Brazil Judge Backs Part of Lula Tax Decree, Easing Budget Strain
The decision, handed down by Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes late Wednesday, reinstates the bulk of the so-called IOF tax whose increases Congress voted to overturn in June. Moraes struck down just one measure related to the taxing of supply-chain financing operations known as 'forfait.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
24 minutes ago
- NBC News
Republican-led House committee postpones Ghislaine Maxwell deposition
Congressional testimony by Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirator and confidant Ghislaine Maxwell previously scheduled for mid-August will be postponed until at least October, the chair of the Republican-led House Oversight Committee indicated in a letter Friday. Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., said in the letter obtained by NBC News that the committee would consider next steps after the Supreme Court in late September decides whether it will review Maxwell's conviction as a sex offender. The committee subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition last month and scheduled it for Aug. 11, citing the "immense public interest and scrutiny" surrounding her case and Epstein's. In Friday's letter, Comer reiterated his desire to interview Maxwell, calling her testimony "vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's death." "These investigative efforts may be used to inform potential legislation to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations," he wrote. Maxwell's lawyers, David Oscar Markus and Melissa Madrigal, said in a statement they "appreciate the Committee's willingness to delay" the deposition and "will continue to engage with Congress in good faith to find a way for Ms. Maxwell to share her information without compromising her constitutional rights." Maxwell's attorneys previously indicated that she planned to invoke her Fifth Amendment rights during the deposition unless the committee granted her immunity, telling Comer in a letter on Tuesday that absent the legal protection Maxwell's testimony "could compromise her constitutional rights, prejudice her legal claims, and potentially taint a future jury pool." The Oversight Committee in its letter Friday said it remains "unwilling" to grant Maxwell congressional immunity, but will "continue to engage in good faith negotiations" regarding the particulars of the deposition. Maxwell for months has been pleading with the Supreme Court to overturn her 2021 conviction on federal sex trafficking charges and subsequent 20-year prison sentence, arguing that her conviction violated a non-prosecution agreement prosecutors in Florida made with Epstein in 2007 that extended to several of his co-conspirators. Federal prosecutors have argued that the 2007 agreement applies only in Florida, where it was reached, and not New York, where Maxwell's 2021 trial took place. The federal judge who oversaw that trial, Judge Alison Nathan, agreed. The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it would consider whether to review Maxwell's case during a private conference on Sept. 29. The Oversight Committee's subpoena for Maxwell was sent when the Trump administration was coming under increasing pressure to disclose more information related to Epstein, who died in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death by suicide has sparked conspiracy theories for years, some of which have been promoted by administration officials and Trump allies. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell and her attorney last week for an interview that spanned nine hours across two days. The Justice Department official has made no public statements about what Maxwell said during their meeting. On Friday, Maxwell was moved to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas that only houses women, unlike the Florida facility where she was previously held, which houses both men and women. Trump, alongside Attorney General Pam Bondi, had pledged to release all files pertaining to the investigation, including a purported "client list" of people who benefited from Epstein's crimes. In a stunning about-face last month, the Justice Department released a memo outlining its decision to cease additional disclosures while dismissing several conspiracy theories related to the case. The memo roiled Trump's base and proved to be a rare point of contention between the president and his supporters, particularly as additional news reports emerged highlighting Trump and Epstein's past relationship. Hours after the Wall Street Journal reported last month that Trump wrote a letter to Epstein in 2003 with a drawing of a naked woman, Trump directed Bondi to seek the release of "pertinent" grand jury testimony from Epstein and Maxwell's cases. A federal judge in Florida denied the request, while another in New York has sought additional information from the government before making a ruling.
CNN
24 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
CNN
38 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court tees up Louisiana redistricting case that could undercut Voting Rights Act
The Supreme Court signaled Friday that it will take a broader look at a high-profile redistricting fight over Louisiana's congressional map, subtly expanding the scope of an appeal that could weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act. In a brief order, the high court reframed what is at stake in the Louisiana appeal and said it will probe whether a state runs afoul of the Constitution when it seeks to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation. If the court answers affirmatively, it would likely bar a state from adding an additional majority-minority district to ensure that minority voters have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the UCLA School of Law, described the move on his blog as 'a big, and dangerous, step toward knocking down' a key pillar of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court essentially punted on Louisiana's messy redistricting fight on the last day of its term in June, taking the rare step of holding the appeal for a new set of arguments. At the time, the court said it would provide clarity on exactly which question it wanted the parties in the case to address. Court watchers have been waiting for that clarity for weeks. On Friday, the justices handed down a brief order asking the parties to submit a new round of briefing by early October, when the court's new term will begin. The parties involved in the case will now submit written arguments about whether 'the state's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.' The Louisiana case is among the most important appeals the court will consider later this year. Election experts said the court's new framing questions whether states may fix Voting Rights Act violations without running up against the Constitution. Section 2 of the VRA requires consideration of voters' race to ensure that congressional and state legislative voting districts are drawn fairly. 'The court is asking for briefing on whether the race-based redistricting sometimes required by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is no longer constitutional in Louisiana – and by implication, in states with similar circumstances' to those in Louisiana, said Richard Pildes, an election law expert at the New York University School of Law. The outcome of the case could have nationwide implications. To begin with, it could affect the shape of the districts – and therefore the electability – of several key GOP leaders in the House who represent Louisiana, including Speaker Mike Johnson. It could also set a standard for how much lawmakers in every state may consider race – if at all – when they redraw the lines every decade. The facts of the Louisiana case demonstrate the issue: At first, a federal court ruled the state likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When it tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, another court said it violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands. The Voting Rights Act requires that states not dilute the power of minority voters during the once-a-decade redistricting process, such as by 'packing' those voters into one district or 'cracking' neighborhoods up into many districts to spread out their influence. The law was enacted in response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans. And yet the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause demands that a state not draw a map predominantly based on race. If it does, the state must demonstrate that it had a compelling reason to do so and carried out the effort in the narrowest way possible. Because of that inherent tension between the Voting Rights Act and the equal protection clause, the Supreme Court has tended to give states some 'breathing room' in drawing their maps. One of the central questions in the case, Louisiana v. Callais, is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have. Now, the court appears to be preparing to debate whether states should have any breathing room at all. CNN Chief Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic contributed to this report.
