logo
A Republican push to sell public lands in the West is reigniting a political fight

A Republican push to sell public lands in the West is reigniting a political fight

Washington Post11-05-2025

BILLINGS, Mont. — Congressional Republicans say their plan to sell potentially hundreds of thousands of acres of federal land will generate revenue and ease growth pressures in booming Western cities. Yet without clear details on how it will work, skeptics worry it could be a giveaway for developers and mining companies and do little to ease the region's housing crisis.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '
Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '

Wall Street Journal

time16 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Extremist's Advice for ‘No Kings' Protests: ‘Shoot a Couple, the Rest Will Go Home '

'Shoot a couple, the rest will go home,' said a meme circulating on Telegram channels of groups affiliated with the far-right Proud Boys. 'You just have to impale a few of them…' another local chapter posted. One disseminated an online gun tutorial, illustrating optimal shooting techniques with the caption: 'Riot season again!' Organizers in more than 2,000 cities are mobilizing for 'No Kings' rallies Saturday in opposition to President Trump and his military parade in Washington. Among those watching closely: extremist organizations on social media.

Shaquille O'Neal to pay $1.8 million to settle FTX class action lawsuit
Shaquille O'Neal to pay $1.8 million to settle FTX class action lawsuit

Associated Press

time16 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Shaquille O'Neal to pay $1.8 million to settle FTX class action lawsuit

Former NBA player Shaquille O'Neal will pay $1.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit related to the demise of cryptocurrency exchange FTX. O'Neal, and other celebrities like Tom Brady and Stephen Curry, were named in the lawsuit in 2022. They had been accused of touting FTX as a reputable and trustworthy investment option via paid endorsements. The proposed settlement only pertains to O'Neal. Three years ago FTX was the third-largest cryptocurrency exchange, but it ended up with billions of dollars worth of losses and had to seek bankruptcy protection. The Bahamas-based company and its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, came under investigation by state and federal authorities for allegedly investing depositors funds in ventures without their approval. Before its failure, FTX was known to use high-profile Hollywood and sports celebrities to promote its products. It had the naming rights to a Formula One racing team as well as a sports arena in Miami. Its commercials featured 'Seinfeld' creator Larry David, as well as Brady, the former quarterback of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and New England Patriots, basketball players O'Neal and Curry, and tennis star Naomi Osaka. Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison in March 2024. A little more than a month after that, FTX said in a court filing that nearly all of its customers would receive the money back that they were owed. While the proposed settlement with O'Neal had been agreed to in April, the payment amount and other terms were disclosed in a filing with the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, earlier this week. The settlement class includes anyone who deposited funds into FTX or bought its FTT token between May 2019 and late 2022. The agreement, which still needs court approval, would provide O'Neal with a broad release from future claims and also includes a stipulation that he can't seek reimbursement from the FTX estate. The payment will be made within 30 days of the settlement being finalized, according to the filing.

Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense

Yahoo

time17 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense

During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store