How Abortion Bans Are Affecting Where Women Live and Work
'It seemed like people were always trying to change the legislation around abortion every single year but I never thought it would really happen legitimately,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's DOJ puts companies on notice: Don't evade tariffs
The Justice Department is putting American companies on notice that they could be prosecuted if they chose to evade President Trump's tariffs, even as the legality of the president's "Liberation Day" duties remain unsettled in US courts. The message came in a DOJ announcement earlier this month stipulating that prosecutors would step up investigations into suspiciously classified imports and charge those who misidentify products with fraud. 'While the DOJ has always taken some customs cases, this is a different, more aggressive, visible stance than they usually would,' said Thompson Coburn trade lawyer Robert Shapiro. Read more: 5 ways to tariff-proof your finances The plan — to be carried out by the DOJ's new Market, Government, and Consumer Fraud Unit — marks a shift in enforcement tactics from prior administrations that relied mostly on policing misconduct through administrative proceedings, even during Trump's first term in office. The new Trump administration instead wants to prioritize criminal charges against companies and individuals that try to evade US tariffs. The overarching strategy was first outlined by Matthew R. Galeotti, head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, who wrote in a May memo that an increasing focus on white collar crime would include "trade and customs fraudsters, including those who commit tariff evasion." At the same time, the Trump administration finds itself in the unusual position of defending the legality of the duties it pledges to enforce. Oral arguments in a federal lawsuit challenging the president's tariffs are set to take place before the US Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., this Thursday. The small business importers challenging the legal standing of the duties already proved it was possible to temporarily derail Trump's global tariffs with a lower court victory in May. In a separate challenge, two toy manufacturers are scheduled to make their own arguments against Trump's tariffs before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 30, following their own lower court victory. 'We're going to raise the ante' Tariff violations can be prosecuted under civil or criminal laws. However, even fraud cases were often handled administratively by past administrations, according to Shapiro. 'I think the administration is just saying we're going to raise the ante on this,' Shapiro said. University of Kansas School of Law professor Raj Bhala said laws against customs fraud have long been in force, but the appetite for the DOJ and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to clamp down on violations has increased. Historically, Bhala and other trade lawyers said, prosecutors focused government resources on suspected tariff violations by US adversaries such as China, Iran, and North Korea, and particularly on export controls meant to keep controlled items from shipping to those countries. Producer-exporters, especially in China and other high-tariff regions, have been using evasion techniques for decades, mostly to skirt anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders, Bhala said. But now, under more imposing tariffs, incentives to evade duties have spiked 'enormously.' 'What is clear is that a lot of companies are looking for a way to limit the impact of the duties,' Shapiro said. In this new tariff and enforcement environment, trade experts suspect that corporate America and its trading partners are on high alert. Erika Trujillo, a trade attorney with customs risk management firm SEIA Compliance Technologies, said the shift toward more enforcement happening at the DOJ and less through administrative procedures could increase politically motivated targeting of companies viewed as adverse to the Trump administration's interests. 'I do think trade restrictions were used as both a sword and a shield for foreign companies, or in terms of dealing with international trade,' Trujillo said. Common tariff evasion techniques include misclassifying goods, falsely labeling a product's country of origin, making minor modifications to a product while it's in a lower-tariff jurisdiction to pass it off as manufactured there, and transhipping goods through lower-tariff jurisdictions. Read more: The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs 'It's hard to imagine that any well-run company that has supply chains stretching across the globe — particularly in higher-tariff jurisdictions like China or Cambodia — would not be having vigorous discussions to ensure every step in the supply chain is properly documented and audited,' Bhala said. Bhala cautions that the stakes are high for importers subject to US jurisdiction. 'They're the importer of record and they're the ones who are liable for the tariffs,' he said. 'And false declarations are what we call 'go to jail stuff.'' For fraud, fines can also be assessed, up to the domestic value of the merchandise. For civil violations made based on negligent actions, maximum penalties are two times the underpayment of duties, in addition to original duties. For violations based on gross negligence, penalties increase to four times the underpayment of duties. For businesses looking to assess their risk, US Customs maintains an electronic system called the Automated Commercial Environment (ACT) that allows importers to view what their classification data looks like to customs. Small and midsize companies may find it more difficult to evaluate their compliance risks compared to multinational firms. 'If you're an SME, you probably have one or two lawyers, and they're not necessarily trade specialists,' Bhala said. Plus, there are different rules for thousands of products. For example, a typical NAFTA good, he explained, traverses the US-Canada border roughly four times. 'It's really difficult for companies of that size to be dealing with this,' Trujillo said. One major challenge is finding affordable internal expertise. 'Almost every company I know is actively hiring for both customs and export controls, and sanctions. You're basically stuck going to law firms or other external consultancy, and the small and medium-sized firms are maybe not going to have the budget to pay $1,100 an hour.' Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet For certain suspected violations like those made by mistake, Shapiro said it doesn't make economic sense for the DOJ to get involved. 'They don't have the manpower for it,' he said. But a new enforcement policy seems to fit the Trump administration's broader tariff agenda, he added. 'If you're going to have this tariff policy, you're going to have to take a more aggressive stance, because it's a huge ocean of imports, and it's very hard for customs to enforce against everyone.' Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices
CNN
23 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump
Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 – with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on – the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order. The answer, a half-year later, is no. That was underscored this month by the court's decisions allowing Trump to fire another set of independent regulators, to dismantle the Department of Education and to deport migrants to dangerous countries where they have no citizenship or connection. Meanwhile, the fissures among the nine have deepened. They have condemned each other in written opinions and revealed the personal strains in public appearances. The conservative majority that controls the court has repeatedly undercut the US district court judges on the front lines who've held hearings, discerned the facts, and issued orders to check Trump actions. In the most significant case so far related to Trump's second term, touching on birthright citizenship, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pointedly addressed the role of lower court judges, saying they have a limited ability to block arguably unconstitutional moves. '(F)ederal courts do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them,' Barrett wrote for the conservative majority as it reversed a series of lower court decisions. 'When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' Dissenting in that late June case, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the majority had essentially 'shoved lower court judges out of the way.' More recently, last Wednesday, the conservative majority overrode US district and appellate court judges to let Trump fire Biden-appointed members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission who'd been confirmed by the Senate and were still serving their terms. To justify the action, the conservative majority referred to an earlier action in May letting Trump remove members of two independent entities that protect private employees and federal workers, respectively, the National Labor Relations Board and Merit Systems Protection Board. Neither in the earlier case nor the new one centered on the commission that shields consumers from hazardous products did the majority acknowledge that a 1935 precedent, Humphrey's Executor v. United States, had protected such independent board members from being fired without legitimate reason such as misconduct. As lower court judges have noted, the justices have never reversed Humphrey's Executor, leaving it as a precedent that judges – at least those below the nine justices – must follow. Without formally taking up the issue, calling for briefing and holding arguments, the high court is nonetheless signaling a new course – obliquely. 'Although our interim orders are not conclusive as to the merits, they inform how a court should exercise its equitable discretion in like cases,' the Supreme Court said in its unsigned order on July 23. 'The stay we issued in (the May case) reflected 'our judgment that the Government faces greater risk of harm from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty.'' The message: They did it before, they can do it again. Referring to the consequences, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan wrote, 'By means of such actions, this Court may facilitate the permanent transfer of authority, piece by piece by piece, from one branch of Government to another.' The high court similarly brushed aside lower court determinations when it ruled on July 14 against states and labor unions that had sued the Department of Education for its actions to dissolve the agency. The majority declined to offer any hint of its rationale. However, the dissenting liberal justices in a 19-page opinion picked up lower court judges' emphasis on the history of the agency created by Congress nearly a half-century ago: '(T)he Department plays a vital role in this Nation's education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year. Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department.' Referring to Education Secretary Linda McMahon's directives removing half the staff and aiming for an eventual shutdown of the department, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added, 'When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary's duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.' The six Republican-appointed conservatives have expressed no dread, offered no warnings that Trump's actions might ever go too far, unlike the Democratic-appointed liberal dissenters. The conservatives, in fact, took pains to avoid any disapproval of Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship – that is, the constitutional guarantee that children born in the US become citizens even if their parents are not – as they clipped lower courts' power to impose nationwide injunctions. That June 27 decision's effect on his proposed lifting of birthright citizenship is still working its way through lower courts. Sotomayor and Jackson have routinely protested in provocative terms. When Sotomayor dissented in a high-profile deportation case earlier this month, she warned that migrants flown out of the US to South Sudan could face torture or death. The two liberals have also referred to the personal costs. Sotomayor said in a May speech that she sometimes returns to her office after a decision is issued, closes her door and weeps. Jackson, who seems most isolated from the rest of the justices, told an audience earlier this month she is kept up at night by 'the state of our democracy.' The conservatives who dominate have directed any angst or anger not toward the executive branch but toward their judicial colleagues. In the birthright citizenship case, Barrett (in the majority) and Jackson (dissenting) traded insults that suggested a lack of mutual respect. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument,' Barrett wrote, even as she criticized her for choosing 'a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. … Rhetoric aside, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.' Jackson wrote that the Barrett majority had reduced the case to 'a mind-numbingly technical query.' And Jackson, writing alone, asserted, 'the majority sees a power grab—but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are … (wait for it) … the district courts.' Roberts signed onto all of Barrett's opinion in that late June case. If he and fellow conservatives engage in any special regard or deference, it's not for their lower court colleagues or the liberals with whom they sit. It's for Donald Trump.
