Latest news with #HB83
Yahoo
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge blocks new Idaho immigration law through preliminary injunction as lawsuit plays out
More than 100 people march outside of the Idaho State Capitol in Boise holding Mexican flags and signs protesting President Donald Trump's immigration policies on February 7, 2025. (Mia Maldonado / Idaho Capital Sun) A federal judge has blocked parts of a new Idaho immigration enforcement law while she evaluates a lawsuit challenging the law. The Idaho Legislature created the new law through House Bill 83, which was modeled after a controversial 2023 Texas law. Idaho's law creates the new immigration crimes of 'illegal entry' and 'illegal reentry,' targeting individuals who do not have proper immigration authorization and those who have already been deported from coming to Idaho. Law enforcement would only be able to convict someone of those crimes if they are suspected for a different crime. The law took effect immediately after Gov. Brad Little signed the bill into law on March 27. But hours later, the judge blocked Idaho from enforcing the law through a temporary restraining order that she later extended in response to a lawsuit by ACLU of Idaho. Federal judge Amanda Brailsford on Tuesday issued a longer lasting preliminary injunction, blocking Idaho from enforcing two new crimes created through the bill: illegal entry and illegal reentry. In her ruling, the judge wrote the ACLU of Idaho showed it was likely to succeed on the merits of several of its claims, including arguments that the new crimes created through the bill violate the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, that the new crimes are preempted by federal law, and that the groups and five anonymous people ACLU represents in the lawsuit 'are likely to suffer irreparable injury' under Idaho's new law. 'We are pleased the court recognized that enforcement of this law is harmful and unconstitutional,' ACLU of Idaho Staff Attorney Emily Croston said in a written statement. 'We are confident this lawsuit will succeed on its merits, and we hope it sends a message to Idaho's lawmakers that passing anti-immigrant, unconstitutional legislation is not what Idaho needs.' Hours after the governor signed the bill, ACLU of Idaho sued Idaho officials over the new law, including Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador and county prosecuting attorneys. 'The Attorney General's Office is reviewing the decision to determine next steps. We will continue to defend House Bill 83 in full,' Idaho Office of the Attorney General spokesperson Damon Sidur told the Sun in a statement. Idaho's new law also creates the crime of 'trafficking a dangerous illegal alien,' or knowingly transporting an unauthorized immigrant who has previously been convicted of a crime in the U.S. or another country. The law grants immunity to law enforcement officers, meaning they are protected from lawsuits that could arise from the damages and liability they cause while enforcing the law. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX HB 83 prelim injunction
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
ACLU hosts the Somos Idaho Rally at the Statehouse with a focus on immigration
This week Governor Little signed HB 83 into law which was immediately followed by a lawsuit by the ACLU. A federal judge temporarily block the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act for 14 days.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC House panel votes to raise punishments for sending sexual content to minors, attacks on officials
The North Carolina Legislative Building (Photo: Clayton Henkel) A North Carolina House committee advanced two bills that would increase the punishment for exposing minors to sexually explicit material and threatening or assaulting public officials in a Tuesday meeting. Lawmakers in the House Judiciary 2 Committee voiced concerns that the language in the bills — House Bill 83 and House Bill 95 — could be overly broad and used to punish conduct outside their intended scope — including criticisms of lawmakers not intended to be 'real threats' and sexually explicit performances aimed at adult audiences only. HB 83, introduced to the committee by Rep. John Torbett (R-Gaston), raises the class of several crimes related to the dissemination of 'obscene' and 'harmful' material to minors and 'exhibition of harmful performances' and allowing courts to require those found guilty to register as sex offenders. The bill would also create a new felony offense described as 'habitual indecent exposure' for individuals found to have committed indecent exposure on three or more occasions. The largest change in the bill involves raising the dissemination of material or exhibition of performances that are 'harmful to minors' — defined as including sexually explicit nudity or sexual activity in violation of a 'prevailing community standard' — from a misdemeanor to a Class H felony, punishable by up to 39 months in prison. Torbett said the bill was prompted by a case in which a 16-year-old was sent 'harmful, vile, nasty material' by an adult man in South Carolina, but extradition was denied because the offense is classified only as a misdemeanor in North Carolina 'even though he was just across the border.' The minor's mother contacted Torbett, he said, and shared her outrage over what had happened. Rep. Yao Liu introduced an amendment to make explicit that the bill does not seek to punish performers themselves, if a parent brings a child to a show without their knowledge. 