US Court Partly Upholds Fast-Track Expulsion of Migrants

A federal court ruled Friday that the U.S. can continue to expel certain migrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border unless they would be returned to a country where they might face persecution or torture.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allows a rule, known as Title 42, implemented during the Trump administration at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, to largely stay in effect.

The case was brought by a group of migrants who were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.

The court ruled the migrants, who entered the United States without authorization, “have no right to be in the United States” and that the government “can immediately expel them.”

However, they cannot be expelled to a country where their “life or freedom would be threatened” – or because of “race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion” – or to a country where they will likely be tortured.

Kept as health measure

Amid continuing chaos along the U.S.-Mexico border, the Biden administration has opted to retain the policy, which was originally put forth as a public health measure.

Migrants are fast-tracked for removal if U.S. immigration officers conclude they do not have a valid asylum claim, a determination made without migrants appearing before an immigration judge. Unaccompanied children who cross the border into the United States are exempted from the policy.

The U.S Department of Justice has not commented on the ruling.

Enforcement of Title 42 appears to be uneven in some cases.

According to Reuters, many crossing the border on foot are expelled or quickly turned back, but those in vehicles are more often able to make their claim of asylum.

A U.S. Border Patrol officer told Reuters that some migrants buy cheap cars in Mexico to boost their odds of making it across.

“It’s a way to jump the line,” said U.S. Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported 153,941 migrant encounters on the U.S. southern border in January, which was almost double the number reported in January 2021 and four times the total in January of 2020.

Some information in this report came from Reuters.

Supreme Court Reinstates Death Penalty for Boston Marathon Bomber

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reinstated the death penalty sentence for Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

The 6-3 ruling overturns a federal appeals court decision to void the sentence.

That 2020 ruling by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals decision overturned Tsarnaev’s federal death penalty and instead sentenced the Kyrgyzstan-born terrorist to life without parole.

The appeals court said the trial judge improperly excluded evidence that showed Dzhokhar was heavily influenced by his older brother, Tamerlan.

FILE – This file photo released April 19, 2013, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation shows Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, convicted of carrying out the April 2013 Boston Marathon bombing attack.

On April 15, 2013, the brothers placed two homemade “pressure cooker” bombs near the finish line of the Boston Marathon that exploded as runners of the 42-kilometer (26-mile) race arrived.

The attack killed three spectators and injured more than 260 others.

A massive manhunt ensued. Three days later, the brothers shot and killed a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer. On April 19, Tamerlan died after the gun battle with police. Dzhokhar, who had been shot, escaped. He surrendered to police later that evening after they found him hiding in a boat stored on a trailer.

The lower court also found that his trial could have been tainted by jurors who had already made up their minds because of the publicity surrounding the high-profile case that kept Americans glued to their televisions for days.

“Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed heinous crimes. The Sixth Amendment nonetheless guaranteed him a fair trial before an impartial jury. He received one,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority.

In his dissent, retiring Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, “In my view, the Court of Appeals acted lawfully in holding that the District Court should have allowed Dzhokhar to introduce this evidence.”

Senate Committee To Consider Supreme Court Nominee March 21

Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson will begin March 21 and end March 24, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced Wednesday.

“As I have said from the time that Justice Breyer announced his retirement, the Committee will undertake a fair and timely process to consider Judge Jackson’s nomination,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin, D-Ill., wrote. “I look forward to Judge Jackson’s appearance before the Committee and to respectful and dignified hearings.”

If approved by the Senate, the current federal appellate judge will make history as the first Black woman to sit on the country’s top court.

At her 2021 confirmation hearing for the appellate court, she said, “I’ve experienced life in perhaps a different way than some of my colleagues because of who I am, and that might be valuable — I hope it would be valuable if I was confirmed.”

During the 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. President Joe Biden promised to nominate an African American woman to the highest court.

Jackson, a liberal whose nomination is supported by progressive groups, would replace another liberal, Justice Stephen Breyer, who intends to retire at the end of the current Supreme Court term.

A man was captured by court order for the crime of sexual acts with a minor under 14 years of age - Colombia

Tuesday, March 01, 2022

We continue to ensure the well-being, safety and protection of children and adolescents in Caldas.

The events occurred on December 18, 2021 in the San Isidro neighborhood of the municipality of Anserma, where a 25-year-old man was captured by personnel from the National Model of Community Surveillance by Quadrants, who was surprised inside a neighboring house apparently under the influence of intoxicating drinks, performing sexual acts on a minor under 10 years of age, the alleged abuser was brought before the competent authority.

The girl’s relatives made the complaint, and from that moment the judicial police work began, managing to collect enough evidence that allowed the Second Promiscuous Municipal Court of Anserma Caldas to issue an arrest warrant against this citizen for the alleged crime of sexual acts with a minor under fourteen years of age.

The Sijín investigators carried out the location, notification and subsequent capture in the San Isidro neighborhood, the subject was presented before the requesting authority during the hearings, accepted the charges and was sent to jail.

The National Police recommends parents not to leave their children alone, or in the company of people they do not trust, and in the event of any manifestation of any act of this type by children and adolescents, make these facts known. to the authorities to initiate the respective investigations.

#ItsAnHonorToBePolice

US Supreme Court to Weigh Limits to EPA Efforts on Climate Change

WASHINGTON — 

The Supreme Court is hearing a case its conservative majority could use to hobble Biden administration efforts to combat climate change.

The administration already is dealing with congressional refusal to enact the climate change proposals in President Joe Biden’s Build Better Back plan.

Now the justices, in arguments Monday, are taking up an appeal from 19 mostly Republican-led states and coal companies over the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

The court took on the case even though there is no current EPA plan in place to deal with carbon output from power plants, a development that has alarmed environmental groups. They worry that the court could preemptively undermine whatever plan Biden’s team develops to address power plant emissions. Biden has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade.

A broad ruling by the court also could weaken regulatory efforts that extend well beyond the environment, including consumer protections, workplace safety and public health. Several conservative justices have criticized what they see as the unchecked power of federal agencies.

Those concerns were evident in the court’s orders throwing out two Biden administration policies aimed at reducing the spread of COVID-19. Last summer, the court’s 6-3 conservative majority ended a pause on evictions over unpaid rent. In January, the same six justices blocked a requirement that workers at large employers be vaccinated or test regularly and wear a mask on the job.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, speaking at a recent event in Washington, cast the power plant case as about who should make the rules. “Should it be unelected bureaucrats, or should it be the people’s representatives in Congress?” Morrisey said. West Virginia is leading the states opposed to broad EPA authority.

