The unanimous decision marks the first time the state’s high court has reversed a death sentence under the 2020 law, which allows defendants and prisoners to challenge convictions or sentences if racial bias played a role in their case.

Anthony Bankston, a Bloods gang member, represented himself at trial more than three decades ago. A jury convicted him in connection with separate shootings, including the killing of Benson Jones and the attempted murder of Jones’ brother, Benjamin. Bankston was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder.

During the penalty phase, a Los Angeles prosecutor told jurors a story about a journalist who viewed a Bengal tiger in a zoo but was told by a hunter that he had not seen the animal in its true state. The prosecutor described the tiger in the wild with its claws, fangs and growl, using the story to argue that Bankston, dressed in a suit and tie in court, was not the same person he was on the street. The prosecutor called him “a killing machine.”

The Supreme Court concluded that the analogy carried an unacceptable risk of racial bias and could have influenced the jury’s decision to impose a death sentence. Bankston’s murder convictions remain in place, but the case will return to a trial court for resentencing.

Justice Leondra Kruger, writing for the court, said the Bengal tiger story has appeared in multiple criminal cases over the years and should no longer be used in California courtrooms. While the court did not say every animal comparison violates the Racial Justice Act, it found that this particular example falls within concerns the Legislature identified when it passed the law.

The Racial Justice Act specifically addresses language and imagery that can dehumanize defendants or appeal to racial stereotypes, including some animal comparisons. The law was enacted after years of debate over racial disparities in policing, prosecution and sentencing.

The court noted that ordinary expressions involving animals, such as “quiet as a mouse” or “free as a bird,” would not necessarily amount to violations. But the justices said prosecutors may not rely on imagery that risks invoking racial prejudice, particularly in a capital case where jurors are deciding whether a person should live or die.

The ruling was one of four decisions issued this week by the California Supreme Court involving claims brought under the Racial Justice Act.

In two other cases, the court upheld death sentences for Alex Demolle, who was convicted of raping and murdering an 11-year-old girl, and Marcos Esquivel Barrera, who was sentenced to death for murdering two of his children. In a fourth case involving two condemned prisoners of Southeast Asian descent, the court modified earlier rulings, though not on the basis of their Racial Justice Act claims.

A spokesperson for the Judicial Council of California confirmed that Bankston’s case is the first in which the state Supreme Court has reversed a death sentence because of violations of the Racial Justice Act.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence for First Time Under Racial Justice Law appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Legislative voting districts typically are redrawn based on census data after the start of each decade. But an unusual spate of mid-decade redistricting broke out after President Donald Trump urged Texas Republicans last year to reshape U.S. House districts to give the party an edge in the midterm elections. Democrats in California countered with their own political gerrymandering. More states followed.

Eight states have already adopted new House maps, and several more are considering it. So far, Republicans believe they could win up to 13 additional seats from new districts in Texas, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio. Democrats, meanwhile, think they could gain up to 10 seats from new districts in California, Utah and Virginia.

But those tallies presume past voting patterns hold in November. Historically, the president’s party tends to lose seats in the midterms. Democrats need to gain just a few seats in November to wrest control of the House from Republicans, which would give them greater power to oppose Trump.

Where new House districts are proposed

Lawmakers in at least three states are meeting to consider plans for new U.S. House maps.

Louisiana

Current map: two Democrats, four Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Jeff Landry has postponed the May 16 congressional primary to allow lawmakers to revise U.S. House districts in response to an April 29 Supreme Court ruling striking down a majority Black congressional district.

Challenges: Several lawsuits have been filed in federal and state court asserting that Landry lacked authority to suspend the primary elections.

Alabama

Current map: two Democrats, five Republicans

New map: Republican state officials hope to revert to a U.S. House map passed in 2023 — but not previously used — that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: The current map was imposed under a court order and is supposed to be used until after the 2030 census. State officials have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to set aside that order in light of its ruling in the Louisiana redistricting case.

Tennessee

Current map: one Democrat, eight Republicans

New Map: Republican Gov. Bill Lee has called lawmakers into special session to consider a new U.S. House map that could carve up a Black-majority district in Memphis and improve Republican chances of winning an additional seat.

Challenges: The candidate qualifying period already has ended for the primaries, which are scheduled for Aug. 6.

Where new House districts were approved

New U.S. House districts have passed in eight states since last summer. Six took up redistricting voluntarily, one was required to by its state constitution and another did so under court order.

Texas

Current map: 13 Democrats, 25 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a revised House map into law last August that could help Republicans win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in December cleared the way for the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It has since overturned a lower-court ruling that blocked the new map because it was “racially gerrymandered.”

