The Supreme Court on Thursday effectively ended a publicly funded Catholic charter school in Oklahoma, dividing 4-4.
The outcome keeps in place an Oklahoma court decision that invalidated a vote by a state charter school board to approve the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, which would have been the nation’s first religious charter school. But it leaves the issue unresolved nationally.
The one-sentence notice from the court provides an unsatisfying end to one of the term’s most closely watched cases. The Catholic Church in Oklahoma had wanted taxpayers to fund the online charter school “faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ.” Opponents warned that allowing it would blur the separation between church and state, sap money from public schools and possibly upend the rules governing charter schools in almost every state.
Only eight of the nine justices took part in the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett didn’t explain her absence, but she is good friends and used to teach with Notre Dame law professor Nicole Garnett, who has been an adviser to the school.
The issue could return to the high court in the future, with the prospect that all nine justices could participate. The court, following its custom, did not provide a breakdown of the votes. But during arguments last month, four conservative justices seemed likely to side with the school, while the three liberals seemed just as firmly on the other side.
That left Chief Justice John Roberts appearing to hold the key vote, and suggests he went with the liberals to make the outcome 4-4. The case came to the court amid efforts, mainly in conservative-led states, to insert religion into public schools. Those include a challenged Louisiana requirement that the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms and a mandate from Oklahoma’s state schools superintendent that the Bible be placed in public school classrooms.
St. Isidore, a K-12 online school, had planned to start classes for its first 200 enrollees last fall, with part of its mission to evangelize its students in the Catholic faith.
A key unresolved issue is whether the school is public or private. Charter schools are deemed public in Oklahoma and the other 45 states and the District of Columbia where they operate. North Dakota recently enacted legislation allowing for charter schools.
They are free and open to all, receive state funding, abide by antidiscrimination laws and submit to oversight of curriculum and testing. But they also are run by independent boards that are not part of local public school systems.
“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer. While the Supreme Court’s order is disappointing for educational freedom, the 4-4 decision does not set precedent, allowing the court to revisit this issue in the future,” said Jim Campbell, who argued the case at the high court on behalf of Oklahoma’s charter school board. Campbell is the chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that appears often at the court in cases on high-profile social issues.
On the other side, the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which are among groups representing parents and other opponents of the school in a separate lawsuit, applauded the outcome for preserving public education.
“The very idea of a religious public school is a constitutional oxymoron. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms that a religious school can’t be a public school and a public school can’t be religious,” said Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
Oklahoma officials also offered differing views.
Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt and state School Superintendent Ryan Walters said the fight is far from over. “There will be another case just like this one and Justice Barrett will break the tie,” Stitt said.
Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, sued to stop the school. He called the 4-4 vote “a resounding victory for religious liberty” that also will ensure that “Oklahoma taxpayers will not be forced to fund radical Islamic schools, while protecting the religious rights of families to choose any school they wish for their children.”
During arguments, Justice Samuel Alito said, “We have statement after statement by the attorney general that reeks of hostility toward Islam.”
Arizona prosecutors pressing the case against Republicans who are accused of trying to overturn the 2020 election results in President Donald Trump’s favor were dealt a setback when a judge ordered the case be sent back to a grand jury.
Arizona’s fake elector case remains alive after Friday’s ruling by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers, but it’s being sent back to the grand jurors to determine whether there’s probable cause that the defendants committed the crimes.
The decision, first reported by the Washington Post, centered on the Electoral Count Act, a law that governs the certification of a presidential contest and was part of the defendants’ claims they were acting lawfully.
While the law was discussed when the case was presented to the grand jury and the panel asked a witness about the law’s requirements, prosecutors didn’t show the statute’s language to the grand jury, Myers wrote. The judge said a prosecutor has a duty to tell grand jurors all the applicable law and concluded the defendants were denied “a substantial procedural right as guaranteed by Arizona law.”
Richie Taylor, a spokesperson for Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat whose office is pressing the case in court, said in a statement that prosecutors will appeal the decision. “We vehemently disagree with the court,” Taylor said.