But David Doniger, a climate change expert with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the Supreme Court’s consideration of the issue is premature, a view shared by the administration.

He said the administration’s opponents are advancing “horror stories about extreme regulations the EPA may issue in the future. The EPA is writing a new rule on a clean slate.”

The power plant case has a long and complicated history that begins with the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan. That plan would have required states to reduce emissions from the generation of electricity, mainly by shifting away from coal-fired plants.

But that plan never took effect. Acting in a lawsuit filed by West Virginia and others, the Supreme Court blocked it in 2016 by a 5-4 vote, with conservatives in the majority.

With the plan on hold, the legal fight over it continued. But after President Donald Trump took office, the EPA repealed the Obama-era plan. The agency argued that its authority to reduce carbon emissions was limited and it devised a new plan that sharply reduced the federal government’s role in the issue.

New York, 21 other mainly Democratic states, the District of Columbia and some of the nation’s largest cities sued over the Trump plan. The federal appeals court in Washington ruled against both the repeal and the new plan, and its decision left nothing in effect while the new administration drafted a new policy.

Adding to the unusual nature of the high court’s involvement, the reductions sought in the Obama plan by 2030 already have been achieved through the market-driven closure of hundreds of coal plants.

The Biden administration has no intention of reviving the Clean Power Plan, one reason Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, argues the court should dismiss the case.

Some of the nation’s largest electric utilities, serving 40 million people, are supporting the Biden administration along with prominent businesses that include Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft and Tesla.

A decision is expected by late June.

Who Is Ketanji Brown Jackson, Biden’s Supreme Court Nominee?

If approved by the Senate, federal appellate Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Joe Biden’s nominee to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, will make history as the first Black woman to sit on the country’s top court.

Jackson would bring new perspective to the job, and at age 51, she may serve for decades to come. However, there is little reason to think she can do much to change the court’s conservative trajectory and ideological balance in the short run.

Still, having a Black woman on the court may affect the other justices’ thinking in subtle ways. At her 2021 confirmation hearing for the appellate court, she said, “I’ve experienced life in perhaps a different way than some of my colleagues because of who I am, and that might be valuable — I hope it would be valuable if I was confirmed.”

Born in Washington, D.C., and raised in Florida, Jackson graduated from Miami Palmetto Senior High School. She studied government at Harvard University, graduating in 1992. She also received her law degree from Harvard in 1996.

Earlier in her career, Jackson worked as an assistant federal public defender in the nation’s capital, where she worked on appellate cases, and served as vice chair of the U.S. Sentencing Commission for many years.

President Barack Obama nominated Jackson for a district court judgeship in the District of Columbia near the end of his first term as president, and she was confirmed in early 2013. He also interviewed her as a potential Supreme Court nominee after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016.

In a statement, the White House cited Jackson’s “broad experience across the legal profession” as a reason Biden nominated her for the court.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks after President Joe Biden announced Jackson as his nominee to the Supreme Court in the Cross Hall of the White House, Feb. 25, 2022, in Washington.

“President Biden sought a candidate with exceptional credentials, unimpeachable character and unwavering dedication to the rule of law,” the White House said.

It added, “The president sought an individual who is committed to equal justice under the law and who understands the profound impact that the Supreme Court’s decisions have on the lives of the American people.”

Confirmation for appeals court

The Senate voted 53-44 last year to confirm Jackson after Biden nominated her to the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, with three Republican senators backing her.

At Jackson’s confirmation hearing last year, Republicans asked her whether race plays a role in her methodology to deciding cases. She said it did not. “I’m methodically and intentionally setting aside personal views, any other inappropriate considerations, and I would think that race would be the kind of thing that would be inappropriate to inject in my evaluation of a case,” she said without skipping a beat.

At her 2021 confirmation hearing, she connected her family’s professions — her parents worked in public schools — to her decision to work as a public defender. “I come from a background of public service. My parents were in public service, my brother was a police officer and [was] in the military,” she said, “and being in the public defenders office felt very much like the opportunity to help with my skills and talents.”

Jackson, a liberal whose nomination is supported by progressive groups, would replace another liberal, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who intends to retire at the end of the current Supreme Court term. Republicans Friday sought to cast Jackson as a pawn of left-wing activist groups.

Her ascension would do little to shift the dynamics of a court that is dominated by six Republican appointees.

In any case, new justices often take time to find their footing. In a 2006 interview with Breyer, who joined the court in 1994, he said, “I was frightened to death for the first three years.”

Supreme Court revoked arrest against Mayor of Cartagena William Dau - Other Cities - Colombia

The Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice revoked the sanction of 5 days of arrest against Mayor William Dau Chamat, ordered by the Ninth Civil Court of the Circuit for the alleged breach of the relocation of the Zenú Indigenous Council, and protected the right to due process of the local president.

The office nullified the incident of contempt promoted by Casam Inversiones SAS and the order through which the Ninth Civil Court opened the incidental procedure.

(Also: Martín Elías’s driver is convicted of the artist’s death)

Sanction the Mayor without analyzing
arguments put forward by the administration

The Civil Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice notes that the Ninth Civil Court proceeded to sanction the Mayor without analyzing the arguments presented by the administration and the particular circumstances of the case in question.

The ruling indicates that “It is evident that the summoned judicial authorities incurred an outrage that merits the interference of this guardianship judge, since in an attempt to dispatch the incident in question they decided to sanction the plaintiff here, as Mayor of Cartagena , without ruling on the allegations brought by the territorial entity from the very moment it learned of the initiation of that action.

(Also: He docked in Cartagena with a spy gun from the First World War)

The Civil Cassation Chamber of the Court also highlights that, although the guardianship gave 5 months to carry out the procedures for the transfer, the District managed to demonstrate that the mayor is not the only one responsible for the materialization of the ruling, however, the court was silent about it.

“Therefore, the improper foundation of the incidental procedure is palpable, while the summoned judges deprived themselves of linking the persons indicated by the previously requested and, provided this, of thoroughly analyzing their objections, refusing to examine that particular circumstance, which, by the way, if fully justified, would be enough to free the accused from subjective responsibility, totally or partially; from where, in truth, it was omitted to establish the true subjective responsibility in the alleged non-compliance with the guardianship sentence in question, ”indicates the Court’s ruling.

It is not legal for the District
buy the property

For this reason, the Supreme Court gives the Court 48 hours to issue a new decision, this time fully attending to all the considerations of the case.

