Bacon not running for reelection: Reports
Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon will not be running for re-election and will retire in 2026, multiple outlets reported on Friday.
His district, which includes Omaha, was won by former Vice President Harris in the 2024 election and presents an opportunity for Democrats to pick up the 'blue dot' district Bacon has held since 2016.
The five-term lawmaker is expected to hold a press conference on Monday. The Hill has reached out to Bacon's team for comment.
Bacon, a long-time critic of President Trump, has signaled his openness to retirement in recent months, per local media.
His decision to step aside opens the door for Democrats in the competitive district as it seeks to gain control of the House in 2026.
State Sen. John Cavanaugh (D) launched a campaign for the seat earlier this week, arguing he will fight to strengthen Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
Republicans in Omaha were already delivered a blow earlier this year when a Democrat ousted the incumbent GOP mayor.
Democrats have won the 2nd Congressional District's electoral vote in three of the past presidential elections.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
an hour ago
High court ruling on injunctions could imperil many court orders blocking the Trump administration
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Friday limiting federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions threatens to upend numerous lawsuits that have led to orders blocking Trump administration policies. Between the start of the new administration and mid-May, judges issued roughly 40 nationwide injunctions against the White House on topics including federal funding, elections rules and diversity and equity considerations. Attorneys involved in some of those cases are vowing to keep fighting, noting the high court left open other legal paths that could have broad nationwide effect. Here's a look at some of the decisions that could be impacted: Multiple federal judges have issued nationwide injunctions blocking President Donald Trump's order denying citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The high court's decision Friday came in a lawsuit over that order, but the justices left unclear whether the restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. Opponents went back to court within hours of the opinion, using a legal path the court left open to file class-action lawsuits that could have nationwide effect. On June 13, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper in Massachusetts blocked Trump's attempt to overhaul elections in the U.S. An executive order the Republican president issued in March sought to compel officials to require documentary proof of citizenship for everyone registering to vote for federal elections, accept only mailed ballots received by Election Day and condition federal election grant funding on states adhering to the new ballot deadline. California was one of the plaintiffs in that suit. The office of the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in an email it was assessing the effect of Friday's Supreme Court decision on all of the state's litigation. A federal judge in California in April blocked the administration from cutting off funding for legal representation for unaccompanied migrant children. The administration has appealed. U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin in San Francisco said there was 'no practical way' to limit the scope of the injunction by party or by geography. 'Indeed, as discussed with the Government's declarants at the preliminary injunction hearing, there exists only one contract for the provision of the subject funding, and it applies to direct legal services nationwide,' Martinez-Olguin wrote. Plaintiffs' attorney Adina Appelbaum, program director for the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said she didn't think the Supreme Court's decision would significantly affect her case. But she blasted it, saying the high court had 'turned its back on its role to protect the people,' including immigrants. A federal judge in February largely blocked sweeping executive orders that sought to end government support for programs promoting diversity, equity and inclusion. U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from terminating or changing federal contracts it considers equity-related. An appeals court later put the decision on hold. Attorneys for the group Democracy Forward represented plaintiffs in the case. The group's president and CEO, Skye Perryman, said she was disappointed by the Supreme Court's ruling, calling it another barrier to seeking relief in court. But she also said it was limited and could keep at least some decisions blocking the Trump administration in place. A federal judge in February stopped the administration from withholding federal funds from health care facilities that provide gender-affirming care to patients under the age of 19. Explaining his reasoning for a nationwide injunction, U.S. District Judge Brendan Abell Hurson in Maryland said a 'piecemeal approach is not appropriate in this case.' 