KRQE Newsfeed: Deb Haaland, Lawyer suspended, Another storm, Chile month, Special Olympics
CABQ shares plans for a new park along old stretch of Central Ave
NM lawmakers push to renew water standards after Supreme Court decision
Students could legally wear Native American regalia at graduation with proposed bill
One dead following deputy-involved shooting in South Valley
14 bands and artists nominated for Rock & Roll Hall of Fame
[1] Gubernatorial candidate Deb Haaland speaks on why she's running for state's top job – Former Interior Secretary Deb Haaland is sharing her priorities for New Mexico after launching her campaign for governor of New Mexico. Haaland was elected as a congresswoman for New Mexico in 2018 and in 2021 President Joe Biden appointed her as interior secretary. She's listing her top priorities as jobs, health, housing, education and safety.
[2] Thomas Clear III suspended from practicing law – Last week, Thomas Clear III told a federal court judge he hasn't practiced law since last summer. He asked to resign from the bar rather than give up his 5th Amendment right in order to try and defend himself against potential disbarment. Tuesday evening, the New Mexico Supreme Court issued an order suspending Clear's license to practice law.
[3] One storm departs before a stronger storm arrives in New Mexico – Storm system number one is moving away with a few fast-moving snow showers. Drier weather will briefly return to New Mexico Wednesday and Thursday. High temperatures Wednesday will be near and below average for most of the state before warming up again Thursday. Our next winter storm will move in Friday, bringing in mostly mountain/higher elevation snow and lower elevation rain through the day Friday.
[4] New Mexico legislators look to dedicate entire month to green and red chile – Some legislators are trying to recognize red and green chile for an entire month each year. A new bill would name August the official 'New Mexico Red and Green Chile Month.' This would like up with the beginning of harvest season and the Hatch Chile Festival.
[5] Police officer and athlete from NM join to carry torch at Special Olympics – Farmington Police Sergeant Travis Spruell has been chosen to join the final leg of the Law Enforcement Torch Run at the Special Olympics world Winter Games in Turin, Italy. Spruell will be joined by athlete Shelby Peterson, from Gallup. The two will serve as guardians of the prestigious Flame of Hope, carrying the flame across multiple Italian cities from March 1 – 8.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
2 hours ago
- Axios
Here's why advocates doubt the Supreme Court will revisit marriage equality
The first challenge to same-sex marriage since the Supreme Court enshrined the right a decade ago comes before a very different mix of justices, LGBTQ+ advocates said. The big picture: Legal experts believe the court is highly unlikely to hear the case because unwinding protections for same-sex marriage after so many years would be incredibly complicated. The request challenges the landmark decision in Obergefell v Hodges, which established that marriage equality is constitutionally protected under the 14th Amendment's due process clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Catch up quick: Kim Davis, a former Kentucky county clerk, is asking the Supreme Court to appeal an order that requires her to pay $360,000 to a gay couple in damages and fees for refusing to issue them a marriage license in 2015. Davis has been unsuccessfully appealing the order for years, and lower courts have repeatedly rejected her arguments. In a news release announcing the petition, an attorney representing Davis called Obergefell an "egregious opinion" that violated his clients "religious liberty." What they're saying: Mary Bonauto, one of the attorneys who represented lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, told Axios that Davis' case is "extremely narrow" and that she's "attempting to shoehorn an opportunity to relitigate" the landmark case. "There's good reason for the Supreme Court to deny review in this case rather than unsettle something so positive for couples, children, families and the larger society as marriage equality," she said. The intrigue: Shannon Minter, a spokesperson for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Axios that the Supreme Court "has shown an alarming willingness" to "reverse long-standing precedent" in recent years. He named the court's decision to reverse the right to abortion access enshrined in Roe v. Wade through the Dobbs decision, and gutting legislation that sought to equalize historic discrimination against people of color such as the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action policies. He also mentioned the court imposing new restrictions on the power of lower courts to unilaterally freeze nationwide policies through "universal" injunctions in a case related to President Trump's efforts to end constitutionally-protected birthright citizenship. Flashback: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said in 2022 that the high court should reconsider multiple previous opinions, including those that offer protections to same-sex relationships, marriage equality and access to contraceptives. Despite the unpredictability of the Supreme Court, here's why LGBTQ+ advocates aren't worried about marriage equality being reversed: What are the legal implications of trying to reverse marriage equality? Overruling Obergefell could potentially make someone's marital status apply in one state but not in another. Multiple experts said that would create a patchwork of problems for tax laws, insurance policies and legal custody over children. Robbie Kaplan's successful arguments to the Supreme Court in 2013 laid down the foundation for Obergefell. "It's hard to imagine a situation where the reliance interests are more consequential than in the case of nationwide marriage equality," Kaplan told Axios. "It's not just a recipe for administrative chaos," Kaplan continued. "It also would result in an almost indescribable amount of (needless) suffering and heartache." Do Americans support marriage equality? Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which federally defined marriage as a "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." At the time, 68% of Americans said they did not support marriage equality, according to a poll Gallup conducted in 1996. Stunning stat: Ten years after Obergefell, attitudes about marriage equality have flipped, as 68% of Americans now support it, according to Gallup's most recent numbers. What other protections exist for same-sex marriages? The Respect For Marriage Act passed by Congress in 2022, codifying the right to same-sex and interracial marriages is seen as a safety net for LGBTQ+ protections. The legislation also repealed the Defense of Marriage Act. Yes, but: The Respect For Marriage Act doesn't prohibit individual states from limiting or banning same-sex marriage if Obergefell were struck down. What's next: SCOTUS will decide if it wants to take up the case this fall. Approximately 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari are filed with the court each year, and the justices hear oral arguments in about 80 cases, according to the court's website. The bottom line:"None of us can predict what the court will do," Suzanne Goldberg, Director of the Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic at Columbia Law told Axios.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Mamdani's ‘war' against Trump spells bad news for NYC