It is noteworthy that since the administration of Salvemos Juntos a Cartagena, all the necessary steps have been taken to comply with the relocation of the Zenú Indigenous Council, however, it has not been made effective since, despite the fact that in 2021 the District Council granted the powers to the Mayor to make the transfer, one of the conditions was to have an appraisal of the property, which was contracted with the IGAC; however, the appraisal process carried out by the aforementioned entity was not completed before the term expired and the powers granted expired.

(You may be interested in: They denounce that a teacher kicked a dog in front of her students)

In this sense, it is up to the administration to once again request the powers to continue with the necessary procedures for the acquisition of the property to which the Zenú Indigenous Council will be transferred, once the sessions of the District Council begin on March 1, 2022. Before the date, it is not legally possible for the District to purchase the property.

Cartagena

More news in Colombia

Eln set fire to three trucks in Pailitas, Cesar

Daniel Quintero requested precautionary measures before the IACHR for threats

Biden Has Picked a Supreme Court Nominee: Reports

WASHINGTON — 

U.S. President Joe Biden has made a final decision on who he will pick to be his first Supreme Court nominee, U.S. media reported Thursday night.

The president promised during his 2020 campaign to elevate the first Black woman to America’s highest bench, which he reiterated after Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, announced his retirement in late January.

CNN first reported that Biden had made his decision, which was later confirmed by CBS News, both citing sources familiar with the process.

The cable network added that the decision could come as soon as Friday but no later than Monday, the day before Biden’s State of the Union address.

The White House has been tight-lipped about who it will choose to replace Breyer, a liberal stalwart who plans to retire in June at the end of the court’s current term.

Among the favorites are U.S. Circuit Court judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, South Carolina judge Michelle Childs and California Supreme Court judge Leondra Kruger.

Biden has previously said he planned on making a decision by the end of February.

Asked whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine had altered that timelines, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Thursday Biden was “still on track to make an announcement before the end of the month.”

The selection of a Supreme Court justice involves extensive background checks to prevent unwelcome surprises during televised Senate nomination hearings.

If Biden’s pick can successfully pass the evenly divided Senate, she will become the third African American on the Supreme Court — after Justices Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas (who is still on the court). She would be the first Black woman.

Stark Racial Gap in Views on Black Woman on US High Court

Americans are starkly divided by race on the importance of President Joe Biden’s promise to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court, with white Americans far less likely to be highly enthusiastic about the idea than Black Americans — and especially Black women.

That’s according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research that shows 48% of Americans say it’s not important to them personally that a Black woman becomes a Supreme Court Justice. Another 23% say that’s somewhat important, and 29% say it’s very or extremely important. Only two Black men have served on the nation’s highest court, and no Black women have ever been nominated.

A new AP-NORC poll finds that 7 in 10 Black women say it’s extremely or very important for a Black woman to become a Supreme Court justice. Black Americans are much more likely than white Americans to say so.

The poll shows Biden’s pledge is resonating with Black Americans, 63% of whom say it’s very or extremely important to them personally that a Black woman serves on the court, compared with just 21% of white Americans and 33% of Hispanics. The findings come as Biden finalizes his pick to fill the seat that is being vacated by Stephen Breyer, who announced his retirement last month.

“While I’ve been studying candidates’ backgrounds and writings, I’ve made no decisions except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity, and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court,” Biden said in his remarks on Breyer’s impending retirement. “It’s long overdue, in my view.”

Black women are particularly moved by the idea, with 70% placing high importance on the nomination, compared to 54% of Black men.

Diana White, a 76-year-old Democrat from Hanley Hills, Missouri, said Biden wouldn’t choose someone if “she didn’t have the potential and the professionalism and the knowledge to do the job.”

White, who is Black, said making a groundbreaking nomination could be inspirational to younger people.

“That’s what I think about, things for other people to look forward to later in life,” she said.

Any enthusiasm that could be generated by Biden’s nomination could benefit his party in this year’s midterm elections, when Democrats risk losing control of Congress. So far Biden has struggled to deliver on other goals for the Black community, such as police reform legislation and voting rights protections.

Some 91% of Black voters backed Biden in the 2020 presidential election, according to AP VoteCast, an expansive survey of the electorate.

But recent polls suggest Biden’s approval rating has dipped substantially among Black Americans since the first half of 2021, when about 9 in 10 approved of how he was handling his job. The new poll shows that his approval among Black Americans stands at 67%.

Jarvis Goode, a 35-year-old Democrat from LaGrange, Georgia, agreed that it’s “overdue” to have a Black woman on the court.

Goode, who is Black, said he hopes the nomination would provide further proof that “women can do the same as men.”

Biden first promised to choose a Black women for the Supreme Court when he was running for president. According to a person familiar with the process, he’s interviewed at least three candidates for the position — judges Ketanji Brown Jackson, J. Michelle Childs and Leondra Kruger — and he’s expected to announce his decision next week.

The poll shows that most Democrats say a Black woman on the court is at least somewhat important, though only half think it’s very important. Among Republicans, about 8 in 10 say it’s not important.

John Novak, a 52-year-old Republican from Hudson, Wisconsin, said he disliked Biden’s pledge to choose a Black woman, saying there’s too much focus on “checking boxes” when it comes to nominating people.

“It should have been stated that we’re going to pick the best candidate who is going to follow the Constitution,” said Novak, who is white. “And then throw in that we’d like her to be a woman and woman of color.”

There’s been a mixed reaction from Republican elected officials.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, described Biden’s promise as “offensive” because it sends a message to most Americans that “I don’t give a damn about you, you are ineligible.”

However, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said it did not bother him, and he noted that President Donald Trump and President Ronald Reagan had promised to nominate women for the Supreme Court.

“I heard a couple of people say they thought it was inappropriate for the president to announce he was going to put an African American woman on the court. Honestly, I did not think that was inappropriate,” said McConnell said during a Tuesday event in his home state.

The poll found that Americans’ faith in the Supreme Court continues to wane. Only 21% said they have a great deal of confidence in the high court, while 24% said they have hardly any confidence. The latter number has risen somewhat from 17% in September 2020, the last time the question was asked.

The AP-NORC poll of 1,289 adults was conducted Feb. 18-21 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.

Biden Interviews Trio of Candidates for Supreme Court

washington — 

President Joe Biden has interviewed at least three candidates for the Supreme Court, according to a person familiar with the matter, and the White House is reiterating that he remains on track to make a final selection by Monday.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday that Biden had not decided whom to nominate. But the president has interviewed Judges Ketanji Brown Jackson, J. Michelle Childs and Leondra Kruger, according to a person familiar with the matter. A second person familiar said Biden had interviewed at least three candidates for the post. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the process.

