Latest news with #ArianaFigueroa
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Supreme Court hears Oklahoma Catholic charter school case
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday over the constitutionality of a religious charter school seeking to open in Oklahoma. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom) WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments Wednesday over the nation's first religious charter school that aims to open in Oklahoma, putting the constitutionality of a state-funded Catholic education to the test. A state board in Oklahoma approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to operate as a publicly funded charter school in 2023. The Oklahoma Supreme Court blocked the school from opening in a June ruling, finding the concept of a religious charter school a violation of the Constitution's prohibition against government-established religion. The nation's highest Court, with its conservative majority, agreed to hear an appeal of the ruling. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic with ties to two legal groups behind St. Isidore, has recused. Five of the eight remaining justices who heard the case also are Catholic — John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan is Jewish, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a nondenominational Protestant. A decision from the Court is expected by the end of June. The Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa applied to open St. Isidore, named after the patron saint of the internet, to offer an online Catholic education to students in all parts of the state, particularly in rural areas with no brick-and-mortar Catholic school. Both the school and the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board, which approved St. Isidore's founding contract, appealed the state Supreme Court ruling. Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel of the national conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, presented the statewide board's oral arguments Wednesday. Michael H. McGinley of Deckert LLP represented St. Isidore. Both contend states cannot exclude certain charter schools from education funding on the basis of religion. Former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, now of Latham & Watkins LLP, gave oral arguments on behalf of the Oklahoma attorney general, who said the concept of a publicly funded religious school is unconstitutional. St. Isidore would be Catholic in all ways but open to students of all belief systems, archdiocese officials have said. Students would have to learn Catholic doctrine, attend Mass and obey school rules inspired by church beliefs. Oklahoma and federal law have long specified that charter schools are public schools. State statute requires charter school programs to be non-sectarian and forbids charter schools from affiliation with a religious institution. Charter schools are subject to most regulations that apply to traditional public schools in Oklahoma, but they have more flexibility with teaching methods and employee hiring. They are governed by independent boards, though they must contract with a traditional school district, college or university, Native American tribe or a state board that oversees them as a charter authorizer. Attorneys representing St. Isidore and the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, which approved the school in 2023, contend charter schools aren't an arm of the government like traditional public schools. Rather, they are private entities who contract with the state to provide a public service, like a private hospital, and therefore should be free to adopt a religion, the board and the school's legal counsel said. Supporters of the school cited recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court that found faith-based private schools can't be excluded on the basis of religion from receiving government grants or state-funded tuition vouchers. 'The Court has made it clear time and again that you can't open up a program to private organizations but then say, 'But we can't allow religious organizations into that program,'' Phil Sechler, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, told Oklahoma Voice. Rejecting St. Isidore because of its Catholic faith is religious discrimination, Sechler said. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has been the school's leading opponent, despite it having support from fellow Republican leaders in the state, including Gov. Kevin Stitt and state Superintendent Ryan Walters. Drummond said before the hearing he isn't worried the Court's conservative majority will rule against him. 'I think even conservative people such as myself know how to read the Constitution,' he said. Charter schools are entwined with the government as public schools, Drummond said, so one becoming religious would violate constitutionally required church-state separation. 'St. Isidore, the charter school, would not exist but for the contract (with the state),' Drummond said. 'The school is established by the state. The school can be closed by the state. The school must be open to all, free, subject to substantive oversight, subject to state control. This is not a private contractor.' The attorney general said allowing a Catholic charter school creates a 'slippery slope' to any faith group operating a school with state dollars. Oklahoma taxpayers shouldn't be forced to finance religious schools that contradict their faiths, he said. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed. The state's justices found charter schools meet the definition of a 'state actor' under two tests the U.S. Supreme Court established. They decided a charter school is sufficiently entwined with government control and that it provides a 'public function' of free public education, a duty the Oklahoma Constitution gives exclusively to the state. Editor's note: This is a breaking news story and will be updated. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in Pennsylvania provisional ballots case, Democrats argue