California

Current map: 43 Democrats, nine Republicans

New map: Voters in November approved revised House districts drawn by the Democratic-led Legislature that could help Democrats win five additional seats.

Challenges: The U.S. Supreme Court in February allowed the new districts to be used in this year’s elections. It denied an appeal from Republicans and the Department of Justice, which claimed the districts impermissibly favor Hispanic voters.

Missouri

Current map: two Democrats, six Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe signed a revised House map into law last September that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A Cole County judge ruled the new map is in effect as election officials work to determine whether a referendum petition seeking a statewide vote complies with constitutional criteria and contains enough valid petition signatures. The Missouri Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit claiming mid-decade redistricting is illegal. It’s scheduled to hear arguments in May on claims the new districts violate compactness requirements and should be placed on hold pending the potential referendum.

North Carolina

Current map: four Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: The Republican-led General Assembly gave final approval in October to revised districts that could help Republicans win an additional seat.

Challenges: A federal court panel in November denied a request to block the revised districts from being used in the midterm elections.

Ohio

Current map: five Democrats, 10 Republicans

New map: A bipartisan panel composed primarily of Republicans voted in October to approve revised House districts that improve Republicans’ chances of winning two additional seats.

Challenges: None. The state constitution required new districts before the 2026 election, because Republicans had approved the prior map without sufficient Democratic support after the last census.

Utah

Current map: no Democrats, four Republicans

New map: A judge in November imposed revised House districts that could help Democrats win a seat. The court ruled that lawmakers had circumvented anti-gerrymandering standards passed by voters when adopting the prior map.

Challenges: A federal court panel and the state Supreme Court, in February, each rejected Republican challenges to the judicial map selection.

Virginia

Current map: six Democrats, five Republicans

New map: Voters approved a constitutional amendment on April 21 authorizing new U.S. House districts backed by Democrats that could help the party win up to four additional seats.

Challenges: The state Supreme Court allowed the referendum to proceed, but it has yet to rule whether the effort is legal. The court is considering an appeal of a Tazewell County judge’s ruling that the amendment is invalid because lawmakers violated procedural requirements.

Florida

Current map: eight Democrats, 20 Republicans

New map: Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis announced on May 4 that he had signed revised U.S. House districts that improve the GOP’s chances of winning four additional seats.

Challenges: A court challenge contends the new map violates a state constitution provision prohibiting districts from being drawn with intent to favor or disfavor a political party.

The post Redistricting is rampant ahead of the US House midterm elections. What states are taking action? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

What the Ruling Means

The Court’s decision reverses earlier restrictions put in place by lower courts. Under the ruling, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents will have broader authority to carry out arrests without warrants, provided they claim “reasonable suspicion” of immigration violations.

Supporters of the practice, including some law enforcement officials and border security advocates, argue that roving patrols are necessary to strengthen border enforcement and reduce the presence of unauthorized immigrants who they say strain public resources.

Concerns from Advocates

Immigrant rights groups across the Inland Empire and Southern California immediately condemned the ruling, warning that it will lead to racial profiling, family separations, and a climate of fear in immigrant-heavy communities like Riverside and San Bernardino counties.

“This ruling undermines trust between residents and law enforcement, making families more afraid to seek help, report crimes, or even access health and education services,” said representatives from the Inland Region Housing Justice Coalition in a statement.

Local groups including the ACLU of Southern California, Inland Congregations United for Change (ICUC), and Time for Change Foundation have pledged to mobilize, offering “Know Your Rights” workshops and legal assistance for immigrant families who may be targeted by increased patrols.

Impact on the Inland Empire

The Inland Empire has one of the fastest-growing immigrant populations in California, with tens of thousands of residents in mixed-status households. Advocacy leaders warn that roving arrests will disproportionately affect Latino and Indigenous communities, many of whom already experience economic and housing insecurity.

“The chilling effect of this ruling is enormous,” said a San Bernardino-based immigrant advocate. “When people fear arrest at any moment, they avoid interacting with police, schools, and hospitals. That makes everyone less safe.”

A History of Controversy

Roving patrols have long been controversial in Southern California. Critics point to past cases where citizens and legal residents were detained and questioned based solely on their appearance or language. In the Inland Empire, several lawsuits were filed in the 1990s and 2000s challenging roving stops on major highways and near agricultural areas.

Civil rights organizations say the Supreme Court’s decision could revive those same abuses. “We fought this battle before, and here we are again,” said a Riverside attorney who has represented families in immigration cases.

Local Response

Some Inland Empire city officials expressed concern that the ruling could strain relationships between local law enforcement and residents. While local police departments are not required to assist in federal immigration enforcement, past collaborations between county jails and federal agencies have been criticized by immigrant advocates.