FILE – Ketanji Brown Jackson, now a federal appeals court judge, is a potential Supreme Court nominee.

Biden has pledged to nominate the first Black woman to the high court by the end of the month to fill the vacancy being created by the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. It was not clear whether any additional candidates have been interviewed by the president.

Psaki declined to discuss whether Biden had conducted interviews but insisted the president was “on track” to make the selection despite rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

Jackson was nominated by President Barack Obama to be a district judge. Biden elevated her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Early in her career, she was also a law clerk for Breyer.

FILE – U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs is pictured Feb. 18, 2022, in Columbia, S.C. Childs, 55, is reportedly under consideration for an open slot on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Childs, a federal judge in South Carolina, has been nominated but not yet confirmed to serve on the same circuit court. Her name has surfaced partly because she is a favorite among some high-profile lawmakers, including Representative James Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat.

Kruger, a graduate of Harvard University and Yale University’s law school, was previously a Supreme Court clerk and argued a dozen cases before the justices as a lawyer for the federal government before becoming a justice on the California Supreme Court.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is signaling he wants a fair fight over Biden’s pick, discouraging those within his GOP ranks who are eager to interject a broader debate over race into the confirmation process.

FILE – Leondra Kruger, an associate justice of the Supreme Court of California, is pictured in San Francisco, Feb. 3, 2022. Kruger is among those whose names have been floated as a possible replacement for retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Speaking Tuesday in Kentucky, McConnell distanced himself from GOP senators and others who have criticized Biden for declaring his intent to nominate a Black woman.

“I heard a couple of people say they thought it was inappropriate for the president to announce he was going to put an African American woman on the court. Honestly, I did not think that was inappropriate,” McConnell said.

The GOP leader drew on history to remind people that former Presidents Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump both promised to put women on the court — when Reagan tapped Sandra Day O’Connor as the first female justice and Trump chose Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “I’m not complaining about that,” McConnell said.

More to the point, Republicans are unable to stop Biden’s pick in the 50-50 Senate where Democrats have the majority with Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote. They want to allow the confirmation process to unfold without self-inflicted political drama so they can resume challenging the president on their preferred topics of the economy and the administration’s handling of COVID-19.

Republicans believe one way to show voters how they would govern is by drawing a contrast between this court battle and the controversy that exploded around Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation, when the Trump nominee was accused of sexual assault, a claim he denied. Republicans believe Senate Democrats suffered with voters after those highly politicized public confirmation hearings.

“This confirmation will not occur like that,” McConnell said. He said he expects a confirmation process that Americans can be proud of. “We believe a Supreme Court nominee ought to be respectfully treated, thoroughly vetted and then voted upon.”

US Supreme Court Mulls Republican Bid to Defend Trump Immigration Rule

washington — 

U.S. Supreme Court justices on Wednesday struggled over whether to let Republican state officials defend an immigration rule crafted by former President Donald Trump’s administration to bar permanent residency for immigrants deemed likely to need government benefits.

The justices heard oral arguments in an appeal by 13 Republican state attorneys general led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich of a lower court’s ruling that rejected their bid to defend Trump’s rule, which expanded the scope of those considered likely to become a “public charge.”

President Joe Biden’s administration dropped the government’s defense of the policy, prompting the action by the states. The rule took effect in February 2020.

Liberal and conservative justices questioned why the administration rescinded the policy in March 2021 based on a November 2020 decision by U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman in Illinois ordering it vacated nationwide in another case, rather than undertaking a formal rulemaking process to replace it while it remained in effect.

Justice Elena Kagan suggested that the administration evaded requirements under a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act and expressed doubt that the court should be “green-lighting” such behavior. Chief Justice John Roberts said circumventing that statute “is a pretty big deal.”

‘Not unprecedented’

Some justices noted that presidential administrations often stop defending in court certain policies they oppose.

“It’s very much not unprecedented,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said.

Biden administration lawyer Brian Fletcher raised some eyebrows when he told the justices that the government does not believe that federal administrative law gives judges the power to set aside policies on a nationwide basis, as Feinerman did in this case — a position aligning with that of the Trump administration.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wondered how that admission should affect the case, given that the Biden administration’s decision to rescind Trump’s rule “is premised on what it admits to be an unlawful order” by Feinerman.

The Supreme Court in a separate dispute is weighing whether to let Kentucky’s Republican attorney general defend a restrictive abortion law in his state that was struck down by lower courts, after its Democratic governor dropped the case.

Biden’s administration six days ago announced a new “fair and humane” public charge rule that it said would avoid penalizing people for seeking medical attention and other services. The fact that a new federal rule already has been devised raises questions about what type of remedy would be available to the state officials even if they win and get to defend Trump’s policy.

Brnovich was joined by officials from Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

Past guidelines

U.S. guidelines in place for the past two decades had said immigrants likely to become primarily dependent on direct cash assistance or long-term institutionalization — in a nursing home, for example — at public expense would be barred from legal permanent residency, known as a “green card.”

Trump’s policy expanded this to anyone deemed likely to receive a wider range of even non-cash federal benefits such as the Medicaid health care program, housing and food assistance for more than an aggregate of 12 months over any 36-month period.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided in 2020 that Trump’s policy impermissibly expanded the definition of who counts as a “public charge.” Other courts made similar rulings.

During the time the policy was enforced, the government issued only three denials of admission under it, according to court filings, all of which have since been reversed.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected by the end of June.

US Supreme Court Takes Up Clash Between Religion and LGBT Rights

WASHINGTON — 

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday took up a major new legal fight pitting religious beliefs against LGBT rights, agreeing to hear an evangelical Christian web designer’s free speech claim that she cannot be forced under a Colorado anti-discrimination law to produce websites for same-sex marriages.

The justices agreed to hear Denver-area business owner Lorie Smith’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling rejecting her bid for an exemption from a Colorado law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and certain other factors. The case follows the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in favor of a Christian Denver-area baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Smith’s case gives the justices an opportunity to answer a question that has been raised in other disputes including the baker case but never definitively resolved: can people refuse service to customers in violation of public accommodation laws based on the idea that fulfilling a creative act such as designing a website or baking a cake is a form of free speech under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that anti-discrimination laws, like Colorado’s, apply to all businesses selling goods and services. Companies cannot turn away LGBT customers just because of who they are,” said Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat.

Colorado’s anti-discrimination law bars anyone from refusing “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations” based among other things on sexual orientation, age, race, gender and religion. Colorado is among 21 U.S. states that have measures explicitly barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations.

