Supreme Court ruling will allow mass firings of Education Department employees
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump revokes Biden-era order on competition, White House says
By Andrea Shalal WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday revoked a 2021 executive order on promoting competition in the U.S. economy issued by his predecessor Joe Biden, the White House said. The move by Republican Trump further unwinds a signature initiative by Biden, a Democrat, to crack down on anti-competitive practices in sectors from agriculture to drugs and labor. Biden signed a sweeping executive order in July 2021 to promote more competition in the U.S. economy as part of a broad push to rein in what his administration described as a pattern of corporate abuses, ranging from excessive airline fees to large mergers that raised costs for consumers. The initiatives, which were very popular with Americans, were championed by Biden officials, many of whom had previously worked for or with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who played a key role in creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under former President Barack Obama. Trump had attacked that agency since taking office, announcing plans to shrink its workforce by 90%. Those moves have cost Americans at least $18 billion in higher fees and lost compensation for consumers allegedly cheated by major companies, according to an analysis released in June by the Student Borrower Protection Center and the Consumer Federation of America. Biden's order said it aimed to "enforce the antitrust laws to combat the excessive concentration of industry, the abuses of market power, and the harmful effects of monopoly and monopsony", focused on areas such as labor and healthcare.
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Full List of Supreme Court Cases to Be Heard This Coming Fall Term
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. The Supreme Court has released its October and November oral argument calendars for the 2025 term. Why It Matters The Supreme Court will begin its 2025 term on October 6. The justices are expected to hear several cases about issues that have drawn public interest, including redistricting and conversion therapy bans. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. A general overall exterior view of the Supreme Court, Sunday, Jan. 1, 2023, in Washington. Aaron M. Sprecher via AP Villareal v. Texas Oral arguments in Villareal v. Texas are scheduled for October 6. The case presents the question of whether a court violates a defendant's right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess. The petitioner, David Asa Villareal, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 60 years in prison. Villareal testified during the trial. On the first day of his testimony, the court declared a recess and dismissed the jury due to a previously scheduled administrative commitment. The court instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to discuss his testimony during the 24-hour recess. "When a defendant confers with his attorney, the defendant's testimony permeates every aspect of counsel's advice," attorneys for Villareal wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "There is no way to separate discussions of testimony from discussions of trial strategy. Prohibiting counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess is tantamount to preventing counsel from doing his or her job." Berk v. Choy The justices will also hear oral arguments in Berk v. Choy on October 6. The question presented in this case is whether a state law requiring the dismissal of a complaint if it is not accompanied by an expert affidavit may apply in federal court. Chiles v. Salazar The Court will hear arguments in Chiles v. Salazar on October 7. The justices will consider whether a Colorado state law banning conversion therapy for minors by mental health counselors violates free speech rights. The petitioner, Kaley Chiles, is a licensed counselor. "A practicing Christian, Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God's design, including their biological sex," attorneys for Chiles wrote in a petition for a writ of certiorari. "Many of her clients seek her counsel precisely because they believe that their faith and their relationship with God establishes the foundation upon which to understand their identity and desires. But Colorado bans these consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Attorneys for the respondents said legal precedent holds that the First Amendment permits states to regulate the practice of conversion therapy, "like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, even when those treatments involve speech." Barrett v. United States Oral arguments in Barrett v. United States are scheduled for October 7. The petitioner, Dwayne Barrett, was convicted of aiding a robbery by driving the codefendant to the scene, aiding the use of a gun during that robbery, a "crime of violence," and aiding the use of a gun used to kill during a "crime of violence." The justices will consider whether Barrett's sentencing on two charges violated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections The justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bost v. Illinois Board of Elections on October 8. One petitioner in this case is Representative Mike Bost, a Republican from Illinois. The Court will consider whether the petitioners have presented sufficient factual allegations to challenge state time, place and manner regulations concerning federal elections. Postal Service v. Konan Oral arguments in Postal Service v. Konan are scheduled for October 8. The case centers around an exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act barring lawsuits for claims arising out of the "loss" or "miscarriage" of "letters or postal matter." The justices will consider whether the exception applies to claims that arise from a USPS employee's intentional failure to deliver mail to a designated address. Bowe v. United States The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Bowe