WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Friday it will decide whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the ballot because of his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, inserting the court squarely in the 2024 presidential campaign.

The justices acknowledged the need to reach a decision quickly, as voters will soon begin casting presidential primary ballots across the country. The court agreed to take up Trump’s appeal of a case from Colorado stemming from his role in the events that culminated in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Underscoring the urgency, arguments will be held on Feb. 8, during what is normally a nearly monthlong winter break for the justices. The compressed timeframe could allow the court to produce a decision before Super Tuesday on March 5, when the largest number of delegates are up for grabs in a single day, including in Colorado.

The court will be considering for the first time the meaning and reach of a provision of the 14th Amendment barring some people who “engaged in insurrection” from holding public office. The amendment was adopted in 1868, following the Civil War. It has been so rarely used that the nation’s highest court had no previous occasion to interpret it.

Colorado’s Supreme Court, by a 4-3 vote, ruled last month that Trump should not be on the Republican primary ballot. The decision was the first time the 14th Amendment was used to bar a presidential contender from the ballot.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in the Capitol attack. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The high court’s decision to intervene, which both sides called for, is the most direct involvement in a presidential election since Bush v. Gore in 2000, when a conservative majority effectively decided the election for Republican George W. Bush. Only Justice Clarence Thomas remains from that court.

Three of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Trump, though they have repeatedly ruled against him in 2020 election-related lawsuits, as well as his efforts to keep documents related to Jan. 6 and his tax returns from being turned over to congressional committees.

At the same time, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have been in the majority of conservative-driven decisions that overturned the five-decade-old constitutional right to abortion, expanded gun rights and struck down affirmative action in college admissions.

Some Democratic lawmakers have called on Thomas to step aside from the case because of his wife’s support for Trump’s effort to overturn the results of the election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden. Thomas is unlikely to agree, and there was every indication Friday that all the justices are participating. Thomas has recused himself from only one other case related to the 2020 election, involving former law clerk John Eastman, and so far the people trying to disqualify Trump haven’t asked him to recuse.

The 4-3 Colorado decision cites a ruling by Gorsuch when he was a federal judge in that state. That Gorsuch decision upheld Colorado’s move to strike a naturalized citizen from the state’s presidential ballot because he was born in Guyana and didn’t meet the constitutional requirements to run for office. The court found that Trump likewise doesn’t meet the qualifications due to his role in the U.S. Capitol attack on Jan. 6, 2021. That day, the Republican president had held a rally outside the White House and exhorted his supporters to “fight like hell” before they walked to the Capitol.

The two-sentence provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment states that anyone who swore an oath to uphold the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it is no longer eligible for state or federal office. After Congress passed an amnesty for most of the former confederates the measure targeted in 1872, the provision fell into disuse until dozens of suits were filed to keep Trump off the ballot this year. Only the one in Colorado was successful.

Trump had asked the court to overturn the Colorado ruling without even hearing arguments. “The Colorado Supreme Court decision would unconstitutionally disenfranchise millions of voters in Colorado and likely be used as a template to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters nationwide,” Trump’s lawyers wrote.

They argue that Trump should win on many grounds, including that the events of Jan. 6 did not constitute an insurrection. Even if it did, they wrote, Trump himself had not engaged in insurrection. They also contend that the insurrection clause does not apply to the president and that Congress must act, not individual states.

Critics of the former president who sued in Colorado agreed that the justices should step in now and resolve the issue, as do many election law experts.

“This case is of utmost national importance. And given the upcoming presidential primary schedule, there is no time to wait for the issues to percolate further. The Court should resolve this case on an expedited timetable, so that voters in Colorado and elsewhere will know whether Trump is indeed constitutionally ineligible when they cast their primary ballots,” lawyers for the Colorado plaintiffs told the Supreme Court.

The issue of whether Trump can be on the ballot is not the only matter related to the former president or Jan. 6 that has reached the high court. The justices last month declined a request from special counsel Jack Smith to swiftly take up and rule on Trump’s claims that he is immune from prosecution in a case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election, though the issue could be back before the court soon depending on the ruling of a Washington-based appeals court.

