U.S. residents through the process. It facilitates a proper record for families with mixed citizenship, and it's meant "to avoid the grievous consequences of forcing a spouse or parent to leave" the U.S. for years while trying to build a lawful immigration case from their home countries, the ACLU says.

Now, the plaintiffs say, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is unlawfully using the process as bait. ACLU of Maryland attorney Nick Steiner said it began in 2017 and seems to happen randomly nationwide.

"Previous practice would allow immigration lawyers to bring their clients to their interviews without fear of arrest because there was an understanding that they were trying to receive Green Cards, notwithstanding the removal orders, and there's also longstanding guidance that USCIS should be following, that prohibits arrests at interviews," he said in an email.

The Homeland Security agencies - through Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Shawn Neudauer and Citizenship and Immigration Services spokeswoman Jane Cowley - said they don't comment on pending litigation. But depositions and emails released in the Massachusetts case suggest federal officials were coordinating to target immigrant spouses at their marriage interviews.

"In my opinion, it makes sense for us to arrest aliens with final removal orders as they represent the end of the line in the removal process," wrote Andrew Graham, a Boston-based ICE officer. "They are typically the easiest to remove, they have the shortest average length of stay, and at the end of the day we are in the removal business and it's our job to locate and arrest them."

The government in its response to the complaint filed in Maryland argued the case should be dismissed because the court lacks jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' "claims are not likely to be successful." It also argued Elmer was "personally served" with a notice for his deportation hearing and that it showed a date, time and place.

The Sanchezes were nervous but hopeful as they told their interviewer how they met and answered questions. At the officer's request, Alyse spoke with her husband in Spanish, on camera. The interviewer confirmed their bona fides - Alyse would get the formal approval in the mail the next day - but said his supervisor "had to come and authenticate the case," according to the lawsuit.

Alyse was told to leave the room. Minutes later, their lawyer told her Elmer had been detained, leaving her sobbing in the hallway.

Six chaotic weeks followed. Elmer was shuffled around detention facilities while Alyse sought counseling and tried to console their 4-year-old, who constantly asked about his dad.

Their attempt to reopen Elmer's case was denied June 3. He began to lose hope in a Louisiana detention center.

"The treatment is so bad that they know that you cannot last there for a long time," he said. "The food is very bad, the light, the icy air. It's like a psychological war that you are put in so that you sign your deportation."

Elmer was released June 19 after the ACLU sought an emergency order to prevent imminent deportation.
Follow NBC Latino on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Federal agents are using marriage interviews as an immigration trap, lawsuit says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BALTIMORE - Alyse and Elmer Sanchez were thrilled when they survived their "green card" interview, a crucial step in obtaining lawful status in the United States. She texted her family from the immigration office as relief washed over her: The officer had agreed that their marriage is legitimate.

# data[].attributes.body
This article from bbc shares information to people who don't know about the expensive prices of housing in the bay area. The housing is not affordable for families and cautions people who are thinking about moving there. It has a more broad perspective since it is directed toward international instead of local bay area readers

# data[].attributes.body
This source is from Sydney, Australia. This country is similar to the US in this way in the fact that people need a firearm licence in order to own a gun. This article also heavily focused on the idea of terroist affiliation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size

A man who sold a double-barrelled shotgun that was subsequently used by Brighton siege gunman Yacqub Khayre says he had the firearm to protect himself from disgruntled former employees.

George Matte-Hado, 40, pleaded guilty in the County Court of Victoria on Tuesday to several charges including dealing firearms without a licence.

George Matte-Hado used the proceeds of the sale to make a mortgage payment, pay some bills and buy $300 of speed. Credit:AAP

The father-of-three sold the unregistered, sawn-off shotgun for $2000 to former workmate Burak Diler, who handed it over to Khayre in the car park of a Greenvale housing estate in May 2017.

The gun was one of two used by Khayre to kill hotel concierge Kai Hao, 36, and injure three police officers a month later at a Brighton serviced apartment building.

Khayre, who had pledged allegiance to both Islamic State and al-Qaeda, also took a female escort hostage before he was killed in a shootout with police.

It is not alleged that Matte-Hado and Diler had any idea what the gun would be used for.

Matte-Hado used the proceeds of the sale to make a mortgage payment, pay some bills and buy $300 of speed.

His lawyer said he had kept the gun to protect himself while working at a transport and logistics company "hiring and firing" people.