v. United States on October 14. The case centers around procedural questions related to the application of the federal laws governing post-conviction relief for federal prisoners. Ellingburg v. United States Oral arguments in Ellingburg v. United States are scheduled for October 14. The Court will consider whether a restitution order, imposed as part of a criminal sentence, violates a clause of the Constitution barring laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. Louisiana v. Callais Louisiana v. Callais, a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, is set for reargument on October 15. The justices first heard arguments in the redistricting case earlier this year. The Court will consider whether the map is racially gerrymandered to create majority-minority districts and whether the new districts violate the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais. Case v. Montana The Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Case v. Montana on October 15. The justices will consider whether law enforcement can enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring. Petitioner William Trevor Case alleges that law enforcement entered his home without a warrant and seized evidence used to prosecute Case for a felony. Case's ex-girlfriend had previously called law enforcement and said Case had threatened suicide during an argument over the phone. Rico v. United States Oral arguments in Rico v. United States are scheduled for November 3. The Court will consider whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Petitioner Isabel Rico had her supervised release revoked by a court because she had been deemed a fugitive by a probation office in 2018. Hencely v. Fluor Corporation The Court is scheduled to hear arguments in Hencely v. Fluor Corporation on November 3. The justices will consider whether a member of the U.S. armed forces who was injured in a military base bombing can sue the government contractor who employed the bomber. Hamm v. Smith The Court will hear arguments in Hamm v. Smith on November 4. The question presented is whether and how courts should assess a claim by a defendant that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled. The Alabama Department of Corrections argues that Joseph Smith is not intellectually disabled, citing multiple IQ tests where he scored higher than the level required to prove intellectual disability under the law. The Department of Corrections is asking the Court to reverse a lower court's decision overturning Smith's sentence. Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist Oral arguments in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist are scheduled for November 4. The case asks whether a district court's final judgment must be vacated when an appeals court later determines that it erroneously dismissed a party from the case when it was transferred to federal court. Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton The justices will hear oral arguments in Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton on November 5. Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety Oral arguments in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety are set for November 10. The Court will consider whether an inmate can file a lawsuit against a government official for violations of a federal law that protects the religious rights of prisoners, rather than the government entity that employs the official. Damon Landor, the petitioner, is a practicing Rastafarian. He alleges that he was held down by two prison guards while his head was shaved. Landor sued several officials and the Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety. A district court found that the law does not allow for damages against individual state officials. The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal The Court is expected to hear arguments in The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal on November 10. Fernandez v. United States The justices will hear arguments in Fernandez v. United States on November 12. The Court will consider whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" that may justify a lower sentence can also be cited as reasons to vacate a sentence in a motion for post-conviction relief. Rutherford v. United States Oral arguments in Rutherford v. United States are scheduled for November 12. The case has been consolidated with Carter v. United States. The case also relates to "extraordinary and compelling reasons" allowing for a reduced sentence. The justices will consider whether a district court can address disparities created by the First Step Act's prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentencing reduction. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
CNN
11 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump has vowed to free Jimmy Lai. A Hong Kong court is about to decide the media mogul's fate
Asia China Donald Trump MediaFacebookTweetLink Follow Days before winning his second presidential term, Donald Trump made a bold promise: if he returned to the White House, he would free a pugnacious, self-made billionaire from a Hong Kong prison. '100% I'll get him out. He'll be easy to get out,' Trump declared in a podcast interview in October, radiating his trademark confidence. Nearly ten months later, that tycoon Jimmy Lai – a pro-democracy firebrand and persistent thorn in Beijing's side – remains behind bars. The 77-year-old media mogul has spent more than 1,600 days in a maximum-security prison, much of it in solitary confinement, staring down the possibility of spending the rest of his life there. Lai, the outspoken founder of the now-shuttered Apple Daily – a fiercely pro-democracy tabloid newspaper known for years of blistering broadsides against the Chinese Communist party until its forced closure – has become a symbol of Beijing's sweeping national security crackdown on the once-freewheeling financial hub. In his landmark trial, Lai stands accused of two counts of colluding with foreign forces – a crime punishable by life in prison under the 2020 national security law imposed by Beijing – and a separate sedition charge. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. On Thursday, a Hong Kong court is set to hear closing arguments from both defense and prosecutors, paving the way for a verdict that will decide Lai's fate – and test Trump's resolve to make good on his pledge while trying to clinch a trade deal with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. In the October interview, Trump responded '100% yes' when asked by podcast host Hugh Hewitt whether he would speak to Xi to get Lai out of the country if he won the election. Then, as president, Trump pledged to raise Lai's case as part of US trade talks with China. 'I think talking about Jimmy Lai is a very good idea,' he told Hewitt in a subsequent radio interview in May, just days before officials met in Geneva for the first round of talks. 'We'll put it down, and we'll put it down as part of the negotiation.' Two people who are close to Lai and have been campaigning for his release said they were told that US officials did bring up Lai's case with their Chinese counterparts during the talks. 'We understand it was informally brought up at trade talks, but we don't know the context of it,' said Lai's top aide Mark Simon, referring to the negotiations in Geneva. Mark Clifford, president of the Washington-based Committee for Freedom in Hong Kong Foundation, said that before trade negotiators met again in London in June, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent 'had it as a mission' from Trump to ensure that Lai's release was part of the talks. 'I'm told that Bessent was tasked by the President and made it as part of his mission,' said Clifford, who has been lobbying the US Congress for Lai's release. 'Going into those talks, like immediately before those talks, Bessent told people that he was tasked by Trump with getting Jimmy out.' Responding to CNN's request for comment, White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said: 'As President Trump said, Jimmy Lai should be released, and he wants to see that happen.' China's Foreign Affairs Ministry and Commerce Ministry did not respond to requests for comment. Liu Pengyu, a spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said he was not aware of the 'specific details' when asked about whether Lai's case was brought up in the trade talks. 'We strongly oppose external forces using judicial cases as a pretext to interfere in China's internal affairs or to smear and undermine Hong Kong's rule of law,' Liu added. The Hong Kong government has also stood firm, urging 'any external forces' – without mentioning the US or Trump – to immediately stop interfering in the city's internal affairs and judicial process. 'Any attempt by any country, organization, or individual to interfere with the judicial proceedings in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by means of political power, thereby resulting in a defendant not being able to have a fair trial that one should receive, is a reprehensible act undermining the rule of law of Hong Kong and should be condemned,' the city's Security Bureau said in a statement. Lai's Thursday court hearing comes just days after Trump extended a trade truce with China, giving both sides another 90 days to try to settle their trade and tech disputes. In recent weeks, Trump has eased his confrontational stance toward Beijing, and has spoken enthusiastically about visiting China at Xi's invitation in the 'not too distant future' if a deal is reached. As part of that push, he has rolled back certain export controls on China – including reversing a ban on sales of Nvidia's H20 chips. This week, he opened the door to sending China more advanced AI chips. Experts on US-China relations say it remains unclear whether Trump can deliver on his pledge to free Lai, a China-born British national, citing his transactional style and unpredictable policy shifts. 'Jimmy Lai is British, not American. Given the high profile of his case, I doubt that China will be willing to make a deal,' said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington. 'But the trade talks are higher priority for Beijing. If Trump prioritizes Jimmy Lai's release, Beijing will be able to negotiate although it all depends on the terms.' Jean-Pierre Cabestan, a senior researcher at the Asia Centre think tank in Paris, said the uncertainty cuts both ways. 'How much pressure Trump will put on Xi to reach such a deal? Hard to say because the US administration has so many other priorities ahead of Jimmy Lai,' he said. 'But the big question is whether Xi will accept such a quid pro quo?' But Lai's family and supporters remain hopeful. 'We're incredibly grateful that the president knows about my father's case and has said that he will free him,' said Sebastien Lai, Jimmy Lai's son. 'The president has a tremendous track record in freeing prisoners around the world. So hearing this gives our family a lot of hope.' Others note the willingness of Trump administration officials to discussing Lai's case, as well as his broad backing in Washington and within the Catholic community. 'I know people in the Trump administration. We talk about it. They bring it up. The Catholic community has reached out to the White House and made their voice known. Various senators have reached out,' said Simon, the Lai aide. Lai's fortunes, both personal and financial, are inextricably tied to the transformation of Hong Kong. Born in mainland China, he arrived in the British-ruled city in the bottom of a fishing boat at age 12 and dirt poor. He worked his way up the factory floor of a textile company to become a clothing tycoon – a rags-to-riches story that echoed Hong Kong's own rise as a bustling commercial hub. But China's deadly 1989 crackdown on student protesters in Tiananmen Square politicized Lai and created something of a rarity in Hong Kong: a wealthy tycoon willing to openly criticize Beijing's leaders. He moved out of the clothing business and chose a new role – media baron. Lai founded Apple Daily in 1995, two years before Hong Kong was handed over to China. The outspoken publisher and his newspaper were at the forefront of the city's pro-democracy movement, including the sweeping anti-government protests in 2019. A known vocal supporter of Trump and a devout Catholic, Lai traveled to Washington at the height of the 2019 protests, where he met with then Vice President Mike Pence and other US politicians to discuss the political situation in the city. The media mogul had long held a conviction that Trump and the US government should not shy away from supporting Hong Kong's civil liberties, which are key for the city's status as a conduit between China and international markets. 