Latest news with #Lackey
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Retailers, researchers criticize Indiana plan to exclude soda and candy from SNAP
Researchers and retailers question the effectiveness of an Indiana proposal to exclude candy and soda — both of which are loosely defined — from a food benefit program. (Photo by) Hoosiers could be prohibited from purchasing soda and candy with their food benefits as early as January, but researchers and retailers question the effectiveness of the move — noting how difficult it could be to implement. Teas and other, non-milk based beverages may be out but candy bars with flour — like Twix or Butterfingers — are fine, a confusing distinction for clerks and cashiers to explain. Last month, the federal government approved the state's application to exclude the treats based on loose definitions added to Indiana's code more than two decades ago. Gov. Mike Braun and Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith are fans — and so is U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But Joe Lackey, president of the Indiana Grocery and Convenience Store Association, said the decision came without much warning for the retailers responsible for face-to-face communication with the consumers enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program. 'The day after they held the press conference and announced they were doing it, they asked the industry to come to a meeting to talk about it and we basically said, 'This meeting should have happened a couple of days ago before you made the decision,'' said Lackey, a longtime lobbyist. 'I think it's probably the end of the program (nationwide). I think food stamps and SNAP are going to just go away,' Lackey continued. 'That was the intent, I think, to start with in Washington.' He said SNAP retailers near the border will be hit hardest by the change, since benefits apply across state lines. Indiana cannot restrict what a SNAP enrollee purchases in neighboring states. The approved waiver has an explicit goal to help 'low-income households … obtain a more nutritious diet' to combat the nationwide 'health epidemic further induced by diet-related chronic disease.' But even that impact is far less clear for the 610,000 Hoosier enrollees. 'I think, as a person who tends to think about these things from more of an economic point of view, it's probably just going to shift (SNAP expenses to) other places,' said Dan Knudsen, a professor emeritus of geography at Indiana University and part of the IU Food Institute. Knudsen approaches food benefits from a mathematical perspective, analyzing the pros and cons of the Thrifty Food Plan used to calculate benefit allocations under SNAP. He noted that many beneficiaries might not have regular access to refrigeration, a stove or transportation — limiting their food options to whatever's accessible and shelf stable. 'Our current read from our most recent literature would indicate that SNAP benefits, right now, given the rise in food costs, are getting people through somewhere between 15 and 21 days of the month,' said Knudsen. 'And then you need to take into account the fact that somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-60% of the SNAP benefit is typically utilized in a single purchase.' SNAP enrollees already can't purchase alcoholic beverages, tobacco or hot/prepared foods under federal rules. Indiana's soda and candy exemption waiver was signed the same day as Iowa's, the latter of which includes snacks in addition to candy. Both came just a few days after Nebraska's approved move to ban soda and energy drinks from SNAP purchases. But their definitions, though overlapping, are distinct from Indiana's. For example, Nebraska's definition of soft drinks is more narrow and focuses on carbonation, but specifies that sports drinks like Gatorade are not included. On Tuesday, Braun went to Washington D.C. as part of a press conference at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees SNAP, for a ceremonial signing to exempt certain foods in Arkansas, Idaho and Utah. All are part of a growing number of state leaders seeking to limit food benefits, including lawmakers in at least a dozen states that explored legislative options earlier this year. The federal government pays for the program's benefits, only shuffling some administrative costs to states, and must approve any changes to SNAP. Lackey pointed to a pair of failed bills earlier this year as evidence of a lack of widespread support, saying he and a coalition of anti-poverty advocates alongside industry lobbyists opposed the legislative efforts. Indiana is proud to be a leader in the Make America Healthy Again initiative, and I'm proud to join Secretary (Brooke) Rollins, Secretary Kennedy, Congressman (Jim) Baird, and my fellow Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders today to discuss returning SNAP to its proper purpose of nutrition, and how my Make Indiana Healthy Again agenda supports Indiana agriculture and empowers Hoosiers to live longer, healthier lives. – Gov. Mike Braun, speaking at a June 10 press conference in Washington D.C. 