House Democrats call for 'urgent review‘ of deadly Texas flooding
'This tragedy echoes a troubling national pattern of accelerating flash flood disasters that have claimed lives: 46 lives in the greater New York City area in September 2021, 345 lives in Kentucky in July 2022, 20 lives in Tennessee in August 2021, and 250 lives across the Southeast in September 2024,' Democratic Reps. Lloyd Doggett (Texas), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) and Eric Sorensen (Ill.) wrote.
'These events are not anomalies—they are harbingers of a climate-disrupted future,' they added.
Doggett represents a district centered around Austin, a couple of hours from Kerr County, the epicenter of the floods. Sorensen is a meteorologist.
The lawmakers expressed concern about whether the Department of Government Efficiency-driven staff reductions at the National Weather Service delayed warnings about the Texas floods, which have claimed at least 120 lives. The New York Times reported the vacancies may have complicated efforts to coordinate with local officials and that some of the unfilled positions predate the Trump administration.
The letter was addressed to Trump alongside Army Corps of Engineers Gen. William Graham Jr. and acting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Laura Grimm.
The lawmakers also asked NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers to detail how they planned to adapt federal weather services to what they called 'the growing frequency of extreme precipitation events attributable to climate change.'
The joint message follows another letter from Doggett on Tuesday asking NOAA about the impact of staffing shortages.
Trump visited Texas on Friday to assess damage from the flooding. At least 160 people remain missing.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
World Court Opens Door To Climate Change Lawsuits Against The U.S.
Judges are seated as the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, opens hearings ... More into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its devastating impact, Monday, Dec. 2, 2024. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong) At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice reviewed the financial liability of countries for their contribution to climate change and what actions countries must take to prevent climate change. After over two years of proceedings, the ICJ released its Advisory Opinion relating to the Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change on July 23. The Court found that large GHG emitting countries, like the United States could be liable to pay reparations to smaller countries for the adverse impacts of climate change. While the opinion is non-binding, it will shape the future debate over climate change policy and lead to a wave of new lawsuits. The ICJ was established in 1945 through the UN Charter to handle legal disputes between nations. Known as the World Court, it is an outlet for countries to settle civil disputes through a neutral court. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UNGA and UN Council to serve a term of nine years. A country may only have one judge serving on the ICJ at a time. On March 29, 2023, at the request of Vanuatu, the UNGA asked the ICJ to issue an advisory opinion on the legal obligations of countries in preventing climate change. The opinion, while non-binding, will give an indicator of how the Court may interpret future climate related litigation and guide future legislative development. Following two years of proceedings, including both written and oral statements, the Court issued its opinion, and a shorter summary of the opinion, on July 23. The UNGA posed two questions to the ICJ:Addressing the first question, large countries, including the United States, Australia, and Germany, argued that the creation of a treaty that specifically addresses climate change overrides any other international law on the subject. This is known as lex specialis. Therefore, no additional legal obligations exist that may create a call for reparations or action not directly negotiated. Developing countries argued that the UNCCC and the Paris Agreement are a starting point, but that the impacts of climate change violate human rights under international common law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, those countries that contribute to climate change, through the production of fossil fuels and GHG emissions, should pay reparations to low lying and developing nations that are 'adversely impacted' by climate change. The Court agreed, finding that the obligations to prevent climate change are found under customary international law. The Court stated, 'The customary duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm, which requires States to 'use all the means at [their] disposal in order to avoid activities which take place in [their] territory, or in any area under [their] jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the environment of another State', also applies to the climate system, which is an integral and vitally important part of the environment and which must be protected for present and future generations." The Court's rejection of lex specialis effectively renders Trump's exit from the Paris Agreement as moot when it comes to liability. The court established that liability in two parts, or elements. "The main elements of the obligation of prevention in the context of protection of the climate system are (a) the environmental harm to be prevented and (b) due diligence as the required standard of conduct.' The court addressed the two parts of the obligation and provided more context. Addressing the environmental harm to be prevented, the court stated: "For the duty to prevent to arise, there must be a risk of significant harm to the environment. Whether an activity constitutes a risk of significant harm depends on both the probability or foreseeability of the occurrence of harm and its severity or magnitude and should therefore be determined by, among other factors, an assessment of the risk and level of harm combined. The Court is of the view that a risk of significant harm may also be present in situations