And the court has said that it intends to hear an appeal that could upend hundreds of charges stemming from the Capitol riot, including against Trump.

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

The post The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

DENVER (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to determine whether former President Donald Trump can keep running for the White House.

Trump on Wednesday appealed a ruling from the Colorado Supreme Court that he’s ineligible for the presidency because he violated a rarely used constitutional prohibition on those who hold office having “engaged in insurrection.” On Tuesday, he appealed a similar ruling from Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, but it’s the Colorado appeal that’s most significant.

That’s because the nation’s highest court has never before ruled on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 to prevent Confederates from regaining their former government posts. Whatever the Supreme Court decides applies to Colorado will apply to all other 49 states, including Maine.

Trump remains on the ballot in both states until the appeals are done.

WHAT IS SECTION 3?

The provision is only two sentences and seems relatively straightforward.

Section 3 reads: “No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Nice and simple, right?

Not so fast, Trump’s attorneys say.

WHAT DOES TRUMP’S LEGAL TEAM CONTEND?

Trump’s lawyers say this part of the Constitution wasn’t meant to apply to the president. Notice how it specifically mentions electors, senators and representatives, but not the presidency, they say.

Also, it says those who take an oath to “support” the United States, but the presidential oath doesn’t use that word — instead, the Constitution requires presidents to say they will “preserve, protect and defend” the document. And, finally, Section 3 talks about any other “officer” of the United States, but Trump’s lawyers argue that language is meant to apply to presidential appointees, not the actual president.

That was enough to convince the initial Denver judge who heard the case, who agreed it wasn’t clear that Section 3 applied to the president. But that judge’s decision was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court.

The majority of the state’s highest court wrote: “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oathbreaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.”

WHAT ARE THE TRUMP TEAM’S OTHER ARGUMENTS?

His lawyers contend that the question of who is covered by a rarely used, once obscure clause is political and cannot be decided by unelected judges. They contend that Jan. 6 wasn’t an insurrection — it wasn’t widespread, they say, and didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or other markers of sedition. They say Trump didn’t “engage” in anything that day other than in exercising his protected free speech rights.

Their final argument is the one that convinced the dissenting three of Colorado’s seven high court justices — the ad hoc way the court went about finding that Trump violated Section 3, in turn, violated the former president’s due process rights. They contend he was entitled to some structured, adversarial legal process rather than a court in Colorado trying to figure out if the Constitution applied to him.

That gets at the unprecedented nature of the cases. Section 3 has rarely been used after an 1872 congressional amnesty excluded most former Confederates from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard such a case. Arguments about legal precedents go back to a sole 1869 opinion from Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was hearing an appeal as a circuit judge rather than for the high court.

Trump’s critics have filed dozens of lawsuits seeking to disqualify him, and all failed until Colorado. But they usually failed because the judges dodged the constitutional issues or declared themselves unqualified to rule on them. Presuming it takes the case — and every observer expects it will — the Supreme Court doesn’t have much room left to dodge.

WHAT WILL THE SUPREME COURT DO AND WHEN?

Colorado’s Republican Party has already appealed the Colorado ruling, so the justices have had time to think about what they’ll do.

The high court has dozens of different ways it can rule.

It could uphold the Colorado ruling and say Trump is no longer qualified to be president.

The court could say Trump is qualified to be president. That would end all Section 3 challenges, including in Maine.

It could dodge by overruling Colorado on a technicality about the procedures used to get the case there and set itself up for another case in the fall.

It could say Congress makes the final decision.

When the court might rule is another mystery. In Bush v. Gore, the 2000 case that ended the Florida recount and made George W. Bush president, the court ruled in three days. The court could also go slowly and wait until the end of its term on June 30 to rule.

Obviously, that could open the door to more chaos and leave it uncertain during the primaries whether Republicans are voting for someone qualified to be president. That’s why all the parties have sought an expedited appeal and a ruling as quickly as possible.

