Biden joins thousands paying final respects to slain Minnesota lawmaker and husband, World News
ST. PAUL, Minnesota - Thousands of mourners, including former US President Joe Biden, filed through Minnesota's state Capitol Rotunda on Friday (June 27) to pay final respects to slain lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, who were gunned down by an assassin earlier this month.
The couple lay in state in St. Paul on the eve of a private funeral set for Saturday morning, two weeks after a man impersonating a police officer shot them to death at their home in what authorities are treating as a politically motivated murder.
For several hours, members of the public lined up in a column of mourners stretching across the front plaza of the state Capitol building and along an adjacent boulevard.
After entering the building, people walked single-file past the Hortmans' flower-bedecked caskets. A portrait of each stood next to their respective coffins.
Perched between them was an urn bearing the remains of their golden retriever, Gilbert, along with a photograph of the pet. The dog, too, was shot in the attack and later euthanized.
Biden arrived at the statehouse late in the afternoon. After the public was cleared from the rotunda for security purposes, the Democratic former president was ushered in alone. He paused for a moment in front of the caskets, then exited the building.
Following his departure, the rotunda was reopened to the public, and the procession of mourners resumed. Still more people joined the line outside, hoping for a chance to pay their respects. The viewing was scheduled to end at 5 pm (6am Singapore time) local time.
Representative Hortman, the top-ranking Democrat in the Minnesota House, became the first woman to lie in state in the St. Paul Capitol Rotunda, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune. Her husband was believed to be the first person other than a military figure or public official to be so honoured.
The suspect in their June 14 killings, Vance Boelter, 57, is also accused of shooting and wounding a second Democratic legislator, state Senator John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, in their home a few miles away.'
The accused gunman was arrested on the night of June 16 following a massive two-day manhunt that was the largest in state history.
Boelter faces state and federal murder charges. According to prosecutors, investigators recovered notebooks from his car and residence that included the names of dozens of Democratic legislators, along with abortion-rights advocates.
[[nid:719153]]
The shootings unfolded against a backdrop of increasing political violence in the US in an era of extreme social and partisan polarisation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
7 hours ago
- Straits Times
Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term
Mr Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump victorious again as US Supreme Court wraps up its term WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court on the last day of rulings for its current term gave Donald Trump his latest in a series of victories at the nation's top judicial body, one that may make it easier for him to implement contentious elements of his sweeping agenda as he tests the limits of presidential power. With its six conservative members in the majority and its three liberals dissenting, the court on Jan 27 curbed the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide, resetting the power balance between the federal judiciary and presidents. The ruling came after the Republican president's administration asked the Supreme Court to narrow the scope of so-called 'universal' injunctions issued by three federal judges that halted nationally the enforcement of his January executive order limiting birthright citizenship. The court's decision has 'systematically weakened judicial oversight and strengthened executive discretion,' said Mr Paul Rosenzweig, an attorney who served in Republican President George W. Bush's administration. June 27's ruling said that judges generally can grant relief only to the individuals or groups who brought a particular lawsuit. The decision did not, however, permit immediate implementation of Mr Trump's directive, instead instructing lower courts to reconsider the scope of the injunctions. The ruling was authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of three conservative justices who Mr Trump appointed during his first term in office from 2017 to 2021. Mr Trump has scored a series of victories at the Supreme Court since returning to office in January. These have included clearing the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and ending temporary legal status held by hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. The court also permitted implementation of Mr Trump's ban on transgender people in the military, let his administration withhold payment to foreign aid groups for work already performed for the government, allowed his firing of two Democratic members of federal labor boards to stand for now, and backed his Department of Government Efficiency in two disputes. 'President Trump secured the relief he sought in most of his administration's cases,' Mr George Mason University law school professor Robert Luther III said. 'Justice Barrett's opinion is a win for the presidency,' Mr Luther said of the decision on nationwide injunctions. 'It recognises that the executive branch is a bully pulpit with a wide range of authorities to implement the promises of a campaign platform.' Once again, as with many of the term's major decisions, the three liberal justices found themselves in dissent, a familiar position as the court under the guidance of Chief Justice John Roberts continues to shift American law rightward. The rulings in favour of Mr Trump illustrate that "the court's three most liberal justices are proving less relevant now than at any earlier point in the Roberts Court with respect to their impact on its jurisprudence," Mr Luther said. The cases involving Mr Trump administration policies this year came to the court as emergency filings rather than through the normal process, with oral arguments held only in the birthright litigation. And those arguments did not focus on the legality of Mr Trump's action but rather on the actions of the judges who found that it was likely unconstitutional. 