Categories
Health

Abortion ban launched by Lindsey Graham after Supreme Court docket Roe ruling

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham introduced legislation on Tuesday that would ban most abortions nationwide after the 15th week of pregnancy.

The South Carolina senator introduced the bill less than three months after the Supreme Court ruled Roe v. Wade, overturned the landmark ruling that established the constitutional right to abortion. The measure would severely limit access to abortion in numerous states — particularly blue states, which tend to have more protections from abortion rights.

The law, as it stands, has little chance of passing Congress as Democrats hold narrow majorities in both the House and Senate.

It comes ahead of the crucial midterm elections in November, which have cast doubt on expectations of a Republican defeat as evidence mounts that Roe’s reversal has roiled Democratic voters. Abortion rights advocates have warned that a GOP takeover of Congress would erode women’s rights, and many were quick to tout Graham’s bill as a prime example.

Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Republican who would decide whether to vote on a statewide abortion ban if the GOP wins the chamber in November, was reluctant to pass Graham’s bill.

“I think most members of my conference would prefer this to be dealt with at the state level,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon. Other GOP senators have offered mixed messages on the bill.

While the title of Graham’s bill suggests it would only ban “late” abortions, it would limit the procedure nationwide after less than four months of pregnancy, a threshold that falls in the second trimester.

According to the health policy non-profit KFF, abortions are typically considered “late date” from the 21st week of pregnancy. However, the organization notes that this term is not an official medical term and that abortions at this stage are rarely sought and difficult to achieve.

The 15-week boundary precedes the point of fetal viability, which is generally considered to be around 24 weeks gestation. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe that women have the right to have a pre-viability abortion, and after that point states can begin to impose restrictions.

In June’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, another abortion-right case. The ruling by a court that had become much more conservative after nominating three of former President Donald Trump’s nominees gave individual states the power to set their abortion policies.

Numerous Republican-leaning states have immediately sought outright bans on abortion, while many Democratic leaders have attempted to enshrine safeguards over the procedure.

Graham, a close Trump ally, had previously expressed his support for states making their own abortion laws. “This is, in my view, the most constitutionally sane way to deal with this issue and the way the United States handled this issue up until 1973,” Graham tweeted in May.

But Graham has also introduced legislation to limit abortion nationally – although his 2021 bill would have banned abortion after 20 weeks, instead of the 15-week limit in the current version.

“Abortion is a controversial issue. After Dobbs, America has a choice to make,” Graham said at a Tuesday news conference unveiling the new legislation.

“States have an opportunity to do this at the state level, and we have an opportunity in Washington to speak on this issue if we choose to,” he said. “I have decided to speak.”

By the 15-week mark, Graham said, the fetus has developed enough to feel pain from an abortion. After that, his bill would no longer allow abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the mother’s life. “And that should be America,” the senator said.

Flanking Graham was the leaders of several anti-abortion groups, including Pro-Life America President Susan B. Anthony, Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“This is incredible progress, but much more needs to be done,” Dannenfelser said in a statement.

The White House slammed Graham in a statement later Tuesday, calling the bill “wildly inconsistent with what Americans believe” and touting the Biden administration’s legislative goals while accusing Republicans of “spending millions of… taking away women’s rights”.

Abortion rights groups echoed this sentiment but tied the issue directly to the midterm elections.

“Republicans in Congress for anti-abortion rights are showing us exactly what they intend to do when they come to power: pass a national ban on abortion,” Alexis McGill Johnson, CEO of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement.

“We want to thank Senator Graham for making it clear to voters today that Republicans are pursuing a national abortion ban in this midterm election,” said Dani Negrete, national political director for progressive advocacy group Indivisible.

Polls show attitudes toward abortion are shifting toward the pro-choice position after the Dobbs ruling. Some Republican candidates who previously took tough positions on abortion during the GOP primaries have softened or toned down their views as they run in general elections.

Democratic candidates such as Pennsylvania Senate nominee John Fetterman have addressed the issue.

“Dr. Oz has made it *very* clear that he wants to take women’s reproductive freedom away,” Fetterman tweeted Tuesday of Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz. “As the GOP introduces a national abortion ban, it’s now more important than ever that we stop it in November.”