Mel McDonald, a former county judge in metro Phoenix and former U.S. Attorney for Arizona, said courts send cases back to grand juries when prosecutors present misleading or incomplete evidence or didn’t properly instruct panel members on the law.
“They get granted at times. It’s not often,” said McDonald, who isn’t involved in the case.
In all, 18 Republicans were charged with forgery, fraud and conspiracy. The defendants consist of 11 Republicans who submitted a document falsely claiming Trump won Arizona, two former Trump aides and five lawyers connected to the former president, including Rudy Giuliani.
Two defendants have already resolved their cases, while the others have pleaded not guilty to the charges. Trump wasn’t charged in Arizona, but the indictment refers to him as an unindicted coconspirator.
Most of the defendants in the case also are trying to get a court to dismiss their charges under an Arizona law that bars using baseless legal actions in a bid to silence critics.
They argued Mayes tried to use the charges to silence them for their constitutionally protected speech about the 2020 election and actions taken in response to the race’s outcome. Prosecutors said the defendants didn’t have evidence to back up their retaliation claim and that they crossed the line from protected speech to fraud.
Eleven people who had been nominated to be Arizona’s Republican electors met in Phoenix on Dec. 14, 2020, to sign a certificate saying they were “duly elected and qualified” electors and claimed Trump had carried the state in the 2020 election.
President Joe Biden won Arizona by 10,457 votes. A one-minute video of the signing ceremony was posted on social media by the Arizona Republican Party at the time. The document later was sent to Congress and the National Archives, where it was ignored.
Prosecutors in Michigan, Nevada, Georgia and Wisconsin have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme.
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to strip temporary legal protections from 350,000 Venezuelans, potentially exposing them to being deported.
The Justice Department asked the high court to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in San Francisco that kept in place Temporary Protected Status for the Venezuelans that would have otherwise expired last month.
The status allows people already in the United States to live and work legally because their native countries are deemed unsafe for return due to natural disaster or civil strife.
A federal appeals court had earlier rejected the administration’s request.
President Donald Trump’s administration has moved aggressively to withdraw various protections that have allowed immigrants to remain in the country, including ending TPS for a total of 600,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitians. TPS is granted in 18-month increments.
The emergency appeal to the high court came the same day a federal judge in Texas ruled illegal the administration’s efforts to deport Venezuelans under an 18th-century wartime law. The cases are not related.
The protections had been set to expire April 7, but U.S. District Judge Edward Chen ordered a pause on those plans. He found that the expiration threatened to severely disrupt the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and could cost billions in lost economic activity.
Chen, who was appointed to the bench by Democratic President Barack Obama, found the government hadn’t shown any harm caused by keeping the program alive.
But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on behalf of the administration that Chen’s order impermissibly interferes with the administration’s power over immigration and foreign affairs.
In addition, Sauer told the justices, people affected by ending the protected status might have other legal options to try to remain in the country because the “decision to terminate TPS is not equivalent to a final removal order.”
Congress created TPS in 1990 to prevent deportations to countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife.
Citizen activists supporting a public vote on important issues could have to brush up on their reading, writing and arithmetic if they want to get their initiatives on next year’s ballot in some states.
A new Arkansas law will bar initiative ballot titles written above an eighth-grade reading level. And canvassers will have to verify that petition signers have either read the ballot title or had it read aloud to them.
In South Dakota, sponsors will need to make sure their petition titles appears in 14-point type on the front page and 16-point font on the back, where people typically sign.
And in Florida, volunteers will have to register with the state if they gather more than 25 petition signatures from outside their family or risk facing felony charges punishable by up to five years in prison.
Across about dozen states, roughly 40 bills restricting or revamping the citizen initiative process have passed at least one legislative chamber this year, according to a review by The Associated Press. Many already have been signed into law. Some advocates for the initiative process are alarmed by the trend.
“Globally, as there’s movements to expand direct democracy. In the United States it’s contracting,” said Dane Waters, chair of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California, who has advised ballot campaigns in over 20 nations.
Most of the new restrictions come from Republican lawmakers in states where petitions have been used to place abortion rights, marijuana legalization and other progressive initiatives on the ballot. GOP lawmakers contend their measures are shielding state constitutions from outside interests.