where significant harm to the environment is caused by the cumulative effect of different acts undertaken by various States and by private actors subject to their respective jurisdiction or control. "The determination of 'significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment' must take into account the best available science. The question whether any specific harm, or risk of harm, to a State constitutes a relevant adverse effect of climate change must be assessed in concreto in each individual situation." Looking at the due diligence requirement, the Court listed seven factors that should be considered when determining if a country took the necessary steps to prevent environmental harm. Generally, those are (1) laws or regulations to reduce GHG emissions; (2) availability of scientific information; (3) binding and non-binding agreements from COPs; (4) 'the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; (5) 'scientific information regarding the probability and the seriousness of possible harm; (6) risk assessments relating to GHG emissions; and (7) 'States' notification of and consultation in good faith with other States where planned activities within their jurisdiction or control create a risk of significant harm or significantly affect collective efforts to address harm to the climate system.' The opinion is a huge win for climate change activists. While it is non-binding, it is important to note that any disputes between countries will be heard before the International Court of Justice, the same court that issues the advisory opinion. It is also likely that some national courts will adopt the same legal interpretations. Expect litigation based on the opinion to begin within the next few weeks.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Famous for his fearless bravado as a pro wrestler, Hulk Hogan won one of his most notable victories in a Florida courtroom by emphasizing his humiliation and emotional distress after a news and gossip website published a video of Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. A 2016 civil trial that pitted the First Amendment against the privacy rights of celebrities ended with a jury awarding Hogan a whopping $140 million in his lawsuit against Gawker Media. Though both parties later settled on $31 million to avoid protracted appeals, the case put Gawker out of business. It also ensured Hogan, who died Thursday at age 71, and his legal team would have a long-term impact on media law. The case showed that, in certain circumstances, celebrities could persuade a jury that their right to privacy outweighs the freedom of the press — even when the published material was true. The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. ___ Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Hulk Hogan's sex tape lawsuit had a lasting effect on cases involving celebrity privacy
Advertisement The case put media outlets on notice that 'the public doesn't necessarily like the press,' especially when reporting intrudes into intimate details of even public figures' private lives, said Samantha Barbas, a University of Iowa law professor who writes about press freedoms and First Amendment issues. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up She said it also emboldened celebrities, politicians and others in the public spotlight to be more aggressive in suing over unflattering news coverage — as seen recently in President Donald Trump's pursuit of court cases against the Wall Street Journal, ABC and CBS. 'I think the lasting effect of the Hulk Hogan case was it really started this trend of libel and privacy lawsuits being weaponized to kind of take down these media organizations,' Barbas said. Advertisement Hogan wept hearing the verdict in a case that was 'real personal' Hogan, whose given name was Terry Bollea, sued Gawker for invading his privacy after the website in 2012 posted an edited version of a video of Hogan having sex with the wife of his then-best friend, Florida-based radio DJ Bubba The Love Sponge Clem. Clem gave his blessing to the coupling and recorded the video that was later leaked to Gawker. Hogan insisted he was unaware the intimate encounter was being filmed. The former WWE champion testified that he was 'completely humiliated' when the sex video became public. Hogan's lead trial attorney, Ken Turkel, recalled Thursday how his muscular, mustachioed client cried in court as the jury verdict was read. 'To him the privacy part of it was integral. It was important,' Turkel said. 'Eight-year-old kids were googling 'Hulk Hogan' and 'Wrestlemania,' and they were getting a sex tape. That was hurtful to him in a real personal way.' The three-week trial was closely followed far beyond the courtroom in St. Petersburg, Florida, as thousands of wrestling fans, First Amendment watchers and others stayed glued to their screens as the trial was streamed live online. Salacious details emerged about Hogan's sex life as jurors and spectators viewed. images of him in thong underwear. Other testimony focused on how New York-based Gawker practiced journalism differently than traditional news outlets. And Hogan explained to the jury about the difference between his wrestling persona and his private life. Jury rejected that First Amendment protected publishing sex tape The jury ultimately rejected arguments by Gawker's attorneys that Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy and that publishing it, no matter how distasteful, was protected speech under the First Amendment. 'Now more people, including judges, understand that it's possible to sue someone for revealing something truthful, as long as that something is deeply personal and its publication is highly offensive,' said Amy Gajda, a Brooklyn Law School professor who followed and wrote about the case against Gawker. Advertisement News outlets still have broad legal protection for publishing information about public figures, even things that would generally be considered private, Gajda said 'As long as there is news value in what is published and the media can argue that effectively, they can get a privacy case dismissed very early on,' she said. Bynum reported from Savannah, Georgia.