'I don't know anyone in Indiana — except for the governor — that's for it,' said Lackey. Indiana's waiver bans soft drinks, which defined in Indiana code are 'nonalcoholic beverages that contain natural or artificial sweeteners. The term does not include beverages that contain milk or milk products, soy, rice, or similar milk substitutes, or greater than fifty percent (50%) of vegetable or fruit juice by volume.' Candy is defined as 'a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces. The term does not include any preparation containing flour or requiring refrigeration.' The loose definition of these terms appears to ban popular items like bottled teas and granola bars from purchase. Yet candy bars with flour, such as Kit Kats, and sugary bakery items are fine. The state is required to notify beneficiaries and will even provide informative posters to retailers, retailers will have to reprogram their computers to align with the new rules. And clerks and cashiers will likely be the ones telling SNAP enrollees. 'They're the ones that are going to have to try to explain to the customers why they can no longer buy soft drinks or why they can no longer buy a candy item,' Lackey said. 'This is going to be a real problem and a lot of stores, major stores throughout the state, have said they're seriously considering dropping (SNAP).' Such purchases can make up 20% of a convenience store's sales, Lackey said. The hit also comes on top of the state's long-proposed cigarette tax increase, which Lackey said would also hurt his members. The waiver itself cites several studies concluding that SNAP enrollees consume more sugary drinks and snacks than their peers — and the consumption of both has been linked to higher rates of obesity and diabetes. A similar public health effort to improve health by increasing taxes on soda has split experts, with researchers at the University of California in Berkeley finding such moves decrease consumption in low-income neighborhoods while Tax Foundation analysts argue that reducing obesity and sugar intake requires a more complicated plan. SNAP cost-sharing jeopardizes food assistance program Knudsen pointed to many other sources of sugar in the typical American diet — including his personal favorite, bread, which some European countries classify as confections because of the high sugar content in American brands. 'Taxes on sugar and taxes on candy are just the tip of the iceberg of the sugar consumption of the average American,' he said. Instead, SNAP supporters point to programs that allow enrollees to 'double up' on fruits and vegetables with their benefits card by offering a discounted rate on certain produce at participating farmers markets and stores. An Indiana University study on SNAP beneficiaries at farmers markets concluded that 'economic incentives (like double bucks) are a critical means for enhancing access to local fresh fruits and vegetables by subsidizing further purchasing power for low-income individuals,' though transportation posed a big barrier for SNAP enrollees. However, Knudsen noted that such studies like the above — which was produced by a former student of his — also struggle to connect those efforts to long-term health goals. And more change could be coming. Lackey said he's heard that the state plans to exclude other foods from SNAP, adding to the burden on retailers. 'It's grown to a point where they just can't fund it anymore, which is pretty scary,' said Lackey. 'But do it on a national basis; don't do it on a restricted, state-by-state basis where you have inconsistency.' Also on the horizon: work requirements for SNAP enrollees, which Knudsen called a 'red herring' since many beneficiaries are children, disabled or retired seniors. 'Why are we punishing the poor?' Knudsen asked. '… it's really important that any changes to SNAP are thought about from the point of view of individuals who are on SNAP who are food insecure.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The Hill
08-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court made your rights harder to defend — Congress must now step up
From free speech rights and desegregation to gun rights and religious freedoms, civil rights litigation has long been a cornerstone of personal liberty in America. But in February, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that will make it harder for us as Americans to vindicate our constitutional rights when the government violates them. In Lackey v. Stinnie, a group of Virginia drivers challenged a state law that punished people for failing to pay court fees by automatically suspending their driver's licenses. The plaintiffs secured a preliminary injunction — a court order issued early in a case to prevent potential harm while it is litigated in full — allowing them to keep their licenses. Virginia did not appeal that ruling, and before the case went to trial, the legislature changed the law and reinstated any licenses that had been suspended under it. In cases alleging violations of constitutional rights, a federal statute preempts the general rule that litigants pay their own fees and costs by allowing 'prevailing' parties to recover attorney's fees from the government actor who violated their rights. But in this case, the federal district court held the drivers had not in fact 'prevailed' given that the case did not progress to a final conclusion, making them ineligible to recover attorney's fees. This flew in the face of what courts and litigators had understood the law to be for decades. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court to determine what 'prevailing' meant in federal law and whether the drivers were entitled to reimbursement. The court, to the disappointment of advocates for civil rights and liberties, held that plaintiffs who do not obtain a final judgment on the merits do not qualify as 'prevailing' even if, as with the Virginia drivers, they prevail in getting the government to change the law. Unlike corporate litigation, civil rights cases rarely involve large financial recoveries. In any event, plaintiffs often seek changes to laws or policies rather than monetary gain. Yet these are vital cases, not just for the individuals involved but for the communities they represent, even if they rarely provide enough financial incentive to make private representation feasible — unless attorneys receive compensation after winning the case. Congress intended to encourage civil rights litigation by tying fee awards to success, whether through final judgments or preliminary relief. The House Judiciary Committee report on the legislation enacting the attorney's fees provision noted, 'a defendant might voluntarily cease the unlawful practice. A court should still award fees even though it might conclude … that no formal relief, such as an injunction, is needed.' Despite this clear evidence of congressional intent, the court held otherwise. Importantly, as the court pointed out, Congress has the power to clarify in the statute that attorney's fees can be awarded before a final judgement on the merits. Congress must do so. The breadth of amicus briefs submitted in this case — from the ACLU to the Alliance Defending Freedom to the Firearms Policy Coalition — demonstrates that across the ideological spectrum, organizations recognize the critical role awarding attorney's fees plays in civil rights litigation. As FIRE noted in its amicus brief to the Supreme Court, 'Withholding attorney's fees from victims of these First Amendment violations would be devastating — not just for them individually, but for access to justice more broadly.' Congress must enact a simple, clarifying change that will have broad support and ensure all Americans can vindicate their constitutional rights. Justice isn't free, but we can ensure it remains accessible to all. Greg Y. Gonzalez is legislative counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
South Dakota ballot group loses attorney fees because of new U.S. Supreme Court precedent
Rick Weiland of Dakotans for Health speaks to the press on Feb. 7, 2024, at the South Dakota Capitol in Pierre about an initiated constitutional amendment to re-establish abortion rights in the state constitution. (Makenzie Huber/South Dakota Searchlight) A South Dakota ballot question committee and its lawyer are among the first victims of a new U.S. Supreme Court precedent that lessens the likelihood of recovering attorney fees when suing the government for civil rights violations. The high court's decision in a separate case recently caused Dakotans for Health and its attorney, Jim Leach, to drop their effort to recover attorney fees in a lawsuit against Lawrence County. Leach and Dakotans for Health won a temporary restraining order last year against the county. The order blocked the county from restricting petition circulators to a designated area away from public sidewalks surrounding the courthouse complex in Deadwood. The circulators were gathering signatures for two measures — one that would have restored abortion rights, and one that sought to eliminate the state sales taxes on groceries. Both measures made it onto statewide ballots but were rejected by voters in November. Need to get in touch? Have a news tip? CONTACT US The county claimed its policy restricting circulators preserved public safety and protected the right of local citizens to conduct county business without disruption, but a federal judge ruled the policy 'burdened substantially more speech than necessary.' The judge also ordered the county to pay $19,238.90 in attorney fees and costs, but the county filed an appeal to resist paying the money. Meanwhile, in February, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Lackey v. Stinnie. The Supreme Court ruled that when civil rights plaintiffs win a preliminary injunction and the government relents without the need for a permanent injunction, the plaintiffs are not 'prevailing parties' and are not eligible for court-awarded attorney fees. In the Lawrence County case, the county relented and changed its policy, resulting in a voluntary dismissal of the case. Therefore, wrote Leach in a March motion to the appeals court, 'under Lackey v. Stinnie, Dakotans for Health loses this appeal. So there is no need for anyone to spend any more time on this case.' A judge finalized the matter by dismissing the attorney fees and costs last week. Rick Weiland, chairman of Dakotans for Health, said this week that the Lackey v. Stinnie ruling guts the incentive for lawyers to represent clients suing to protect their civil rights. 'The Supreme Court is attacking the people who go after the government for when it, basically, goes after its own citizens — things like First Amendment violations, which is what we showed the government did,' Weiland said. Dakotans for Health also settled with Minnehaha County in a similar lawsuit last year, and that county has paid $54,815.15 in attorney fees and costs. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
St. Pete dad takes on insurance giants, one claim at a time