'One theme is the court's struggle to keep pace with a faster-moving legal world, especially as the Trump administration tests the outer boundaries of its powers,' Boston College Law School professor Daniel Lyons said. In other cases during the nine-month term, the court sided with a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors, endorsed South Carolina's plan to cut off public funding to reproductive healthcare and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, and made it easier to pursue claims alleging workplace 'reverse' discrimination. The court also spared two American gun companies from the Mexican government's lawsuit accusing them of aiding illegal firearms trafficking to drug cartels, and allowed parents to opt elementary school children out of classes when storybooks with LGBT characters are read. In several cases involving federal statutes, the message from the justices is that people unhappy with the outcome need to take that up with Congress, according to Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. 'The court is implicitly saying, 'That's Congress' problem to fix, and it's not the court's role to solve those issues,'' Mr Levinson said. This is the second straight year that the court ended its term with a decision handing Mr Trump a major victory. On July 1, 2024, it ruled in favour of Mr Trump in deciding that presidents cannot be prosecuted for official actions taken in office. It marked the first time that the court recognised any form of presidential immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court's next term begins in October but Trump's administration still has some emergency requests pending that the justices could act upon at any time. It has asked the court to halt a judicial order blocking mass federal job cuts and the restructuring of agencies. It also has asked the justices to rein in the judge handling a case involving deportations to so-called 'third countries.' Recent rulings 'have really shown the court for what it is, which is a deeply conservative court,' Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis said. The court's jurisprudence reflects a larger shift in the national discourse, with Republicans feeling they have the political capital to achieve long-sought aims, Kreis said. The court's conservative majority, Mr Kreis said, 'is probably feeling more emboldened to act.' REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
AsiaOne
7 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Biden joins thousands paying final respects to slain Minnesota lawmaker and husband, World News
ST. PAUL, Minnesota - Thousands of mourners, including former US President Joe Biden, filed through Minnesota's state Capitol Rotunda on Friday (June 27) to pay final respects to slain lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, who were gunned down by an assassin earlier this month. The couple lay in state in St. Paul on the eve of a private funeral set for Saturday morning, two weeks after a man impersonating a police officer shot them to death at their home in what authorities are treating as a politically motivated murder. For several hours, members of the public lined up in a column of mourners stretching across the front plaza of the state Capitol building and along an adjacent boulevard. After entering the building, people walked single-file past the Hortmans' flower-bedecked caskets. A portrait of each stood next to their respective coffins. Perched between them was an urn bearing the remains of their golden retriever, Gilbert, along with a photograph of the pet. The dog, too, was shot in the attack and later euthanized. Biden arrived at the statehouse late in the afternoon. After the public was cleared from the rotunda for security purposes, the Democratic former president was ushered in alone. He paused for a moment in front of the caskets, then exited the building. Following his departure, the rotunda was reopened to the public, and the procession of mourners resumed. Still more people joined the line outside, hoping for a chance to pay their respects. The viewing was scheduled to end at 5 pm (6am Singapore time) local time. Representative Hortman, the top-ranking Democrat in the Minnesota House, became the first woman to lie in state in the St. Paul Capitol Rotunda, according to the Minnesota Star Tribune. Her husband was believed to be the first person other than a military figure or public official to be so honoured. The suspect in their June 14 killings, Vance Boelter, 57, is also accused of shooting and wounding a second Democratic legislator, state Senator John Hoffman, and his wife, Yvette, in their home a few miles away.' The accused gunman was arrested on the night of June 16 following a massive two-day manhunt that was the largest in state history. Boelter faces state and federal murder charges. According to prosecutors, investigators recovered notebooks from his car and residence that included the names of dozens of Democratic legislators, along with abortion-rights advocates. [[nid:719153]] The shootings unfolded against a backdrop of increasing political violence in the US in an era of extreme social and partisan polarisation.
Business Times
8 hours ago
- Business Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
[WASHINGTON, DC] The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted US President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday (Jun 27) came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a press conference in the White House Friday that the administration will 'promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis'. Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries'. The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total 'retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths 'It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. 'But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a US law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. 'This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. 'It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said he and his Democratic colleagues would 'assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. 'The court confirmed what we've thought all along – nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said. BLOOMBERG