“This is not a bill to restrict. It is a bill to protect — to make sure that our constitutional system is one of integrity, and that it’s free of fraud,” said state Sen. Jennifer Bradley of Florida, where the new initiative requirements already have been challenged in court.
Since Oregon voters first used the process in 1904, a total of 2,744 citizen initiatives have appeared on statewide ballots, with 42% wining approval, according to the Initiative and Referendum Institute.
But the process has long caused tension between voters and their elected representatives.
Lawmakers often perceive the initiative process as “an assault on their power and authority, and they want to limit it,” Waters said. “They view it, in my opinion, as a nuisance – a gnat that keeps bothering them.”
Because initiative petitions require thousands of signatures to qualify for the ballot, groups sponsoring them often pay people to solicit signatures outside shopping centers and public places. Some states now prohibit payments based on the number of signatures gathered.
States also are trying to restrict who can circulate petitions. A new Arkansas law requires paid petition canvassers to live in the state. And a new Montana law will make petition circulators wear badges displaying their name and home state.
The new Florida law expanding registration requirements for petition circulators also requires them to undergo state training and bars canvassers who are noncitizens, nonresidents or felons without their voting rights restored.
In addition to providing their name, address and birth date, people signing initiative petitions in Florida also will have to provide either their Florida driver’s license, state identification card or the last four digits of their Social Security number.
That information is not required in other states, said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project, a progressive group that has backed dozens of ballot initiatives in states. Hall said people concerned about privacy might hesitate to sign petitions.
“I work in ballot measures, and I deeply support many of the things that folks have tried to put on the ballot in Florida, ” Hall said, “and I don’t know if I could bring myself to do that – that’s a very prohibitive requirement.”
Many states already prescribe a particular format for initiative petitions. South Dakota’s new mandate for specific font sizes was prompted by allegations that some people got duped into signing a petition for abortion rights last year, said sponsoring state Sen. Amber Hulse, a Republican.
Printing the ballot title in large type “might make it harder for some issues to get on the ballot if people know what they’re signing. But that’s actually a good thing,” Hulse said.
More power for elected officials
Before they can collect signatures, petition sponsors must get approval from state officials. New measures in several states give those officials greater authority.
New Arkansas laws allow the attorney general to reject initiatives written above an eighth-grade reading level or which conflict with the U.S. Constitution or federal law. Utah’s lieutenant governor, who already can reject unconstitutional petitions, now also will be able to turn away petitions that are unlikely to provide adequate funding for their proposed laws.
A new Missouri law gives greater power to the secretary of state, instead of judges, to rewrite ballot summaries struck down as being insufficient or unfair.
The Supreme Court seemed likely to uphold a key preventive-care provision of the Affordable Care Act in a case heard Monday.
Conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, along with the court’s three liberals, appeared skeptical of arguments that Obamacare’s process for deciding which services must be fully covered by private insurance is unconstitutional.
The case could have big ramifications for the law’s preventive care coverage requirements for an estimated 150 million Americans. Medications and services that could be affected include statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for high-risk women.
The plaintiffs argued that requirements to cover those medications and services are unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts that recommended them should have been Senate- approved. The challengers have also raised religious and procedural objections to some requirements.
The Trump administration defended the mandate before the court, though President Donald Trump has been a critic of the law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.
A majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with the government. Kavanaugh said he didn’t see indications in the law that the board was designed to have the kind of independent power that would require Senate approval, and Barrett questioned the plaintiff’s apparently “maximalist” interpretation of the board’s role.
“We don’t just go around creating independent agencies. More often, we destroy independent agencies,” said Justice Elena Kagan said about the court’s prior opinions.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seemed likely to side with the plaintiffs. And some suggested they could send the case back to the conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That would likely leave unanswered questions about which medications and services remain covered.
A ruling is expected by the end of June.
The case came before the Supreme Court after the appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. It sided with Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can’t be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings.
They were represented by well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot.
Not all preventive care was threatened by the ruling. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that some screenings, including mammography and cervical cancer screening, would still be covered without out-of-pocket costs.