The U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom) The U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear a GOP appeal in a pivotal Pennsylvania election law case, the state Democratic party and the Democratic National Committee argued in a court filing Friday. The Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania asked the high court in January to hear their appeal of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on provisional ballots issued days before last year's presidential election. In a 4-3 decision, the state's highest court affirmed voters' rights in the commonwealth to cast provisional ballots and have them counted, if they learn their mail-in ballots have been rejected. In a brief opposing the GOP's petition, the state Democratic Party and the DNC argue the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the ultimate authority in the case. Granting the appeal would set a precedent invalidating state supreme court jurisdiction in election law cases across the country. 'Granting certiorari here would almost surely engender requests for this Court's review of any and every state-law election case, burdening the Court with invitations to weigh in on all manner of (often time-sensitive) state-election-law disputes,' Democratic party lawyers argue. 'That is not a regime the Court should foster.' The case is Republican National Committee, et al. v. Faith Genser, et al. Four days before the Nov. 5 election, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the RNC's request for an emergency stay against the state Supreme Court ruling. Justice Samuel Alito said the court declined the request 'because it would not impose any binding obligation on any of the Pennsylvania officials who are responsible for the conduct of this year's election.' Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chairperson Sharif Street said in a statement the DNC is fighting to ensure Pennsylvanians have their votes counted. 'Pennsylvania Republicans are trying to game the vote in their favor and that's why they're trying to upend Pennsylvania's sovereignty and end a long-standing voting practice in the state,' Street said. 'With important Pennsylvania elections in November and in 2026, Democrats aren't taking anything to chance when it comes to winning back the state.' DNC Chairperson Ken Martin said 'Pennsylvanians deserve to have their votes counted in every election – full stop. Simple errors on mail-in ballots shouldn't impede Pennsylvanians from exercising their rights at the ballot box.' Lawyers for the RNC and Republican Party of Pennsylvania did not immediately return calls Friday. The underlying case involves two Butler County voters who were told their mail-in ballots had been rejected because they neglected to seal them inside secrecy envelopes before returning them. The voters went to their polling places for the primary in 2024 and voted by provisional ballot. The Butler County Board of Elections, however, told the voters that their provisional ballots would not be counted. Represented by the Public Interest Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the voters challenged the board's decision and won favorable decisions in Commonwealth Court and the state Supreme Court. In an opinion for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority, Justice Christine Donohue wrote that the Butler County Board of Elections correctly rejected the voters' mail-in ballots because they did not comply with the Election Code's requirement to use a plain envelope to ensure the anonymity of ballots. But Donohue said the county board erred by refusing to count provisional ballots the voters cast at their polling places after learning their mail ballots were fatally flawed. The Election Code requires county elections officials to count provisional ballots if no other ballot is attributable to the voter and provided there are no issues that would disqualify the provisional ballot, the court's majority found. In its petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the GOP argues the state Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania Legislature's authority to set the 'times, places and manner' for congressional elections, leaning on a premise known as the 'independent state legislature theory.' That theory asserts that the U.S. Constitution reserves the authority to set the times, places and manner of elections exclusively for state legislatures. In opposition, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party assert that the U.S. Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction, because the case falls outside the limited circumstances in which it can review the judgment of a state's highest court. Such appeals are allowed only when a federal law is in question, a state law is claimed to conflict with federal law or 'where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution.' The GOP is not challenging the validity of any federal or state law, the Democratic brief says. 'Far from it, petitioners seek federal-court enforcement of a state statute — as they, rather than the state's highest court, interpret it,' the Democratic party argues. And the U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that a petitioner may claim a constitutional right only for itself and not a third party, the party said. 'Petitioners — the Butler County Board of Elections, the Republican National Committee, and the Republican Party of Pennsylvania — cannot claim any right or privilege for themselves under the Elections or Electors Clauses,' the Democratic brief says. The U.S. Supreme Court also lacks jurisdiction, the brief says, because the GOP did not raise its claim about the state legislature's sole authority over federal elections until the case got to the state Supreme Court, which ruled that the claim had been waived. In the brief, the DNC and Pennsylvania Democratic Party argue that there are no conflicting court decisions on the question of counting provisional ballots. It also refutes the GOP claim the Pennsylvania Supreme Court 'exceeded the bounds of ordinary judicial review,' with its ruling. By providing a response to a question about the meaning and intent of a state law in a case duly raised by the litigants on its normal appellate docket, the brief says, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court was 'quite literally' just doing its 'job.'