"Amongst the employees there were some less savoury types and as a result of his role Mr Matte-Hado was regularly on the receiving end of death threats," Susanna Locke told court.

In January 2017 he left the company and wanted to "get rid of" the gun.

"He realises he shouldn't have it and doesn't want any more," she said.

Ms Locke said Matte-Hado was born in Iraq and came to Australia as a child with his family.

Police outside the Brighton apartment in which Yacqub Khayre died after killing another man in 2017. Credit:AAP

She said his early plea, good prospects of rehabilitation and genuine remorse made him a good candidate for a community corrections order.

"What occurred with this firearm is a devastating illustration of the risks associated with this type of offending," Ms Locke said.

Judge Irene Lawson ordered Matte-Hado be assessed for his suitability for a community corrections order before sentencing him on December 2.

In September she sentenced Diler to 4½ years' jail with a non-parole period of two years.

Two other men, Kane Dalrymple and Corey Moore, were jailed for 18 months each in July for selling Khayre two firearms, including a Barton 12-gauge shotgun.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brighton siege gun seller wanted protection while 'hiring and firing'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Normal text size Larger text size Very large text size A man who sold a double-barrelled shotgun that was subsequently used by Brighton siege gunman Yacqub Khayre says he had the firearm to protect himself from disgruntled former employees. George Matte-Hado, 40, pleaded guilty in the County Court of Victoria on Tuesday to several charges including dealing firearms without a licence.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from the UK. It talks about how the criminal justice system in the UK. It's similar to the US because it explains an issue relating to the essential human rights like the law of being equal under the law.

# data[].attributes.headline
La Justicia de EEUU obliga a Trump a publicar sus declaraciones de impuestos

# data[].attributes.subject
La Justicia de EEUU obliga a Trump a publicar sus declaraciones de impuestos

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about Trump having to publish his tax returns after much debate. The justice system is forcing him to do so, stating he is not above the law or exempt from it, demonstrating rule of law. Others argue that it would be unconstitutional to try the president in the justice system as a criminal. The article also says that since Gerald Ford, Trump is the only president not to publish the tax returns annually, since most do so to be transparent with the people. The findings may cause some controversy. El Espanol is a Spanish newspaper, so it takes a European perspective to this event. Spain is a constitutional/parliamentary monarchy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Un juez federal de Nueva York rechaza el argumento de inmunidad contra procesos criminales que el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, alegó.

Redacción | Agencias

Un juez federal de Nueva York decidió este lunes rechazar el argumento de inmunidad contra procesos criminales que el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, alegó tras recibir una citación por parte de la Fiscalía de Manhattan para que entregara sus declaraciones de impuestos.

En el documento de 75 páginas entregado en el Tribunal del Distrito Sur de la ciudad, el juez Víctor Marrero rechaza " una aserción tan categórica e ilimitada de inmunidad presidencial" y considera que "constituiría un abuso de poder ejecutivo".

Trump ha apelado este lunes la decisión, que se produce después de que en agosto la Fiscalía emitiera una orden para que la firma de contabilidad Mazars le entregara las declaraciones de impuestos de las ganancias personales y corporativas de Trump en los últimos ocho años, por lo que el mandatario interpuso una denuncia.

La Fiscalía pidió esos documentos a Mazars, que llevó la contabilidad tanto de Trump como de la Organización Trump, como parte de una investigación que realiza sobre pagos de dinero en secreto a la actriz porno Stormy Daniels teniendo en cuenta la legislación del estado de Nueva York.

Los abogados de Trump denunciaron a finales de septiembre al fiscal de distrito de Manhattan, Cyrus Vance, y a Mazars, y alegaron que como presidente de EE.UU., Trump "no está sujeto a un proceso criminal", por lo que, alegaron, el requerimiento de las declaraciones de impuestos era "inconstitucional".

El juez Marrero rechazó este lunes esos argumentos con que Trump bloqueaba la entrega de sus declaraciones de impuestos a la Fiscalía ya que, dijo, su inmunidad sería "virtualmente ilimitada" hasta que abandonara el cargo y se extendería a "toda conducta ejecutada como ciudadano ordinario, durante y antes" de entrar en la Casa Blanca.

Como consecuencia, se abre la posibilidad de que Mazars, que según el juez ha declarado que no se "posiciona" en el asunto, pueda entregar los documentos a la Fiscalía, pero la apelación de emergencia de los abogados de Trump a esa decisión judicial, esta mañana, implicará más retrasos en el proceso.