Community leaders are urging city councils and county supervisors to adopt “sanctuary-style” policies that limit cooperation with roving immigration arrests. They argue that such protections would help maintain community trust and safety.

What Happens Next

Immigrant rights groups in the region are planning a series of community meetings in coming weeks to explain the ruling’s implications, provide legal resources, and educate residents on their constitutional rights if stopped by federal agents.

“This decision may have passed, but our communities are united in demanding dignity, compassion, and justice,” said one Inland advocacy leader.

The post Supreme Court Ruling Allows “Roving” Immigration Arrests to Resume in Southern California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The justices turned down a request from the Justice Department to lift a sweeping appeals court order that blocked the program, known as the SAVE plan, which has been the subject of legal challenges from more than a dozen GOP-led states in recent months. The court said in an unsigned order that it “expects that the Court of Appeals will render its decision with appropriate dispatch.” There were no noted dissents.

Its order leaves the injunction from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in place for now. The Education Department paused loan payments for borrowers enrolled in the program earlier this month because of the ongoing legal proceedings.

Mr. Biden’s attempts to provide relief to millions of Americans have not fared well before the Supreme Court, which last year struck down an earlier plan that would have benefited more than 40 million Americans and forgiven nearly half-a-trillion-dollars in loans.

Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

The latest program is an income-driven repayment plan in which monthly payments of a loan are based on the borrower’s income. Rolled out by the Biden administration in July 2023, the SAVE plan lowers monthly undergraduate loan payments to 5% of a borrower’s’ discretionary income above 225% of the federal poverty line — up from 150% — and provides for shorter repayment periods and earlier loan forgiveness for borrowers with smaller starting balances. A borrower who owed $12,000 or less, for example, would have their outstanding debt wiped away after making 10 years of payments.

The administration said it had the authority to make these changes under the Higher Education Act and estimated that out of the 8 million borrowers who enrolled in the SAVE Plan, 4.5 million have monthly payments of $0. Some of the plan’s provisions took effect at the end of July 2023, and others were implemented in January. Others still were set to come into force on July 1.

The Education Department estimates the SAVE plan will cost nearly $156 billion over a decade. But critics have argued that the actual cost is $475 billion, since they said the Biden administration excluded from its analysis $430 billion in debt that it expected to be forgiven by the president’s earlier, broader loan forgiveness proposal. That plan, which relied on the 2003 HEROES Act, was invalidated by the Supreme Court last year.

In April, months after a rule detailing these changes was adopted, seven states filed a federal lawsuit in Missouri challenging its provisions and sought to block its implementation and enforcement. A separate group of three states also sued over the SAVE plan in federal court in Kansas and sought their own emergency relief from the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court kept the plan in place for now.

In a brief unsigned order, the court rejected the states’ request to lift that appeals court’s stay, noting that the states said they do not require relief from the Supreme Court as long as the 8th Circuit’s order is in place.

In the Missouri dispute, a federal district court found first that Missouri had the legal right to sue. It also determined that the state had a “fair chance” of succeeding on its claim that the secretary of education exceeded his authority by shortening the repayment period for borrowers with original balances of $12,000 or less.

While the court found that the states were unlikely to succeed on their remaining claims, it blocked any new loan forgiveness under the SAVE plan.

The Biden administration appealed, but stopped canceling loans for borrowers who would receive relief through the shortened repayment period. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit then issued a sweeping injunction blocking the SAVE plan and a pre-existing provision of forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of repayment.

The 8th Circuit’s decision blocks implementation of the program for borrowers nationwide and is at odds with the order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in the dispute involving the three other states, which kept the SAVE plan intact during legal proceedings.

The Biden administration has criticized the reach of the 8th Circuit’s ruling and said it effectively granted the trio of states in the other case — Alaska, South Carolina and Texas — relief they were denied by the appeals court covering their region.

“This is not how the judicial process is supposed to work,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices in a filing.

In asking the Supreme Court to lift the 8th Circuit’s injunction, Prelogar argued it “upends the status quo and is inflicting serious harms on millions of Americans.”

She noted that over the past year, millions of borrowers have received and paid student loan bills that reflected some of the initiative’s provisions.

“Because of the Eighth Circuit’s orders, however, many borrowers are now experiencing intense confusion from being told that their payments must be recalculated and from being placed in forbearance — which will delay any eventual loan forgiveness,” including under programs that were not challenged by the states, Prelogar said.

Borrowers, she continued, “would suffer additional harm if they are eventually sent higher bills and told that they can no longer count on the forgiveness that they were promised at the end of their repayment periods.”

But the seven states, led by Missouri, accused the Biden administration of making “flawed” arguments and omitting a “shocking amount of context.” Republican state officials from Missouri, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Dakota, Ohio and Oklahoma called the Justice Department’s request to lift the 8th Circuit’s order “aggressive.”

