Brazil's Bolsonaro used intelligence agency to spy on judges, lawmakers and journalists, police say
RIO DE JANEIRO — Brazil's federal police accused former president Jair Bolsonaro and 35 others of involvement in a sprawling scheme that used the country's intelligence agency to spy on members of the judiciary, lawmakers and journalists. The seal on the 1,125-page document, which adds to the far-right leader's woes, was lifted by the country's Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court upholds Tennessee prohibition on gender affirming care for minors
Demonstrators outside the U.S. Supreme Court as justices hear arguments in a case about Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors on Dec. 4, 2024, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by) The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee's law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don't qualify as a protected class. In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court's finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court's decision and sent it to the high court. The court's three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to 'political whims.' Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition. In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 'warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.' But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex. 'Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' the ruling states. The ruling says the application of the law 'does not turn on sex,' either, because it doesn't prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex. The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, 'This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America's children.' Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from 'irreversible medical procedures.' 'The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is 'enough is enough,'' Johnson said in a statement. The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: 'We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to side with the Tennessee legislature's anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.' The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association. The court also rejected plaintiffs' argument that the law enforces 'a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.' The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve 'impermissible stereotypes.' But if the law's classifications aren't covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn't required unless the law is motivated by 'invidious discriminatory purpose.' 'And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,' the ruling says. In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters' common sense won over 'judicial activism' on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children. 'I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,' Skrmetti said. U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out after being asked about it during a press conference. 'This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,' Schumer said. 'It's an awful decision.' Democrats, he said, are 'going to explore every solution,' though he didn't elaborate. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn't extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination. Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling 'devastating,' but despite the setback said transgender people still have healthcare options. 'The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,' Strangio said in a statement. Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@ SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
an hour ago
Trump's latest judicial pick is someone that Joe Biden almost nominated
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump said Wednesday he plans to tap Chad Meredith, a former state solicitor general in Kentucky, for a federal judgeship in the state — a move that could face objections from Sen. Rand Paul, who opposed the nomination three years ago. Meredith was the starring player in a bit of judicial nominations drama in the previous administration, when then-President Joe Biden had agreed to nominate Meredith, who was enthusiastically supported by Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former Senate majority leader. It was a curious move at the time, because Meredith had a track record of defending Kentucky's anti-abortion laws and the nomination would come in the immediate aftermath of the 2022 Supreme Court decision that eliminated a constitutional right to the procedure. But Paul indicated to the Biden White House at the time that he would block Meredith's confirmation proceedings from moving forward, so the former president never formally nominated him. Biden's decision to back off Meredith was also a relief to Democrats and abortion rights groups who had been enraged at the prospect of Biden tapping an anti-abortion lawyer for a lifetime judiciary seat. In a social media post announcing the nomination, Trump called Meredith 'highly experienced and well qualified.' 'Chad is a courageous Patriot who knows what is required to uphold the Rule of Law, and protect our Constitution,' Trump wrote on Truth Social Wednesday night. McConnell said in a statement Wednesday that Trump made an 'outstanding choice' in choosing Meredith, who also served as chief deputy general counsel for former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin. 'His demonstrated devotion to the rule of law and the Constitution will serve the people of Kentucky well on the federal bench,' McConnell said. 'I look forward to the Senate confirming his nomination.' Paul's office did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday night on the nomination. Three years ago, Paul accused McConnell of cutting a 'secret deal' with the White House as a reason why Meredith's nomination never moved forward under Biden. 'Unfortunately, instead of communicating and lining up support for him, Senator McConnell chose to cut a secret deal with the White House that fell apart,' Paul said at the time. Paul never made any substantive objections about Meredith himself. It's unclear whether Paul would hold similar process concerns with Meredith's formal nomination under Trump. But Paul had effective veto power over a judicial pick in his home state because the Senate continues to honor the so-called blue slip rule, a decades-old custom that says a judicial nominee won't move forward if there is opposition from his or her home-state senator. The Biden White House also deferred to that custom, which is why Biden never ended up nominating Meredith. Though the rule has been eroded in part, namely for appellate court judges whose seat spans several states, the custom has remained intact for district court nominees who are more closely tied to their home states. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has so far made no indication that he would deviate from that longstanding custom. Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an adviser at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, criticized Trump's selection of Meredith given his 'disturbing anti-abortion record." 'The nomination of Chad Meredith to a lifetime judgeship should trouble everyone,' Zwarensteyn said.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: With transgender care ruling, Chief Justice Roberts tries to avoid extremes