AREN’T REPUBLICANS JUST GOING TO RULE FOR TRUMP?

The Colorado high court’s seven justices were all appointed by Democrats. Six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans, three by Trump.

But the Colorado court split 4-3 on the ruling. The majority quoted a ruling from Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s conservative Supreme Court appointees, when he was a federal judge in Colorado. He ruled then that the state properly kept a naturalized citizen born in Guyana off the presidential ballot because he didn’t meet the constitutional qualifications.

Democrats have already begun to suggest that Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself because his wife, a Republican activist, supported Trump’s effort to overturn his 2020 election loss to President Joe Biden. Thomas has only recused himself from one other case related to the 2020 election and so far the people trying to disqualify Trump haven’t asked him to do so here.

Some of the strongest advocates of using Section 3 against Trump have been prominent conservative legal theorists and lawyers who argue that courts have to follow the actual words of the Constitution. They argue there’s no wiggle room here — Trump is clearly disqualified.

The question of whether Trump is qualified hasn’t broken on traditional partisan lines in the legal world, partly because this is completely new legal ground, it’s hard to predict how individual justices will rule based on their ideology.

But the reason most legal observers expect Trump to win at the high court is because courts are very hesitant to limit voters’ choices. There’s even a term for that — the “political question,” whether a legal dispute is better settled by the people the voters have selected to make the laws than by unelected judges.

If that doesn’t happen, some critics warn, and Trump’s campaign is ended by Section 3, expect it to become weaponized in political races. Imagine a world where any politician’s career can end in a moment when a court or an election official decides that person “engaged in insurrection,” they caution.

Unless the high court shuts this down, they warn, Trump might only be the start.

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

The post The Supreme Court is expected to determine whether Trump can keep running for president. Here’s why appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday wrestled with a nationwide settlement with OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma that would shield members of the Sackler family who own the company from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids.

The justices seemed by turns reluctant to break up an exhaustively negotiated agreement, but also leery of somehow rewarding the Sacklers.

The agreement hammered out with state and local governments and victims would provide billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic. The Sacklers would contribute up to $6 billion and give up ownership of the company, but retain billions more. The company would emerge from bankruptcy as a different entity, with its profits used for treatment and prevention.

The high court put the settlement on hold during the summer, in response to objections from the Biden administration.

Justice Elena Kagan seemed to sum up the questions that were nagging at some of the justices.

“It seems as though the federal government is standing in the way of that as against the huge, huge, huge majority of claimants,” Kagan said.

But later, she also said that in bankruptcies, protection against lawsuits has a price.

“You get a discharge when you put all your assets on the table,” she said. “The Sacklers didn’t come anywhere close to doing that.”

Arguments lasted nearly two hours in a packed courtroom, its doors draped in black in memoriam to retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who died Friday. Chief Justice John Roberts offered a remembrance of the first woman to serve on the court. “She changed the world,” Roberts said.

Outside the court, a small but vocal group of protesters opposed the Purdue Pharma agreement. “Shame on Sackler,” one banner read. “No Sackler immunity at any $$,” read another.

The issue for the justices is whether the legal shield that bankruptcy provides can be extended to people such as the Sacklers, who have not declared bankruptcy themselves. Lower courts have issued conflicting decisions over that issue, which also has implications for other major product liability lawsuits settled through the bankruptcy system.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department, contends that the bankruptcy law does not permit protecting the Sackler family from being sued. During the Trump administration, the government supported the settlement.

Justice Department lawyer Curtis Gannon told the court Monday that negotiations could resume, and perhaps lead to a better deal, if the court were to stop the current agreement.

Proponents of the plan said third-party releases are sometimes necessary to forge an agreement, and federal law imposes no prohibition against them.

“Forget a better deal,” lawyer Pratik Shah, representing victims and other creditors in the bankruptcy, told the justices. “There is no other deal.”