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
Democrats got a top Senate recruit in North Carolina. Now they're trying to find more
Congressional news Senate election US elections Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow Democrats landed the biggest recruiting win of the 2026 midterm elections to date when former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper launched his Senate run Monday, boosting party hopes of winning the seat opened by retiring Republican Sen. Thom Tillis. They are looking for several more wins just like it to have a chance of flipping four Republican-held seats and going after a goal that seemed far out of reach earlier this cycle: taking the Senate majority next fall. The Senate recruiting landscape has been a mixed bag for both parties with uncertainty over President Donald Trump's popularity, the role he'll play in Republican primaries, and questions about the political futures of several high-profile figures — both incumbents and potential candidates — hanging over the early stages of the election cycle. Democrats hope they can run strong candidates in Maine and GOP-friendly states like Iowa and Texas. They also have to defend seats in four potentially competitive states: Georgia, where Sen. Jon Ossoff is up for reelection, and Michigan, Minnesota and New Hampshire, where the party's incumbents are all retiring. In New Hampshire, Rep. Chris Pappas, another top Democratic recruit, is running for Senate, while on the Republican side, former Gov. Chris Sununu passed on the race. In Georgia, popular Republican Gov. Brian Kemp passed on a Senate race in a break for Ossoff. And in Maine, Democrats are hoping Gov. Janet Mills will challenge longtime Republican Sen. Susan Collins. But Democrats are trying to resolve conflicts in other races on the board and prevent drawn-out primaries that could hurt their chances next November. 'Governor Cooper is a formidable candidate who will flip North Carolina's Senate seat, and his announcement is the latest indication that the Republicans' Senate majority is at risk in 2026,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his Senate campaign chief, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, said in a statement to CNN. Michigan's open Senate race is the one that most worries national Democrats, according to half a dozen lawmakers, senior aides and strategists. Republicans are largely uniting behind former Rep. Mike Rogers, the party's losing nominee in the 2024 Senate race. Rogers got a boost in recent days when Rep. Bill Huizenga passed on a Senate run, a decision that followed a push from Trump and other Republicans to defend a potentially competitive House seat in western Michigan, a source familiar with the matter said. Rogers' supporters argue that he now has advantages that he didn't when he lost last year to then-Rep. Elissa Slotkin, including a primary field free of other major contenders and stronger early fundraising. Democrats are facing a competitive primary that includes three well-known contenders: Rep. Haley Stevens, state Sen. Mallory McMorrow and progressive former gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Several of the Democratic sources CNN spoke to said Schumer and his team have privately signaled they believe Stevens is the strongest general election candidate. In another nod to Stevens' Democratic establishment support, she earned an endorsement from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier this summer. And two people involved in Michigan politics said Gillibrand has privately encouraged donors to support Stevens. A spokesperson for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee declined to comment on Gillibrand's behalf, but offered an upbeat statement that Democrats would hold the seat next November. 'Republicans have not won a Senate race in Michigan in 30 years — and 2026 will be no different with failed candidate Mike Rogers on the ballot,' spokesperson Maeve Coyle said in a statement. Democrats there have also been surprised by the strong fundraising power of El-Sayed — backed by independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — who has been urging his party to take a more aggressive stance on Trump. Democrats in the state are still hoping they can unite behind a candidate before next August's primary. But there have been some hurdles, including interpersonal disputes between Slotkin and other major players in the state, including Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. They also fear that the state's race for governor won't help either: Mike Duggan, the popular Detroit mayor, has decided to run as an independent, potentially splintering the Democratic base and raising questions about what that could mean for Michigan's Senate and House races. 