Hillsborough Judge Nancy Jacobs to resign after panel recommends removal
The panel of the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission found that Jacobs violated judicial canons — ethical rules that govern the conduct of judges and those running for the bench — in her bitterly contested 2022 campaign against Judge Jared Smith. The race, in which abortion rights became a major issue, featured hints of political partisanship, which is unusual for a Florida judicial contest.
The panel concluded that Jacobs' conduct made her unfit for office.
Her resignation, which is effective May 31, comes as the Florida Supreme Court weighed whether to adopt the panel's recommendations.
'I step aside with my integrity intact and my voice unwavering,' Jacobs said in a statement Friday. 'Serving as a judge has been one of the greatest honors of my professional life. I am not perfect but I have always strived to uphold the Constitution, ensure equal justice under law, and protect the rights of those who come before the court. I remain committed to the rule of law, to civil liberties, and to the idea that no person should be silenced for speaking out on matters of public concern. I thank the voters of Hillsborough County for allowing me to serve.'
This is a developing story. Stay with tampabay.com for updates.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
9 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Maine can't enforce foreign election interference law that appeals court calls unconstitutional
PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Maine can't enforce a voter-approved foreign election interference law that a federal appeals court said likely violates the Constitution by limiting political donations. Voters overwhelmingly approved a ban on foreign governments and companies with 5% or more foreign government ownership from donating to state referendum races. The law is one of a handful around the country that attempt to limit foreign influence on U.S. elections. The law has been on hold pending federal lawsuits from utilities companies and media organizations that raise constitutional challenges about it. The U.S. District Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston said in court papers in July that it affirmed a lower-court ruling that the law likely violates the First Amendment. 'The prohibition is overly broad, silencing U.S. corporations based on the mere possibility that foreign shareholders might try to influence its decisions on political speech, even where those foreign shareholders may be passive owners that exercise no influence or control over the corporation's political spending," wrote Judge Lara Montecalvo. The matter was sent back to the lower court, where it will proceed, and there has been no substantive movement on it in recent weeks, said Danna Hayes, a spokesperson for the Maine attorney general's office, on Monday. The law is on the state's books, but the state cannot enforce it while legal challenges are still pending, Hayes said. Voters approved the law in 2023 by a margin of 86% to 14%. It followed a multimillion-dollar effort by a Canadian-owned utility to influence a project in Maine in which it's a partner. The law reflects the will of Maine residents to ensure clean elections, said Rick Bennett, chair of Protect Maine Elections, the committee formed to support the 2023 ballot initiative. He said the fight to save the law was still ongoing.
Time Magazine
10 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump Has Deployed Troops At Home Like No Other President
President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he would take control of the police force in Washington, D.C. and deploy 800 National Guard troops to quell crime and remove homeless encampments in the city. Flanked by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi, Trump said he was deploying troops to 'help reestablish law, order and public safety' in the nation's capital, which he claimed had been 'overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals." It comes just months after federal officials announced that violent crime in the city hit a 30-year low. The move is the latest in a string of military deployments on home soil by Trump that experts say represents a marked departure from his predecessors. It comes just two months after Trump deployed California's National Guard to quell protests in Los Angeles over his immigration policies, after the protests had largely died down. William Banks, professor of law at Syracuse University and an expert on the role of the military in domestic affairs, says Trump's move is likely intended as a 'symbolic' show of power, especially after a former DOGE staffer's assault in the city caught his attention. 'Symbolism has always been very important to Trump,' Banks tells TIME. 'Trump wants to clean the city up. He wants to make it look like the White House lawn.' Banks adds that the United States has always been 'unique' in its allocation of law enforcement to civilians and its general refusal to use the military on its own citizens. 'The [British] soldiers in the colonies ransacked people's homes, arrested people without cause, beat people up, stole their papers, [and] violated their privacy, so by the time of revolution and then the Constitution, we didn't have a good feeling about the presence of soldiers on our streets,' Banks says. 'We want our members of our community, our neighbors, people that we know and recognize, in civilian uniform.' Banks acknowledges that the Constitution recognizes there may be 'exceptional circumstances' where a military presence is required domestically, but that Presidents prior to Trump did so more sparingly. He points to what he calls 'rights-promoting deployments' of the National Guard, including by Lyndon B. Johnson to desegregate schools in Alabama and Mississippi. Though Trump focused on D.C., he also hinted that the capital city is just the beginning, mentioning New York City, Baltimore, and Oakland—cities in which he has much less jurisdiction. 'This will go further,' Trump said. 'We are starting strongly with D.C.' Here is where Trump has chosen to deploy federal troops during his two terms. Along the border During Trump's first term, he deployed the National Guard to the U.S.-Mexico border in a bid to cut down on illegal immigration. Trump's first term, much like his second, was defined by his aggressive immigration tactics. At the time, Trump's proclamation justified his deployment of troops by pointing to a surge of apprehensions at the border, while critics said that overall border crossings were at historic lows. This deployment of the National Guard at the border continued during his second term. In May of this year, thousands of National Guard troops were deployed to the Southern Border, escalating his crackdown on immigration. 'National Defense Areas' were established in New Mexico and Texas. Importantly, federal troops have been deployed at the border during previous Administrations, specifically to aid Border Patrol. Trump's expansion of military zones along the U.S. border, though, has empowered the military to further act as a law enforcement body, detaining and searching those who they consider as trespassing in these defense areas. Typically, the President would need Congressional approval for defense areas and the creation of essentially a 170-mile military installation, but the President's Day One declaration of a national emergency on the southern border in an Executive Order allowed him to sidestep this formalization. Black Lives Matter protests, 2020 In May 2020, protests broke out across the country in response to the murder of George Floyd by a police officer. The protests marked one of the largest protest movements in U.S. history, with estimates of as many as 26 million people participating in the call for racial justice. Tens of thousands of National Guard troops in over half of U.S. states were activated by state governors to deal with the Black Lives Matter protests, but Trump also used his own powers to deal with the unrest. In August 2020, Trump deployed federal forces to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to quell protests in the aftermath of the shooting of Jacob Blake by a police officer. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also sent hundreds of federal officers to Portland, Oregon, to handle protests, with some reports, including one from the ACLU, claiming that these federal agents grabbed protestors off the streets in unmarked vehicles. Tactical teams of the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) were also sent to Seattle, Washington, though push back by former Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and former Mayor Jenny Durkan eventually led to their withdrawal. In D.C., though, Trump, acting as Commander-in-Chief, deployed National Guard members from several states, despite public criticism from D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser. Trump's National Guard in D.C. also notoriously utilized tear-gas and rubber bullets against these Black Lives Matter protestors to disperse the demonstration and make room for a photo-op at St. John's Episcopal Church, which had been vandalized the night before during protests with a fire in the basement. Eventually, Trump threatened to utilize the Insurrection Act to deploy military forces to suppress the protests, calling the protestors 'terrorists.' Here, though, the Pentagon publicly broke from Trump, as Defense Secretary Mark Esper said he would prefer to not use active duty military on protests analyzed to have been mostly peaceful. Banks notes that Trump, as Commander-in-Chief of D.C., has more authority here than in the states, but adds 'one of the ironies is that in one of the few instances where there really was a violent disturbance inside the district—January 6, [2021]—[Trump] did nothing.' He continued, stating that if Trump had deployed the National Guard during the Jan. 6 insurrection, 'they could have stopped the Capitol rioting in 30 minutes.' Los Angeles, June 2025 President Trump deployed the California National Guard and the Marines in June this year, ostensibly to quell protests in Los Angeles against Trump's aggressive immigration policies and the intense escalation of deportations in the interior by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Trump's deployment of the National Guard came with a Presidential Memorandum that invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' When deployed, though, the National Guard was tasked with protecting ICE agents and federal property, and they were not authorized to perform any law enforcement activities. Trump was criticized for the move, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom calling the deployment 'purposefully inflammatory' and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Southern California describing it as 'akin to a declaration of war on all Californians.' Currently, only 300 of the 5,000 troops deployed remain in Los Angeles, as a trial begins over the legality of Trump's deployment in the first place. A California federal judge is to rule whether Trump's use of the troops violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the use of the military in domestic law enforcement.
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Chip Revenue Deal Comes Under Scrutiny
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. American chipmakers Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices have agreed to give 15 percent of revenue from certain artificial intelligence chip sales in China to the U.S. government as a condition of obtaining export licenses. The arrangement ties government permission to a revenue-sharing requirement, prompting questions about constitutionality and the purpose of export controls amid a high-stakes rivalry with China for AI computing capacity. Newsweek contacted the White House for more information on the deal via email. Why it Matters The deal alters a long-standing norm that U.S. export controls serve national security ends rather than revenue generation, potentially setting a precedent for monetizing access to foreign markets and complicating the legal framework governing exports. Critics have flagged legal issues, citing the Constitution's prohibition on export taxes and arguing that the arrangement blurs the line over national security controls. What To Know Nvidia and AMD had sought licenses to resume sales of high-performance AI chips to Chinese customers after previous restrictions had limited exports, with the chips named as Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308. However, the White House gave Nvidia the all-clear in July to resume sales with China. Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang said on July 14 the U.S. government had assured him it would restore the licenses to sell H20s in China. "General purpose, open-source research and foundation models are the backbone of AI innovation," said Huang. "We believe that every civil model should run best on the U.S. technology stack, encouraging nations worldwide to choose America." President Donald Trump listens to questions from reporters after speaking on economic data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump listens to questions from reporters after speaking on economic data in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. Getty Images Now though, the all clear has been revealed to be conditional on the U.S. receiving 15 percent of the revenue from sales of artificial intelligence chips in China, according to reports from the Washington Post. Legal experts and former officials said the deal was highly unusual and could invite judicial challenges or congressional oversight. Peter Harrell, the White House's senior director for international economics under the Biden administration, said on social media: "In addition to the policy problems with just charging Nvidia and AMD a 15 percent share of revenues to sell advanced chips in China, the US Constitution flatly forbids export taxes. "In addition to the Constitution, 50 USC 4815(c) expressly prohibits fees for export control licenses. 'Fees-No fee may be charged in connection with the submission, processing, or consideration of any application for a license...' This is from the 2018 Export Control Reform Act." What People Are Saying Stephen Olson, former U.S. trade negotiator, told Bloomberg: "What we are seeing is in effect the monetization of US trade policy in which US companies must pay the US government for permission to export. If that's the case, we've entered into a new and dangerous world." A spokesperson for Nvidia, quoted in The Washington Post on Aug. 10, 2025, said: "We follow rules the U.S. government sets for our participation in worldwide markets. While we haven't shipped H20 to China for months, we hope export control rules will let America compete in China and worldwide." Alexandra Mousavizadeh, CEO of Evident and creator of the Global AI Index, previously told Newsweek that there were two different approaches to China's AI development: "You can continue to try and contain access to chips and close the walls off. While you're doing that, you're doubling down on investment into data infrastructure, supporting the development of AI in the U.S. and being first in that race, "Or you open up completely and you say, 'Look, it's to the benefit of all that everyone has access to everything, because the collaboration between Europe, the U.S. and China in the past has been what has led to the ability to get to where we are today.' What Happens Next The arrangement could prompt legal action from those arguing the revenue-sharing arrangement functions as an impermissible export tax, while Congress could open hearings to examine the administration's role and the terms of the licenses.