'Significant confusion would result from preventing agencies from conditioning funding on certain medical institutions, while allowing conditional funding to persist as to other medical institutions,' he wrote. An appeal in the case was on hold as the Supreme Court considered similar issues about minors and transgender health care. The high court last week upheld a Tennessee law banning key health care treatments for transgender youth. Omar Gonzalez-Pagan, senior counsel for the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund Inc., was one of the attorneys who secured Hurson's ruling. He said the plaintiffs' lawyers were still evaluating the possible impact of the Supreme Court's decision, but he believed the high court recognized that 'systematic, universal relief is sometimes appropriate.' In May, a judge in Rhode Island blocked an executive order that sought to dismantle federal agencies supporting libraries, museums, minority businesses and parties in labor disputes. The administration has appealed. Rhode Island was a plaintiff in the lawsuit. The state's attorney general, Peter F. Neronha, said in a statement Friday he would "continue to pull every available legal lever to ensure that Americans, all Americans, are protected from the progressively dangerous whims of this President.' ___
an hour ago
New Hampshire lawsuit seeks to stop politicization of youth center abuse victims' fund
CONCORD, N.H. -- Lawyers representing hundreds of men and woman who claim they were abused at New Hampshire's youth detention center filed a class action lawsuit Friday seeking to prevent the independent administrator of the state's settlement fund for victims from being replaced with a political appointee. Lawmakers created the settlement fund in 2022, pitching it as a 'victim-centered' and 'trauma-informed' alternative to litigation that would be run by a neutral administrator appointed by the state Supreme Court. But the Republican-led Legislature changed that process through last-minute additions to the state budget approved Thursday and signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte on Friday. Under the new provisions taking effect July 1, the governor will have the authority to hire and fire the fund's administrator, and the attorney general — also a political appointee — would have veto power over settlement awards. In affidavits filed with their complaint, the lead plaintiffs said the change amounts to a bait and switch that reignited the skepticism they initially felt about the settlement process but tried to put aside. 'I never would have shared the full story of what happened to me if I did not think I would be heard by someone impartial,' said a woman identified only as Jane Doe, who said she ran away from home to escape sexual abuse only to be further abused in state custody. 'I feel incredibly betrayed by the state's actions, but this is just the latest in a long list of betrayals by the state, so maybe I should not be surprised,' she said. 'This also makes me wonder whether the state will next betray the promise of confidentiality, because it seems like their word does not mean anything to them.' Another plaintiff, Andrew Foley, described being diagnosed with PTSD, not from his time as a combat soldier in Iraq but from the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a child. 'As I understand it, the State will now decide for itself how much my claim is worth. That is the opposite of a fair process,' his affidavit said. 'As I always believed, the state cannot be trusted.' Neither Ayotte nor Attorney General John Formella responded to requests for comment Friday. More than 1,300 people have sued since 2020 alleging that they were physically or sexually abused in state custody as children, most of them at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester. Only one case has gone to trial, resulting in a $38 million verdict, though the state is trying to slash it to $475,000. Two other cases have been settled for $10 million and $4.5 million. The state also has brought criminal charges against former workers, with two convictions and two mistrials so far. Many of the alleged victims put their lawsuits on hold and applied to the settlement fund, which caps payouts at $2.5 million. As of March 31, 296 cases had been settled, with an average award of $543,000, according to the most recently available statistics. The lawsuit filed Friday seeks a temporary restraining order to prevent the governor from firing the current administrator, former state Supreme Court Chief Justice John Broderick.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
California closes $12B deficit by cutting back immigrants' access to health care