Lawyers for more than 60,000 victims who support the settlement called it “a watershed moment in the opioid crisis,” while recognizing that “no amount of money could fully compensate” victims for the damage caused by the misleading marketing of OxyContin, a powerful prescription painkiller.

A lawyer for a victim who opposes the settlement calls the provision dealing with the Sacklers “special protection for billionaires.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed more inclined toward the opponents, saying the Sacklers’ insistence on a shield against all lawsuits is “causing this problem.”

By contrast, Justice Brett Kavanaugh sounded like a vote to allow the deal to proceed. He said the government was seeking to prevent payment to victims and their families, as well as money for prevention programs “in exchange really for this somewhat theoretical idea that they’ll be able to recover money down the road from the Sacklers themselves.”

OxyContin first hit the market in 1996, and Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing of it is often cited as a catalyst of the nationwide opioid epidemic, persuading doctors to prescribe painkillers with less regard for addiction dangers.

The drug and the Stamford, Connecticut-based company became synonymous with the crisis, even though the majority of pills being prescribed and used were generic drugs. Opioid-related overdose deaths have continued to climb, hitting 80,000 in recent years. Most of those are from fentanyl and other synthetic drugs.

The Purdue Pharma settlement would be among the largest reached by drug companies, wholesalers and pharmacies to resolve epidemic-related lawsuits filed by state, local and Native American tribal governments and others. Those settlements have totaled more than $50 billion.

But the Purdue Pharma settlement would be one of only two so far that include direct payments to victims from a $750 million pool. Payouts are expected to range from about $3,500 to $48,000.

Sackler family members no longer are on the company’s board, and they have not received payouts from it since before Purdue Pharma entered bankruptcy. In the decade before that, though, they were paid more than $10 billion, about half of which family members said went to pay taxes.

A decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, 22-859, is expected by early summer.

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

The post The Supreme Court wrestles with OxyContin maker’s bankruptcy deal, with billions of dollars at stake appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a case about prison terms for drug dealers and rejections of hundreds of appeals, including one from an attorney who pushed a plan to keep former President Donald Trump in power.

The court turned away attorney John Eastman’s effort to have a lower-court ruling thrown out that said Eastman and Trump had “more likely than not” committed a crime by trying to keep Congress from certifying President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who once employed Eastman as a law clerk, did not take part in the court’s consideration of Eastman’s appeal.

The only case argued Monday concerns the meaning of the word “and” in a federal law dealing with prison terms for low-level drug dealers. The length of thousands of sentences a year is at stake.

“I think this is a very hard case,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett said during 90 minutes of arguments that did not suggest how the court might rule.

The term is shaping up as an important one for social media as the court continues to grapple with applying older laws and rulings to the digital age.

Several cases also confront the court with the continuing push by conservatives to constrict federal regulatory agencies. On Tuesday, the court will hear a challenge that could disrupt the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The court also is dealing with the fallout from major rulings a year ago that overturned Roe v. Wade and expanded gun rights. A gun case will be argued in November. Limits on mifepristone, a drug used in the most common method of abortion, could be before the court by spring.

Among the bigger unknowns is whether any disputes will reach the court involving the prosecution of Trump or efforts to keep the Republican off the 2024 ballot because of the Constitution’s insurrection clause.

Apart from cases, the justices are discussing a first-ever code of conduct, though disagreements remain, Justice Elena Kagan said recently.

The push to codify ethical standards for the justices stems from a series of stories questioning some of their practices. Many of those stories focused on Thomas and his failure to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. But Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor also have been under scrutiny.

On Monday, Thomas did not explain his decision to stay out of Eastman’s case, which involved emails that Eastman was trying to keep from the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol.

Some of those emails, since made public, are between Eastman and another lawyer, Kenneth Chesebro, in which they mention Thomas as their best hope to get the Supreme Court to intervene in the election outcome in a case from Georgia.