Categories
Politics

Texas abortion legislation in impact as Supreme Courtroom makes no transfer to dam it

Pedestrians walk past the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, United States on Sunday, June 20, 2021.

Stefani Reynolds | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A Texas law banning most abortions went into effect Wednesday after the Supreme Court failed to respond to an urgency complaint to block its enforcement.

A group of abortion providers and advocates, including Planned Parenthood, had asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block enforcement of the law that would ban most abortions as early as six weeks of gestation.

The petitioners say the law would set Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that enshrined women’s right to abortion, essentially overturning it.

In response, a group of Texas officials, including Attorney General Ken Paxton, urged the Supreme Court to reject their opponents’ offer to thwart the law, calling the request “bold”.

SB 8 was enacted in May by Republican Governor Greg Abbott. It prohibits doctors from performing or having abortions after they “detect a fetal heartbeat in the unborn child” except in medical emergencies.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

The law prohibits state officials from enforcing these rules. Rather, it empowers anyone to bring civil actions against anyone who performs abortions or “helps or assists” them after a heartbeat is detected. These lawsuits can earn a minimum of $ 10,000 in “legal damages” per abortion.

If it went into effect, the bill would “immediately and catastrophically restrict access to abortion in Texas, ban the care of at least 85% of abortion patients in Texas,” and likely force many providers to shut down, the urgency motion filed Monday said .

This motion was filed directly with Conservative Judge Samuel Alito, who is handling inquiries from the Lone Star State. It was filed days after a lower appeals court refused to block implementation of the law.

Alito had asked respondents to respond to the appeal by 5 p.m. ET Tuesday.

“In less than two days, Texan politicians will have effectively overthrown Roe v. Wade,” said Nancy Northup, CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose organization helped the Supreme Court filing the motion, in a statement Monday.

The Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority of 6: 3 after the administration of former President Donald Trump, is already supposed to hear arguments in a potentially decisive abortion case from Mississippi. This state has urged judges to reconsider existing precedents preventing states from banning abortions that occur before the fetus is viable.

This is the evolution of news. Please check again for updates.

– CNBC’s Christine Wang contributed to this report.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket refuses to dam development of Obama library in Chicago

US President Barack Obama waves after his speech at the SelectUSA Investment Summit March 23, 2015 in National Harbor, Maryland.

Alex Wong | Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected an advocacy initiative to temporarily halt construction of the Barack Obama Presidential Center in a Chicago park.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, an agent of former President Donald Trump in charge of Midwestern affairs, denied the application for a restraining order without referring the case to the nine-member court.

The Chicago-based nonprofit Protect Our Parks and some local residents argued that the $ 700 million library would have “serious environmental impacts” for Jackson Park on the South Side of Chicago.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

They said in the petition that the “deliberate act” will destroy at least 800 trees and that it will have “significant effects on migratory birds and their nesting practices,” adding more “dust, noise and a deterioration in air quality, which is public health endangered in the surrounding community. “

“Once these trees are felled, there is no going back,” said the group.

They also complained that the government bypassed the necessary regulatory reviews and illegally split the project in two to avoid considering alternative locations for the park.

“During all public hearings, government agencies cordoned off anyone who tried to address them about avoidance and mitigation issues,” the petition reads.

They directly called on Barrett to freeze “further groundbreaking construction and excavation activities” and “tree felling” in the park pending an appeal against a rejection by a lower court last week.

Her emergency request required a response by Monday, when construction of the presidential center was due to begin.

Barrett’s rejection was not accompanied by any text or explanation.

Categories
Politics

Capitol Hill bomb menace defendant Floyd Ray Roseberry in courtroom

A man named Floyd Ray Roseberry, who claims to be in his truck with explosives, speaks during a Facebook livestream in a still from a video that was captured in Washington on August 19, 2021.

Social media | via Reuters

The North Carolina man, who announced he had a bomb in his truck parked on Capitol Hill, was charged Friday on threats with the use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted use of an explosive device.

The man, Floyd Ray Roseberry, was arrested without bail pending a medical examination of the defendant at a hearing in the US District Court in Washington, DC.