Zohran Mamdani's 'Five Boroughs Against Trump' tour makes oodles of sense for him — but only at the expense of the rest of the city. Not just because the last thing New Yorkers need is a mayor seeking a war with the White House, since they'd inevitably be the cannon fodder. More: Centering the mayoral debate on countering President Donald Trump encourages everyone to ignore all the issues Mamdani doesn't want voters thinking about, like how to make the streets and subways safe, the public schools functional and the local economy growing. It also prevents any focus on his privilege and inexperience, his cop-hatred, his obsessive loathing of Israel and the unworkability of pretty much his entire 'positive' agenda. Truth is, it mainly appeals to the vanity of his Democratic Socialists and their cheerleaders: Already imagining that their guy's surprise victory (in a Democratic primary) puts America on the brink of a new socialist era, they now get to also dream of Mamdani somehow turning the tide against Bad Orange Man. Except that he can't 'stand up' to Trump (beyond boring bits like the legal efforts to claw back improperly canceled grants that Mayor Eric Adams already has under way). Indeed, no mere mayor of any city can. Check the US Constitution: You'll find no mention of a mayoral power to check the president, Congress or for that matter the Supreme Court. And in the real world, a Mayor Mamdani declaring war on Trump would entail setting City Hall on fire and expecting the White House to burn down. New York City has zero leverage over the federal government, except perhaps 1) Wall Street's money — which socialists can't direct except via their trust funds — and 2) whatever power the national media has left — when the media's already done its damnedest to stop Trump. The feds, meanwhile, can screw New York eight ways to Sunday, starting with cutting back on the hundreds of billions it sends our way. Nor can local government 'withhold' New Yorkers' taxes, as some whiz kids in the Legislature suggest. State Attorney General Tish James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg and a few complacent judges have already waged their worst lawfare against Trump, while then-Mayor Bill de Blasio did what he could against the Trump businesses that remain here. 'Trump-proofing' the city — the new tough talk from progressives around the country — is an empty threat, too: Federal law almost always trumps state and local ordinances. Playing tough guy and talking big is sure to give Mamdani lots of outraged outtakes for his social media. But he is writing checks that the people of NYC will have to pay.
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Texas AG asks judge to arrest Beto O'Rourke for redistricting battle fundraising
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking a judge to jail Beto O'Rourke, claiming the former Democratic congressman violated a court order by fundraising to support the dozens of state Democratic lawmakers who have fled the state amid its redistricting battle. The attorney general's request builds on a previous order, granted by a Texas county judge earlier this month, barring O'Rourke and his nonprofit, Powered by People, from raising money to help fund the Democratic lawmakers' exodus from the state more than a week ago. Paxton claimed in his filing to the Tarrant County court on Aug. 12 that O'Rourke violated the fundraising block by soliciting donations through the Democrats' ActBlue platform. "He's about to find out that running your mouth and ignoring the rule of law has consequences in Texas," Paxton said in a statement released alongside the filing. "It's time to lock him up." Paxton's move is the latest in growing escalations between Democrats and Republicans in the Lone Star state, as the standoff over GOP attempts to redraw congressional boundaries in Texas. The redistricting attempt could add another five Republican seats to Congress ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and is seen as blatant gerrymandering efforts by Democrats. In response, Democrats decamped the state en masse, many taking refuge in blue-led states like Illinois and New York, to prevent the vote from taking place in Austin, Texas, where the Republicans' firm majority would all but guarantee the revised maps pass. Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the arrest of the dozens of Democratic lawmakers who have fled while Paxton asked the state Supreme Court to oust them from office over their absence, arguing they abandoned their seats. Texas redistricting: Which states have threatened to redraw their own maps in response to Texas GOP plans? In the first sentence of the court filing, Paxton quoted the former congressman at an Aug. 9 Fort Worth event saying: "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules," claiming O'Rourke was "disparaging' the previous court order. In response, O'Rourke posted the full clip of his speech at the event to X, saying that Paxton took his words out of context in the filing. In the full recorded video of the speech, O'Rourke is speaking about the Democrats' attempts to put forward their own revised maps in states like California, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois, telling the crowd that blue states should redistrict now and "not wait for Texas to move first." "You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules,'" O'Rourke says immediately after speaking about the Democrats' redistricting efforts. "There are no refs in this game, f--- the rules, we are going to win. Whatever it takes, we are going to take this to them in every way that we can." O'Rourke said in his post on X on Aug. 12 that the attorney general's office lied in its filing. "We're seeking maximum sanctions in response to his abuse of office," he said. "Taking the fight directly to this corrupt, lying thug." Along with jail time, the attorney general is also requesting O'Rourke be held in contempt and fined $500. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.
