logo
#

Latest news with #CourtofAppeals

Supreme Court will hear challenge to limits on political party spending
Supreme Court will hear challenge to limits on political party spending

Boston Globe

time2 days ago

  • Politics
  • Boston Globe

Supreme Court will hear challenge to limits on political party spending

'It would at a minimum open up more opportunities for political parties to work with their campaigns,' Pildes said. 'More expansively, it could lead to political parties regaining some of the ground they lost to the Super PACs over the last 20 years.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The national Republican senatorial and congressional committees, joined by then-Senator JD Vance, Republican of Ohio, and then-Representative Steve Chabot, Republican of Ohio, filed a lawsuit over the limits in 2022, saying they conflict with the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Advertisement The Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled against the Republicans, citing a 2001 Supreme Court ruling upholding the limits, but it acknowledged the high court 'has tightened the free speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation' in more recent decisions, so the issue may be ripe for revisiting. Advertisement In the 2001 case, the high court upheld the restrictions on coordinating spending by political parties in a 5-4 ruling, finding they 'minimize circumvention of [individual] contribution limits.' The GOP committees urged the justices to overturn that decision in a filing, arguing that the restrictions have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' fueling the rise of super PACs and a decline in the power of political parties and contributing to 'a spike in political polarization and fragmentation across the board.' 'Congress has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them,' the petitioners wrote. 'That is the campaign 'equivalent of prohibiting communication between a coach and quarterback late in a tied game.'' Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a filing in the case that the Trump administration will not defend the restrictions on party spending. The move is unusual because the solicitor general typically defends federal law. The high court is allowing the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to intervene in the case to defend the contribution limits, which the groups say are an essential part of trying to restrict the influence of wealthy donors on the political process. The Democratic groups argued in a brief filed with the courts that removing the limits could lead to corruption by 'blow[ing] open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates through party committees' coordinated expenditures.' For 2025, the Federal Election Commission limited how much parties are able to spend in coordination with a Senate nominee to between about $127,000 and $3.9 million, depending on the size of a state's voting-age population. For House candidates, the limits are between about $63,000 and $127,000. Parties face no limits on expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates. Advertisement The high court's decision to accept the case was a major blow to advocates for campaign finance regulation. Since the court's landmark 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which opened the door to unlimited contributions by corporations and unions, the conservative majority has consistently viewed limits on campaign spending as unconstitutional limits on free speech. If the court strikes down the current restrictions on coordinated spending by political parties — as expected by activists on both sides of the debate — it will be the latest ruling that erodes the campaign finance regulations enacted in the wake of Watergate to guard against the potentially corrupting influence of money in politics. 'This case is part of a long line of cases in which this court has set out to eviscerate campaign finance laws passed over decades to protect the American people from corruption,' said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan group that backs stronger regulation of campaign spending. 'This court is on a path that is completely hostile to campaign finance laws.' Most states don't restrict the amounts that parties can spend in coordination with candidates, said David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, which filed a brief supporting the Republican committees' request for the high court's involvement. 'This case is a complete outlier, and this is long overdue,' Keating said. 'There is no evidence that it will lead to corruption, so I think it's extremely unlikely the court will uphold this restriction.' Advertisement The case is one of seven that the justices added Monday to their calendar for the term that begins in October. The court also agreed to take up a major copyright dispute between Cox Communications and a group of music labels seeking to hold the internet service provider accountable for alleged illegal downloading of music by Cox customers.

Egyptian School Guard In Kuwait Sentenced To Death For Raping Egyptian Teacher
Egyptian School Guard In Kuwait Sentenced To Death For Raping Egyptian Teacher

Arab Times

time2 days ago

  • Arab Times

Egyptian School Guard In Kuwait Sentenced To Death For Raping Egyptian Teacher

KUWAIT CITY, June 30: The Court of Cassation has upheld the death sentence handed down to an Egyptian school guard convicted of kidnapping, assaulting, and unlawfully detaining an Egyptian female teacher inside the art room of a school in the Ahmadi Governorate. The incident occurred when the guard forcibly took the teacher into the art studio, inside school premises, physically restrained her, and taped her mouth shut to prevent her from screaming. He then assaulted her at knifepoint. Both the Criminal Court and the Court of Appeals had previously sentenced the man to death by hanging, based on strong evidence and medical reports that confirmed the assault. In its ruling, the Criminal Court emphasized that the crime took place in what should have been a secure environment, describing the act as a severe breach of trust and a blatant violation of human dignity, warranting the harshest possible punishment.