Trump, Eastman and Chesebro are among 19 people who have been indicted in Fulton County, Georgia, for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

Life at the court has more or less returned to its pre-COVID-19 normal over the past two years, though arguments last much longer than they used to and Sotomayor, who has diabetes, continues to wear a mask on the bench . One other change that resulted from the coronavirus pandemic remains: The court is livestreaming audio of all its arguments. Cameras remain forbidden.

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

The post The Supreme Court opens its new term with a case about prison terms for drug dealers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In an opinion likely to be recognized as a landmark case, the court struck down a California requirement that charities turn over a list of their major supporters before soliciting donations. The state failed to prove it needed the lists to enforce its tax laws or anything else.

California claimed it would keep the supporter names confidential. But a trial in the lower court revealed that the state carelessly exposed thousands of charity donor lists on a public website, a mistake that can’t be undone. Once a person’s identity and membership in a group is publicly exposed online, they are forever vulnerable to harassment and retaliation for their beliefs. Today’s unforgiving cancel culture heightens those threats.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed the “vital relationship” between freedom of association and privacy. If people reasonably fear that their membership in a group will be revealed, either publicly or to powerful state officials, they will be deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights to assemble and speak out on controversial issues. Just as we vote in private booths, we have a right to join and speak in private groups.

When the government wishes to pierce this privacy, it needs a good reason. California failed to provide one. Yet it found support from politicians who have fought to rebrand movements of private citizens as nefarious “dark money groups.” This effort has led to numerous state laws over the last decade treating long-standing nonprofit organizations as campaign committees. These laws expose sensitive information about private citizens to state officials while revealing nothing to voters about government. They call it transparency.

Free speech advocates warned that the campaign against so-called dark money would be a race to the bottom that puts everyone’s privacy at risk. California proved their case, demanding supporter lists from every charitable organization in the state. No wonder it was opposed in Thursday’s case by hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum, including the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and the Zionist Organization of America.

The court was careful to note in its ruling that this was no campaign finance case. The plaintiffs are charitable organizations barred by federal law from participating in campaigns. That hasn’t stopped disgruntled politicians from claiming the decision is a strike against campaign finance laws.

The real takeaway should be how broadly First Amendment rights were violated before the Supreme Court stepped in. The right to join and support nonprofit organizations privately was unanimously recognized by the Supreme Court way back in 1958. Yet that precedent had been eroded so thoroughly that California eventually felt free to ignore it altogether. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed it could.

The Supreme Court corrected that grave error with a decision that begins to restore freedom of association to the vaunted status it rightfully held in the 20th century. Hopefully, one day we will look back and see that California’s overreach awakened the court to the new generation of threats facing our most fundamental First Amendment freedoms.

—-

Luke Wachob is the communications director at the Institute for Free Speech in Washington, D.C.

Luke Wachob | Columnist

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

The post Supreme Court restores privacy in smackdown of California appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday the NCAA can’t limit education-related benefits — like computers and paid internships — that colleges can offer their sports stars, a victory for athletes that could help open the door to further easing in the decades-old fight over paying student-athletes.

Schools recruiting top athletes can now offer tens of thousands of dollars in benefits that also include study-abroad programs and graduate scholarships. However, the case doesn’t decide whether students can simply be paid salaries for the benefits their efforts bring — measured in tens of millions for many universities.

The high court said specifically that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football violate antitrust laws.

That is important in the short term for students who may see schools competing for talent by sweetening their offers with a variety of education-related benefits. It’s also important in the long term because it sets the stage for future challenges to NCAA rules limiting athletes’ compensation.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that the NCAA sought “immunity from the normal operation of the antitrust laws,” an argument the court rejected. Gorsuch said that allowing colleges and universities to offer “enhanced education-related benefits … may encourage scholastic achievement and allow student-athletes a measure of compensation more consistent with the value they bring to their schools.”

Under current NCAA rules, students cannot be paid, and the scholarship money a college can offer is capped at the cost of attending the school.

The NCAA had defended its rules as necessary to preserve the amateur nature of college sports, preventing a blurring of the line between them and professional teams, with colleges trying to lure talented athletes by offering over-the-top benefits. A lower court had upheld the limits on scholarships and cash awards.