Judge Zia Faruqui ordered the assessment after Roseberry said it was difficult to understand the trial as he had been denied blood pressure medication and “my mental medicine” since he was handed over to police on Thursday.

“My memory is not that good, sir,” said Roseberry via audio link during the remote performance.

“We don’t need to be eye to eye,” Roseberry said at one point, referring to the lack of physical presence or video. “I can tell by your voice that you are a good man … I am ready to do whatever is asked.”

Roseberry, who said he was 51 years old despite authorities said he was 49, was appointed federal defender by Faruqui.

He’s next on trial on Wednesday. Roseberry faces the highest possible life imprisonment if convicted of weapons of mass destruction.

Prosecutors said they would ask Faruqui to hold him pending trial without bail.

Roseberry’s threat resulted in the evacuation of buildings including the Supreme Court, the Library of Congress, the Cannon House office building and the offices of the Republican National Committee.

Roseberry parked a pickup truck on a sidewalk in front of the library Thursday morning.

He then told police officers that he had a bomb inside, which set off an hour-long stalemate that resulted in him surrendering peacefully.

Floyd Ray Roseberry sits in his pickup truck in a standoff with the Capitol Police outside the Library of Congress in Washington DC on August 19, 2021

Photo: Sydney Bobb

Before giving up, the Grover, North Carolina man posted videos of his truck on Facebook speaking directly to President Joe Biden, whose resignation he called for when he called for a revolution.

He also called for US air strikes on the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Roseberry claimed in a video that he had a barrel of gunpowder and more than two pounds of the explosive tannerite in the truck. He also suggested that there were four more bombs in the DC area.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

Categories
Politics

Garland Meets With State Supreme Courtroom Justices on Evictions Freeze

Biden administration officials, worried that a new freeze on evictions might be struck down in federal court — and racing to prevent a national crisis — are increasingly turning to state courts to help deliver billions in federal housing aid.

On Wednesday, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland held a virtual meeting with 35 state Supreme Court justices in an effort to encourage them to use every tool at their disposal to avert or delay evictions by ensuring landlords and tenants have access to a $47 billion fund allocated by Congress.

Only about $3 billion of that cash — roughly 7 percent — had been allocated by June 30, according to the Treasury Department, which oversees the program.

“State courts are on the front lines of this crisis,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who has been overseeing the department’s efforts on evictions.

The effort to pay off back rent accrued during the pandemic has been hampered by resistance among some owners, who would rather evict nonpaying tenants than wait for federal payments, and sluggish efforts by states to create an infrastructure to distribute the largest allocation of housing funding in generations.

White House officials cited the need to buy more time for the aid program, along with public health concerns stemming from the Delta variant of the coronavirus, in drafting the new moratorium after the old one expired on July 31.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Mr. Garland cited several state initiatives as models for localities to follow, including an order by Michigan’s State Supreme Court requiring courts to stay eviction proceedings for up to 45 days to allow tenants to complete applications for rental assistance, according to Justice Department officials.

Another effort Mr. Garland singled for praise was a directive by the Republican-controlled Supreme Court in Texas, which modified notices sent to tenants who are sued for eviction to make sure they are aware of the benefits.

The state’s judicial training center also created instructions for local justices of the peace to divert landlords to the federal aid program whenever possible. That move, coupled with a joint federal-state effort to simplify application forms, is already showing some results, said Chief Justice Nathan Hecht.

“I’ve been on the bench for 40 years, and to tell the truth, judges historically did not see these kinds of programs as having anything to do with them, but that is changing,” Chief Justice Hecht said in an interview.

“The key to the whole thing is that the application process has got to be easy, it’s got to be simple,” he added. “Landlords are frustrated, and tenants are facing the streets, and overall it’s a very tense time. So, we can’t be telling people it’s going to take six weeks to get your money.”

In addition to pressuring Mr. Garland to help speed the checks, the justices asked federal officials to prioritize the role of the judiciary in all aid programs — to allow state courts to more easily tap into relief money to hire landlord-tenant mediators and navigators to assist tenants who cannot afford counsel to understand their rights in court.

