Latest news with #HobbsAct
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
Armed ex-mayoral candidate robs Dollar General, leads FL cops on chase, feds say
A former mayoral candidate in Tallahassee, Florida, has been sentenced to 22 years in federal prison over robbing a Dollar General store at gunpoint in 2024, following his bid for mayor two years earlier, prosecutors said. Whitfield Leland III, 45, entered the store in Tallahassee on May 20, 2024, while masked and brandishing a gun at a Dollar General manager and demanding him to open the two safes, according to court documents and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Florida. A customer called 911 and Tallahassee police 'surrounded the store' on Brevard Street minutes later, prosecutors said. While inside, Leland pointed his pistol at a second employee, according to court documents, before prosecutors said he stole the manager's store shirt and put it on to disguise himself as a worker. Leland fled the store in the manager's shirt and ignored officers' commands to stop, leading them on a chase, according to prosecutors. With money 'falling out of his pockets,' Leland left behind a trail while running from police, prosecutors said. Officers following the money trail found Leland hiding in bushes, with more money 'stuffed into his pants,' according to prosecutors. When Leland, still in the Dollar General shirt, followed officers' commands to step out of the bushes, he had 'more cash' that 'fell out of his pockets,' prosecutors wrote in court documents. Leland was sentenced July 25 after pleading guilty to interference with commerce by threat or violence, in violation of the Hobbs Act, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and being an armed career criminal in possession of a firearm, the U.S. Attorney's Office said in a news release. His court-appointed federal public defender, Joseph Frans Debelder, and Dollar General did not immediately return McClatchy News' requests for comment July 28. Leland, who was accused of stealing $689 during the Dollar General robbery, ran as a Tallahassee mayoral candidate in 2022, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. Describing Leland as a '13-time convicted felon,' prosecutors said he had been previously convicted of three violent offenses. This includes two convictions of resisting a law enforcement officer and one conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, according to prosecutors. Besides his federal case, he was most recently convicted of grand theft of more than $300, but less than $5,000, Florida court documents show. 'Thanks to the quick actions of our officers and strong collaboration with our federal partners, a repeat violent offender is off the streets,' Tallahassee Police Chief Lawrence Revell said in a statement on his federal sentence. Leland, according to the Tallahassee Democrat, was a known activist in the city as well as the executive director of Round Table Community, a nonprofit organization. During his mayoral campaign, Leland said poverty was a major issue plaguing the state capital. 'Poverty is a big issue that may seem unimportant to well-to-doers,' Leland told the Tallahassee Democrat. 'Nothing could be further from the truth. We need to help the least among us to become a greater community together.' Tallahassee Mayor John Dailey won the city's mayoral race in 2022, when he was re-elected. Daily was first elected as mayor in 2018. After his 22-year prison sentence, Leland will serve five years of supervised release, according to prosecutors. He was also ordered to pay restitution by the judge.