Writing for only himself, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled where Monday’s decision may lead. He said there are “serious questions” about whether the NCAA’s other restrictions on compensating athletes can stand. Kavanaugh wrote that “traditions alone cannot justify the NCAA’s decision to build a massive money-raising enterprise on the backs of student athletes who are not fairly compensated.”

“Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate. … The NCAA is not above the law,” wrote Kavanaugh, who as a college student played on Yale’s junior varsity basketball team.

The case was brought by former athletes, including West Virginia football player Shawne Alston. It followed a separate, earlier lawsuit brought by athletes including former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon and NBA legends Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell where an appeals court concluded NCAA rules aren’t exempt from antitrust law. That case ended with the Supreme Court declining to weigh in.

As a result of Monday’s ruling, the NCAA itself can’t bar schools from offering Division I basketball and football players additional education-related benefits. But individual athletic conferences can still set limits if they choose.

“It is our hope that this victory in the battle for college athletes’ rights will carry on a wave of justice uplifting further aspects of athlete compensation,” said Steve Berman, an attorney for the former college athletes, in a statement following the ruling. “This is the fair treatment college athletes deserve.”

The court’s ruling comes at a time when the NCAA has already been debating how to amend its rules to allow college athletes to profit from their names, images and likenesses, often abbreviated NIL. That would allow athletes to earn money for sponsorship deals, online endorsement and personal appearances.

NCAA President Mark Emmert last week urged member schools to pass a long-stagnant names-and-images reform proposal before the end of the month. If they don’t, he will take action himself, he said.

Emmert told The Associated Press on Monday that the high court’s ruling makes going about the NIL reforms “more complicated” but “doesn’t mean we can’t and we shouldn’t.”

An NCAA governing body with the power to adopt changes is scheduled to meet this week. Meanwhile, six state laws that allow athletes to receive names-and-images compensation will go into effect July 1. The NCAA has asked Congress for help in the form of a federal law, but lawmakers are nowhere near passing legislation.

The players associations of the NFL, the NBA and the WNBA had all urged the justices to side with the ex-athletes, as did the Biden administration.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday of the athletes: The “decision recognizes that, as with all Americans, their hard work should not be exploited.”

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

The post High court win for college athletes in compensation case appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving in place a $2 billion verdict in favor of women who claim they developed ovarian cancer from using Johnson & Johnson talc products.

The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting Johnson & Johnson’s appeal. The company argued that it was not treated fairly in facing one trial involving 22 cancer sufferers who came from 12 states and different backgrounds.

A Missouri jury initially awarded the women $4.7 billion, but a state appeals court dropped two women from the suit and reduced the award to $2 billion. The jury found that the company’s talc products contain asbestos and asbestos-laced talc can cause ovarian cancer. The company disputes both points.

Johnson & Johnson, which is based in New Brunswick, New Jersey, has stopped selling its iconic talc-based Johnson’s Baby Powder in the U.S. and Canada, though it remains on the market elsewhere.

But the company faces thousands of lawsuits from women who claim asbestos in the powder caused their cancer. Talc is a mineral similar in structure to asbestos, which is known to cause cancer, and they are sometimes obtained from the same mines. The cosmetics industry in 1976 agreed to make sure its talc products do not contain detectable amounts of asbestos.

The lead attorney for the women during the trial, Mark Lanier, praised the court’s refusal to hear Johnson & Johnson’s appeal. “This decision sends a clear message to the rich and powerful: You will be held to account when you cause grievous harm under our system of equal justice under law,” Lanier said.

Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the court’s action. Alito owns $15,000 to $50,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock. Kavanaugh’s father headed the trade association that lobbied against labeling talc a carcinogen and including a warning label on talc products.

Ethicists contacted by The Associated Press said they did not think E. Edward Kavanaugh’s role required his son to step aside from the case.

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

The post Justices reject Johnson & Johnson appeal of $2B talc verdict appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.