“From this banal text about length that exists in many plans, the secretary asserts authority to forgive every penny of every student loan,” the GOP-led states wrote of the Higher Education Act in a Supreme Court filing. “Indeed, under the final rule, nearly everybody receives forgiveness.”

Pointing to the millions of borrowers whose monthly payments will be $0, the states claimed the Biden administration is effectively forgiving their loans. Because the Higher Education Act requires repayment and does not authorize forgiveness, the states argued the education secretary went too far.

Mr. Biden campaigned during the 2020 election on providing student debt relief and has rolled out a number of initiatives aimed at easing a financial burden that affects roughly 43 million Americans, who have a combined $1.7 trillion in student debt.

The Department of Education estimates that it has forgiven $168 billion in debt for more than 4.7 million Americans. It said one in 10 federal borrowers has been approved for some relief.

The post Supreme Court won’t reinstate Biden’s latest student loan forgiveness plan for now appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Jack Smith urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to let former President Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case proceed to trial without further delay.

Prosecutors were responding to a Trump team request from earlier in the week asking for a continued pause in the case as the court considers whether to take up the question of whether the former president is immune from prosecution for official acts in the White House. Two lower courts have overwhelmingly rejected that position, prompting Trump to ask the high court to intervene.

The case — one of four criminal prosecutions confronting Trump — has reached a critical juncture, with the Supreme Court’s next step capable of helping determine whether Trump stands trial this year in Washington or whether the proceedings are going to be postponed by weeks or months of additional arguments.

The trial date, already postponed once by Trump’s immunity appeal, is of paramount importance to both sides. Prosecutors are looking to bring Trump to trial this year while defense lawyers have been seeking delays in his criminal cases. If Trump were to be elected with the case pending, he could presumably use his authority as head of the executive branch to order the Justice Department to dismiss it or could potentially seek to pardon himself.

Reflecting their desire to proceed quickly, prosecutors responded to Trump’s appeal within two days even though the court had given them until next Tuesday.

Though their filing does not explicitly mention the upcoming November election or Trump’s status as the Republican primary front-runner, prosecutors described the case as having “unique national importance” and said that “delay in the resolution of these charges threatens to frustrate the public interest in a speedy and fair verdict.”

“The national interest in resolving those charges without further delay is compelling,” they wrote.

Smith’s team charged Trump in August with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, including by participating in a scheme to disrupt the counting of electoral votes in the run-up to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, when his supporters stormed the building in a violent clash with police.

“The charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. A President’s alleged criminal scheme to overturn an election and thwart the peaceful transfer of power to his successor should be the last place to recognize a novel form of absolute immunity from federal criminal law,” they wrote.

Trump’s lawyers have argued that he is shielded from prosecution for acts that fell within his official duties as president — a legally untested argument since no other former president has been indicted.

The trial judge and then a federal appeals court rejected those arguments, with a three-judge appeals panel last week saying, “We cannot accept that the office of the Presidency places its former occupants above the law for all time thereafter.”

The proceedings have been effectively frozen by Trump’s immunity appeal, with U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan canceling a March 4 trial date while the appeals court considered the matter. No new date has been set.

Trump’s appeal and request for the Supreme Court to get involved could cause further delays depending on what the justices decide. In December, Smith and his team had urged the justices to take up and decide the immunity issue, even before the appeals court weighed in. But the court declined.

The Supreme Court’s options include rejecting the emergency appeal, which would enable Chutkan to restart the trial proceedings in Washington’s federal court. The court also could extend the delay while it hears arguments on the immunity issue. In that event, the schedule the justices set could determine how soon a trial might begin, if indeed they agree with lower court rulings that Trump is not immune from prosecution.

On Wednesday, prosecutors urged the court to reject Trump’s petition to hear the case, saying that lower court opinions rejecting immunity for the former president “underscore how remote the possibility is that this Court will agree with his unprecedented legal position.”

But if the court does wants to decide the matter, Smith said, the justices should hear arguments in March and issue a final ruling by late June.

Prosecutors also pushed back against Trump’s argument that allowing the case to proceed could chill future presidents’ actions for fear they could be criminally charged once they leave office and open the door to politically motivated cases against former commanders-in-chief.

“That dystopian vision runs contrary to the checks and balances built into our institutions and the framework of the Constitution,” they wrote. “Those guardrails ensure that the legal process for determining criminal liability will not be captive to ‘political forces,’ as applicant forecasts.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Special counsel asks Supreme Court to let Trump’s 2020 election case proceed to trial without delay appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In Donald Trump’s federal 2020 election interference case, all eyes are on the Supreme Court, whose next moves could determine whether the former president stands trial in Washington before the November election.