'Mr. President, you're the only one who can save us,' Lai said in an interview with CNN in 2020 weeks before he was arrested. 'If you save us, you can stop China's aggressions. You can also save the world.' Prosecutors have argued that Lai's actions amounted to lobbying for sanctions against Beijing and Hong Kong, an act prohibited under the national security law that was imposed following 2019's huge and sometimes violent pro-democracy protests and has transformed the city. Lai's lawyers have countered that Lai had stopped those acts after the national security law came into effect on June 30, 2020. Taking the stand in his own defense in November, Lai said he had never spoken with Trump. 'I don't think he knew me. I think his aides knew me and briefed him about me,' he said. In Washington, efforts to call for Lai's release have continued through Joe Biden's presidency and into Trump's second term. In March, a bipartisan group of US House representatives introduced a bill to rename the street in front of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Washington as '1 Jimmy Lai Way.' That same month, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio – a former top China hawk in the Senate – said in an interview that getting Lai out of jail was a 'priority.' 'We've raised it in every possible form and they know that it's important to us,' Rubio said, referring to Chinese officials. 'It's not something we've forgotten about and that it remains a priority, and I think other countries around the world are making the same point as well to the Chinese.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer brought up the case of Lai in his first meeting with Xi, on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brazil in November 2024. British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has also urged Lai's release, calling his imprisonment 'cruel and unusual punishment' and describing the case as 'a priority for the UK government' — remarks that drew a sharp rebuke from Beijing. So far all of Hong Kong's national security trials have been heard by a panel of specially selected judges, not juries – a departure from the city's common law tradition. The closing arguments are expected to take multiple days and it could be weeks, or even months, before the judges render their verdict. People campaigning for Lai's release argue that given his old age and frail health, it'll be more trouble for Beijing and Hong Kong authorities to keep him in prison than set him free. 'If he dies in prison, he's going to be trouble forever. He'll be a martyr. He'll be a symbol of resistance. He'll be a symbol of the cruelty of the Chinese Communist regime. And why would (Beijing) want that?' said Clifford, who wrote a biography of Lai titled 'The Troublemaker.' Simon, the top aide, said Lai has to be convicted first, before things can start moving forward to get him out of prison. While Washington has used diplomacy to secure the release of political prisoners in mainland China in the past, such interventions would be rare — if not unprecedented — in Hong Kong, which has its own separate legal system, experts say. Paul Harris, former chairman of Hong Kong's Bar Association, said the fact that Lai is in Hong Kong does not create an obstacle to his release. Under Hong Kong's mini-constitution, the Basic Law, the chief executive has the power – and the duty – in appropriate cases to pardon convicted prisoners or commute their sentences, he explained. 'So that power is there, and it's a matter for the Chief Executive's decision whether he wants to use it, and one can safely assume that if the President of China wants him to use it, he will use it,' Harris said, referencing Xi. 'Jimmy Lai is in the second half of his 70s. He has certain health problems. It is totally consistent with the rule of law, as it has always operated, to release elderly prisoners with health problems. And so if the will is there, it can be done.' But for supporters of Lai, the campaign to free him is a race against time. Sebastien Lai said he's deeply concerned about his father's deteriorating health. 'He's 77 this year, turning 78 at the end of the year, any type of incarceration is incredibly worrying for his health, never mind the solitary confinement and the diabetes,' he said, calling his father's prolonged solitary confinement 'a form of torture.' 'And during the summer, Hong Kong goes up to 30, almost 40 degrees, and he's in a little concrete cell, so he bakes in there. We're incredibly worried about him.' The Hong Kong government said it strongly condemns what it calls 'misleading statements' about the treatment of Jimmy Lai in custody. 'The remarks by Sebastien Lai regarding Lai Chee-ying's solitary confinement are completely fact-twisting, reflecting a malicious intention to smear and attack the HKSAR Government,' it said in a statement, adding Lai had requested his removal from general prison population. Sebastien Lai said his concern for his father is also layered with pride. 'I'm very proud that someone like my father has decided to do what he did – campaigning for democracy for the last 30 years, staying in Hong Kong when it mattered, when the national security law was coming down…and almost acting like a lightning rod.' 'On a personal level, it's devastating. But on a grander, historical level, it's important to keep watch.' CNN's Kristie Lu Stout, Manveena Suri and Alejandra Jaramillo contributed reporting.