These laws pose “a clear and present danger to every American’s constitutionally protected freedoms and the very existence of a diverse and free nation,” said Kristen Waggoner, general counsel of the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Smith.

“Colorado has weaponized its law to silence speech it disagrees with, to compel speech it approves of, and to punish anyone who dares to dissent,” Waggoner added.

The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has become increasingly supportive of religious rights and related free speech claims in recent years even as it has backed LGBT rights in other cases.

The justices declined to take up a separate question concerning whether Smith has a religious rights claim, also under the First Amendment. Smith had asked the court to overturn its important 1990 ruling that limited the ability of people to cite their religious beliefs in seeking exemptions from laws that apply to everyone.

Smith runs a web design business called 303 Creative that she wants to operate in accordance with her Christian faith. She believes that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples, a view shared by many conservative Christians.

Before adding wedding websites to the services she offered customers, Smith sued Colorado’s civil rights commission and other officials in 2016 because of her concern she would be punished under the anti-discrimination law.

Smith’s lawyers have said that any state action punishing her for refusing to design websites for gay weddings violates her right to religious expression and her free speech rights.

Jennifer Pizer, senior counsel at LGBT rights group Lambda Legal, said the Supreme Court should “reaffirm and apply longstanding constitutional precedent that our freedoms of religion and speech are not a license to discriminate when operating a business.”

Colorado officials have said they never investigated Smith’s company and saw no evidence that anyone ever actually asked her to design a website for a same-sex wedding. Lower courts backed Colorado, including the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a July 2021 ruling.

The justices are set to hear oral arguments and decide the case in the Supreme Court’s next term, which begins in October and ends in June 2023.

The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage nationwide in 2015 and in 2020 expanded protections for LGBT workers under federal law. The Supreme Court has struggled to resolve cases in which conservative religious opposition to LGBT rights has clashed with situations in which LGBT people are seeking to exercise their own rights.

Smith’s appeal arises from a dispute similar to the one that prompted the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling on narrow legal grounds siding with a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips. The court said in that case that Colorado’s civil rights commission, which imposed sanctions on Phillips for discrimination, was motivated by anti-religious bias.

Similar legal fights involving other small business including a wedding photographer and a calligrapher owners have been waged in other states.

Constitutional Court decriminalizes abortion until week 24

BOGOTA COLOMBIA). Monday, February 21, 2022 (RPTV NEWS AGENCY). In a historic decision, the Constitutional Court decriminalized abortion up to 24 weeks or six months of gestation. After that period, says the sentence, the three causes already known will be maintained: risk to the life of the mothers, malformation of the fetus and rape.

The decision of the magistrates was taken with a vote of five votes in favor and four against, when studying the complaint of the Just Cause movement.

“Regarding the lawsuit that attacked article 122 of the Penal Code, related to the typical description of the crime of abortion, the Constitutional Court declared, in the first place, the CONDITIONED EXEQUIBILITY of article 122 of Law 599 of 2000 “by means of the which, the Criminal Code is issued”, in the sense that the conduct of abortion provided for therein will only be punishable when it is carried out after the twenty-fourth (24) week of gestation and, in any case, this time limit will not be applicable to the three assumptions established in Judgment C-355 of 2006”, reads the statement issued by the High Court.

………

PLEASE FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:

FACEBOOK:

News RPTV

TWITTER:

@newsrptv

INSTAGRAM:

@news_rptv

MANAGING DIRECTOR

Rafael Poveda

CO-ADDRESS

Daniel Munoz

EDITORIAL COORDINATOR

Jair Diaz

Karen Daz

REDACTION BOSS

Camilo Andres Alvarez Perez

2021

post navigation

Cali: Court does not annul decree that opened dialogue with the front line - Cali - Colombia

Criticism and demands against the authorities rained down on the strike. The Administrative Court of the Valley He had two pronouncements.

one about the validity of Decree 0304 that institutionalized social dialogue in Cali. The review was requested by the Government of the Valley.

The other sentence refers to a Popular action in which the use of weapons was requested in the face of the strike.

The Court urged the Presidency, Government and Mayors to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human rights.

The Regional Strike Committee is urged to refrain from future protests that affect collective rights to safety and health or the rights of citizenship.

(Read in context: Tutela halts suspension of dialogue decree with Resistencias Cali)

During the national strike, criticism and some demands rained down on the Mayor’s Offices of Cali, Yumbo, Jamundí, Palmira, and Candelaria, the Government of Valle and the Presidency.

The government of the capital of the department questioned its decree to open dialogue with the so-called First Line in that protest.

The Administrative Court of the Valley issued two pronouncements, informed the Administrative Department of Public Legal Management of Cali.

One ruling was on the declaration of validity of Decree 0304 that institutionalized social dialogue in the District. The review was requested by the Government of the Valley.

The Legal Director of the Mayor’s Office, María del Pilar Cano, said that “after a judicious analysis of the Mayor’s competence, The Court maintains the thesis that the Decree under review does not recognize the First Line social movement as Personería.

(You may be interested in: Controversy over another motorcyclist who runs over a traffic guard in Cali)

Lawyer Maria del Pilar Cano, Legal Director of the Mayor’s Office of Cali.

“The Mayor does not limit the intervention of the Police, Esmad, to scenarios outside the points of resistance. The limit is to the environment where peaceful public demonstrations take place and derives properly from the Political Constitution, for which the district governor replied that mandate in the exercise of his police power, in addition to the fact that there is no limitation to the preferential competence of the national leaders. and departmental,” said Cano.

The lawyer says that the ruling states that “the channel for safeguarding lives promotes the defense of Human Rights does not replace or displace the competence and responsibilities of the administrative judicial authorities, which are responsible for advancing legal competences. On the contrary, it adds citizen control and reiterates institutional control in favor of the transparency of actions and procedures, which is part of the democratic principle”.

“With this ruling we have to say that the high courts are already recognizing that dialogue is the way forward. The institutionalization of dialogue by the mayor’s office is what allowed the institutionality to be maintained and lift all the blockades that were made in 2021”, the lawyer said.

(You can also read: In Cali they are looking for adopters for cart horses)

Faced with the Popular Action, the Contentious Administrative Court of the Valley declares that the phenomenon of current lack of object by fact is configured
overcome.

That Action, requested by lawyers and accountants, alluded to the events on the occasion of the national strike of April 28. They requested the use of public force, militarization and the use of weapons to end the protests of the social outbreak in 2021.