Ali Dastmozd tries to quash conviction at Court of Appeals
Ali Dastmozd tries to quash conviction at Court of Appeals

Herald Sun

time25-06-2025

  • Herald Sun

Ali Dastmozd tries to quash conviction at Court of Appeals

Don't miss out on the headlines from Leader . Followed categories will be added to My News. A jealous jailbird who violently stabbed his ex-wife's boyfriend has made a hail Mary attempt to quash his conviction, arguing evidence of his admission to police should have been thrown out. Two years after a jury found Ali Dastmozd guilty of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury — locking him up for a decade (seven years non-parole) — he has launched a bold bid for freedom. Dastmozd stabbed his ex-wife's new boyfriend Sahar Seyedi at a Mulgrave house in October 2020, storming into the home and slicing the victim's jugular vein during the wild attack. When police arrived and apprehended Dastmozd, court documents revealed he admitted the crime. When asked 'did you stab the other guy?' by an officer Dastmodz replied 'yeah'. 'Don't worry man, the fight is finished,' Dasmodz told police, lying face down on the road. But in an audacious bid for release Dastmozd argued at the Court of Appeals that this admission — captured on a body camera — was prejudicial and should not have been shown to the jury as it was made before he was officially arrested. He claimed his conversation was in the 'company of police questioning' rather than while under arrest. According to court documents Dastmozd was told he was under arrest about 'one minute and 10 seconds after the admission'. He argued allowing this evidence to be admitted deprived him a 'realistic chance of acquittal, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.' During the trial there were no objections to this footage being shown to the jury. But Appeals judges Kristen Walker, Lesley Taylor and Robert Osborn found he was under arrest at the time, citing the Evidence Act which references a person being under arrest as someone who 'has been given reasonable grounds for believing that they would not be allowed to leave'. 'This was a volatile situation, where a stabbing had occurred, the weapon had not been recovered, members of the public could be at risk and the precise number of offenders was unknown,' the judges found. 'In light of (police) commands to (Dastmozd) to get on the ground, put his hands behind his back, and stay there, it is plain that paragraph (c) of (Evidence Act) was satisfied.' Dastmozd's appeal was dismissed.

Red states are forcing public schools to go MAGA
Red states are forcing public schools to go MAGA

