Even Elected Officials Have First Amendment Rights
Imagine a legislature in a deep-red state deciding that members who support abortion rights won't be allowed to cast votes on any matter. Or a legislature in a bright-blue state decreeing the same disqualification for members seen sporting MAGA gear. Seems silly, I know — maybe even undemocratic.
But that's what's at stake in the kerfuffle that led to last week's unexpected order from the US Supreme Court granting a stay in a lawsuit by Maine Representative Laurel Libby, whom her colleagues censured for refusing to remove a social media post that identified a transgender high school athlete who'd won an event at the state championship. As a result of the censure, Libby was not allowed to vote or even to come onto the floor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
22 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis
In the fallout of over 9,000 Mississippians dying of overdoses since 2000, lawyers and lawmakers have set up a plan to distribute the hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations that catalyzed the crisis. But public health advocates and Mississippians closest to the public health catastrophe worry the setup could enable these dollars to be spent on purposes other than ending the overdose epidemic. Mississippi is expected to receive $370 million from pharmaceutical companies that profited while people struggled with addiction. That payout is set to be split between the state and local governments, with 85%, or about $315 million, being controlled by the Legislature. For years after the state attorney general's office helped finalize the first settlements in 2021, it was unclear how the state would distribute its share and how much would be used to prevent the crisis from persisting. State senators and representatives took a major step toward answering these questions earlier this year. They nearly unanimously passed Senate Bill 2767, a law that outlines a general framework for how about $259 million of the funds will be distributed. A 15-person advisory council — made up of representatives for state government agencies, elected officials and law enforcement officials — will develop a grant application process for organizations focused on addressing the opioid addiction crisis. After evaluating the applications and making a list of which grants should be funded, the Legislature will decide whether to approve or deny each of the council's recommendations. The state lawmakers can spend the remaining $56 million they control for any purpose — related or unrelated to addressing addiction. House Speaker Jason White and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who wield massive power over lawmakers and how state funds are spent, did not respond to questions from Mississippi Today about their priorities for the funds. Sen. Nicole Boyd, a Republican from Oxford and the bill's lead sponsor, said she and other senators borrowed some ideas from surrounding states to determine how these funds could best prevent more fallout from the opioid crisis. 'It involves everything, from child welfare services to the judicial system to medical care to mental health services,' she said. 'It is a crisis that has affected every aspect of society, and we needed a comprehensive group of people making those recommendations.' However, the bill leaves some questions unanswered, like how the application process will work, when it will open to the public and how grants will be evaluated. Public health advocates and Mississippians impacted by addiction expressed concern about the advisory council's makeup, the $56 million carveout for expenses unrelated to the opioid crisis and the Legislature's final decision-making power. They said those provisions could cause some of the corporate defendants' dollars to be spent on issues other than addressing and preventing overdoses. Jane Clair Tyner, a Hattiesburg resident, lost her 23-year-old son Asa Henderson in 2019 after he struggled for years with substance use disorder. Until last month, through her former job with the Mississippi overdose prevention nonprofit End It For Good, she worked to ensure that fewer parents have to go through the pain her family experienced. She said the only ways these state settlement dollars should be spent are on improving Mississippi public health and keeping people who are at risk of overdosing safe. 'That's what it should go towards, but not to the Legislature,' she said. 'This is not a rainy day slush fund.' An evolving plan It wasn't always the plan for the Legislature to control so much of the settlement dollars. In 2021, when Mississippi and other states were in the midst of negotiating settlements, State Attorney General Lynn Fitch published an agreement between the state and local governments that would send only 15% to the Legislature's general fund. The agreement said that the bulk of the money – 70% – would be sent to the University of Mississippi Medical Center to build a new addiction medicine institute. But Mississippi law says the Legislature is the ultimate decision maker for how this type of state settlement money gets spent, according to Fitch's Chief of Staff Michelle Williams. So lawmakers passed their bill to change the plan. The Legislature changed the arrangement to make sure the money goes to where the state's most pressing addiction needs are, said Boyd. The advisory council, which will be supplemented by at least 22 additional nonvoting members, is a good way to have those needs captured, she said. As for the Legislature having final approval power, Boyd said that and other provisions were put into the bill to keep some power with lawmakers if the council becomes ineffective or political. It's the highest percentage of any state's opioid settlement share that will be controlled by a Legislature, according to the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program and state guides. Dr. Caleb Alexander, an epidemiology professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, served as one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses for some of the opioid lawsuits. Alexander has also helped U.S. cities and counties develop blueprints for how to use the settlements to quell their opioid crises. He said using the money on a variety of prevention, treatment and recovery strategies, rather than one big project, is likely a better way to save lives and prevent more addiction. But having the Legislature, rather than an apolitical body of addiction experts, play such a large role is not the setup he would suggest. 