Newsweek
20-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
Justice Kagan Says Supreme Court 'Wrong' on Text, History and Precedent
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. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said the majority was "wrong" on matters of text, history and precedent in a dissent published Friday. The Court ruled that courts are not bound to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), which protects businesses and consumers from intrusive telemarketing by prohibiting unsolicited fax advertisements to "telephone facsimile machines." In the 6-3 ruling, liberal Justices Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Why It Matters The Supreme Court's decision could determine the role of FCC rulings in future judicial proceedings. In 2009 and 2010, a subsidiary of health care company McKesson Corporation sent unsolicited fax advertisements to various medical practices, including McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates. McLaughlin sued McKesson in 2014, alleging violations of the TCPA without the notice to opt out required under the statute. In a class-action lawsuit against McKesson, led by McLaughlin, the district court did not distinguish between advertisements received on traditional fax machines and those received through online fax services. A third party with no connection to the litigation petitioned the FCC for a ruling on whether the TCPA applies to online fax services. The FCC ruled that "an online fax service is not a 'telephone facsimile machine.'" The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against McLaughlin on claims involving online fax services following the FCC's ruling. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the FCC's decision did not bind the district court and was instead required to interpret the statute independently. What To Know Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who delivered the Court's majority opinion, warned that ruling in favor of McKesson and the FCC would require district courts to show "absolute deference" to the agency. He said the Court sees "no good rationale" for embodying that position on the Hobbs Act, a 1950 law that allows for a court of appeals to review FCC orders. "As McKesson and the Government see things, when the initial window for pre-enforcement review closes, no one can argue in court that the agency's interpretation of a statute is incorrect—no matter how wrong the agency's interpretation might be," Kavanagh wrote. Kagan disagreed. "The majority today is wrong as a matter of text: The Hobbs Act gives the courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of agency action, meaning that district courts have no jurisdiction to do so," Kagan said in her dissent. Kagan said the majority is also "wrong as a matter of history" and "wrong as a matter of precedent" concerning the Hobbs Act. "There is simply nothing in the law to support today's result," Kagan said. Kagan argued that the Court's interpretation of the law prevents it from serving its "intended function." "Today's holding undermines the certainty and finality Congress sought in designing a mechanism for judicial review; it subjects all administrative schemes, and the many businesses and individuals relying on them, to the ever-present risk of disruption," Kagan said. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sits on a panel at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Sacramento, California, on July 25, 2024. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan sits on a panel at the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference in Sacramento, California, on July 25, 2024. AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli What People Are Saying Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in the majority opinion: "The Hobbs Act dictates how, when, and in what court a party can challenge a new agency order before enforcement. The Act does not purport to address, much less preclude, district court review in enforcement proceedings." Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent: "The majority today is wrong as a matter of precedent: This Court has held that the Hobbs Act, like its precursors, sets up a single judicial review mechanism for agency rules and orders, and prevents later collateral attacks on them in other courts." What Happens Next The Supreme Court's decision reversed the ruling made by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Do you have a story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have any questions about this story? Contact LiveNews@
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Supreme Court rejects Texas's bid to axe nuclear waste storage site
The Big Story The Supreme Court rejected Texas's bid to axe federal approval of a nuclear waste storage facility, arguing the state did not have the right to bring its challenge in the first place. © AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File In a 6-3 decision, the court in effect upheld the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to issue a license to a company that wanted to store nuclear waste off site from a power plant. The opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said that Texas, as well as private company Fasken Land and Minerals, did not have the right to sue over the license. 'Under the Hobbs Act, only an aggrieved 'party' may obtain judicial review of a Commission licensing decision,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'Texas and Fasken are not license applicants, and they did not successfully intervene in the licensing proceeding. So neither was a party eligible to obtain judicial review.' The opinion did not address the question in the underlying case, which was about whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be allowed to license private off-site nuclear waste storage sites. Kavanaugh was joined by justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. The dissent, authored by Gorsuch, argued that Texas and Fasken should be allowed to sue. 'Radioactive waste poses risks to the State, its citizens, its lands, air, and waters, and it poses dangers as well to a neighbor and its employees,' he wrote. 'Both Texas and Fasken participated actively in other aspects of the NRC's licensing proceeding,' he added. 'Both are entitled to their day in court — and both are entitled to prevail.' Read more at Welcome to The Hill's Energy & Environment newsletter, I'm Rachel Frazin — keeping you up to speed on the policies impacting everything from oil and gas to new supply chains. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will affect the energy and environment sectors now and in the future: Court blocks EPA from axing environmental justice grants A federal judge this week barred the Trump administration from axing grants that were part of a $600 million program that aimed to tackle pollution in underserved communities. Wildfires may be accelerating the spread of infectious disease by keeping US West residents indoors: Study As climate-driven weather extremes fuel fires across the U.S. West, the tendency of residents to spend more time indoors may be accelerating the spread of infectious diseases, a new study has found. Trump cuts to NOAA, NASA 'blinding' farmers to risks, scientists warn The Trump administration's cuts to climate research and federal weather forecasting agencies are 'blinding' the U.S. to oncoming threats to its food supply — and kneecapping efforts to protect it. What We're Reading News we've flagged from other outlets touching on energy issues, the environment and other topics: 'Abolishing FEMA' Memo Outlines Ways for Trump to Scrap Agency (Bloomberg) What Others are Reading Two key stories on The Hill right now: Senate GOP leader faces pushback after members blindsided by Trump bill Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is facing strong pushback from members of the GOP conference over the Finance Committee's piece of President Trump's tax and spending bill, which largely ignores GOP senators' concerns about Medicaid cuts and the quick phaseout of clean-energy tax credits. Read more 5 takeaways from Tucker Carlson's interview with Ted Cruz Pundit Tucker Carlson published a nearly two-hour interview with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Wednesday, during which the two conservative firebrands debated President Trump's foreign policy, the future of the Middle East and America's place in the world. Read more You're all caught up. See you tomorrow!
