Michigan Attorney General supports lawsuits to preserve public media
Attorney General Dana Nessel speaks to reporters at the G. Mennen Williams Building in Lansing, Mich., on May 15, 2025. (Photo by Andrew Roth/Michigan Advance)
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has signed onto a legal brief alongside 22 other attorneys general to support lawsuits brought by the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio that are attempting to block federal funding cuts to their organizations.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order in May to cut federal funding for NPR and PBS, stating in the order that 'neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens'.
Since then, NPR and PBS filed two separate lawsuits arguing the funding cuts threaten the First Amendment and create public safety hazards for citizens served by their local affiliates who rely on public media for weather, health and safety alerts.
Forum highlights cost defunding public media has on emergency alerts, educational programming
The brief Nessel and other attorneys general filed last week backs the arguments made by public media and warns of the harm that could come from weakening public media programming and infrastructure.
'Public media is a vital source of independent information for countless Michiganders and Americans, especially in rural communities, where it is often the only option available,' Nessel said in a news release Monday.
Law enforcement depends on public media when issuing AMBER Alerts to find abducted children, as well as Silver Alerts for missing elderly individuals or individuals with developmental disabilities, the legal brief outlines. Public broadcasters provide critical coverage of emerging public safety threats like active shooters, especially in news deserts where public media may be the only resource to quickly disseminate information, the brief adds.
The public media stations in Michigan, many serving rural communities outside of many news outlets' coverage areas, also provide emergency information that help residents navigate extreme weather of other crises, Nessel's news release said.
'Attempts to defund public journalism are a blatant attack on the press and the First Amendment, and a disservice to the people who rely on it every day,' Nessel said. 'Public radio reaches nearly every corner of our state, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues and with public media in defense of this essential news source.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
5 hours ago
- CBS News
U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas porn age verification law restarts fight with similar Florida legislation
In a ruling that has implications for a battle over a similar Florida law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Texas law requiring age verification for access to websites with pornographic content. The court, in a 6-3 decision, said the Texas law does not violate First Amendment rights and that at least 21 other states — including Florida — "have imposed materially similar age-verification requirements to access sexual material that is harmful to minors online." As the Supreme Court weighed the Texas case in January, Tallahassee-based U.S. District Judge Mark Walker issued a stay of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Florida law. Walker on Friday quickly lifted the stay and gave directions to lawyers, including about filing "supplemental arguments now that the Supreme Court has provided additional guidance as to the applicable level of scrutiny that applies to plaintiffs' claims." What the Supreme Court decision says Friday's majority opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, said age-verification laws "fall within states' authority to shield children from sexually explicit content." "The First Amendment leaves undisturbed states' traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective," said the opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. "That power necessarily includes the power to require proof of age before an individual can access such speech. It follows that no person — adult or child — has a First Amendment right to access speech that is obscene to minors without first submitting proof of age." But Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the age-verification requirement would burden the First Amendment rights of adults who want to view websites with pornographic content. "Texas can of course take measures to prevent minors from viewing obscene-for-children speech," Kagan wrote. "But if a scheme other than H. B. 1181 (the Texas law) can just as well accomplish that objective and better protect adults' First Amendment freedoms, then Texas should have to adopt it (or at least demonstrate some good reason not to). A state may not care much about safeguarding adults' access to sexually explicit speech; a state may even prefer to curtail those materials for everyone. Many reasonable people, after all, view the speech at issue here as ugly and harmful for any audience. But the First Amendment protects those sexually explicit materials, for every adult. So a state cannot target that expression, as Texas has here, any more than is necessary to prevent it from reaching children." Where does Florida's law stand now after the ruling? Florida lawmakers passed the age-verification requirements in 2024 as part of a broader bill (HB 3) that also seeks to prevent children under age 16 from opening social-media accounts on some platforms. The social-media part of the bill drew a separate constitutional challenge, with Walker this month issuing a preliminary injunction to block it on First Amendment grounds. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry group, and other plaintiffs filed the lawsuit challenging the pornography-related part of the law. The Free Speech Coalition also has been a plaintiff in the Texas case. The Florida lawsuit centers on part of the law that applies to any business that "knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on a website or application, if the website or application contains a substantial portion of material harmful to minors." It defines "substantial portion" as more than 33.3 percent of total material on a website or app. In such situations, the law requires businesses to use methods to "verify that the age of a person attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older and prevent access to the material by a person younger than 18 years of age." The lawsuit raises objections about how the law would apply to minors and adults, including saying it "demands that, as a condition of access to constitutionally protected content, an adult must provide a digital proof of identity to adult content websites that are doubtlessly capable of tracking specific searches and views of some of the most sensitive, personal, and private contents a human being might search for." The lawsuit also alleges that the law does not properly differentiate between older minors and younger children. In addition to alleging violations of First Amendment rights, the lawsuit contends that the law violates due-process rights, the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause and what is known as the Supremacy Clause — issues that were not addressed in Friday's opinion about the Texas law.