An appeals court panel on Tuesday unanimously rejected Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution, with the judges saying they cannot accept the idea that former presidents are “above the law for all time” once they leave the White House.

The ruling forces Trump to move quickly to ask the conservative-majority Supreme Court to intervene in the landmark case accusing Trump of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. Otherwise, the case — which has been on hold since December — will be re-started at the trial court level, and special counsel Jack Smith’s team has strongly pushed for jurors to hear it this year.

What happens next is of paramount importance to both sides.

Trump’s lawyers have tried at every opportunity to delay the proceedings, for obvious reasons: A Trump victory over Democrat Biden in November would make him head of the executive branch and give him the authority to potentially order his new attorney general to dismiss the federal cases against him that he faces, or issue a pardon for himself. The Republican presidential primary front-runner has denied any wrongdoing in the case, and has characterized all the cases against him as politically motivated.

Here’s a look at Trump’s options and what the Supreme Court might do:

WHAT ARE TRUMP’S OPTIONS NOW?

The ruling doesn’t immediately send the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. The appeals court is giving Trump until Feb. 12 to ask the Supreme Court to stay — or put on hold — the decision.

A Trump campaign spokesman said Tuesday that the former president would appeal the ruling “in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.” Trump argues that all the allegations in the indictment were “official acts” taken as president, therefore he can’t be prosecuted.

Trump could also potentially ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to consider his immunity claims, but the panel said that such a request would not prevent the case from returning to the trial court and resuming in the meantime.

WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT DO?

It’s hard to say. Any untested legal question involving separation of powers and the scope of presidential authority is indisputably a consequential one. But lower court judges — nominated to the bench by presidents from both political parties — have suggested that this particular case is not a close call in rulings that have roundly rejected Trump’s immunity arguments.

Five of the nine justices must agree to grant a stay in order to prevent the case from resuming in the trial court. And at least four justices must agree in order for the court to hear arguments in any case.

The justices declined an earlier request from the special counsel’s team to get involved in the immunity dispute and to issue an expedited ruling. But they could jump into the fray now and use the case as an opportunity to make a definitive ruling on whether the immunity from lawsuits that former presidents already have for their official actions should be extended into the criminal realm as well.

The Supreme Court is already weighing some other politically charged cases. The justices, for instance, are hearing arguments this week in a legal dispute stemming from the push by Republican and independent voters in Colorado to kick Trump off the state’s Republican primary ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden.

WHEN MIGHT THE TRIAL BEGIN?

Judge Chutkan had initially scheduled the case for trial on March 4, but canceled that date last week. A new date wasn’t immediately set.

The timing now depends on the Supreme Court and its willingness to take up the case. There’s no timetable for any of that, though the justices are likely to seek the input of Smith’s team before deciding whether to keep the legal ruling against the former president on hold.

A decision by the court to refuse Trump’s plea for a stay would enable Chutkan to restart the proceedings, and to do so fairly quickly. But if the court grants the Trump team’s request to take up the case, all eyes will be on whatever timetable the court establishes in determining the next steps.

If the court grants Trump’s request without accelerating the appeals process, Trump would likely have until early May before he even needs to file his full appeal. But the justices could also set much quicker deadlines for reaching a final decision.

The case has been effectively frozen since December by the Trump team’s appeal, meaning that if and when it restarts, Chutkan will give both sides an additional opportunity to respond to pending motions and arguments.

WHAT ABOUT TRUMP’S OTHER CASES?

The Washington trial being put on hold has opened the door for a separate case in New York, charging Trump in connection with hush money payments to a porn actor, to proceed first on March 25. That case, however, has long been viewed by experts as the least legally perilous of the four indictments Trump faces.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in Florida has set a May 20 trial date in the other case brought by Smith that accuses Trump of illegally hoarding classified documents at his Florida estate and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back. But Cannon has also pushed back multiple other deadlines and signaled an openness to revisiting the trial date during a pivotal pretrial conference set for March.

No trial date has been set yet in Fulton County, Georgia, where the district attorney’s office has charged Trump with trying to subvert that state’s 2020 election.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post What’s next as Trump tries to stave off his 2020 election trial? All eyes are on the Supreme Court appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Border Patrol agents to resume cutting for now razor wire that Texas installed along a stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border that is at the center of an escalating standoff between the Biden administration and the state over immigration enforcement.

The 5-4 vote clears the way for Border Patrol agents to cut or clear out concertina wire that Texas has put along the banks of the Rio Grande to deter migrants from entering the U.S. illegally. Some migrants have been injured by the sharp wire and the Justice Department has argued the barrier impedes the U.S. government’s ability to patrol the border, including coming to the aid of migrants in need of help.

