Latest news with #Republican-governed
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins v. Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top U.S. judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked.
Reuters
30-04-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
US Supreme Court mulls legality of milestone religious charter school
Summary Oklahoma Catholic dioceses are behind proposed school Lower court blocked establishment of St. Isidore school Trump administration and governor back school's creation WASHINGTON, April 30 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to hear arguments in a bid led by two Catholic dioceses to establish in Oklahoma the nation's first taxpayer-funded religious charter school in a major test of religious rights and the separation of church and state in American education. Organizers of the proposed school and a state school board that backs it have appealed a lower court's ruling that blocked the establishment of St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. That court found that the proposed religious charter school would violate the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment limits on government involvement in religion. Charter schools in Oklahoma are considered public schools under state law and draw funding from the state government. The proposed charter school has divided officials in Republican-governed Oklahoma. It is being challenged by the state's Republican Attorney General Gentner Drummond but Republican Governor Kevin Stitt has backed it, as has Republican President Donald Trump 's administration. St. Isidore, planned as a joint effort by the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and Diocese of Tulsa, would offer virtual learning from kindergarten through high school. Its plan to integrate religion into its curriculum would make it the first religious charter school in the United States. The proposed school has never been operational amid legal challenges to its establishment. Opponents have said religious charter schools would force taxpayers to support religious indoctrination. It could also undermine nondiscrimination principles, they argued, since religious charter schools might seek to bar employees who do not adhere to doctrinal teachings. Organizers estimated in 2023 that St. Isidore would cost Oklahoma taxpayers up to $25.7 million over its first five years in operation. The Oklahoma charter school board in June 2023 approved the plan to create St. Isidore in a 3-2 vote. Drummond sued in October 2023 to block St. Isidore in a legal action filed at the Oklahoma Supreme Court, saying he was duty bound to "prevent the type of state-funded religion that Oklahoma's constitutional framers and the founders of our country sought to prevent." 'SURROGATE OF THE STATE' Oklahoma's top court in a 6-2 ruling last year blocked the school. It classified St. Isidore as a "governmental entity" that would act as "a surrogate of the state in providing free public education as any other state-sponsored charter school." That court decided that the proposal ran afoul of the First Amendment's "establishment clause," which restricts government officials from endorsing any particular religion, or promoting religion over nonreligion. The First Amendment generally constrains the government but not private entities. St. Isidore, the court wrote, would "require students to spend time in religious instruction and activities, as well as permit state spending in direct support of the religious curriculum and activities within St. Isidore - all in violation of the establishment clause." School board officials and St. Isidore argued in Supreme Court papers that the Oklahoma court erred by deeming St. Isidore an arm of the government rather than a private organization. They argued that the government had not delegated a state duty to St. Isidore merely by contracting with it, and that the school would function largely independently of the government. They also argued that Oklahoma's refusal to establish St. Isidore as a charter school solely because it is religious is discrimination under First Amendment language that protects the free exercise of religion. Drummond told the Supreme Court that Oklahoma's top court correctly classified St. Isidore as a government entity since charter schools qualify as public schools, noting that both are publicly funded and subject to state oversight. Moreover, Drummond argued, the Supreme Court has previously said that states may require secular education in their public schools. The Supreme Court's decision is expected by the end of June. The court has recognized broader religious rights in a series of rulings in recent years. It ruled in a Missouri case in 2017 that churches and other religious entities cannot be flatly denied public money based on their religious status - even in states whose constitutions explicitly ban such funding. In 2020, it endorsed Montana tax credits that helped pay for students to attend religious schools. In 2022, it backed two Christian families in their challenge to Maine's tuition-assistance program that had excluded private religious schools. Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the Oklahoma case, though did not explain why. Barrett is a former professor at Notre Dame Law School, which represents the school's organizers.
