Kentucky Church Brings Pandemic-Era Legal Dispute to Supreme Court
The church is arguing that its constitutional rights were violated when it was denied attorney's fees in its lawsuit, after the same court awarded those fees to litigants in another lawsuit based on the same facts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
6 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
The Hill
6 minutes ago
- The Hill
‘Tariff rebates' proposed: How would they work?
(NEXSTAR) — If you've been waiting and hoping for another stimulus check since receiving your last COVID relief payment in 2021, you may be in luck. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has introduced legislation that would send out 'tariff rebates' meant to 'allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country.' As The Hill reports, the rebates would be modeled after the payments sent out after Congress authorized the 2020 CARES Act. In that case, adults received direct payments of $1,200 and $500 for their dependent children. Hawley introduces bill to provide $600 tariff rebates to adults and children Unlike those payments, these rebates would serve to offset the higher prices consumers have faced amid tariffs. According to Hawley, the U.S. has recorded $30 billion in tariff revenue as of June. He cited additional projections that say the revenue could exceed $150 billion this year alone. Under Hawley's bill, however, the individual payments would be much smaller. How much would the tariff rebates be? Each adult would receive 'at least $600,' as would each dependent child. The total rebate for a DINK (dual income, no kids) household, for example, would be at least $1,200, while a family of four could receive $2,400. Payments could increase 'if tariff revenue exceeds current projections for 2025,' according to a press release from Hawley's office describing the proposed legislation. Who will — and won't — have a three-payday August Payments would also decrease based on household income. The bill's text says rebates would be reduced based on a taxpayer's filing status and their adjusted gross income. That income threshold is $150,000 for those filing a joint return; $112,500 for those filing as a head of household; and $75,000 for a single taxpayer. Who would be eligible for a payment? Hawley's bill does not explicitly outline who would be eligible, but rather who is ineligible. That includes: 'any nonresident alien individual'; those who can be claimed on another taxpayer's taxes; and estates or trusts. As we saw with the COVID stimulus checks, your most recent taxes would likely be used to determine your eligibility and the size of your payment. When could tariff rebates be sent out? It's too early to say, as Hawley's bill would still need to make it through Congress. President Donald Trump has expressed support for the idea, telling reporters last week that the U.S. has 'so much money coming in' because of the tariffs that 'we're thinking about a little rebate.' 'A little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice,' he said, while noting that 'the big thing we want to do is pay down the debt.' As of Tuesday, the federal deficit sits at roughly $36.7 trillion. If you would like to help pay it down, you can now use Venmo to contribute to the 'Gifts to Reduce the Public Debt' program.
Fox News
7 minutes ago
- Fox News
MI Dems seek to prosecute mask-wearing ICE, after state instituted $500 fine for being maskless during COVID
A Michigan Democratic effort would open up ICE agents to state prosecution if they conduct immigration enforcement operations while wearing masks that conceal their identity. The effort comes five years after Michigan Democrats supported Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's order outlining $500 fines for civilians who, conversely, defied her executive order to wear masks in public during the coronavirus pandemic. The bill's sponsor, state Rep. Betsy Coffia, D-Traverse City, said Friday ICE's masking-up "mirror the tactics of secret police in authoritarian regimes and strays from the norms that define legitimate local law enforcement." "It confuses and frightens communities," she said. "Those who protect and serve our community should not do so behind a concealed identity." A banner on the dais from which Coffia announced the bill read, "Justice needs no masks." State Rep. Noah Arbit, D-West Bloomfield, added his name as a co-sponsor and said in a statement when a person is unable to discern whether someone apprehending them is a government authority or not, it "shreds the rule of law." "That is why the Trump administration and the Republican Party are the most pro-crime administration and political party that we have ever seen," Arbit said. Attorney General Dana Nessel, who was one of several state prosecutors to demand Congress pass similar legislation at the federal level, also threw her support behind the bill. "Imagine a set of circumstances where somebody might be a witness to a serious crime and that defendant has some friends go out and literally just mask up and go apprehend somebody at a courthouse," Nessel told the Traverse City NBC affiliate. However, during the coronavirus pandemic, Whitmer issued an executive order in June 2020 that mandated people "wear a face covering whenever they are in an indoor public space." "It also requires the use of face coverings in crowded outdoor spaces. Most significantly, the order requires any business that is open to the public to refuse entry or service to people who refuse to wear a face covering. No shirts, no shoes, no mask—no service," the order read. Violators who refused to wear masks in such situations, excluding houses of worship, were subject to $500 penalties, according to WXYZ. Nessel, at the time, had praised the Michigan Claims Court for acting quickly to clarify the legality of Whitmer's prior executive orders related to COVID-19, including the stay-at-home edict. "With this clarity, it's my hope that our public officials and residents can move forward with confidence that the Governor has acted in accordance with the authority provided to her under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act," she said in a statement. "It's time for us all to focus on the health and safety of the people in this state rather than fighting against each other in unnecessary legal battles in our courts." Nessel also lent her name to an amicus brief this month supporting a case brought against ICE over tactics used during its raids in Los Angeles. "When masked, heavily armed federal agents operate with no identification, they threaten public safety and erode public trust," Nessel said in the brief. Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Kalamazoo, told Fox News Digital he doesn't see Coffia's bill making it to Whitmer's desk, calling it an "attack on law enforcement." "The people want these dangerous criminal aliens off our street, and we are doing everything we can to partner with the Trump administration and put an end to illegal immigration," he said Monday, adding that Democrats "will do everything they can to get in the way of local police and ICE because they've always cared more about criminals than victims. "But that ends here," he added. "This ridiculous bill is dead on arrival." When asked about the bill and the apparent COVID-related hypocrisy, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said it shows "power-hungry politicians" are continuing to "push disgusting smears against our brave officers, who are simply enforcing the law, in a repulsive effort to score cheap political points." "State Rep. Coffia has clearly never been on an ICE operation because she would see our officers verbally identify themselves, wear vests that say ICE/ERO or Homeland Security, and are flanked by vehicles that also say the name of the department." McLaughlin said the masks are vital to prevent officers from being targeted by "highly sophisticated gangs" like Tren de Aragua and MS-13. "These arguments are getting a little desperate," she said. Fox News Digital reached out to Nessel, Whitmer and Coffia for further comment.