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
U.S. Interior transfers land on NM border to Army
A section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall near El Paso, Texas, on June 6, 2024. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom) The U.S. Interior this week announced the transfer of close to 110,000 acres along New Mexico's southern border to the U.S. Army. According to a news release, the transfer is intended to 'safeguard sensitive natural and cultural resources in the region while enabling the Department of the Army to support U.S. Border Patrol operations in securing the border and preventing illegal immigration.' The transfer follows a memorandum President Donald Trump signed last week directing several agencies to start militarizing a stretch of the southern border, an escalation of the administration's use of the U.S. military amid its immigration crackdown. 'Securing our border and protecting our nation's resources go hand in hand,' Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. 'The American people gave President Trump a mandate to make America safe and strong again. This transfer reflects Interior's commitment to public safety, national security and responsible stewardship of our public lands.' According to the Interior, the transfer came at the Army's request 'to allow for the increase in regular patrols by federal personnel, construction of infrastructure to prevent unlawful entry, disrupt foreign terrorist threats to the U.S., and to curb illegal cross-border activities, such as unlawful migration, narcotics trafficking, migrant smuggling, and human trafficking.' U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) whose congressional district includes the state's border towns, earlier this week condemned Trump's move to militarize the border 'misguided and wasteful.' In a statement provided to Source, Vasquez said: 'Deploying military assets to the border, during a record time of low crossing numbers, is a misguided and wasteful use of military resources and taxpayer dollars. As a lifelong border resident who has spent years working with border stakeholders, I can tell you that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work—and in some places, including parts of New Mexico's Bootheel, this kind of made-for-TV stunt does little to nothing to solve our nation's broken immigration system.' The Interior news release notes that the 'crisis along the border' also includes an 'environmental crisis,' noting that the area along the border hosts 23 federally endangered species as well as cultural sites 'that range from small artifact scatters to large multi-room pueblos. Transfer of the management of this land to the Army will facilitate military engagement to prevent unauthorized human activity in ecologically sensitive areas along the southern border, which can be harmed by repeated foot traffic, unregulated vehicle use, and the creation of informal trails or camps.' In addition, 'high-traffic illegal crossings can lead to soil erosion, damage to fragile desert vegetation and critical wildlife habitat, loss and damage to cultural resources, increased fire risk and pollution from trash and human waste.' Two service members deployed to the border were killed earlier this week, and one was injured, in a vehicle accident near Santa Teresa. In a statement following the accident, Vasquez said he was 'deeply saddened by the tragic loss of two service members today near Santa Teresa. My thoughts are with their families, loved ones, and fellow service members during this difficult time. With the recent deployments to and the new mission at the Southern border, we must fully review the circumstances surrounding this incident. We owe it to them—and all who serve—to ensure their safety is never compromised.'