None of the justices provided any explanation for their vote. The one-page order is a victory for the Biden administration while the lawsuit over the wire continues.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had authorized the wire, one of a series of aggressive measures the three-term Republican has taken on the border in the name of curbing illegal crossings from Mexico. His spokesman said the absence of razor wire and other deterrents encourages migrants to risk unsafe crossings and makes the job of Texas border personnel more difficult.

“This case is ongoing, and Governor Abbott will continue fighting to defend Texas’ property and its constitutional authority to secure the border,” Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris said.

A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection did not immediately return a message seeking comment Monday.

A federal appeals court last month had forced federal agents to stop cutting the concertina wire.

The concertina wire stretches for roughly 30 miles (48 kilometers) near the border city of Eagle Pass, where earlier this month the Texas Military Department seized control of a city-owned park and began denying access to Border Patrol agents.

Eagle Park has become one of the busiest spots on the southern U.S. border for migrants illegally crossing from Mexico. Abbott has said Texas won’t allow Border Patrol agents into Shelby Park anymore, having expressed frustration over what he says are migrants illegally entering through Eagle Pass and then federal agents loading them onto buses.

Abbott also has authorized installing floating barriers in the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass and allowed troopers to arrest and jail thousands of migrants on trespassing charges. The administration also is challenging those actions in federal court.

In court papers, the administration said the wire impedes Border Patrol agents from reaching migrants as they cross the river and that, in any case, federal immigration law trumps Texas’ own efforts to stem the flow of migrants into the country.

Texas officials have argued that federal agents cut the wire to help groups crossing illegally through the river before taking them in for processing.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor sided with the administration. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas voted with Texas.

___ Weber reported from Austin, Texas. Associated Press writer Valerie Gonzalez in McAllen, Texas, contributed to this report.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Supreme Court allows federal agents to cut razor wire Texas installed on US-Mexico border appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will not immediately take up a plea by special counsel Jack Smith to rule on whether former President Donald Trump can be prosecuted for his actions to overturn the 2020 election results.

The ruling is a scheduling win for Trump and his lawyers, who have sought repeatedly to delay the criminal cases against him as he campaigns to reclaim the White House in 2024. It averts a swift ruling from the nation’s highest court that could have definitively turned aside his claims of immunity, and it further throws into doubt the possibility of the landmark trial proceeding as scheduled on March 4.

The issue will now be decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has signaled it will act quickly to decide the case. Special counsel Jack Smith had cautioned that even a rapid appellate decision might not get to the Supreme Court in time for review and final word before the court’s traditional summer break.

Smith had pressed the Supreme Court to intervene, citing significant public interest in a prompt resolution to the case. The request to leapfrog the appeals court, which Smith himself acknowledged was “extraordinary,” also underscored prosecutors’ concerns that the fight over the issue could delay the start of Trump’s trial beyond next year’s presidential election.

The justices turned down Smith’s request in a single-sentence order Friday. As is customary, the court gave no explanation for the decision.

With the justices remaining out of the dispute for now, additional appeals are likely that could delay the case. If the appeals court, which is set to hear arguments on Jan. 9, turns down Trump’s immunity claims, he could then ask for the Supreme Court to get involved — giving the justices another opportunity to decide if they want to weigh in.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan has already put the case on hold while Trump pursues his claim that he is immune from prosecution. Chutkan has raised the possibility of keeping the March trial date if the case promptly returns to her court.

She earlier rejected the Trump team’s arguments that an ex-president could not be prosecuted over acts that fall within the official duties of the job.

“Former presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability,” Chutkan wrote in a Dec. 1 ruling. “Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office.”

In a statement Friday, Trump insisted anew that he was “entitled to presidential immunity” and was looking forward to having his case heard before the appeals court.

There are still more Trump-related cases that the Supreme Court, which includes three justices appointed by him, is poised to grapple with.

Trump’s lawyers plan to ask the court t to overturn a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court barring him from that state’s ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits anyone who swore an oath to support the Constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it from holding office.

And the court separately has agreed to hear a case over the charge of obstruction of an official proceeding that has been brought against Trump and more than 300 of his supporters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

In the current immunity case, Smith had tried to persuade the justices to take up the matter directly, bypassing the appeals court.

“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or is constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted before the criminal proceedings begin,” prosecutors wrote.

Underscoring the urgency for prosecutors, Smith and his team wrote: “It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this Court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected.”

Trump’s lawyers have for months signaled that they would ultimately ask the Supreme Court to take up the immunity question. But they urged the justices this week to stand down for now, saying there was no reason to rush a decision.