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Friday a budget that pares back a number of progressive priorities, including a landmark health care expansion for low-income adult immigrants without legal status, to close a $12 billion deficit. It's the third year in a row the nation's most populous state has been forced to slash funding or stop some of the programs championed by Democratic leaders. Lawmakers passed the budget earlier in the day following an agreement of a $321 billion spending plan between Newsom and Democratic leaders. But the whole budget will be void if lawmakers don't send him legislation to make it easier to build housing by Monday. The budget avoids some of the most devastating cuts to essential safety net programs, state leaders said. They mostly relied on using state savings, borrowing from special funds and delaying payments to plug the budget hole. 'It's balanced, it maintains substantial reserves, and it's focused on supporting Californians,' Newsom said in a statement about the budget. California also faces potential federal cuts to health care programs and broad economic uncertainty that could force even deeper cuts. Newsom in May estimated that federal policies — including on tariffs and immigration enforcement — could reduce state tax revenue by $16 billion. 'We've had to make some tough decisions,' Senate President Pro Tempore Mike McGuire said Friday. 'I know we're not going to please everyone, but we're doing this without any new taxes on everyday Californians.' Republican lawmakers said they were left out of budget negotiations. They also criticized Democrats for not doing enough to address future deficits, which could range between $17 billion to $24 billion annually. 'We're increasing borrowing, we're taking away from the rainy day fund, and we're not reducing our spending," said Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland prior to the vote. 'And this budget also does nothing about affordability in California.' Here's a look at spending in key areas: Health care Under the budget deal, California will stop enrolling new adult patients without legal status in its state-funded health care program for low-income people starting 2026. The state will also implement a $30 monthly premium July 2027 for immigrants remaining on the program, including some with legal status. The premiums would apply to adults under 60 years old. The changes to the program, known as Medi-Cal, are a scaled-back version of Newsom's proposal in May. Still, it's a major blow to an ambitious program started last year to help the state inch closer to a goal of universal health care. Democratic state Sen. Maria Elena Durazo broke with her party and voted 'no' on the health care changes, calling them a betrayal of immigrant communities. The deal also removes $78 million in funding for mental health phone lines, including a program that served 100,000 people annually. It will eliminate funding that helps pay for dental services for low-income people in 2026 and delay implementation of legislation requiring health insurance to cover fertility services by six months to 2026. But lawmakers also successfully pushed back on several proposed cuts from Newsom that they called 'draconian.' The deal secures funding for a program providing in-home domestic and personal care services for some low-income residents and Californians with disabilities. It also avoids cuts to Planned Parenthood. Environment Lawmakers agreed to let the state tap $1 billion from its cap-and-trade program to fund state firefighting efforts. The cap-and-trade program is a market-based system aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Companies have to buy credits to pollute, and that money goes into a fund lawmakers are supposed to tap for climate-related spending. Newsom wanted to reauthorize the program through 2045, with a guarantee that $1 billion would annually go to the state's long-delayed high-speed rail project. The budget doesn't make that commitment, as lawmakers wanted to hash out spending plans outside of the budget process. The rail project currently receives 25% of the cap-and-trade proceeds, which is roughly $1 billion annually depending on the year. Legislative leaders also approved funding to help transition part-time firefighters into full-time positions. Many state firefighters only work nine months each year, which lawmakers said harms the state's ability to prevent and fight wildfires. The deal includes $10 million to increase the daily wage for incarcerated firefighters, who earn $5.80 to $10.24 a day currently. Public safety The budget agreement will provide $80 million to help implement a tough-on-crime initiative voters overwhelmingly approved last year. The measure makes shoplifting a felony for repeat offenders, increases penalties for some drug charges and gives judges the authority to order people with multiple drug charges into treatment. Most of the fund, $50 million, will help counties build more behavioral health beds. Probation officers will get $15 million for pre-trial services and courts will receive $20 million to support increased caseloads. Advocates of the measure — including sheriffs, district attorneys and probation officers — said that's not enough money. Some have estimated it would take around $400 million for the first year of the program. Other priorities Newsom and lawmakers agreed to raise the state's film tax credit from $330 million to $750 million annually to boost Hollywood. The program, a priority for Newsom, will start this year and expire in 2030. The budget provides $10 million to help support immigration legal services, including deportation defense. But cities and counties won't see new funding to help them address homelessness next year, which local leaders said could lead to the loss of thousands of shelter beds. The budget also doesn't act on Newsom's proposal to streamline a project to create a massive underground tunnel to reroute a big part of the state's water supply.