Categories
Politics

Courtroom Paperwork Establish Sailor Charged With Arson in Fireplace That Destroyed Ship

WASHINGTON — Investigators have identified the Navy sailor accused of starting a fire that engulfed the warship Bonhomme Richard and burned for days at a Navy base in San Diego last year.

The sailor, Ryan Sawyer Mays, 20, joined the service in May 2019 and holds the rank of seaman apprentice, according to Navy records. The Navy formally charged Seaman Mays with aggravated arson and hazarding a vessel last month but declined to provide additional details until federal search warrants were unsealed by a federal court in San Diego on Tuesday.

Documents filed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service describe a sailor who “hated” the Navy after being sent to a warship following a brief stint as a SEAL trainee in late 2019.

Seaman Mays quit the difficult six-month initial SEAL training course in Coronado, Calif., after just five days, according to the filing.

The fire, one of the worst to engulf an American warship outside combat, rendered the ship inoperative while it was pierside at the base. More than 400 sailors from 16 nearby ships fought the blaze, which reached temperatures of 1,000 degrees and took four days to extinguish.

A lawyer representing Seaman Mays said his client had “maintained his innocence throughout this entire ordeal.”

“He’s presumed innocent, and we look forward for the opportunity to review the evidence and presenting a case on his behalf,” the lawyer, Gary S. Barthel, said in an interview on Wednesday.

Seaman Mays, whose identity was reported earlier by The Daily Beast, was confined in a Navy brig from late August to approximately mid-October 2020 and then released, according to Mr. Barthel. It is unclear why the Navy freed Seaman Mays months before he was formally charged.

After his release from the brig, Seaman Mays reported to the staff of Amphibious Squadron 5 in San Diego, where he is currently assigned.

“He’s expected to perform his duties as he would any other day of the week as any other sailor would,” Mr. Barthel said of his client. “There are no restrictions on his movement.”

Mr. Barthel said his client voluntarily quit the SEAL program, and hopes to re-enter training in the future.

“I think he’d like to go back if given the opportunity, if he meets all the other qualifications,” Mr. Barthel said.

A spokesman for the Naval Special Warfare Command in Coronado, which oversees SEAL training, could not immediately confirm the details described by N.C.I.S.

Navy records show that Seaman Mays left the Naval Special Warfare training center on March 6, 2020, and reported to the Bonhomme Richard on March 23.

The N.C.I.S. report said that the Bonhomme Richard’s command master chief — the ship’s senior-most enlisted sailor and a top adviser to the commanding officer — described Seaman Mays as “a person who showed disdain towards authority and the U.S. Navy.” The report further noted that “the morale and behavior of sailors who had aspired to become a SEAL, and then find themselves serving in a more traditional role on a Navy ship, are frequently very challenging.”

Seaman Mays was assigned to the Bonhomme Richard’s Deck Division, which is responsible for maintaining the physical condition of the ship — a job often involving manual labor such as removing rust and painting.

The warship was undergoing an extended maintenance period and was moored when the blaze broke out on a Sunday morning, when fewer than 200 sailors were aboard. The unsealed documents said that Seaman Mays was on duty aboard the ship that day.

Navy officials deemed the 800-foot-long amphibious warship a total loss after repair estimates rose to more than $3 billion. The ship was decommissioned on April 14, and towed through the Panama Canal. It will be cut into scrap metal in Texas.

According to the N.C.I.S., a witness identified Seaman Mays as the only person who entered a vehicle storage area deep within the ship the morning of the fire, shortly before smoke was seen rising from that compartment. The report said that he may have left the storage area through an escape trunk and returned to his berthing area. A second sailor recalled Seaman Mays coming into the berthing area to “tell everyone to get off the ship because the ship was on fire.”

Seaman Mays filled out a questionnaire for investigators eight days after the fire broke out, and was the only member of the crew aboard the ship on July 12, 2020, who reported smelling a “burning fuel/rubbery smell” from the fire, the documents said. Investigators said the terminology Seaman Mays used to describe the smell of the fire was “consistent with items and materials” that special agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives found in the vehicle storage compartment after the fire was extinguished.

Seaman Mays faces a preliminary hearing known as an Article 32 investigation, the results of which will either recommend he be sent to a court-martial or have the charges dismissed. The final decision on whether Seaman Mays will face trial will be made by the commander of the Navy’s Third Fleet, Vice Adm. Steve Koehler.

Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a spokesman for Third Fleet, confirmed that “Seaman Apprentice Ryan Sawyer Mays is the sailor who was charged July 29,” and said, “I have nothing further to add.”

Seamus Hughes contributed research.

Categories
Politics

The case towards Tom Barrack may draw categorized materials into courtroom

Tom Barrack, chairman of Colony NorthStar Inc., speaks during a Bloomberg Television interview at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills, California, the United States, on Tuesday, May 1, 2018.

Patrick T. Fallon | Bloomberg | Getty Images

WASHINGTON – Tom Barrack’s attorneys have a big job given the volume and specificity of the evidence in the 45-page federal indictment filed against him last week.

Prosecutors allege that Barrack secretly took orders from the United Arab Emirates government and used his status as Trump’s informal White House advisor on Middle East strategy to enforce policies told by Emirati officials.

In a case where a co-defendant worked for the United Arab Emirates’ intelligence agency, and a sensitive issue like U.S. Middle East politics, experts say there could be several interesting avenues for defense.

For example, if Barrack’s lawyers argue that the White House knew he was working for the United Arab Emirates, the conversations Barrack had with US officials telling them who he worked for could contain classified information.

If so, chances are Barrack’s defenders are using a legal defense tactic called Graymail.

Graymail happens when the defense threatens to divulge government secret information during a trial in hopes of forcing the government to drop the case instead of risking disclosing potentially harmful state secrets.

Barrack’s lawyers did not respond to questions from CNBC about their strategy.

“It is entirely possible that the defense is threatening to divulge classified information in order to produce evidence [Barrack] did not act without the knowledge of anyone, “said a former top national security official who was granted anonymity to discuss how classified information is used.

To prevent defense lawyers from using graymail in national security cases, prosecutors typically tailor their strategy to avoid making classified information a relevant or necessary part of the defense.

Barrack, a longtime ally of former President Donald Trump, was charged along with Rashid Sultan Rashid Al Malik Alshahhi, an Emirati citizen with close ties to the royal family, and Matthew Grimes, a junior employee at Colony Capital, which founded Barrack.

Grimes and Barrack have pleaded not guilty. Al Malik is still at large.

Thomas Barrack, a billionaire friend of Donald Trump who ran the former President’s Inaugural Fund, stands next to his co-defendant and former employee Matthew Grimes and attorney Matt Herrington during their indictment at the Brooklyn Federal Courthouse in Brooklyn, New York, United States. July 26, 2021 in this court sketch.

Jane Rosenberg | Reuters

Odd timeline

The desire to avoid classified information could help explain a strange element of the formal indictment against Barrack: the timeline.

It appears to be carefully designed to keep suspected crimes within a certain time frame from April 2016 to October 2017.

After 18 months of almost constant communication between the three defendants, the last contact in the indictment was a text message on October 11, 2017.

The news suggests that at this point the three co-defendants were stepping up their efforts to influence the US response to a UAE-Saudi-led blockade of Qatar.

But whether Barrack and his co-defendants succeeded may never be publicly known, as the indictment ends abruptly with the October 11 news.

“It seems like they have some evidence afterward that they don’t want to surface because it may be relevant to these charges,” said the former National Security official.

According to the public prosecutor’s office, the entire conspiracy lasted two years, from April 2016 to April 2018.

However, the indictment does not describe what happened in the six months between October 2017 and April 2018.

However, even with careful planning by the prosecutor, there are still several defense strategies that could draw on classified information while staying within the current time window.

Back channels

Barrack’s attorneys could argue that he did not break the law prohibiting acting as a foreign agent in the United States without registering with the Justice Department because people in the Trump administration could know he was acting on orders from the UAE.

As Trump’s top campaign bundle and chairman of his founding committee, Barrack had access to key players in US Middle East politics. In the west wing, this was spearheaded by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

“Given Jared Kushner’s involvement in these and other high-level issues, it’s hard to believe that there was no conversation between Barrack and some people at that level about what he heard from the Emiratis,” said the former national Security guard.