“Importance does not automatically necessitate speed. If anything, the opposite is usually true. Novel, complex, sensitive and historic issues — such as the existence of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts — call for more careful deliberation, not less,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president. Though there’s no such bar against prosecution for a former commander in chief, lawyers for Trump say that he cannot be charged for actions that fell within his official duties as president — a claim that prosecutors have vigorously rejected.

Trump faces charges accusing him of working to overturn the results of the 2020 election he lost to Democrat Joe Biden before the violent riot at the Capitol. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The high court still could act quickly once the appeals court issues its decision. A Supreme Court case usually lasts several months, but on rare occasions, the justices shift into high gear.

Nearly 50 years ago, the justices acted within two months of being asked to force President Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings in the Watergate scandal. The tapes were then used later in 1974 in the corruption prosecutions of Nixon’s former aides.

It took the high court just a few days to effectively decide the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore.

The case in Washington is one of four he faces.

He’s also been charged by Smith with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate, a case set for trial next May, and is accused by state prosecutors in Georgia of scheming to subvert that state’s presidential election and in New York in connection with a hush money payment to a porn actress.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Supreme Court rejects prosecutor’s push to fast-track ruling in Trump election subversion case appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to take up a dispute over a medication used in the most common method of abortion in the United States, its first abortion case since it overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

The justices will hear appeals from the Biden administration and the maker of the drug mifepristone asking the high court to reverse an appellate ruling that would cut off access to the drug through the mail and impose other restrictions, even in states where abortion remains legal. The restrictions include shortening from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks the time during which mifepristone can be used in pregnancy.

The nine justices rejected a separate appeal from abortion opponents who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s initial approval of mifepristone as safe and effective in 2000.

The case will be argued in the spring, with a decision likely by late June, in the middle of the 2024 presidential and congressional campaigns.

Mifepristone, made by New York-based Danco Laboratories, is one of two drugs used in medication abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the United States. More than 5 million people have used it since 2000.

The Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in June 2022. That ruling has led to bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy in 14 states, with some exceptions, and once cardiac activity can be detected, which is around six weeks, in two others.

Abortion opponents filed their challenge to mifepristone the following November and initially won a sweeping ruling six months later revoking the drug’s approval entirely. The appeals court left intact the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone. But it would reverse changes regulators made in 2016 and 2021 that eased some conditions for administering the drug.

The justices blocked that ruling from taking effect while the case played out, though Justices Samuel Alito, the author of last year’s decision overturning Roe, and Clarence Thomas said they would have allowed some restrictions to take effect while the case proceeded.

Women seeking to end their pregnancies in the first 10 weeks without more invasive surgical abortion can take mifepristone, along with misoprostol. The FDA has eased the terms of mifepristone’s use over the years, including allowing it to be sent through the mail in states that allow access.

In its appeal, the Democratic administration said the appeals court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, ignored the FDA’s scientific judgment about mifepristone’s safety and effectiveness since its approval in 2000.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Wednesday that the appellate ruling “threatens to undermine the FDA’s scientific, independent judgment and would reimpose outdated restrictions on access to safe and effective medication abortion.”

Lawyers for the anti-abortion medical groups and individual physicians who have challenged the use of mifepristone had urged the Supreme Court to turn away the appeals.

“The modest decision below merely restores the common-sense safeguards under which millions of women have taken chemical abortion drugs,” wrote lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which describes itself as a Christian law firm. The lead attorney on the Supreme Court filing is Erin Hawley, wife of Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of President Donald Trump in Texas, initially revoked FDA approval of mifepristone.

Responding to a quick appeal, two more Trump appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FDA’s original approval would stand for now. But Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt said most of the rest of Kacsmaryk’s ruling could take effect while the case winds through federal courts.

Besides reducing the time during which the drug can be taken and halting distribution through the mail, patients who are seeking medication abortions would have had to make three in-person visits with a doctor. Women also might have been required to take a higher dosage of the drug than the FDA says is necessary.

Health care providers have said that if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain, they would switch to using only misoprostol, which is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The Supreme Court will rule on limits on a commonly used abortion medication appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sounded skeptical of a conservative-backed bid to preemptively block Congress from ever passing a tax on wealth. Conservative and liberal justices asked tough questions of a lawyer representing a Washington state couple seeking to throw out a one-time “repatriation” tax on big companies’ overseas earnings.

That tax is an arcane but important provision of Republicans’ 2017 tax bill, which largely cut taxes. But some wealthy Americans and pro-business groups are hoping to use the case as a vehicle to kill off much more than the repatriation tax. They have urged a broad ruling that would slam the legal door on any prospect of a wealth tax — a proposal that is gaining popularity on the left but also raises constitutional questions.