'I would have some concerns that it may gum things up,' he said. Additionally, Alexander said creating ways for funds to not be used to address the opioid epidemic, as the 2025 bill does, is 'a shame.' While the settlement agreements say that 70% of the funds must be spent on addressing addiction, there is nothing that prevents all the money from being used for the crisis, and most statesare doing that. He said the settlements define a wide variety of uses as addressing the epidemic — from first responder training to medication research and development — and he doesn't see a scenario where it makes sense to spend the money on other uses. 'The costs of abatement far outweigh the available funds for every city or county that I've examined,' he said. Boyd said she believes her colleagues in the House and Senate are all motivated to use this money to address addiction as a mental health condition. She said the new bill categorizes some funds as 'nonabatement' to free them up for ways to address addiction that may not fit neatly into the settlements' list of uses. The attorney general's original plan was the first to categorize a percentage of the funds as not needing to be used to stop the opioid crisis. Williams said it was written that way to match the terms of the national settlement agreements, although the settlement for the largest payout says spending on purposes other than addressing the opioid crisis is 'disfavored by the parties.' She said Fitch would love to see all the funds be spent on addiction response and prevention, like the One Pill Can Kill campaign the office runs. 'But it's the Legislature's prerogative,' she said. 'Where are the people in recovery?' Jason McCarty, the Mississippi Harm Reduction Initiative's former executive director, said he's glad the plan is no longer to send such a large portion of the settlement funds to UMMC. Organizations like the Initiative, he said, also could use additional support to keep Mississippians from dying. And he's concerned that while a peer recovery specialist will serve as a nonvoting member, none of the committee's 15 voting members must be people who've experienced addiction. 'Where are the people in recovery?' he asked. 'We're the subject matter experts.' Boyd said many of the voting committee roles are representatives of state agencies that she expects will help administer the settlement grants, like the Department of Mental Health. And there were only so many people who the Legislature can assign spots. 'It was no slight to anybody,' she said. 'It's just, this is a completely complex issue.' The Mississippi governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house will each assign two people to the committee, and Boyd said it's possible they will choose people in recovery. The bill says council members need to be appointed by early June. However the process plays out, McCarty hopes all the state's funds go to reputable organizations focused on preventing more opioid-related harm. In Mississippi, he sees a lack of housing and treatment options, especially for new parents, as areas that this money can help address. And as hundreds of Mississippians continue to die from overdoses each year, he said the state government has to move quickly and responsibly to make these funds available. 'We don't have a year to wait. It needs to go out quicker.' ___ This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
After Ukraine's surprise drone assault on Russia, new attention drawn to sensitive sites stateside
After Ukraine launched a sudden drone assault on Russian installations, it brought new attention to the U.S.' own vulnerabilities, regardless of which side the U.S. stood on Kyiv's attack. In recent years, Chinese Communist Party-linked entities have commercially targeted land around the U.S., including in the vicinity of sensitive installations like the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. The Fufeng Group's 300-acre farmland purchase in 2021 first raised the collective antennae of Congress to such under-the-radar transactions – and even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis swiftly banned them in his state as a result, among other efforts around the country. On Tuesday, North Dakota's senators agreed that the U.S. must remain vigilant for any malign activity, whether it be from relatively novel drone assaults to potential espionage through real estate transactions. "When adversaries can buy our land, attend our universities, photograph silos in our prairies, perform aerial surveillance, park their ships near our military bases, or even just join our PTAs, they have more opportunities to be nefarious," Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer told Fox News Digital. "Our posture must always be vigilant, never assuming foreign actors are benign or have the best intentions," he said. "Whether it's directly spying, indirectly influencing, or sending drones to blow up aircraft, the ability of the enemy increases when we allow them easy access near our national interests." Cramer's Flickertail State counterpart, Sen. John Hoeven, joined an effort to prevent such land-buys and has worked with federal partners to update the process in which foreign investment is analyzed for approval and decided upon. "We need to remain vigilant against China and other adversaries," said Hoeven, who is co-sponsoring South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds' bill banning individuals and entities controlled by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from purchasing farmland or commercial land near sensitive federal sites. "At the same time, we're working to update the CFIUS process [which governs federal approval of foreign investments] to ensure proper reviews are taking place as well," Hoeven said. "We also are working to develop the technology we need to protect our domestic military bases from potential drone threats." Rounds' bill also has bipartisan support, including from Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto, D-Nev., whose state also hosts sensitive government sites like Nellis Air Force Base and Area 51. "It is common sense that we should not allow our foreign adversaries to buy agricultural land next to these locations," Masto said in a statement. Rounds added in a statement that America's "near-peer adversaries… are looking for any possible opportunity to surveil our nation's capabilities and resources." Even private-sector entities have expressed concern, including the South Dakota Soybean Association, which said farmland must be protected from foreign purchase for both agricultural and national security purposes.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Harvey Weinstein Defense Rests In NYC Rape Retrial; Closing Arguments Now, Then Case Goes To Jury