The Hill

time22-06-2025

  • Politics
  • The Hill

Red states are forcing public schools to go MAGA

In Oklahoma, new social studies standards sound like they were written by loyal followers of President Trump. The standards include teaching high school students about 'discrepancies' in the 2020 presidential election, including discredited theories related to the 'security risks of mail-in balloting, sudden batch dumps, an unforeseen record number of voters, and the unprecedented contradiction of 'bellwether county' trends.' Students will also be asked to 'identify the source of the COVID-19 pandemic from a Chinese lab,' begin learning about the teachings of Jesus in the second grade and the 'ways that individuals can be patriotic' in preschool. After being accepted by the Oklahoma legislature, the new standards have sparked litigation and bitter debate. Oklahoma is by no means alone in remaking public education in hyperpartisan and, in our view, dangerously misguided ways. In an era of extreme political polarization, nothing succeeds like excess. As the pendulum has swung to the right, red state officials — acting under the banner of 'parental rights' and anti-'woke' ideology — have outdone one another in adopting restrictive instructional mandates related to religion, gender, sexuality, race and U.S. history. In 2023, Texas became the first state to permit school districts to use chaplains to counsel students during the school day. This year, the Texas legislature passed a bill allowing school districts to set aside time daily for prayer and religious study. Louisiana and Arkansas passed laws requiring classrooms in every public school to display the Ten Commandments. (On Friday, the conservative Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional.) Kentucky has prohibited instruction on human sexuality and sexually transmitted diseases before fifth grade and barred instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation. Iowa banned instruction on sexuality or sexual orientation before sixth grade and prohibited school libraries from carrying books depicting sex acts. In a backlash to the social justice activism that followed George Floyd's murder in 2020, at least 18 states passed laws banning the teaching of 'critical race theory' and restricting how teachers talk about racism, sexual orientation, gender identity and other 'divisive concepts.' Other 'educational gag orders' prohibit teachers from discussing 'controversial issues of public policy or social affairs.' If such teaching is permitted, the rules require teachers to 'strive to explore such issues from diverse and contending perspectives.' Even though two-thirds of Americans oppose book bans, books 'are disappearing' from K-12 classrooms and libraries across the country in an 'unprecedented flood' driven by 'punitive state laws' and 'pressure campaigns.' Florida has led the way. In what may become a blueprint for federal policy, the state adopted a series of laws, regulations and executive orders that 'privilege some parents' ideological preferences above all others, tie the hands of educators, and limit students' access to information.' Florida has banned the teaching of 'any concept that promotes, advances, or compels individuals to believe discriminatory concepts'; prohibited spending state funds on diversity, equity and inclusion programs; barred classroom discussion of gender identity through third grade; pulled hundreds of books that describe 'sexual conduct' or are deemed age inappropriate from school shelves; and encouraged parents to object to instructional materials they deem immoral or harmful. According to a 2024 Washington Post survey, 38 states have adopted laws either restricting or expanding teaching on race, racism, gender or history. Although some, such as a 2021 Rhode Island law mandating instruction on 'African Heritage and History,' reflect progressives' priorities, fully two-thirds of the laws are restrictive, and 90 percent of those were passed in states that voted for Trump in 2020. Conservatives insist that restrictive laws are necessary to combat 'woke' indoctrination and protect the rights of parents to educate their children in accordance with their values. Liberals argue that 'inclusive curricula' are required to enable all students to thrive. In addition to striking down Louisiana's Ten Commandment's statute, federal judges are considering challenges to many of the other red state instructional mandates. In the past, school districts have usually had wide latitude in instruction, an approach that is more responsive to the educational priorities of local communities than statewide mandates. After all, even the reddest and bluest states have plenty of residents (in places like Austin, Texas and upstate New York) who dissent, often vigorously, from the majority's agenda. The current burst of state regulation is unprecedented, and it is having a profound impact on the education of America's kids. What students are told about the subjects that most divide the country increasingly depends on whether they attend school in a blue state or a red one — almost certainly exacerbating polarization. All this has a dramatic chilling effect on teachers. According to a 2023 survey, 65 percent of teachers have restricted their instruction on 'political and social issues,' twice the number subject to restrictive state laws. For most of American history, one could claim that Newton's Third Law of Motion — for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction — has applied to politics as well. So Americans might expect that ideological extremes in state educational policy will eventually be reversed. But if U.S. institutions do not preserve the norms, practices and principles of democracy, we may discover — when it's too late — that Newton's Third Law no longer applies. Glenn C. Altschuler is the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Emeritus Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. David Wippman is emeritus president of Hamilton College.

Mayor Eric Adams flip-flops on controversial Medicare push days after legal win
Mayor Eric Adams flip-flops on controversial Medicare push days after legal win

New York Post

time20-06-2025

  • Politics
  • New York Post

Mayor Eric Adams flip-flops on controversial Medicare push days after legal win

Mayor Eric Adams on Friday said he was abandoning his years-long effort to move retired city workers onto higher-cost healthcare plans — despite scoring a major legal win in the controversial case earlier this week. The mayor, who is running as an independent in the November general election, had been the only major candidate in the race backing Medicare Advantage, a private plan that uses Medicare subsidies rather than the traditional program offered to retired city workers. But Adams flip-flopped on Friday, announcing in a statement that his sudden change of heart stemmed from town halls and public events with retirees who said they were worried about the change. Mayor Eric Adams said he is now flip-flopping his initial stance and will abandon his year-long effort to move retired city workers to higher-cost healthcare plans. Getty Images 'We have informed union leadership that we are pursuing other avenues for improving health care for city workers that will provide even better outcomes, and we look forward to continuing to work with our partners on the best path forward,' he said. The mayor's office did not clarify what other options they were considering at this time. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! It came just two days after New York's Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled in favor of the Adams administration, finding the city could legally shift retirees to Medicare Advantage plans after years of fighting by advocacy groups. Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa jumped on the mayor's about-face, slamming it as a nakedly political move. 'Now, just days after the Court of Appeals ruled in his favor, and just as his reelection prospects dim, Eric Adams suddenly finds the backbone to stop his assault on our retirees,' Sliwa said in a statement. Republican mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa criticized Adams for changing his stance on the healthcare proposal. He claimed that Adams would break his promise and go back to supporting the health-care plan if he was re-elected. An Adams campaign representative did not respond to a request for comment. Medicare Advantage was originally introduced in 2021 by then-Mayor Bill de Blasio, who argued that the program would save the city over $600 million a year.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store