Latest news with #JohnKruzel
Time of India
27-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
US Supreme Court set to rule on FCC fund for phone, broadband access
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on Friday on the legality of how the Federal Communications Commission funds a multi-billion dollar effort to expand phone and broadband internet access to low-income and rural Americans and other beneficiaries. The FCC and a coalition of telecommunications firms and interest groups have appealed a lower court's ruling that found that the agency's funding operation effectively levied a "misbegotten tax" on American consumers in violation of the U.S. Constitution's vesting of legislative authority in Congress. It is the latest in a series of cases to come to the Supreme Court challenging the power of federal agencies. The fund has been used to expand service to low-income Americans and people living in rural areas and Native American tribal lands, as well as other beneficiaries such as schools and libraries. A law called the Telecommunications Act passed by Congress in 1996 authorized the FCC to operate a " Universal Service Fund ," to be drawn from regular contributions by telecommunications companies. The fund draws around $9 billion annually, with the vast majority of telecommunications companies passing on the cost to customers. The law lays out six principles to guide the fund's operation, including that "quality services should be available at just, reasonable and affordable rates," that "access to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the nation," and requiring that "sufficient" mechanisms be in place to "preserve and advance universal service." At issue in the case was a legal principle called the non-delegation doctrine that involves limits on the ability of Congress to confer powers derived from the Constitution to government agencies like the FCC. The FCC's handoff of authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company, the private company that administers the fund, involves a related concept called the private non-delegation doctrine. The FCC appointed the company to help determine contribution amounts, collect payments from telecommunications businesses and deliver funding to beneficiaries. A set of challengers comprising the conservative group Consumers' Research, a telecommunications carrier and consumers asked the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 to review the legality of the funding mechanism. They argued that Congress effectively handed off legislative power to the FCC by giving the agency open-ended latitude to operate the fund. They also argued that the FCC had unlawfully transferred authority to the Universal Service Administrative Company and given it an outsized role in determining contribution amounts to be paid by telecommunications companies. The 5th Circuit in 2024 concluded that "the combination of Congress's sweeping delegation to FCC and FCC's unauthorized subdelegation" to the private company violated the Constitution's provision giving the legislative power to Congress. The FCC was established as an independent federal agency in 1934 and is overseen by Congress. The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case on March 26. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has reined in the actions of federal regulatory agencies in a series of rulings in recent years, though those cases did not involve the non-delegation doctrine.
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court justices disclose income from book deals and teaching
By John Kruzel and Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson received a book advance of more than $2 million for her bestselling memoir, and other justices reported lucrative law school teaching positions in annual financial disclosure forms released on Tuesday. Eight of the nine justices disclosed their 2024 outside income and gifts, as required for certain senior government officials. Justice Samuel Alito was granted a 90-day extension, according to the court. The filings showed the outside income, gifts and investment transactions for the justices last year. The filings are closely watched as the justices in recent years have come under scrutiny over ethics questions following revelations that some of them failed to report luxury trips, including on private jets, and real estate transactions. As in recent years, the disclosures showed the lucrative nature of book publishing for members of the nation's highest judicial body. Jackson said she received a $2,068,750 book advance last year from Penguin Random House for her memoir "Lovely One." That comes after a previously reported 2023 advance of $893,750 for the book chronicling her ascent as the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. She also reported being reimbursed by her publisher last year for more than a dozen book events across the country beginning in August when her memoir hit bookshelves. Justice Neil Gorsuch reported book royalty income of more than $250,000, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor reported nearly $74,000 in royalties, as well as a $60,000 advance for a new children's book, set for release in September. Some of the justices reported income from law school teaching roles. Gorsuch reported an income of $30,379 from George Mason University for teaching a roughly two-week course in July 2024 in Porto, Portugal. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett each received $31,815 from the University of Notre Dame Law School, with Kavanaugh having a teaching stint in October 2024 and Barrett having one in August 2024, according to their filings. Chief Justice John Roberts co-taught a two-week course in Galway, Ireland in July 2024 for New England Law, a private Boston-based law school, but his compensation was not reported in his 2024 disclosure because he was paid in February 2025. Just like last year, Alito was granted a 90-day extension. His disclosure last year reported receiving concert tickets in 2023 worth $900 from Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, a German aristocrat. The justices in 2023 adopted their first code of conduct governing their ethical behavior following revelations of undisclosed luxury trips and hobnobbing with wealthy benefactors. Critics and some congressional Democrats have said the ethics code does not go far enough to promote transparency, continuing to leave decisions to recuse from cases to the justices themselves and providing no mechanism of enforcement.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court to review death row inmate's intellectual disability ruling