Newsweek
18-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Justice Gorsuch Accuses Supreme Court of Indulging 'Fantasies'
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. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing in his dissenting opinion in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, accused the court's majority of indulging in "fantasies" by dismissing the challengers' access to judicial review. Why It Matters In a 6-3 decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court reversed a lower-court ruling that had struck down a federal license for a temporary nuclear waste storage site in Texas. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion, while Gorsuch filed the dissent. The Supreme Court has the authority to overturn lower court rulings, and in this case, it reversed a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. More than 50 nuclear power plants operate across the United States, generating electricity for homes, businesses and other uses. Those facilities also produce highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel, which must be carefully stored. What To Know The case centers on Interim Storage Partners' effort to build a facility in West Texas to store spent nuclear fuel. To do so, the private company needed approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which granted the license despite the proposed site being hundreds of miles from the nearest nuclear reactor. The decision drew objections from the State of Texas and a nearby landowner, Fasken Land and Minerals, who argued that the plan was potentially dangerous and in violation of federal law. A lower court struck down the NRC's federal license for the nuclear waste storage site. The majority opinion claimed that neither Texas nor Fasken Land and Minerals were official parties "eligible to obtain judicial review in the Fifth Circuit," and "For that reason, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and do not decide the underlying statutory dispute over whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission possesses authority to license private off-site storage facilities," Kavanaugh wrote. Therefore, Texas and Fasken cannot sue over the NRC license, as federal law, specifically the Hobbs Act, allows only a "party aggrieved" to seek judicial review. The ruling did not address the actual nuclear waste site or licensing. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on March 21, 2017. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais In the dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined, Gorsuch claimed that the NRC's licensing decision was "unlawful." He added that both the state and the landowners are "aggrieved" by the NRC's decision, because "radioactive waste poses risks to the State, its citizens, its lands, air, and waters, and it poses dangers as well to a neighbor and its employees." He continued, "Both Texas and Fasken participated actively in other aspects of the NRC's licensing proceeding. No more is required for them to qualify as 'parties aggrieved' by the NRC's licensing decision. Both are entitled to their day in court—and both are entitled to prevail." Gorsuch argued the NRC violated the law, and the courts should hear the challenge. He concluded the opinion, writing, "Because nothing in the law requires us to indulge any of those fantasies, I respectfully dissent." What Happens Next The Supreme Court is expected to release a slew of opinions in the coming weeks, with the term scheduled to end in late June.
The Hill
18-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court rejects Texas's bid to ax nuclear waste storage site
The Supreme Court rejected Texas's bid to ax federal approval of a nuclear waste storage facility, arguing that the state did not have the right to bring its challenge in the first place. In a 6-3 decision, the court in effect upheld the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's decision to issue a license to a company that wanted to store nuclear waste off site from a power plant. The opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, said that Texas, as well as private company Fasken Land and Minerals did not have the right to sue over the license. 'Under the Hobbs Act, only an aggrieved 'party' may obtain judicial review of a Commission licensing decision,' Kavanaugh wrote. 'Texas and Fasken are not license applicants, and they did not successfully intervene in the licensing proceeding. So neither was a party eligible to obtain judicial review.' Kavanaugh was joined by justices John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