Mobilization during strike in Cali

Photo:

Archive
/ TIME

Before the Court, the defendant entities, the Presidency of the Republic, the Department of Valle del Cauca, the National Protection Unit, the Ministry of the Interior, the Municipality of Candelaria, the Municipality of Palmira, Jamundí and the Special District of Cali, presented their arguments in the answer. of the demand, pointing out the importance of dialogue and agreement, as well as the measures that were taken to lift the blockades.

The Court, in the order, says that the omission or delay in acting by the highest authorities of the territorial entities “who did not immediately exercise their constitutional, legal and regulatory powers and specifically omitted the effective material police activity that prevented the destruction of the public assets and fiscal assets of the Department, the municipalities and the city of
Cali, affecting fundamental rights of the population (life, work,
locomotion, dignity, health, education, among others)”

The entities involved will be exhorted to comply, as is their duty, with the recommendations of the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Providence says that “The affected entities will be exhorted to comply, as is their duty, with the recommendations given in the report submitted by the Office in Colombia of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights “Document Lessons Learned, National Strike Colombia, 2021Juliette de Rivero, Representative of the High Commissioner”57 and by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the report called “Observations and recommendations Visit: June 2021 Working visit to Colombia”, in addition to “Investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish, in accordance with the guarantees of due process, those responsible for the crimes committed within the framework of
the protests.”

The Court urges “the members of the Regional Unemployment Committee, made up of
the delegates of the labor centrals, Fecodem Cric and student leaders who “refrain from future protests from public expressions that encourage behavior that affects the collective rights to security and public health or the fundamental rights of citizens in general”.

(We suggest you read: Delays in the port of Buenaventura due to hacking of the Invima page)

The Legal Director of the Mayor’s Office says that “legitimate solutions were sought to reinforce trust in the institutions because they were not talking with groups outside the law, but with young people, some university students who have not been able to continue their studies, high school graduates, young unemployed, who have not had access to education or a formal job and had a lot to say”

The official said that the provision mentions that was the only city that began the path of dialogue, highlighting in its sentence, recognitions that the United Nations Organization (UN) made in this regard to the mayor’s office that insisted, says the providence, on prioritizing social dialogue as a response to the persistent protests. It must be specified that if the Court comes and says that we did it late, the truth is that the issuance of the decree, although it was on May 31, was the product of a process that began from the very dawn of the protests.

Cano stressed that “it is recognized that the path that the Special District began to travel is the one that is consistent with the institutional and legal order, it is the one that is consistent with respect for life, emphasizing that dialogue is the path.”

Read more news from Colombia

With a silencer they would have murdered a couple in Cali

Biden Visits Ohio to Tout Infrastructure Investments, Court Voters

Lorain, Ohio — 

President Joe Biden on Thursday visited a small, deindustrialized Ohio steel town to tout his ambitious multi-trillion-dollar proposed spending plan, to announce a $1 billion initiative for environmental cleanup and restoration, and to court voters in a crucial state ahead of this year’s tightly contested midterm elections.

“Today, we’re announcing an investment of $1 billion — $1 billion — from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill,” he said, speaking to about 60 invited guests, including members of Congress, local elected officials and labor leaders at a shipyard in the lakeside town of Lorain, Ohio.

“It’s going to allow the most significant restoration of the Great Lakes in the history of the Great Lakes. We’re going to accelerate cleanup of sites across six states in the Great Lakes Basin — from Duluth, Minnesota, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Gary, Indiana, to Buffalo, New York, and everywhere in between,” Biden said.

Lorain is a town of about 65,000 people whose moribund main street runs straight into Lake Erie. The town was hit hard by the decline of American manufacturing. Yet both of Biden’s predecessors have made a point of visiting the once-bustling steel town to tout their accomplishments and to court voters. This corner of America is especially important this year, as swing-state Ohio will see the retirement of Republican Senator Rob Portman.

Or, as former President Donald Trump put it when he visited a nearby town in June for his first post-presidential rally: “Next year, the Republican red wave is going to begin right here,” Trump told the crowd at the Lorain County Fairgrounds, which is in the nearby town of Wellington. “We will fight for more jobs for Ohio families, fair trade for Ohio workers, and more Ohio factories forging more products stamped with that beautiful, beautiful phrase, ‘Made in the U.S.A.'”

FILE – Rep Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, speaks on Capitol Hill, July 29, 2020.

And a small corner of southern Lorain is represented by one of Biden’s harshest critics, Republican U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, who voted against Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill. His opposition to the bill echoes that of many in his party.

“Democrats’ economic plan is basically the dumbest plan in history because it is ‘lock down the economy, spend like crazy, pay people not to work, and oh, for everyone who has been working, we’re now going to raise your taxes,'” he said shortly after the bill passed late last year.

Environmental advocates praised the expenditure — and Biden’s choice to visit the area to talk about it.

“The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is clear that these are the types of environmental remediation projects that the $1.2 trillion should be used for,” said Steve Cochran, associate vice president of state affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund. “The President is making it a priority, which shows that the solutions are not only important but have broad support in the region and for these constituencies. Given the problems in the Great Lakes, and how much the communities depend on them, this is an excellent use of resources.”

Bipartisan observers agree.

“The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a significant achievement. It makes political sense to barnstorm the country touting it,” said Andy Winkler, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center. “But there’s also real value in these visits. The U.S. needs to make transformational investments in infrastructure to address climate change and stay economically competitive. To the extent the administration can, it must encourage state and local officials to take advantage of every resource the law offers and invest wisely.”

But, Winkler added: “President Biden should visit red states and blue states alike, in places he won and places he didn’t, to meet with Republicans and Democrats and explain why the bill was a significant bipartisan achievement and a win for the country.”

President Joe Biden speaks with the press before boarding Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House, Feb. 17, 2022, in Washington.

Biden, who said his priority taking office was to bring unity to this divided nation, evoked that in Lorain by mentioning the town’s most famous daughter, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison. In her seminal novel, “Beloved,” she wrote: “Me and you, we got more yesterday than anybody. We need some kind of tomorrow.”

“Places like Lorain have a lot of proud yesterdays,” Biden said. “Now you’re going to have some brighter tomorrows — and because of all of you.”

RFE/RL seeks hearing from European Court of Human Rights in its priority case against Russia – USAGM

RFE/RL seeks hearing from European Court of Human Rights in its priority case against Russia

February 17, 2022

Washington, D.C. — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Moscow Bureau (RFE/RL) and its general director, Andrey Shary, filed their final written submission with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on February 9, asking the Court for a hearing to consider the merits. The brief was submitted in response to the Russian government’s “Written Observations” on RFE/RL’s legal case challenging Russia’s “foreign agent” laws, which have resulted in fines worth millions of dollars being imposed on the bureau and Mr. Shary since January 2021.