The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Amid rural Louisiana’s crawfish farms, towering pine trees and cafes serving po’boys, nearly 7,000 people are waiting at immigration detention centers to learn whether they will be expelled from the United States.
If President Donald Trump’s administration has its way, the capacity to hold tens of thousands more migrants will soon be added around the country as the U.S. seeks an explosive expansion of what is already the world’s largest immigration detention system.
Trump’s effort to conduct mass deportations as promised in the 2024 campaign represents a potential bonanza for private prison companies and a challenge to the government agencies responsible for the orderly expulsion of immigrants. Some critics say the administration’s plans also include a deliberate attempt to isolate detainees by locking them up and holding court proceedings far from their attorneys and support systems.
The acting director of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, Todd Lyons, said at a border security conference in Phoenix last week that the agency needs “to get better at treating this like a business” and suggested the nation’s deportation system could function “like Amazon, trying to get your product delivered in 24 hours.”
“So trying to figure out how to do that with human beings and trying to get them pretty much all over the globe is really something for us,” Lyons said.
This month, ICE invited companies to bid on contracts to operate detention centers at sites around the country for up to $45 billion as the agency begins to scale up from its current budget for about 41,000 beds to 100,000 beds.
The money isn’t yet there, but contracts are already being awarded. The House narrowly approved a broad spending bill that includes $175 billion for immigration enforcement, about 22 times ICE’s annual budget. The agency’s 100-plus detention centers nationwide currently hold about 46,000 people, causing overcrowding in locations including Miami.
ICE last week awarded a contract worth up to $3.85 billion to Deployed Resources LLC to operate a detention camp at the Fort Bliss Army base in Texas. The little-known company is shifting its business from Border Patrol tent encampments for people arriving in the United States — most of which are now closed — to ICE facilities for people being deported.
The Geo Group Inc. got a contract for 1,000 beds in Newark, New Jersey, valued at $1 billion over 15 years and another for 1,800 beds in Baldwin, Michigan. CoreCivic Inc., won a contract to house 2,400 people in families with young children in Dilley, Texas, for five years.
The stock market has rewarded both of these private corrections companies. Geo’s stock price has soared 94% since Trump was elected. Shares of CoreCivic have surged 62%.
The U.K. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a woman is someone born biologically female, excluding transgender people from the legal definition in a long-running dispute between a feminist group and the Scottish government.
Several women’s groups that supported the appeal celebrated outside court and hailed it as a major victory in their effort to protect spaces designated for women.
“Everyone knows what sex is and you can’t change it,” said Susan Smith, co-director of For Women Scotland, which brought the case. “It’s common sense, basic common sense and the fact that we have been down a rabbit hole where people have tried to deny science and to deny reality and hopefully this will now see us back to reality.”
Five judges ruled unanimously that the U.K. Equality Act means trans women can be excluded from some groups and single-sex spaces, such as changing rooms, homeless shelters, swimming areas and medical or counseling services provided only to women.
The ruling means that a transgender person with a certificate that recognizes them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes.
The ruling brings some clarity in the U.K. to a contentious issue that has polarized politics in some other countries, particularly the U.S. Republican-controlled states over the last four years have been banning gender-affirming care for minors, barring transgender women and girls from sports competitions that align with their gender and restricting which public bathrooms transgender people can use.
Since returning to office in January, President Donald Trump has signed orders to define the sexes as only male and female and has tried to kick transgender service members out of the military, block federal spending on gender-affirming car e for those under 19 and block their sports participation nationally. His efforts are being challenged in court.
Justice Patrick Hodge said the British ruling “does not remove protection from trans people,” who are still protected from discrimination under U.K. law.
The case stems from a 2018 law passed by the Scottish Parliament saying 50% of the membership of the boards of Scottish public bodies should be women. Transgender women with gender recognition certificates were to be included in meeting the quota.
“Interpreting ‘sex’ as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ... and, thus, the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way,” Hodge said. “It would create heterogeneous groupings.”