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear an appeal by Alabama officials of a judicial decision that a man convicted of a 1997 murder is intellectually disabled - a finding that spared him from the death penalty - as they press ahead with the Republican-governed state's bid to execute him. A lower court ruled that Joseph Clifton Smith is intellectually disabled based on its analysis of his IQ test scores and expert testimony. Under a 2002 Supreme Court precedent, executing an intellectually disabled person violates the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment bar on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices are due to hear the case in their next term, which starts in October. Smith, now 54, was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of a man named Durk Van Dam in Alabama's Mobile County. Smith fatally beat the man with a hammer and saw in order to steal his boots, some tools and $140, according to evidence in the case. The victim's body was found in his mud-bound Ford Ranger truck in an isolated, wooded area. The Supreme Court's 2002 precedent in a case called Atkins v. Virginia barred executing intellectually disabled people. President Donald Trump's administration backed Alabama's appeal in the case. At issue in Smith's case is whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple intelligence quotient (IQ) scores in assessing a death row inmate's intellectual disability. Like many states, conservative-leaning Alabama considers evidence of IQ test scores of 70 or below as part of the standard for determining intellectual disability. Supreme Court rulings in 2014 and 2017 allowed courts to consider IQ score ranges that are close to 70 along with other evidence of intellectual disability, such as testimony of "adaptive deficits." Smith had five IQ test scores, the lowest of which was 72. A federal judge noted that Smith's score could be as low as 69, given the standard of error of plus or minus three points. The judge then found that Smith had significant deficits from an early age in social and interpersonal skills, independent living and academics. The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge's conclusions in 2023, setting aside Smith's death sentence. This prompted Alabama officials to file their first of two appeals to the Supreme Court in the case. In November, the justices threw out the 11th Circuit's decision, saying that the lower court's evaluation of Smith's IQ scores can be read two ways, and requires clarification. Ten days later, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion clarifying that its evaluation was based on "a holistic approach to multiple IQ scores" that also considered additional relevant evidence, including expert testimony. This prompted a second appeal by Alabama officials to the Supreme Court. Alabama in its filing to the Supreme Court argued that the lower courts in the case applied the wrong legal standard in establishing Smith's intellectual disability and urged the justices to take up the appeal to provide clarity on the issue. Friday's action by the court was unexpected. The court had planned to release it on Monday along with its other regularly scheduled orders, but a software glitch on Friday prematurely sent email notifications concerning the court's decision in the case. "As a result, the court is issuing that order list now," said court spokesperson Patricia McCabe. It is not the first time the court has inadvertently disclosed action in sensitive cases. Last year, an apparent draft of a ruling in a case involving emergency abortion access in Idaho was briefly uploaded to the court's website before being taken down. That disclosure represented an embarrassment for the top U.S. judicial body, coming two years after the draft of a blockbuster ruling rolling back abortion rights was leaked.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court allows DOGE broad access to Social Security data
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in President Donald Trump's drive to slash the federal workforce, broad access to personal information on millions of Americans in Social Security Administration data systems while a legal challenge plays out. At the request of the Justice Department, the justices put on hold Maryland-based U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander's order that had largely blocked DOGE's access to "personally identifiable information" in data such as medical and financial records while litigation proceeds in a lower court. Hollander found that allowing DOGE unfettered access likely would violate a federal privacy law. The court's brief, unsigned order did not provide a rationale for siding with DOGE. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the order. DOGE swept through federal agencies as part of the Republican president's effort, spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, to eliminate federal jobs, downsize and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30. Two labor unions and an advocacy group sued to stop DOGE from accessing sensitive data at the Social Security Administration, or SSA, including Social Security numbers for Americans, bank account data, tax information, earnings history and immigration records. The agency is a major provider of government benefits, sending checks each month to more than 70 million recipients including retirees and disabled Americans. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that the Social Security Administration had been "ransacked" and that DOGE members had been installed without proper vetting or training and demanded access to some of the agency's most sensitive data systems. Hollander in an April 17 ruling found that DOGE had failed to explain why its stated mission required "unprecedented, unfettered access to virtually SSA's entire data systems." "For some 90 years, SSA has been guided by the foundational principle of an expectation of privacy with respect to its records," Hollander wrote. "This case exposes a wide fissure in the foundation." Hollander issued a preliminary injunction that prohibited DOGE staffers and anyone working with them from accessing data containing personal information, with only narrow exceptions. The judge's ruling does allow DOGE affiliates to access data that has been stripped of private information as long as those seeking access have gone through the proper training and passed background checks. Hollander also ordered DOGE affiliates to "disgorge and delete" any personal information already in their possession. The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 9-6 vote declined on April 30 to pause Hollander's block on DOGE's unlimited access to Social Security Administration records. Justice Department lawyers in their Supreme Court filing characterized Hollander's order as judicial overreach. "The district court is forcing the executive branch to stop employees charged with modernizing government information systems from accessing the data in those systems because, in the court's judgment, those employees do not 'need' such access," they wrote. The six dissenting judges wrote that the case should have been treated the same as one in which 4th Circuit panel ruled 2-1 to allow DOGE to access data at the U.S. Treasury and Education Departments and the Office of Personnel Management. In a concurring opinion, seven judges who ruled against DOGE wrote that the case involving Social Security data was "substantially stronger" with "vastly greater stakes," citing "detailed and profoundly sensitive Social Security records," such as family court and school records of children, mental health treatment records and credit card information.
Yahoo
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump asks Supreme Court to let him dismantle Education Department
By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump's administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday to permit it to proceed with dismantling the Department of Education, a move that would leave school policy in the United States almost entirely in the hands of states and local boards. The Justice Department asked the court to halt Boston-based U.S. District Judge Myong Joun's May 22 ruling that ordered the administration reinstate employees terminated in a mass layoff and end further actions to shutter the department. The Justice Department said the lower court lacked jurisdiction to "second-guess the Executive's internal management decisions," referring to the federal government's executive branch. "The government has been crystal clear in acknowledging that only Congress can eliminate the Department of Education. And the government has acknowledged the need to retain sufficient staff to continue fulfilling statutorily mandated functions and has kept the personnel that, in its judgment, are necessary for those tasks. The challenged (reduction in force) is fully consistent with that approach," the filing said. The department, created by a U.S. law passed by Congress in 1979, oversees about 100,000 public and 34,000 private schools in the United States, though more than 85% of public school funding comes from state and local governments. It provides federal grants for needy schools and programs, including money to pay teachers of children with special needs, fund arts programs and replace outdated infrastructure. It also oversees the $1.6 trillion in student loans held by tens of millions of Americans who cannot afford to pay for college outright. Trump's move to dismantle the department is part of the Republican president's campaign to downsize and reshape the federal government. Closing the department long has been a goal of many U.S. conservatives. Attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia, as well as school districts and unions representing teachers, sued to block the Trump administration's efforts to gut the department. The states argued that the massive job cuts will render the agency unable to perform core functions authorized by statute, including in the civil rights arena, effectively usurping Congress's authority in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Trump on March 20 signed an executive order intended to effectively shut down the department, making good on a longstanding campaign promise to conservatives to move education policy almost completely to states and local boards. At a White House ceremony surrounded by children and educators, Trump called the order a first step "to eliminate" the department. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon announced plans on March 11 to carry out a mass termination of employees. Those layoffs would leave the department with 2,183 workers, down from 4,133 when Trump took office in January. The department said in a press release those terminations were part of its "final mission." Trump on March 21 announced plans to transfer the department's student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration and its special education, nutrition and related services to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which also is facing deep job cuts. Joun in his ruling ordered the administration to reinstate the laid off workers and halt implementation of Trump's directive to transfer student loans and special needs programs to other federal agencies. The judge rejected the argument put forth by Justice Department lawyers that the mass terminations were aimed at making the department more efficient while fulfilling its mission. In fact, Joun ruled, the job cuts were an effort to shut down the department without the necessary approval of Congress. "This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the department's employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the department becomes a shell of itself," the judge wrote. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields called the judge's ruling "misguided." The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 4 rejected the Trump administration's request to pause the injunction issued by Joun.