Trump es el primer presidente desde Gerald Ford (1974-1977) que no publica cada año su declaración de impuestos, una tradición que sus predecesores consideraban parte de su deber de transparencia y rendición de cuentas ante el pueblo.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
La Justicia de EEUU obliga a Trump a publicar sus declaraciones de impuestos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Un juez federal de Nueva York rechaza el argumento de inmunidad contra procesos criminales que el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, alegó. Redacción | Agencias Un juez federal de Nueva York decidió este lunes rechazar el argumento de inmunidad contra procesos criminales que el presidente de Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, alegó tras recibir una citación por parte de la Fiscalía de Manhattan para que entregara sus declaraciones de impuestos.

# data[].attributes.headline
My article is from Britain, and it focused on how while the US spends nearly the most money on education, we are far behind other countries in terms of the quality of education.

# data[].attributes.subject
My article is from Britain, and it focused on how while the US spends nearly the most money on education, we are far behind other countries in terms of the quality of education.

# data[].attributes.body
This country is similar to the US as it is a fairly democratic society, and a powerful world leader. Their coverage tends to be more liberal. They focus on how our education isn't as effective, while US sources tend to gloss over this fact while pushing for more resources being diverted to education.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The US spends more on education than other countries. Why is it falling behind?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spending per student exceeds the OECD average but the likes of Finland and South Korea get better results. What can the US learn from them?

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from Brazil.
This country is similar to the US in the way they approach to the topic, both relate the facts impartially. Something the US source seemed to focus on the Brazilian article don't is about the terrorist attack accomplished by a Muslim man that happened before the group was formed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Começou nesta segunda-feira (30) em Dresden, no leste da Alemanha, o julgamento do 'Revolução Chemnitz', grupo neonazista acusado de terrorismo e de encorajar uma insurreição no país. A corte alemã exige que os rostos dos acusados não possam ser reconhecidos em fotografias. - Foto: Sebastian Kahnert/Pool/AFP

Começou nesta segunda-feira (30) em Dresden, no leste da Alemanha, o julgamento de um grupo neonazista acusado de terrorismo e de encorajar uma insurreição no país. Oito membros do "Revolução Chemnitz", com idades entre 21 e 32 anos, são acusados de "formar uma organização terrorista de extrema direita".

Os suspeitos foram presos há quase um ano.

Eles também são acusados de "se reunir para alcançar objetivos políticos para abalar as fundações do Estado com graves atos violentos", declarou uma porta-voz do tribunal regional.

Um dos membros do 'Revolução Chemnitz' que irá a julgamento a partir desta segunda-feira (30). Corte alemã exige que os rostos dos acusados não possam ser reconhecidos em fotografias. - Foto: Sebastian Kahnert/Pool/AFP

Segundo a acusação, estavam preparando "ataques violentos e agressões armadas" contra imigrantes, opositores políticos, jornalistas e pessoas do setor econômico.

As autoridades acreditam que os membros do grupo tentavam comprar armas semiautomáticas para causar um banho de sangue no dia 3 de outubro do ano passado - data que marca o Dia da Unidade da Alemanha, que comemora a reunificação do país.

Um dos membros do 'Revolução Chemnitz' que vai a julgamento a partir desta segunda-feira (30). Corte alemã exige que os rostos dos acusados não possam ser reconhecidos em fotografias. - Foto: Sebastian Kahnert/Pool/AFP

"É, até hoje, um dos julgamentos mais importantes contra o terrorismo de extrema direita", disse o procurador federal Peter Frank.

O julgamento, que deve durar até pelo menos abril de 2020 e tem cerca de 75 testemunhas, deve revelar exatamente quais eram os planos do grupo e a importância de sua rede.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Começa na Alemanha julgamento de grupo neonazista acusado de terrorismo

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Começou nesta segunda-feira (30) em Dresden, no leste da Alemanha, o julgamento do 'Revolução Chemnitz', grupo neonazista acusado de terrorismo e de encorajar uma insurreição no país. A corte alemã exige que os rostos dos acusados não possam ser reconhecidos em fotografias.

# data[].attributes.headline
Northern Ireland abortion law a breach of human rights commitments, court rules

# data[].attributes.subject
Northern Ireland abortion law a breach of human rights commitments, court rules

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from the UK and this article is similar to the US because they values events that are happening around the world and in their country.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Northern Ireland's strict abortion law breaches the UK's human rights commitments, the High Court in Belfast has ruled.