'I don't think people understand how dysfunctional the Senate race is,' one Michigan Democrat told CNN of the bruising three-way primary. 'If we don't pull people together, we are screwed.' Texas is a red state, but Republicans face an increasingly bitter primary battle between Sen. John Cornyn and his conservative challenger, MAGA-aligned state Attorney General Ken Paxton — one that intensified with the news that Paxton's wife, state Sen. Angela Paxton, had filed for divorce. National Republicans believe that Cornyn is in trouble, and pro-Cornyn groups are already spending heavily this summer in a bid to demonstrate he can keep pace with Paxton in polls. A third potential candidate, Rep. Wesley Hunt, has not ruled out a bid and has been spending small sums on advertising, with more expected in the coming weeks. Another Republican often mentioned as a possible contender, Rep. Ronny Jackson, is one of Trump's closest allies in Texas. But two people familiar with discussions about Jackson's future said he is expected to remain in the House and one said he is interested in a Trump administration role in the future. Democrats believe Paxton would be a weaker general election candidate if he wins the Republican primary. But they could face a messy primary of their own. Former Rep. Colin Allred, the party's losing nominee in the 2024 Senate race, has already launched his campaign, with his supporters pointing to how he outran Kamala Harris in key parts of the state last November. Beto O'Rourke, who lost the 2018 Senate race and the 2022 governor's race, is also considering a run and is hitting the road like a candidate. He held 16 town halls across the state in May, June and July, including 12 in Republican-held congressional districts. And other Democrats are also considering Senate runs. Some officials and donors have sought to steer potential Senate candidates into other races, urging state Rep. James Talarico to run for governor and US Rep. Joaquin Castro to run for attorney general, three people familiar with the matter said. However, it's not clear that Talarico or Castro are moving toward those races themselves. Talarico told CNN last week he is 'certainly thinking about' running for higher office, and will make decisions about his political future after Texas' special legislative session, which began last week and can last no more than 30 days. 'Once that's over, I am going to look at how I can best serve, and that includes the US Senate,' Talarico said. 'I'm not taking anything off the table right now.' Castro and his office did not respond to CNN's request for comment. He testified in a Texas legislative hearing last week, opposing a GOP push during the special session to redraw the state's congressional lines. Castro told state lawmakers they are 'being used by the White House and Donald Trump.' O'Rourke's political action committee has hosted events with many of the Texas Democrats weighing statewide runs. Talarico, Castro, Rep. Jasmine Crockett and others spoke at a rally Friday in Austin. In late June, O'Rourke, Talarico and Castro all participated in a similar town hall in San Antonio hosted by O'Rourke's group. Uncertainty looms over two other states Democrats hope to target: Ohio and Iowa. The party's hopes of defeating Ohio Republican Sen. Jon Husted — who was appointed by Gov. Mike DeWine in January to fill the seat formerly held by Vice President JD Vance — largely depend on whether former Sen. Sherrod Brown, who lost his reelection bid in 2024, attempts a comeback. Iowa is also a question mark, with operatives buzzing for months over rumors that Republican Sen. Joni Ernst — who faced backlash after dismissing concerns about Medicaid funding cuts by telling a crowd that 'we are all going to die' — could retire. 'There's always all kinds of chitter-chatter everywhere, but I have a lot left to do in the United States Senate, so I am not slowing down any time soon. We'll have an announcement this fall,' Ernst told Radio Iowa this month. However, Republicans have a deep bench in the red state. Many within the party believe Rep. Ashley Hinson would be the favorite in a primary to replace Ernst. The still-growing Democratic field in Iowa already includes state Rep. J.D. Scholten, state Sen. Zach Wahls and Knoxville Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Nathan Sage. Another likely long shot for Democrats is Alaska, where Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan is up for reelection. Democrats are waiting for a decision from former Rep. Mary Peltola, who lost her House seat to GOP Rep. Nick Begich last year but is viewed as perhaps the only Democrat who could turn that Senate race into a competitive one. CNN's Ed Lavandera contributed to this report.