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House closer to setting death sentence in cases of human trafficking of kids
U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom) Prosecutors could seek the death penalty for people convicted of trafficking a child aged 12 or younger or someone with a severe mental disability under a bill heading to the House floor. Seminole Republican Rep. Berny Jacques told lawmakers Tuesday that previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings declaring such punishment unconstitutional shouldn't persuade them to vote against HB 1283. Most agreed, with only two Democrats voting against the proposal during its third and final hearing in the Judiciary Committee. Jacques labeled the 2008 ruling in Kennedy v. Louisiana — the 5-4 decision declaring that a Louisiana law allowing for the death penalty in cases of child rape violated Eighth Amendment — 'vile.' 'Some of the most horrendous Supreme Court cases in our nation's history was well-settled law,' Jacques said. 'I think of Plessy v. Ferguson; I think of the Dred Scott decision. Those were all well-settled law. Thank goodness they were overturned.' In 2023, Florida lawmakers also set out to challenge the court with a law that established the death penalty for rape of minors under 12. Similar to the 2023 measure, under Jacques' proposal only eight out of 12 jurors would need to recommend the death sentence. Democratic Reps. LaVon Bracy Davis of Ocoee and Michael Gottlieb of Davie opposed the bill Tuesday. 'I will say, in a case like this with someone that has participated in sex trafficking with a minor, that life in prison may be the better charge as opposed to death, and I think that person perhaps would be punished more egregiously with having to spend their life incarcerated,' Bracy Davis said. Riverview Republican Rep. Danny Alvarez said that children's lives should matter more than what the Supreme Court thinks. 'We tell the Supreme Court what's coming, and if they want to overrule us, that's fine,' he said. 'Let them look them in the eyes, but I will not stand here and allow children to be hurt and then make the excuse that we're just gonna vote down because the Supreme Court said.' The Senate companion, SB 1804, needs approval from two more committees before reaching the floor. The Legislature's trend of challenging the Supreme Court on the death penalty continued during one of this year's special sessions on immigration. Lawmakers moved to establish a mandatory death penalty for immigrants without legal status who are convicted of murder or child rape. The Supreme Court deemed mandatory death penalties unconstitutional in the 5-4 decision of Woodson v. North Carolina in 1976. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump signs executive order declaring English as official U.S. language
Ariana Figueroa Alaska Beacon WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Saturday, March 1, signed an executive order that establishes English as the official U.S. language, while also revoking a decades-old requirement for federal agencies to provide language assistance to non-English speakers, according to the White House. Trump's executive order rescinded an executive order signed by former President Bill Clinton in 2000 that directed federal agencies and organizations that receive federal funding to improve access to services for those who are limited with their English proficiency, according to the Wall Street Journal, which first reported the news. It's the latest in the Trump administration's efforts to curb resources for immigrants, from suspending funding for legal aid services to terminating contracts with organizations that handle refugee resettlement services in the United States. The U.S. has never had an official language, mostly because of its multiracial demographic that stems from nearly 250 years of immigrants arriving from across the world. However, 32 states have passed their own laws making English, along with some Indigenous languages in some cases, the official state language. While on the campaign trail, Trump was critical that the U.S. does not mandate English as the official language. Congressional Republicans have also introduced legislation throughout the years to designate English as the official language. Republican Ohio freshman Sen. Bernie Moreno introduced legislation earlier this month to make English the official U.S. language. Ohio does not have an official state language. Anabel Mendoza, communications director of the immigration advocacy youth group United We Dream, said in a statement that the executive order targets 'Black and brown immigrants and communities who speak different languages.' 'We mean this with all disrespect, no gracias,' she said. 'Trump will try to use this executive order as a crutch to attack schools providing curriculum to immigrant students in other languages, gut programs and roles that help to promote inclusive language access, and embolden immigration agents to single out and harass individuals who speak a certain way.' There are more than 350 languages spoken across the country, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Some of the most widely spoken languages in the U.S., other than English, include Spanish, Chinese, Tagalog, Vietnamese and Arabic. There is also a large population of people who speak Indigenous languages such as Navajo, Yupik, Dakota, Apache, Keres and Cherokee. Some states have multiple official languages, such as Alaska, South Dakota and Hawaii, which all are home to many Indigenous people. In Alaska, English and 20 Alaskan native languages are the official state language. They are Inupiaq, Siberian Yupik, Central Alaskan Yup'ik, Alutiiq, Unangax, Dena'ina, Deg Xinag, Holikachuk, Koyukon, Upper Kuskokwim, Gwich'in, Tanana, Upper Tanana, Tanacross, Hän, Ahtna, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian. In South Dakota, English and Sioux are the official state languages. And in Hawaii, English and the Hawaiian language are the official languages of the state. Puerto Rico also has two official languages, Spanish and English. The more than 30 states where English is the official language include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. This article was first published in the Alaska Beacon