The campaign group Scottish Trans said it was “shocked and disappointed” by the ruling, saying it would undermine legal protections for transgender people enshrined in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
Maggie Chapman, a Green Party lawmaker in the Scottish Parliament, said the ruling was “deeply concerning” for human rights and “a huge blow to some of the most marginalized people in our society.”
“Trans people have been cynically targeted and demonized by politicians and large parts of the media for far too long,” she said. “This has contributed to attacks on longstanding rights and attempts to erase their existence altogether.”
Groups that had challenged the Scottish government uncorked a bottle of champagne outside the court and sang, “women’s rights are human rights.”
“The court has given us the right answer: the protected characteristic of sex — male and female — refers to reality, not to paperwork,” said Maya Forstater of the group Sex Matters. In 2022, an employment tribunal ruled that she had been the victim of discrimination when she lost out on a job after posting gender-critical views online.
An appeals court in California has refused to halt a judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to rehire thousands of federal workers who were let go in mass firings.
A split 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel turned back an emergency motion late Wednesday to pause the order from U.S. District Judge William Alsup in a case brought by labor unions and nonprofits as Republican President Donald Trump moves to dramatically downsize the federal workforce. Alsup is one of two judges who found legal problems with the way the firings of probationary workers were carried out.
Two of the three judges on the panel ruled against the request for an emergency stay. The dissenting judge said the government had a strong argument against reinstating the workers.
The government has appealed Alsup’s order to the Supreme Court, arguing that judges cannot “micromanage” federal worker policies or force the rehiring of more than 16,000 workers. A response is due by April 3.
Alsup ordered six departments to immediately offer job reinstatement to employees terminated on in mid-February: the departments of Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, Defense, Energy, the Interior and Treasury.
The judge, who was nominated by Democratic President Bill Clinton, said the firings were an attempt by the administration to sidestep laws and regulations governing a reduction in workforce by going after probationary workers, who have fewer protections.
Alsup said he was appalled that employees were told they were being fired for poor performance despite receiving glowing evaluations just months earlier.
Probationary workers have been targeted for layoffs across the federal government because they are usually new to the job and lack full civil service protection.
Lawsuits over the firings are among the many faced by the administration. More than three dozen rulings have at least temporarily slowed Trump’s second-term agenda.
Within hours of Alsup’s ruling, a judge in Baltimore found separate legal problems with the handling of the firings. In a lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen states affected by the layoffs, U.S. District Judge James Bredar said the administration did not follow laws set out for large-scale layoffs. That case involved a wider range of agencies, and the plaintiffs estimate about 24,000 probationary workers are affected.
The administration contends that states have no right to try to influence the federal government’s relationship with its own workers. Justice Department lawyers argued that the firings were for performance issues and are not the large-scale layoffs subject to specific regulations.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt cast it as an attempt to encroach on the president’s power to hire and fire employees.
There are an estimated 200,000 probationary workers across federal agencies. They include entry-level employees but also workers who recently received a promotion.
Leavitt is one of three Trump administration officials who face a lawsuit from The Associated Press on First and Fifth Amendment grounds. The AP says the three are punishing the news agency for editorial decisions they oppose. The White House says the AP is not following an executive order to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Columbia University is “on the right track” toward recovering federal funding after the elite New York City university agreed to implement a host of policy changes demanded by the Trump administration.
Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday, McMahon described “great conversations” with Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong.
“She said she knew that this was her responsibility to make sure that children on her campus were safe,” McMahon said. “She wanted to make sure there was no discrimination of any kind. She wanted to address any systemic issues that were identified relative to the antisemitism on campus.”
Armstrong announced Friday that the university would put its Middle East studies department under new supervision and overhaul its rules for protests and student discipline. It also agreed to adopt a new definition of antisemitism and expand “intellectual diversity” by staffing up its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, according to an outline posted on its website.
Earlier this month, the Trump administration pulled $400 million in research grants and other funding over how the university handled protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. In order to consider restoring those funds and billions more in future grants, federal officials demanded nine separate changes to the university’s academic and security policies.
Armstrong’s decision acceding to the administration’s demands drew condemnation from some faculty and free speech groups, who accused the university of caving to President Donald Trump’s largely unprecedented intrusion on academic freedom.