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
Senate to Vote on Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill': Here's What It Contains
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Senate is working through the weekend to pass President Donald Trump's comprehensive domestic policy bill, a sprawling 940-page piece of legislation that Republicans are calling crucial for the nation's economic future. The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed their version, and senators are now working to finalize their draft before sending it back for a final House vote while Democrats remain united in opposition to the package. Why It Matters This legislation represents Trump's signature domestic policy initiative, combining massive tax cuts with significant spending on border security and defense while implementing substantial cuts to social safety net programs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is nonpartisan, estimates the House's version would add $2.4 trillion to the nation's deficit over the next decade, though Republicans dispute this calculation. The bill's passage would fundamentally reshape federal spending priorities and tax policy, affecting millions of Americans across income levels. What To Know The bill centers on approximately $3.8 trillion in tax cuts, making permanent the tax rates and brackets from Trump's first term while adding new exemptions for tips, overtime pay, and some automotive loans. The legislation would increase the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200 and provide a $6,000 deduction for older adults earning under $75,000 annually. The state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap would increase from $10,000 to $40,000 for five years. For border security and immigration enforcement, the package allocates $350 billion, including $46 billion for the U.S.-Mexico border wall and $45 billion for 100,000 migrant detention facility beds. The plan aims to deport approximately 1 million people annually through hiring 10,000 new U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and expanding Border Patrol forces. To offset costs, Republicans propose significant cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and green energy programs, potentially saving $1.5 trillion. The legislation would impose new 80-hour monthly work requirements for Medicaid and food stamp recipients up to age 65, while rolling back former President Joe Biden-era's renewable energy tax incentives. The CBO estimates these changes would leave 10.9 million more people without health coverage and 3 million without food stamp eligibility. Additional provisions include $25 billion for the "Golden Dome" missile defense system, establishment of "Trump Accounts" children's savings program, and $40 million for a "National Garden of American Heroes." The bill also restricts artificial intelligence (AI) development, blocks transgender surgeries, and directs the sale of up to 1.2 million acres of public land for housing development. The U.S. Capitol is seen on June 28 in Washington, D.C. The U.S. Capitol is seen on June 28 in Washington, People Are Saying President Donald Trump on Truth Social on Friday: "The Great Republicans in the U.S. Senate are working all weekend to finish our 'ONE, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL.' We are on the precipice of delivering Massive General Tax Cuts, NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON OVERTIME, NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR OUR SENIORS, Permanently Securing our Borders, an even Bigger and More Powerful Military." House Republicans' X, formerly Twitter, account wrote on Friday: "House Republicans are united and ready to DELIVER the largest tax cut for working and middle-class Americans in history. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will unleash our economy and restore the American Dream." Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X on Saturday: "BREAKING: I will object to Republicans moving forward on their Big, Ugly Bill without reading it on the Senate floor. Republicans won't tell America what's in the bill. So Democrats are forcing it to be read start to finish on the floor. We will be here all night if that's what it takes to read it." Trump on Truth Social on Saturday: "WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS ALWAYS ROOTING AGAINST AMERICA???" Tech billionaire and MAGA ally Elon Musk wrote on X on Saturday: "Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party." In his post, he shared polling data from The Tarrance Group that showed majority opposition across different voter groups. What Happens Next The Senate must complete its work and pass the bill before sending it back to the House for a final vote. Trump has demanded the legislation reach his desk by July 4th. With Democrats united in opposition and some Republican concerns emerging over provisions affecting rural hospitals and AI restrictions, the timeline remains uncertain. Reporting from the Associated Press contributed to this article.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next.