If Barrack discussed his work on behalf of the United Arab Emirates with senior White House officials, his lawyers could argue that while Barrack did not officially register as an agent of the UAE as required by law, it was disclosed in a practical manner Has.

A spokesman for Kushner did not respond to questions about whether the two men had ever spoken about Barrack’s work.

However, the Trump administration’s preference to conduct foreign policy through informal back channels is well documented.

“I think the Trump administration has created new norms for communicating through the back rather than transparent and official channels,” said Michael Atkinson, inspector general of the intelligence community for 2018-20.

“We saw it with Russia and Ukraine, and there were allegations that it was done with China.”

Shortly after Trump’s election in 2016, Kushner tried to open a return channel for Trump to communicate privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A few months later, Kushner worked privately with China’s ambassador to arrange a summit meeting for Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping at Trump’s Palm Beach Resort.

In 2019, Trump was charged with pressuring the President of Ukraine to open a mock investigation into Trump’s political rival, then-candidate Joe Biden.

The proliferation of these unofficial channels made it difficult to know exactly what the Trump administration was saying to allies and opponents overseas at all times.

But that confusion could feed into another possible defense strategy for Barrack, said Atkinson, now a partner at Crowell & Moring.

Barrack’s attorneys “could argue that it did no harm because the interests of the United States and the United Arab Emirates coincide on these matters. So no harm, no foul,” he said.

“You might even try to argue that what these defendants did was in the best interests of the United States,” he said.

This is the argument Al Malik’s attorney Bill Coffield made to The Intercept in 2019. Coffield denied that his client was a spy but declined to answer specific questions.

Al Malik “is a businessman who loves the United Arab Emirates and the US,” Coffield said at the time. “He has openly shared his belief that the best way to forge stronger bonds is through economic prosperity.”

However, Atkinson is skeptical that this defense would work.

“This is not a viable defense under the law,” he said.

“Even in cases where the United States and a foreign country are pursuing the same goals, the government does not want people to sit in such meetings and not know that they are at the behest or direction of a foreign government.”

Categories
Politics

Appeals courtroom blocks CDC restrictions on cruises in win for Florida

The Royal Caribbean’s Odyssey of The Seas arrives at Port Everglades on June 10, 2021 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

Joe Raedle | Getty Images

A federal appeals court on Friday sided with Florida in its challenge against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention over federal regulations for cruise ships that the state said were too onerous and were costing it millions of dollars in foregone tax revenue.

The two-page ruling from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marks an unusual reversal from the appeals panel’s ruling in the matter delivered on Saturday.

The court did not explain the reason for the change, though the latest ruling came just hours after Florida brought the case to the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the 11th Circuit’s previous move. That action will likely be withdrawn now.

The CDC rules have hampered the cruise industry from returning fully to business amid the nation’s vaccine-driven recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. Early in the public health crisis, cruise lines were subject to a number of high-profile outbreaks. The industry was among the hardest hit by the coronavirus.

A federal district court in Florida sided with the state last month in response to a lawsuit filed by Ashley Moody, the Republican attorney general. Over the weekend, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted that decision, which allowed the CDC rules to remain in place.

The 11th Circuit decision on Saturday was made by a vote of 2-1. Friday’s decision was unanimous.

Shares of cruise lines Carnival Cruises, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise Line each fell further than the broader market following the release of the 11th Circuit decision on Monday.

On Friday afternoon, Moody brought the case to the Supreme Court in an emergency filing, asking the top court to reverse the appeals court’s decision.

“The CDC’s Order is manifestly beyond its authority, as the district court correctly concluded in preliminarily enjoining it,” Moody wrote in the filing.

Moody said that the CDC’s rules amount to an “an ever-changing array of requirements” that are posted to the agency’s website.

In addition, she wrote, the CDC rules require cruise lines to “establish COVID-19 testing laboratories, run self-funded experiments called ‘test voyages,’ and comply with social-distancing requirements throughout ships, including in outdoor areas like swimming pools and while waiting in line for the bathroom.”

Moody wrote that only five ships out of 65 subject to the CDC’s cruise rules had been approved to sail at the time the 11th Circuit issued its ruling. She wrote in the filing that the restrictions on cruises have cost Florida tens of millions of dollars in tax and port revenues. Without further action, the restrictions were set to remain in place until November 2021.