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. (BLOOM) — After a storm, a fire, or a sudden pipe burst, most homeowners do what they've always been told: call their insurance company. But what happens when the insurance company's offer barely scratches the surface of what it will take to repair the damage? After Hurricane Ian tore through Florida, one St. Petersburg family received a $14,000 check to repair their heavily damaged home. It wasn't enough to cover half of what they'd lost. That's when they called Daniel Lackey. Lackey is the founder of CMD Claim Consultants, a public adjusting firm based in St. Petersburg that works for the policyholder, not the insurance company. Since launching the company in 2020, CMD has carved out a reputation for being relentless, fair, and laser-focused on getting clients the payouts they actually deserve. 'What most people don't realize is that the adjuster sent by your insurance company is there to protect their bottom line,' Lackey said. 'We're here to protect yours.' Public adjusters like CMD operate independently, stepping in to assess property damage, create a detailed estimate of the real cost to repair or rebuild, and challenge the insurance company's number when it doesn't match reality. Many of CMD's clients come after being denied or underpaid. Others call right away to make sure it's done right from the start. With a background in construction, roofing supply, and disaster recovery, Lackey brings a hands-on understanding of what it actually takes to put a home or business back together. But his approach goes beyond the technical. 'I started CMD when my daughter was just eight months old,' he said. 'I walked away from a steady job because I knew people were getting shortchanged. I wanted to be the guy in their corner when everything else felt like it was falling apart.' The company's process is thorough and aggressive. It starts with hundreds of photos and detailed documentation of the damage, then moves through industry-standard estimating software to build a claim that insurance carriers can't easily dismiss. CMD handles negotiations, supplements underpaid claims, and even prepares for mediation or legal action when needed. One client came to CMD after receiving an $80,000 estimate from their insurance company for severe structural damage. Their home had suffered major integrity issues after a partial collapse, and the initial payout wasn't enough to make the repairs livable, let alone restore the property fully. With limited options for dispute due to restrictive language in their policy, the family felt stuck. CMD took over the claim, launching a detailed reinspection of the property. Lackey and his team documented everything, built a stronger estimate using industry tools, and challenged the original number with building codes, policy language, and undeniable evidence. Through persistence and multiple rounds of negotiation, CMD was able to increase the claim payout to $276,000. 'For them, it wasn't just about money—it was about getting their home back,' Lackey said. 'They had been living in a situation that felt hopeless. Now, they had the resources to rebuild, move forward, and breathe again.' 'That's the difference we fight for,' he added. 'Helping people rebuild, not just recover.' CMD Claim Consultants continues to grow, serving clients across Florida and Texas, and positioning itself as a trusted advocate in an industry where policyholders often feel outmatched and overlooked. 'We don't cherry-pick easy claims,' Lackey said. 'We take on the hard ones. The ones other people walk away from. And we see them through to the end.' Learn more at or follow @daniels_claims_corner on Instagram. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CBS News
28-03-2025
- Business
- CBS News
Horse racing at Sacramento's Cal Expo could be in jeopardy
SACRAMENTO — In what could be a first at the California State Fair, there may be no more thoroughbred horse racing at Cal Expo. Cal Expo CEO Tom Martinez announced that he will make the recommendation to the board on Friday. Harness racing could also be on the chopping block. Chip Lackey has been harness racing at Cal Expo for 50 years. "The sport has definitely changed from what it was," Lackey said. "I graduated from UC Davis in '73." Lackey left the track Wednesday and filed into a packed meeting to try and save his sport at Cal Expo. "My father told me once that at one time, horseracing was the largest spectator sport in America," Lackey said. Martinez said that the horse racing landscape has changed since the closure of Golden Gate Fields last summer. Thoroughbred horses have left Northern California. County fairs are no longer applying to host races. And now Martinez expects the state fair will not host any racing either. "I'm digesting this just as fast as you guys are," Martinez said. "It's been synonymous with state fair for over 150 years. So it's going to be missed." The potential change now leaves Lackey and others in limbo. Many horsemen and women live on the grounds at Cal Expo year round. "Certainly, it's foolish not to be concerned," Lackey said. "But in some respects, it's almost a waste of energy to worry about it because what's going to happen is going to happen." Cal Expo reports that last year, thoroughbred racing at the state fair accounted for $650,000. Revenue from harness racing last year was $22,000.