In their brief, RFE/RL has maintained its argument that Russia’s “foreign agent” content-labeling law and associated fines violate the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Russia is legally bound to uphold. RFE/RL also updated the Court on the worsening climate for its journalists in Russia, as evidenced by the addition of numerous reporters to the registry of “foreign agents,” the issuance of more than 70 demands from Russia’s media regulator that RFE/RL delete from its websites articles about investigations by Alexey Navalny’s organization, and a legally groundless judgment against RFE/RL for accurately reporting on Marshal Georgy Zhukov’s recommendation during World War II that surrendering soldiers and their families be threatened with execution.

RFE/RL President Jamie Fly said, “The Kremlin, in its effort to exert complete information control over the Russian public, is attempting to criminalize journalism and smear individual Russian journalists as traitors. We urge the European Court of Human Rights to consider and rule on the legality of the ‘foreign agent’ laws which are threatening the fundamental human rights of our journalists and every single Russian citizen.”

On June 17, 2021, the ECHR granted the RFE/RL case “priority” status – which it reserves for the most important, serious, and urgent cases – within a month of its submission, and formally communicated its acceptance to the government of Russia. Russia filed its “Written Observations” in response to the case this past November.

Since January 2021, Russian regulators have issued more than one thousand administrative cases against RFE/RL and Mr. Shary in the Russian courts, carrying fines that may total $13.4 million (RUB 1 billion). Russian court bailiffs visited RFE/RL’s Moscow bureau twice to notify the organization about enforcement proceedings for the fines arising from RFE/RL’s refusal to label its content. RFE/RL’s Russian bank accounts were frozen by court order in May 2021. RFE/RL has appealed hundreds of cases, but not a single court has upheld RFE/RL’s legal challenges or decreased the levels of fines imposed by Roskomnadzor.

Since 2017, when Russia expanded its controversial “foreign agent” laws to include media outlets, nine of RFE/RL’s news outlets have been designated “foreign agents” by the Russian Ministry of Justice, as have eighteen freelance journalists associated with RFE/RL. The law on “foreign agents” has been condemned by EU High Commissioner Josep Borrell, the European Parliament, the U.S. Department of State, and other international bodies as an infringement of fundamental freedoms.

RFE/RL is represented in the European Court of Human Rights by English barristers Can Yeginsu and Ian McDonald, instructed by the international law firm, Covington & Burling LLP.

Court revokes registration of governors of the Arhuaco people in Cesar - Other Cities - Colombia

The Plenary Chamber of the Constitutional Court revoked the provisional measure regarding the registration of the three governing councils of the indigenous people of Nabusimake, jurisdiction of Pueblo Bello (Cesar).

The imposition of the measure obeys a judgment of first instance of the protection action filed by José María Arroyo Izquierdo against the Directorate of Indigenous Affairs, Roma and Minorities and Zarwawiko Torres Torres, in the case related to the governance of Nabusímake.

(Also: Controversy in Cartagena over the suspension of the PAE due to an increase in food prices)

He also stressed that he maintains the suspension of the registration as governor of Zarwawiko Torres Torres.

Spaces for dialogue between the parties to the conflict

The Court should have declared itself incompetent to continue hearing this matter and lift the provisional measures adopted…

The court explained that this decision will facilitate spaces for dialogue between the parties in conflict, which will allow the community of the Arhuaco people resume control of its governance in this area.

“Especially the older mamos, who can dialogue and choose, according to the law of origin, the governing council, and adopt the necessary measures to recover governability,” the plenary hall stressed in a statement.

(We invite you to read: ‘Gustavo Petro has already reached its historic electoral ceiling’: Andrés Pastrana)

Judge José Fernando Reyes Cuartas, who partially saved his vote, argued that the object of protection is limited to a conflict of an electoral nature typical of indigenous or tribal governmental autonomy.

He explained that these peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures, including their own justice systems.

“In that sense, the Court should have declared itself incompetent to continue hearing this matter and lift the provisional measures adopted, since its intervention has exposed the rights of self-affirmation, self-definition and self-limitation,” the magistrate stressed.

Conflict in the Arhuaco people

They did all the dark work to say that August was a general assembly of the Arhuaco people, where only 19 communities from the 60 recognized settlements attended…

This community is still in debate, due to an internal confrontation in the Arhuaco people after the election of Zarwawiko Torres Torres as governor council of the Arhuaco people, during the emergency presented by covid-19.

Authorities of the Arhuaco people argue that there were alleged irregularities in the process of their election.

(Also: 69 percent of the population in Sincelejo have both anti-covid vaccines)

“Some ill-intentioned people took advantage of the closure of entry and exit of people, decreed since March 2020. They did all the dark work to say that August was a general assembly of the Arhuaco people, where only 19 communities attended. of the 60 settlements recognized by U’munukunu-Nabusímake”, the Tayrona indigenous confederation (CIT) stressed in a statement.

Ludys Ovalle Jacome
Special for Weather
Valledupar

More news in Colombia

Eight bodies that would be disappeared were recovered in the Urrao cemetery

Abstentionism in elections, a challenge in Antioquia

Decision on Iran Nuclear Deal Days Away; Ball in Tehran's court

France on Wednesday said a decision on salvaging Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers was just days away and that it was now up to Tehran to make the political choice.

Indirect talks between Iran and the United States on reviving the tattered agreement resumed last week after a 10-day hiatus and officials from the other parties to the accord – Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia – have shuttled between the two sides as they seek to close gaps.

Western diplomats previously indicated they hoped to have a breakthrough by now, but tough issues remain unresolved. Iran has rejected any deadline imposed by Western powers.

“We have reached tipping point now. It’s not a matter of weeks, it’s a matter of days,” French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told parliament, adding that the Western powers, Russia and China were in accord on the outlines of the accord.
“Political decisions are needed from the Iranians. Either they trigger a serious crisis in the coming days, or they accept the agreement which respects the interests of all parties.”

Several other sources tracking the talks said that the next couple of days would be crucial in determining whether there was a way to revive the agreement.

The agreement began to unravel in 2018 when then-President Donald Trump withdrew the United States and reimposed broad economic sanctions on Iran, which then began breaching the deal’s limits on its uranium enrichment activity a year later.

Diplomats and analysts say the longer Iran remains outside the deal, the more nuclear expertise it will gain, shortening the time it might need to race to build a bomb if it chose to, thereby vitiating the accord’s original purpose. Tehran denies it has ever sought to develop nuclear arms.

Western diplomats say they are now in the final phase of the talks and believe that a deal is within reach.