The court took the case in June amid intense scrutiny of some conservative justices’ relationships with billionaires who use their fortunes to advance political agendas focused on lowering taxes and reining in the role of the federal government. But on Tuesday, the justices repeatedly questioned the distinctions a lawyer for the taxpayers, Andrew Grossman, attempted to draw between the repatriation tax and other taxes that have long been on the books. “Why is this any different?” Justice Elena Kagan asked. “There’s a long, century-old history of these kinds of taxes.”

However, some GOP-appointed justices — particularly Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito — seemed wary of an unalloyed victory for the government and appeared to be pushing for an outcome that would preserve latitude for the court to limit federal taxing powers in a future case. Gorsuch told Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar that the government’s arguments seemed to allow federal authorities to declare almost anything to be income and tax it. “I’m just asking what the limits of your argument are, and it seems to me there are none,” he said, saying that was a “big door” he was unwilling to leave open. “That door is already open,” Prelogar responded, citing a series of Supreme Court precedents giving the federal government broad authority to tax various kinds of investments.

By the end of the two-hour-long argument session, the justices seemed to be leaning toward a narrow ruling for the government, with Gorsuch repeatedly asking Prelogar how they might craft a decision in her favor that puts aside some of the thornier issues raised by the case. Earlier this year, Alito took the unusual step of publicly rejecting calls for him to step aside from the tax case because of his ties to one of the lawyers representing the Washington couple.

The lawyer, David Rivkin, interviewed Alito on a couple of occasions earlier this year for the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. In a four-page statement released in September, Alito turned down calls from Democratic lawmakers for him to recuse based on the interviews and his relationship with Rivkin. Rivkin did not argue the case Tuesday, leaving that task to Grossman. Both are partners at Ohio-based law firm BakerHostetler.

Rivkin was on hand and sat quietly at the far end of the table assigned to counsel for the taxpayers. At one point, Alito seemed to go out of his way to emphasize that he was seeking to deal fairly with the arguments presented by both sides.

He was also the only justice to allude to news reports about the case, which have generally focused on its potential to act as a preemptive strike against a future wealth tax. “One of the arguments that you press most strongly, and certainly it has resonated a lot in the coverage of this case, is that the adoption of the petitioners’ arguments would have far-reaching consequences,” Alito said to Prelogar. “So, do you think it is fair then to explore what the consequences of your argument would be?” The court doesn’t take many tax cases, and even fewer like this one that raise questions of what counts as income.

The couple, Charles and Kathleen Moore, complain the repatriation tax triggered a $15,000 tax bill on an investment in an Indian power tool company on which they never received any income. They say the company plowed all of its earnings back into its operations. That makes the repatriation tax a levy on property, not income, they argue, and federal property taxes are effectively banned by the Constitution. If the court were to throw out the repatriation tax, big companies could receive billions in tax refunds, perhaps with interest.

And a broad ruling could also preempt any possibility of Congress adopting wealth tax proposals pushed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other progressives. Backed by a phalanx of conservative groups, the Moores had asked the court to specifically take up the case to foreclose the possibility of a wealth tax. At the same time, tax watchers are concerned the justices — who are no experts in the arcana of taxation — could inadvertently blow big holes in the code if they don’t tread carefully.

These observers point to a number of long-standing provisions in the code that tax people before they actually receive income, typically in the name of trying to prevent people from dodging the IRS. Many have warned that a sweeping ruling against taxes on “unrealized gains” could throw into legal doubt scads of other sections of the code. The government pressed on those concerns Tuesday, pointing to a long history of taxes going back to the inauguration of the income tax. Prelogar said it’s difficult to draw lines between those provisions and the repatriation tax.

A ruling for the Moores would create havoc, she argued. “It would cause a sea change in the operation of the tax code and cost trillions of dollars in lost tax revenue,” she said. Alito noted that the tax in question covers income dating back 30 years, and he questioned whether at some point a tax purportedly on income might functionally be one on wealth. “Let’s say somebody graduates from school and starts up a little business in his garage, and 20 years later, 30 years later, that person is a billionaire,” Alito said. “Under your argument, can Congress tax all of that on the ground that is income?” Prelogar called that a “harder question,” adding, “We don’t have the same tradition to support Congress levying income taxes in that manner.”

Among the court’s six Republican appointees, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sounded the most untroubled by the government’s position in the case. He dismissed some of his colleagues’ concerns about a broad-based wealth tax as ungrounded in political reality. “On the proverbial open door … members of Congress want to get reelected,” Kavanaugh said, triggering laughter in the courtroom. “Some of the hypos — that’s why they’re far-fetched.” A ruling in the case is expected by late June.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Supreme Court unlikely to launch preemptive strike on wealth tax proposals appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.