The Social Security trustees expect to deplete the trust fund in just a few years without changes. Cuts to the program will be even steeper than expected a year ago. There are several factors driving the increased deficit. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › Social Security is the backbone of many Americans' retirement plans. More than one-third of adults said the government program would be a major source of income in retirement in the most recent edition of an annual Gallup poll. That number has climbed higher over the last 20 years since Gallup started the survey. Meanwhile, six in 10 current retirees say their monthly check is a big piece of their budget. But with more and more Americans relying on Social Security, the future of the program has never looked more uncertain. Not only are seniors staring down the barrel of benefit cuts in just a few years, but the problem is only getting worse. Here's what seniors can expect and how they can plan for the future of Social Security. Retirees could see a significant benefit cut in just eight years if Congress doesn't act to change Social Security and improve its longevity. That's when the Social Security Board of Trustees estimates the program will deplete the Social Security Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund. The Social Security trust fund was established to hold excess tax revenue from wages to pay out to retirees when they start collecting benefits later. In the meantime, the Social Security Administration invests those funds in government bonds to earn a steady return on the principal. Over time, the balance grew as the working population grew faster than the retirement population. But as Baby Boomers started retiring, life expectancies increased, and younger generations had fewer children, the demographic shifts started putting pressure on the trust fund balance. As a result, Social Security has been running a deficit in most years since 2018. And that deficit is getting worse each year as the retired population grows faster than the working population. Every year, the trustees analyze the current state of Social Security and forecast the future of the program. Changes in the workforce, life expectancies, or Social Security policies can impact those estimates. Unfortunately for seniors, the projections got even worse this year. While the 2024 Trustees Report expected retirees to face a 21% overall reduction in benefits starting in 2033, that number climbed to 23% in the latest edition. Here's why seniors could be facing bigger benefits cuts and what they can do about it. It's not just the growing retiree population that's negatively impacting the health of Social Security. After all, almost everyone collecting Social Security today paid into the system for years before retiring. One notable shift negatively impacting Social Security is the growing income inequality in America. Only 82% of earnings were subject to Social Security tax in 2022. That compares to the 90% benchmark Congress targeted in its 1983 Social Security reforms. But even if we returned to that benchmark, it would only make up a portion of the shortfall over the coming years. Another challenge is a slow-growing working population. That's exacerbated by a decline in immigration and further hurt by current immigration policies imposed by the Trump administration. That said, allowing more immigrants to work in the United States (and pay Social Security taxes) would provide only a small amount of additional revenue to Social Security. The biggest change over the past year that's led the trustees to increase their forecast of the Social Security shortfall is the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act. The law repealed the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset, boosting Social Security benefits for 3.2 million retirees and many more in the future. It was also retroactive to 2024, further depleting the trust fund. So, while those retirees will see a step up in their benefits, many more could see deeper cuts in the future. That's not lost on most seniors, and it's led a surprising number of 62-year-olds to claim their benefits as soon as possible this year instead of waiting to maximize their benefits at age 70. But that might not be the smartest move. Here's why. While the program faces a major threat if Congress fails to act within the next eight years, it's still in most seniors' best interest to wait to claim Social Security on their own terms. There are two key reasons. First, it's highly unlikely Congress will allow Social Security benefits cuts. It may enact laws raising the full retirement age in the future, increasing the Social Security tax, increasing the amount of taxable wages, or some combination of all that and more. It could allow benefits to come out of the general fund instead of the trust fund (hopefully with a plan to return Social Security to solvency and reduce the overall government debt). But the clock is ticking for Congress to take action. Second, even if there are benefit cuts in the future, taking Social Security early (when you'd otherwise wait) could result in a much worse scenario for you in the future. The breakeven point for lifetime Social Security income will get pushed out further if you wait and Social Security is forced to cut benefits. But at its core, Social Security is longevity insurance. You'll be much better off in your late 80s if you waited to take Social Security and receive a bigger check than if you claimed as soon as possible. So, while the outlook for Social Security is getting worse, seniors shouldn't be in a rush to get their money while they can. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Future of Social Security Just Went From Bad to Worse. Here's What Seniors Can Expect Next. was originally published by The Motley Fool