Asked whether the university had done enough to secure its funding, McMahon said: “We are on the right track now to make sure the final negotiations to unfreeze that money will be in place.”
The Trump administration’s crackdown on Columbia University, where a massive pro-Palestinian protest movement began with a tent encampment last spring, has thrust the campus into crisis and sparked fears of similar actions at colleges across the country.
Federal immigration officials on March 8 arrested Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who served as a spokesperson and negotiator for pro-Palestinian demonstrators last year. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, is challenging his detention and potential deportation in court.
New York state’s top court put an end Thursday to New York City’s effort to empower noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
In a 6-1 ruling, the high court said “the New York constitution as it stands today draws a firm line restricting voting to citizens.”
New York City never actually implemented its 2022 law. Supporters estimated it would have applied to about 800,000 noncitizens with legal permanent U.S. residency or authorization to work in the nation. The measure would have let them cast a ballot for mayor, city council and other local offices, but not for president, Congress or state officials.
State Republican officials quickly sued over the law, and state courts at every level rejected it. Republicans hailed Thursday’s ruling from the state’s highest court, called the Court of Appeals.
“Efforts by radical Democrats on the New York City Council to permit noncitizen voting have been rightly rejected,” NYGOP Chair Ed Cox said in a statement. The Republicans’ attorney, Michael Hawrylchak, said they were pleased that the court recognized the state constitution’s “fundamental limits” on voter eligibility.
The heavily Democratic City Council passed the law, and its leaders took the case to the high court. Speaker Adrienne Adams said she was disappointed in the outcome but respected the court. “The council sought to strengthen our city’s democratic process and increase civic engagement by enfranchising the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who pay taxes and contribute to our communities but are unable to make their voices heard in local elections,” she said in a statement.
Democratic Mayor Eric Adams had neither vetoed nor signed the measure but allowed it to become law without his signature. An Adams spokesperson, Kayla Mamelak Altus, said the administration respects the court’s decision.
A handful of Maryland and Vermont towns let noncitizens cast ballots in local elections, and noncitizen residents of Washington, D.C., can vote in city races. San Francisco allows noncitizen parents to participate in school board elections.
Farther south in California, residents of Santa Ana rejected a noncitizen voting measure last year. Some other states specifically prohibit localities from enfranchising noncitizens.
In New York, the state constitution says “every citizen shall be entitled to vote” if at least 18 years old and a state resident. The document adds that county and municipal election voters must live in the relevant county, city or village.
New York City argued that “every citizen” doesn’t mean “citizens only,” and that the city had a self-governance right to choose to expand the franchise for its own elections. The law’s supporters said it gave an electoral voice to many people who have made a home in the city and pay taxes to it but face tough paths to citizenship.
The GOP accused Democrats of violating the state constitution in order to make partisan gains.
Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp’s priority bill to limit lawsuits and large jury verdicts has gotten increasing pushback after an initial boost in support as the legislative session enters its final weeks.
Crowds of business owners and doctors swarmed the Capitol to back Kemp when he announced the proposal, also called tort reform. Now, people who have sued businesses are rallying as Democrats argue the bill is a handout to businesses and insurance companies.
And a number of House Republicans remain skeptical, even though House Speaker Jon Burns said he is confident it will pass.
“There are two Republicans that are trial lawyers, but I’ve heard a more broad group of people express concerns with the bill as currently written,” said Rep. Trey Kelley, a Cedartown Republican.
Millions of dollars have gone into lobbying for and against Kemp’s package. Here are some reasons why people are concerned. Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Kemp’s bill would require anyone who sues a business or property owner over misconduct or injuries on their property to prove the owner knew about a specific security risk and physical condition on the property, but didn’t provide adequate security.
Women who were sex trafficked and raped at hotels have begged lawmakers to oppose the bill as written.
“Surely, the hotel would notice, with 40 cars coming in and out at any given moment ... the girls walking around in their underwear, never alone, never speaking unless spoken to,” Michal Roseberry, human trafficking survivor, said at a news conference Thursday.