‘Moment of Truth’

“We are coming to the moment of truth. If we want Iran to respect its (nuclear) non-proliferation commitments and in exchange for the United States to lift sanctions, there has to be something left to do it,” Le Drian said.

Iran’s foreign ministry said on Monday it was “in a hurry” to strike a new deal as long as its national interests were protected and that restoring the pact required “political decisions by the West.”

Ali Shamkhani, hardline secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, underlined Iranian wariness by saying on Wednesday that the 2015 accord had become economically worthless for Iran and he blamed the United States and European powers.

“The United States and Europe failed to meet their obligations under the (deal). The deal has now become an empty shell for Iran in the economic sphere and the lifting of sanctions. There will be no negotiations beyond the nuclear deal with a non-compliant America and a passive Europe,” he tweeted.

China’s envoy to the talks said on Wednesday Iran was being constructive by putting everything on the table in response to U.S. approaches. “They have not only adopted this straightforward approach but also made a political decision based on give and take,” Wang Qun told Reuters.

Bones of contention remain Iran’s demand for a U.S. guarantee of no more sanctions or other punitive steps in future, and how and when to restore verifiable restrictions on Tehran’s nuclear activity.

The agreement curbed Iran’s enrichment of uranium to make it harder for Tehran to develop material for nuclear weapons, in return for a lifting of international sanctions.

The Islamic Republic has since rebuilt stockpiles of enriched uranium, refining it to higher fissile purity, close to weapons-grade, and installed advanced centrifuges to speed up enrichment.

Supreme Court Sides With GOP in Alabama Election Map Case

Washington — 

The Supreme Court on Monday put on hold a lower court ruling that Alabama must draw new congressional districts before the 2022 elections to increase Black voting power. The high court order boosts Republican chances to hold six of the state’s seven seats in the House of Representatives.

The court’s action, by a 5-4 vote, means the upcoming elections will be conducted under a map drawn by Alabama’s Republican-controlled legislature that contains one majority-Black district, represented by a Black Democrat, in a state in which more than a quarter of the population is Black.

A three-judge lower court, including two judges appointed by former President Donald Trump, had ruled that the state had likely violated the federal Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters by not creating a second district in which they made up a majority, or close to it.

Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, part of the conservative majority, said the lower court acted too close to the 2022 election cycle.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined his three more liberal colleagues in dissent.

The justices will at some later date decide whether the map produced by the state violates the landmark voting rights law, a case that could call into question “decades of this Court’s precedent about Section 2 of the VRA,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent.

That decision presumably will govern elections in 2024 through the end of the decade in Alabama and could affect minority political representation elsewhere in the country, too.

Alabama lawmakers redrew the state’s congressional districts following the results of the 2020 census. Several groups of voters sued, arguing that the new maps diluted the voting power of Black residents.

In a unanimous ruling in late January, the three judges said that the groups were likely to succeed in showing that the state had violated the Voting Rights Act. As a result, the panel ordered lawmakers to redraw the districts so Black voters would be a majority, or close to it, in two districts, not one. The ruling ran more than 200 pages.

The panel wrote that “we do not regard the question … as a close one.”

Alabama asked the Supreme Court to put the ruling on hold while it appeals, and the justices agreed. The state argued that it drew the new map guided by race-neutral principles and that the new map is similar to past maps.

More than a dozen mostly Republican-led states had filed a brief urging the justices to side with Alabama and allow it to use the maps it originally drew.

Deuel Ross, a lawyer for Alabamians who sued, called the state’s congressional districts “a textbook case of a Voting Rights Act violation” and said the high court’s decision to intervene is disheartening.

The facts are clear, Ross, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, wrote in an email to The Associated Press. “Alabama’s current congressional map violates the Voting Rights Act,” he said. “The litigation will continue, and we are confident that Black Alabamians will eventually have the congressional map they deserve — one that fairly represents all voters.”

Roberts, who typically votes against consideration of race, wrote that he shares some of Alabama’s concerns, but still would have let the redrawn districts govern the 2022 election and have future elections governed by the ultimate outcome in the case.

Kavanaugh, writing to explain his vote, stressed that the court has repeatedly declined in the past to change the rules close to an election.

“When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road must be clear and settled. Late judicial tinkering with election laws can lead to disruption and to unanticipated and unfair consequences for candidates, political parties, and voters, among others. It is one thing for a State on its own to toy with its election laws close to a State’s elections. But it is quite another thing for a federal court to swoop in and re-do a State’s election laws in the period close to an election,” he wrote in an opinion Alito joined.

Taking issue with Kavanaugh, Kagan noted that the lower court ruled months before any votes will be cast.

She criticized the conservatives for using the emergency application process known as the shadow docket “to signal or make changes in the law, without anything approaching full briefing and argument.”

Media Asks Court to Ensure Access to Trial Over Floyd Death

A coalition of media organizations has asked a federal appeals court to intervene to ensure public access to the trial of three former Minneapolis police officers charged with violating George Floyd’s civil rights.

The news organizations, including The Associated Press, petitioned the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday to quash two orders from District Judge Paul Magnuson that they say violated the First Amendment by closing part of the trial and sealing the corresponding transcript.

Monday was the start of the second week of testimony in the trial, which Magnuson has said could last four weeks.

“Petitioners do not need to explain to this Court the gravity of the trial, the impact Mr. Floyd’s death had on the Twin Cities and the world, or the public’s ongoing and intense concern for how the criminal justice system deals with those accused of killing him,” media coalition attorney Leita Walker wrote. “As a result, ensuring the trial is fully open to the press and public is imperative.”

At issue is Magnuson’s closure of a hearing that he planned for January 21 on defense motions to exclude certain evidence. Prosecutors and the media coalition objected to the closure.

Walker wrote that the judge appeared to cancel the hearing, but then held what was first called a “trial management conference” that the court later labeled an “in-chambers proceeding.”

Both were conducted in private.

Magnuson rejected the media coalition’s challenge of the closure as “moot” after he canceled it.

In a written order after he was asked to reconsider, he stood by his earlier decision, writing that the proceeding in chambers “was not a hearing at all” and that neither the public nor media had a right to access it.

He also sealed the proceeding’s transcript, which he said was brief and of no import. Its release would be “contrary to the efficient administration of justice in this matter,” Magnuson wrote.

The coalition asked the 8th Circuit to vacate the closure order and unseal the transcript. The news organizations also repeated concerns they’ve been raising about restrictions on journalists and spectators in the courtroom that are meant to reduce the risks of a COVID-19 outbreak disrupting the proceedings.