After Supreme Court oral arguments last December, it was clear conservative justices had the votes to uphold state bans on gender care for trans youths under age 18. The question was how far the decision would sweep to affect trans individuals in other situations. In the end, Chief Justice John Roberts used the power of his office to keep the opinion for himself. He penned a decision that affirmed state restrictions on puberty blockers and hormone therapy, but he declined to adopt the reasoning of some conservatives that could have made transgender people even more vulnerable to discrimination. Roberts, by virtue of his position as chief, assigns opinions when he is in the majority. He regularly keeps the most significant cases for himself, as he did in the controversy over President Donald Trump's assertion of immunity from prosecution last year. Yet Roberts, now in his 20th year in the center chair, also strategically assigns cases to restrain or otherwise influence the court's holding. On Wednesday, he fended off the more aggressive right-wing sentiment. In his seven-minute statement from the mahogany bench and in his written opinion, Roberts adopted a cut-and-dried tone. He eschewed the heat of the three liberal dissenters, as well as the conservatives who broke off to write their own statements. Justice Clarence Thomas, for example, insisted medical experts 'have surreptitiously compromised their medical recommendations to achieve political ends,' and Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about boys' and girls' sports teams. All told, Roberts appeared to try to lower the temperature on the combustible issue of trans rights – which Trump promised to curtail during his 2024 reelection bid. Since taking office again in January, multiple executive orders have targeted trans people, including servicemembers in the US military. The chief justice's 24-page opinion, to be sure, thoroughly rejected the challenge to a Tennessee law that forbids healthcare providers from providing hormones and other treatment for children under age 18 to transition or, as the law states, to 'identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's biological sex.' He said the classification related to age and medical use, rather than to sex, which would have meant it was more likely to violate the Constitution's equal protection guarantee. The disputed Tennessee law permits puberty blockers and hormones for minors to treat some conditions, such as a congenital defect or precocious puberty, but not to treat gender dysphoria – that is, the incongruence between one's gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Roberts referred to evolving medical assessment of potential harms associated with such treatment, primarily in European countries, as he emphasized that the Tennessee legislature had sufficient grounds for the regulation of medical treatment for minors. Advocates for the children and families in the high court case argued that hormone treatment can be crucial to the health and wellbeing of transgender adolescents. They contended the Tennessee law amounted to a type of sex discrimination that would have warranted a tougher standard of judicial review. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, speaking for the three liberal dissenters, lamented Roberts' approach. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Roberts declined to address whether transgender individuals would specifically merit heightened protection under the Constitution. Yet, Barrett and Thomas, along with Justice Samuel Alito, would have taken on that question, disfavoring trans individuals. (The remaining two conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, signed Roberts' opinion and wrote nothing more.) Barrett opened her separate statement by asserting that she would have ruled that transgender people do not constitute a class of people who deserve special protection in the law. 'Beyond the treatment of gender dysphoria, transgender status implicates several other areas of legitimate regulatory policy—ranging from access to restrooms to eligibility for boys' and girls' sports teams,' she wrote, joined by Thomas, and adding that if laws singling out transgender people required heightened constitutional scrutiny, 'then the courts will inevitably be in the business of closely scrutinizing legislative choices in all these domains.' In their own separate writings, Thomas and Alito reiterated their criticism of the court's 2020 case, Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that employees fired for being gay or transgender can sue under the prohibition on sex discrimination in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Roberts' opinion neither retrenched on Bostock nor extended it beyond the Title VII employment context to the case at hand. Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, said of the court's Wednesday decision, 'It's a devastating loss for trans youth and their families who have lost their essential medical care, but it's significant that the opinion is cabined both on the record and on doctrine. We live to fight another day on other laws discriminating against transgender Americans, including our cases challenging Trump's animus-fueled policies. During oral arguments in December, Roberts foreshadowed his concern that legislators should play the leading role on trans rights: 'We might think that we can do just as good a job with respect to the evidence here as Tennessee or anybody else,' Roberts said at the time, 'but my understanding is that the Constitution leaves that question to the people's representatives rather than to nine people, none of whom is a doctor.' That statement recalled similar sentiment from 10 years ago when Roberts dissented as the five-justice majority declared a right to same-sex marriage. 'Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law,' he wrote in that 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges. 'Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. … Just who do we think we are?' That was unusually strident for the chief. Roberts felt so strongly about the case that it marked the first and only time he had dissented aloud from the courtroom bench. (Justices take that rare step when they want to call particular attention to their dissenting view, as Sotomayor did on Wednesday.) As Roberts referred to legislative control of policy, he avoided the dramatic flourish of 2015. 'This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field,' he wrote as he concluded his opinion in United States v. Skrmetti. '… (W)e leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.' For as much as Roberts confined the decision to medical treatment for trans minors, the Trump administration has already signaled that it would try to use the Skrmetti case to augment its actions against transgender servicemembers. For the liberal dissenters, the current Trump agenda was in the foreground. As Justice Barrett questioned whether trans individuals had faced government discrimination, Sotomayor wrote, 'Transgender people have long been subject to discrimination in healthcare, employment, and housing, and to rampant harassment and physical violence. And directly citing Barrett's opinion, Sotomayor added, '(T)hose searching for more evidence of de jure discrimination against transgender individuals, need look no further than the present. The Federal Government, for example, has started expelling transgender servicemembers from the military and threatening to withdraw funding from schools and nonprofits that espouse support for transgender individuals.' Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed to 'the recent rise in discriminatory state and federal policies and the fact that transgender people are underrepresented in every branch of government,' and said the court majority had rendered 'transgender Americans doubly vulnerable to state-sanctioned discrimination.'