'My bill has nothing to do with strippers or exotic dancers,' Torbett said in response. The committee voted down the proposed amendment but approved a separate limiting felonies to ones in which sexual material is exchanged between individuals four or more years apart in age, mirroring statutory rape laws to avoid inadvertently punishing teen couples. While civil rights groups have opposed similar laws around content legislators define as 'harmful to minors' in other states out of concern they could be used to target drag and cabaret performers, no advocates attended Tuesday's committee meeting to speak out against the bill. Other states have used similar statutes to target librarians for criminal prosecution for checking out books considered by some as explicit — though North Carolina's law lists schools, libraries, churches, and other public institutions as well as their employees as exempt from prosecution so long as they are carrying out a 'legitimate function.' Rep. Deb Butler asked, 'Who defines harmful?' and suggested that reliance on community standards could lead to subjective judgments about offending material, but ultimately conceded, 'We'll just have to let the court define it when they see it.' HB 95, which was sponsored and explained by Rep. Keith Kidwell (R-Beaufort), stems in part from his own experience of being threatened at a Beaufort County polling place last year, when a constituent allegedly told him 'I'm just going to shoot you.' Kidwell said he did not understand why threats made by the same individual against locally elected Democratic officials were not also considered felonies as they are for state lawmakers. This bill would address that concern by classifying serious threats against local elected officials as felonies. The bill additionally heightens penalties around this conduct, raising the class of felonies around threats and attacks to public officials and granting judges greater latitude in imposing pretrial release restrictions on defendants in these cases. Even if officials do not directly receive or believe the threats being made, they can still rise to the level of felony offenses. 'In today's climate, I think most of us are going to agree when you're threatening an elected official, we need to take that serious,' Kidwell said. Rep. Charles Smith raised the possibility of including language that requires the threat to be imminent or create reasonable belief that it will actually occur, but ultimately did not propose an amendment to that effect. 'I'm not as concerned about how do I feel as to whether the threat was realistic,' Kidwell said, adding that the courts can make that determination. 'I've seen it where they threaten school board members, county commissioners, city council members — and to me, you know, I've always taken threats as real.' Also approved by the committee Tuesday was House Bill 188, by unanimous vote. The bill seeks to introduce new requirements for companies whose subscriptions or contracts automatically renew to protect consumers, on the grounds that many do not read the lengthy user agreements that mention them. Kidwell said he was moved to propose the bill when a constituent told her their lease automatically renewed without their knowledge, requiring them to continue living somewhere they did not wish to for an additional year.
Yahoo
30-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill raising legal age to bet on sports in NH to 21 deemed 'inexpedient to legislate'
Jan. 29—A House committee is recommending lawmakers not support a bill that would have raised the legal age to bet on sports in New Hampshire from 18 to 21 — a move likely to cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue if approved. HB 83 was declared "inexpedient to legislate" in an 11-7 vote Monday by the House Ways and Means Committee. The bill now goes to the full House with that negative recommendation, and could come up when the House holds its first business session on Feb. 6. A bill is considered killed when the full House or Senate votes to accept a committee report of "inexpedient to legislate." HB 83 was sponsored by members of both houses, including Rep. Sallie Fellows, D-Holderness; Rep. Michael Cahill, D-Newmarket; Sen. Ruth Ward, R-Stoddard; and Sen. Suzanne Prentiss, D-Lebanon. In testimony submitted online in support of HB 83, Fellows — the bill's prime sponsor — said 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds wagered more than $14 million on sports in fiscal year 2024. "We all know that 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, particularly males in their teens, are far more likely than mature adults to engage in risky and dangerous behaviors such as smoking, reckless driving, binge drinking and gambling, because their cognitive ability to evaluate the consequences of their actions have not completely developed," Fellows wrote. "We also know about the addictive qualities of cellphone apps, the damage they can have on the mental health of teens and young adults, and how those apps suck up time that could be spent in healthy activities." New Hampshire has allowed sports betting since January 2020. As of September, 40 states allow sports betting and 32 allow online betting. The minimum age to bet is 21 in all but seven states (New Hampshire, Kentucky, Montana, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia, in-person only in Oklahoma and Washington). New Hampshire allows sports betting online and at four casinos — in Nashua, Manchester, Seabrook and Dover. Fellows wrote that most sports betting — 88% in fiscal year 2024 — takes place on cellphones, where bets can be made on events happening around the world. "This easy, 24/7 access paired with fastpaced betting opportunities, has an addiction rate higher than any other form of gambling," Fellows wrote. "By raising the minimum age for sports betting to 21 we will give high school students and recent grads three more years to mature, so they will be better able to budget their bets and avoid financial disaster and emotional distress. "The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number of gamblers that will become addicted." Frances Taylor of Holderness submitted online testimony in favor of the bill, saying she opposes state-supported gambling "in particular, permitted gambling under the age of 21." "Too many young people are getting addicted to this unhealthy activity," Taylor wrote. "I encourage the committee to vote yes on this bill." Rep. Fred Doucette, a Salem Republican, opposed the bill, citing fiscal concerns. A fiscal report attached to the bill stated that New Hampshire took in more than $33.6 million in sports betting revenues in fiscal year 2024, with sports bettors under the age of 21 accounting for approximately 1.9% of gross gaming revenue in New Hampshire — or $639,443 total every year. Upping the legal age to bet on sports from 18 to 21 would reduce sports betting revenues in the Granite State by $320,000 in fiscal year 2026, and $640,000 each fiscal year after that. "We're having a revenue issue as it stands. I can see revenues going down with this piece of legislation as written," Doucette said. pfeely@