Sarah Ewart, 29, hailed a "massive victory" following a six-year legal battle since she was refused a termination in 2013.

She travelled to a London clinic to end her pregnancy after doctors said her unborn child would die in the womb or shortly after birth.

Following Thursday's judgment she said: "Today's ruling is a turning point for women in their campaign against the outdated laws prohibiting abortion in Northern Ireland.

"It should never have come to this.

"Today's ruling is a vindication of all those women who have fought tirelessly to ensure that we never again have to go through what I did in 2013."

She said the case had been "a massive stress emotionally on all the family".

Mrs Justice Siobhan Keegan said her testimony had been compelling.

She decided it was not right that another young woman would be required to pursue litigation and face the same "trauma and pain" in the future.

She said: "I cannot see that this would serve any benefit or it would be right to ask another woman to re-live the trauma.

"In my view her personal testimony is compelling."

Sarah Ewart hugs her mother Jane Christie outside the High Court in Belfast (Niall Carson/PA)

The judge said a formal declaration of incompatibility would not be made at this stage.

Abortion is likely to be legalised in Northern Ireland next year unless Stormont's Assembly is restored within weeks.

MPs at Westminster voted for the measure earlier this year.

The devolved institutions at Stormont have been suspended for two-and-a-half years and that has contributed to inaction over the matter.

Ms Ewart's child was diagnosed with a fatal fetal abnormality; her brain was not properly developed and she would have died during pregnancy or soon after birth.

The young mother was told she could not have a termination in Northern Ireland and was given no advice about where to find one.

The judge said: "She has had to modify her behaviour in that she could not have medical treatment in Northern Ireland due to the risk of criminal prosecution."

She has since had two children but wants to have more and fears a similar situation could happen again, the judge said.

"She may be actively affected in the future.

"In my view her personal testimony is not disputed."

Abortion is only permitted in Northern Ireland if a woman's life is at risk or if there is a risk of permanent and serious damage to her mental or physical health.

Rape, incest or diagnoses of fatal fetal abnormality are not grounds for a legal abortion.

Northern Ireland's chief medical officer has criticised the law surrounding cases similar to Ms Ewart's.

The case was taken in Belfast after an earlier abortion challenge in the Supreme Court was dismissed on the technicality that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission did not have legal standing to bring the judicial review.

In response Ms Ewart launched proceedings in Belfast.

She said: "It is a massive emotional relief.

"This has not been an easy journey."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Northern Ireland abortion law a breach of human rights commitments, court rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Northern Ireland's strict abortion law breaches the UK's human rights commitments, the High Court in Belfast has ruled. Sarah Ewart, 29, hailed a "massive victory" following a six-year legal battle since she was refused a termination in 2013.

# data[].attributes.headline
Abortion decriminalized in Sydney after Australian lawmakers overturn 119-year-old law

# data[].attributes.subject
Abortion decriminalized in Sydney after Australian lawmakers overturn 119-year-old law

# data[].attributes.body
Uhhh the ones in America talk about how they’re criminalizing abortion and this one is talking about how they decriminalized it !! so love that !! :)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
abortion decriminalized in sydney after australian lawmakers overturn 119-year-old law - cnn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion decriminalized in Sydney after Australian lawmakers overturn 119-year-old law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abortion has now been decriminalized everywhere in Australia -- apart from one state.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is from a Chinese article talking about the US housing economy.
The country is similar to the US in this war, and thus their coverage is talking about the similar housing prices going up with the rise of price through items and general trade - economics
Something that the article focuses on that the US doesn't acknowledge is that they tackle some of the problems that the US don't bother going over with such problems

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ipp-prison-echr-criminal-justice-system-rory-stewart-a9126201.html
This article talks about the criminal justice system in the UK, specifically about the IPP system and how it doesn't protect their human rights. It is similar to the US because it explains an issue relating to the essential human rights, such as the right to be treated equally under the law, which we also saw in a past criminal justice article from the US. It is different in the sense that it seems more brutally honest about the issues in the UK but then follows up with potential solutions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-49900668?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c207p54m45dt/abortion&link_location=live-reporting-story

The BBC is a bit more conservative in comparison to the US news sources like Vice and the Washington Post, but the political divide is not as dramatic, so there isn't an extreme polarization of views. Both the US and the UK value freedom of expression.