India Today
22-04-2025
- Automotive
- India Today
Florida, Tennessee target immigrant driver's licenses with new laws
As drivers travel across US highways, they're usually welcomed with big "Welcome to..." signs. But in some states, not everyone is truly welcome especially undocumented immigrants with out-of-state driver's Wyoming, and now Tennessee have enacted or proposed legislation prohibiting individuals with specific types of licenses — typically issued to undocumented immigrants in other states — from legally driving within their borders. These efforts are part of a growing movement among Republican-led states to tighten immigration 2023, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law barring recognition of licenses from states such as Connecticut and Delaware if those licenses are issued exclusively to undocumented immigrants or marked to indicate lack of legal status. Driving with one of these licenses in Florida may result in fines or even jail. According to Florida's DMV, only specially marked licenses from Connecticut and Delaware are affected for now. Connecticut has issued around 60,700 such 'drive-only' licenses. As reported by the Associated Press, Tennessee's governor is prepared to sign a similar bill. At least six other Republican-governed states—including Alabama, Montana, and New Hampshire — are considering comparable legislation. Alabama lawmakers have even suggested placing highway signs to warn travelers about the argue that the laws discourage unauthorized immigration and movement within their states. Critics, however, view the measures as harsh and discriminatory, warning they could penalize innocent travelers unaware of the legal May 7, the federal government will require REAL ID-compliant licenses for air travel or access to federal buildings. However, states can continue issuing non-REAL ID licenses to undocumented residents who meet certain minimum requirements, such as passing a vision or driving state-level restrictions raise broader questions about fairness, discrimination, and how far individual states can go in regulating immigration—traditionally a federal domain.(With inputs from Associated Press)Also Read: Wall Street ends higher on earnings, hopes of easing tariff tensionsMust Watch
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court mulls South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood
By Andrew Chung, John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider South Carolina's bid to strip Planned Parenthood of funding under the Medicaid program in a case that could bolster efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of public money. The justices are due to hear arguments in South Carolina's appeal of a lower court's decision barring the Republican-governed state from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the organization's regional affiliate, because the organization provides abortions. The case centers on whether recipients of Medicaid, a joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, may sue to enforce a requirement under U.S. law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, 12 states have implemented near-total bans while four states, including South Carolina, outlaw abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. The Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican Governor Henry McMaster ordered state officials to end the organization's participation in the state Medicaid program by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The suit was brought under an 1871 U.S. law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. It is the third time that the South Carolina Planned Parenthood defunding dispute has reached the Supreme Court, which in 2020 rejected the state's appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, the justices ordered a lower court to reconsider the state's arguments in light of a new ruling they had just issued that explained that people may sue to enforce a federal statute if such a right in the law is unambiguous. "The statute here readily meets that test," the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in a filing. "It protects a deeply personal right that is fundamental to individual dignity and autonomy - the right to choose one's doctor." The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the "high bar for recognizing private rights." Planned Parenthood said on Monday that the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning funding to the organization under a program known as Title X, affecting birth control, cancer screenings and other services for low-income people. In the South Carolina case, a federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favor, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organization violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs. "Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina," the 4th Circuit said in its ruling. A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.
Reuters
02-04-2025
- Health
- Reuters
US Supreme Court mulls South Carolina's effort to defund Planned Parenthood
WASHINGTON, April 2 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider South Carolina's bid to strip Planned Parenthood of funding under the Medicaid program in a case that could bolster efforts by Republican-led states to deprive the reproductive healthcare and abortion provider of public money. The justices are due to hear arguments in South Carolina's appeal of a lower court's decision barring the Republican-governed state from terminating Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the organization's regional affiliate, because the organization provides abortions. The case centers on whether recipients of Medicaid, a joint federal and state health insurance program for low-income people, may sue to enforce a requirement under U.S. law that they may obtain medical assistance from any qualified and willing provider. Since the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned its landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, 12 states have implemented near-total bans while four states, including South Carolina, outlaw abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic operates clinics in the South Carolina cities of Charleston and Columbia, where it serves hundreds of Medicaid patients each year, providing physical examinations, screenings for cancer and diabetes, pregnancy testing, contraception and other services. The Planned Parenthood affiliate and Medicaid patient Julie Edwards sued in 2018 after Republican Governor Henry McMaster ordered state officials to end the organization's participation in the state Medicaid program by deeming any abortion provider unqualified to provide family planning services. The suit was brought under an 1871 U.S. law that helps people challenge illegal acts by state officials. It is the third time that the South Carolina Planned Parenthood defunding dispute has reached the Supreme Court, which in 2020 rejected the state's appeal at an earlier stage of the case. In 2023, the justices ordered a lower court to reconsider the state's arguments in light of a new ruling they had just issued that explained that people may sue to enforce a federal statute if such a right in the law is unambiguous. "The statute here readily meets that test," the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in a filing. "It protects a deeply personal right that is fundamental to individual dignity and autonomy - the right to choose one's doctor." The South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom conservative legal group and backed by President Donald Trump 's administration, said the disputed Medicaid provision in this case does not meet the "high bar for recognizing private rights." Planned Parenthood said on Monday that the Trump administration is withholding federal family planning funding to the organization under a program known as Title X, affecting birth control, cancer screenings and other services for low-income people. In the South Carolina case, a federal judge ruled in Planned Parenthood's favor, finding that Medicaid recipients may sue under the 1871 law and that the state's move to defund the organization violated the right of Edwards to freely choose a qualified medical provider. In 2024, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the plaintiffs. "Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina," the 4th Circuit said in its ruling. A Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.