Harvey Weinstein is one crucial step closer to learning what his fate will be at the hands of the jury in his New York rape retrial. After a morning session in front of Judge Curtis Farber haggling over material that may or may not go to the jury (it won't), Weinstein's Arthur Aidala-led defense rested its case – without calling its client to testify for himself. Moving deftly, the proceedings are now in closing arguments, with Aidala pleading Weinstein's merits before the jurors. More from Deadline Harvey Weinstein Won't Testify In His Own Defense In NYC Sex Crimes Retrial; Jury Deliberations May Start Tuesday Patricia Clarkson Recalls Harvey Weinstein Telling Her She'd "Never Work Again" Harvey Weinstein's Move For Mistrial Fails On Second Day Of Rape Retrial - Update Closing arguments from the defense and the Manhattan District Attorney's office are expect to go on for a few hours, but the plan is the jury will have the case by the end of the day. At that point, the seven-woman, five-man panel will go behind closed doors to come to their verdict. The 73-year-old once powerful producer will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars if the jury hearing his retrial in New York convicts him on any of the three charges against him. Back in 2020, in Weinstein's now dismissed first Empire State rape case, the jury then took about five days to come to a verdict of guilty on two of five counts: third-degree rape and a first-degree criminal sexual act. In March of that year, an openly shocked Weinstein was sentenced to 23-years in state prison by now pink slipped New York Supreme Court Judge James Burke. In this retrial, while the single count of third degree rape that Weinstein is facing carries a maximum sentence of four years, each count of first-degree criminal sexual act carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. As well as the numerous cases of assaulting well-known actresses and models over the decades, prosecutors in the most benign way say Weinstein used his power and influence as an Oscar-winning producer and mini-studio boss to lure young women into his orbit. Offering what were almost always false promises of work and careers in film and television, Weinstein then often violently raped them or forced them into other unwanted sexual encounters. Fronted by the flamboyant Aidala, Weinstein's defense has sought to prove that the relationships between Weinstein and his accusers were long-running, consensual and mutually exploitive –-a 'friends with benefits' arrangement, as Aidala said in opening arguments, where sex was traded for access to Weinstein's professional network. Jurors in the rape and sexual assault retrial heard from two accusers, Jessica Mann and Miriam Haley, who also testified in graphic detail against Weinstein five years ago in his first criminal trial in New York. A third accuser testifying in the retrial, Kaja Sokola, was not part of the 2020 case: Sokola's accusation, that Weinstein assaulted her in a Manhattan hotel room in 2006, was the basis of a new charge — first-degree criminal sexual act — added to a revised grand jury indictment of the Pulp Fiction producer. Prosecutors secured the indictment last September, after Weinstein's 2020 conviction and 23-year prison sentence were overturned in April of 2024. A New York Court of Appeals ruled that the judge overseeing Weinstein's first trial, James Burke, had deprived the defendant of a fair trial by allowing uncharged testimony from other women who told jurors that Weinstein had sexually abused them. 'The court compounded that error when it ruled that defendant, who had no criminal history, could be cross examined about those allegations as well as numerous allegations of misconduct that portrayed defendant in a highly prejudicial light,' according to the 4-3 ruling. Weinstein did not testify at his first trial. The potential hazards of a wide-ranging cross examination were apparently a factor in his decision over the weekend to also not take the stand at the retrial. 'He wanted to testify, and we respect that instinct,' Weinstein's longtime spokesperson Juda Engelmayer told Deadline on Monday. 'At this stage, doing so would subject him to scrutiny far beyond the scope of the current charges — raising issues that could unfairly damage his credibility. Our position is one of caution, not evasion.' Weinstein remains in custody in New York because of his 2022 criminal conviction in Los Angeles. He s appealing that conviction and 16-year prison sentence for raping and assaulting a woman, identified only as Jane Doe, in 2013. Weinstein has denied ever committing rape or coercing anyone sexually. In a jailhouse interview last month with right-wing commentator Candace Owens, he said, 'I swear that before God and the people watching now and on my family. I'm wrongfully accused. But justice has to know the difference between what is immoral and what is illegal.' Since this retrial started in late April, the ailing Weinstein has shuttled between a downtown Manhattan courthouse and the jail wing of a nearby hospital, Bellevue. Citing his various ailments, as he has in previous trials at pivotal points, the once acclaimed producer has lobbied hard to stay out of New York's infamous Rikers Island jail, telling Judge Farber the conditions there are life-threatening. Farber decided in the first week of the retrial to allow Weinstein to stay at the historic hospital during the proceedings. On the subject of his medical needs ,Weinstein underwent emergency heart surgery in September and was diagnosed with cancer in October. Best of Deadline Everything We Know About 'Nobody Wants This' Season 2 So Far List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More Everything We Know About 'Happy Gilmore 2' So Far