There is an exception for human trafficking victims in the proposed bill, but the kinds of claims they can bring are limited. Opponents plan to offer a broader amendment.
“Even with that exception, as the bill is right now, nobody would ever file a sex trafficking case in Georgia,” said Jonathan Tonge, a University of Georgia law professor who litigates human trafficking cases.
Trial lawyers are worried that other changes would drag out trials and delay preparation. Lawyers and doctors dispute whether fair compensation is the face value of a medical bill or only the portion an individual directly paid.
Opponents also question whether the problems the bill claims to address exist, and if it would actually solve them.
For example, doctors have said unfair lawsuits make it hard to recruit talent to rural areas and lead them to administer unnecessary medical tests. They also say they’re getting slammed by rising medical malpractice premiums. In an analysis for the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Northwestern University Professor Bernard Black said it’s difficult to recruit doctors outside of urban areas nationwide.
A lawsuit filed by 17 states challenging federal rules entitling workers to time off and other accommodations for abortions may proceed, a federal appeals court ruled.
The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision on Thursday reverses Eastern District of Arkansas U.S. District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr.'s dismissal of the case in June after he found that the states lacked standing to sue. Eighth Circuit Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003, wrote in Thursday’s opinion that the states do have standing since they are subject to the federal rules.
Led by Republican state attorneys general in Tennessee and Arkansas, the 17 states sued the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in April challenging its rules on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a 2022 bipartisan law requiring employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for pregnant or postpartum employees.
In addition to more routine pregnancy workplace accommodations like time off for prenatal appointments, more bathroom breaks, or permission to carry snacks, the rules say that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure.
“The Biden-era EEOC’s attempt to turn a good law into an ideological weapon to force broad elective abortion accommodations is illegal,” Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said in an emailed statement. “The EEOC’s unlawful regulations undermine the constitutional authority of the people’s elected representatives and we are vindicated by the Court’s decision to let our suit proceed.”
The lawsuit — joined by state attorneys in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and West Virginia — is one of several legal challenges to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act rules. One case in Texas seeks to overturn the law in its entirety.
The Eighth Circuit Court’s decision to revive the case comes after a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door to state abortion bans, and as bills to track and charge women who get abortions with murder have gotten attention in Missouri, North Dakota and Oklahoma state legislatures this month.
The EEOC, which enforces U.S. anti-discrimination laws, during former President Joe Biden’s administration published regulations that provide guidance for employers and workers on how to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. In them, the agency said that workers can ask for time off to obtain an abortion and recover from the procedure, along with pregnancy-related medical conditions like miscarriage, stillbirth and lactation. Citing numerous court rulings, the EEOC in its regulations said it was conforming to decades of legal precedent establishing that pregnancy-related discrimination laws include abortion.
But many Republican lawmakers, including Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who co-sponsored the bill, were furious when the EEOC stated that the law covered abortions. Both Republican EEOC commissioners voted against the rules at the time. A spokesperson for the EEOC said the agency will “refrain from discussing litigation” but referred The Associated Press to Acting Chair Andrea Lucas’ position on the Commission’s PWFA regulations, which she voted against.
“I support elements of the final rule. However, I am unable to approve it because it purports to broaden the scope of the statute in ways that, in my view, cannot reasonably be reconciled with the text,” she wrote in a statement at the time explaining her decision to vote against the rules.
The EEOC has undergone significant change since President Donald Trump took office last month. After naming Lucas, a Republican, as acting chair, Trump fired two Democratic commissioners of the five-member bipartisan EEOC before their terms expired in an unprecedented move. Had the commissioners been allowed to carry out their terms, the EEOC would have had a Democratic majority well into Trump’s term. The administration also dismissed Karla Gilbride as the EEOC’s general counsel, replacing her with Andrew Rogers as acting counsel.
Without a quorum, the EEOC cannot rescind its own rules, although Lucas in the statement said she intends for the EEOC to reconsider portions of the rules she believes are unsupported by law once a quorum is re-established.
The Department of Justice represents the EEOC in court, and under Trump, it remains to be seen whether it will continue to fight the states’ lawsuit.
Breaking Legal News - POSTED: 2025/05/23 07:25