The CDC did not immediately return a request for comment.

The 11th Circuit decision comes as the nation is seeing a rise in Covid-19 cases, largely among individuals who have not been vaccinated, attributed to the highly transmissible delta variant.

Moody said Wednesday that she had contracted Covid-19 despite receiving a vaccine. In a post Friday on Twitter, Moody said she was still experiencing mild symptoms and encouraged people to get vaccinated.

Categories
Entertainment

A Timeline of Britney Spears’s Conservatorship Court docket Listening to

Ever since Britney Spears addressed a Los Angeles court about terminating her conservatorship on June 23, there have been a lot of important installments. In addition to finally hearing Britney’s side of the story and learning the heartbreaking and “abusive” treatment she has received over the past few years as a result of the conservatorship, a handful of Britney’s former costars, friends, and family have spoken out in support. Though the recent news that a judge has denied Britney’s request to remove her father, Jamie Spears, as her sole conservator is incredibly disappointing, it’s clear that her battle to end her conservatorship is not over yet. Read ahead for an official timeline of everything that has happened since Britney publicly spoke out against her conservatorship.

Categories
Politics

Supreme Court docket Justice Clarence Thomas says federal marijuana legal guidelines could also be outdated

Clarence Thomas, Assistant Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, listens during a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC, the United States, on Monday, October 26, 2020.

Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said Monday that federal laws against the sale and cultivation of marijuana are inconsistent, making a national ban unnecessary.

“A ban on the interstate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or appropriate to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” wrote Thomas, one of the court’s most conservative judges, in a statement.

The court’s decision not to hear a new case related to tax deductions alleged by a medical marijuana dispensary in Colorado prompted Thomas to issue a statement relating more broadly to federal marijuana laws.

Thomas stated that a 2005 judgment in the Gonzales v. Raich, which stated that the federal government could enforce the ban on marijuana possession, may be out of date.

“Federal policy over the past 16 years has severely undermined its rationale,” added Thomas. “The federal government’s current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that both tolerates and prohibits the local use of marijuana.”

Thomas referred to several guidelines that contradict the 2005 ruling. These include Justice Department memoranda from 2009 and 2013 stating that the government would not interfere with state marijuana legalization programs or prosecute individuals for marijuana activities if it was in accordance with state law.

He added that since 2015, Congress has repeatedly banned the Justice Department from using federal funds to meddle in the implementation of state medical marijuana laws.

“Given all these developments, one can understand why a normal person might think that the federal government has withdrawn from its once absolute ban on marijuana,” he wrote.

With 36 states allowing medical marijuana use and 18 recreational use, Thomas claimed marijuana companies do not experience “equal treatment” under the law.

The problem is a provision in tax law that prohibits companies that deal in marijuana and other controlled substances from deducting their business expenses. The IRS is cracking down on marijuana companies like the Colorado medical marijuana dispenser by conducting investigations into their tax deductions.

“Under this rule, a company that is still in the red after paying its workers and leaving the lights on could still owe a sizable federal income tax,” wrote Thomas.

The judiciary also found a consequence of the federal marijuana ban, stating that most marijuana companies operate entirely in cash due to restrictions preventing state financial institutions from providing banking services to these companies. This makes these companies more vulnerable to break-ins and robberies, according to Thomas.

All of these questions regarding federal marijuana laws threaten, Thomas argues, the principles of federalism.

“If the government is now satisfied with allowing states to ‘act as laboratories, then it may no longer have authority to enter the[t]The central police powers of the states. . . Define criminal law and protect the health, safety and wellbeing of its citizens, “said Thomas.

Legal experts like Joseph Bondy, a cannabis law expert on the board of directors of the National Organization for the Reform of Marihuana Laws, agreed with the judiciary’s testimony, predicting that arguments about the injustice of federal marijuana laws would continue. Law & Crime reported on Monday.

While Bondy noted that Thomas’ testimony may not have actual legal implications, he told Law & Crime that it was still “sending out a message that may temper the views of some people in Congress,” including “one of our Republican senators.” “