BLAIR, Neb. (AP) — A man accused of killing a priest in a small Nebraska town pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges on Thursday.

Kierre Williams, 43, of Sioux City, Iowa, also is accused of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, burglary and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His next court date is March 5,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-priest-killed-man-charged-pleads-not-guilty/46684987">KETV-TV</a>&nbsp;reported.

Prosecutors have said there doesn’t appear to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-catholic-priest-killed-gutgsell-e634b68f496074893b58eb45229805ed">any connection</a>&nbsp;between Williams and the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10 inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.

Williams' attorney has declined to discuss the case.

The priest’s death came four months after another seemingly random home invasion killing in the town of 1,100 and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-priest-woman-killed-community-reacts-896ccd64f049303fb79bc36e08b92d01">shook residents’ confidence</a>&nbsp;in their safety.

At a hearing last month, Washington County Deputy Brady Tucker testified that he found Williams lying crossways on top of Gutgsell, whose face was covered with blood. Williams didn’t have a weapon, but investigators later found a broken knife with a serrated blade lying in a blood stain on the floor of Gutgsell’s bedroom, authorities said.

Williams has several felony convictions in other states.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707420437890.jpeg" alt="FILE - Kierre Williams, right, sits with his attorneys in court, Jan. 3, 2024, in Blair, Neb. Williams of Sioux City, Iowa, pleaded not guilty Thursday, Feb. 8, in the attack that killed the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10, 2023, inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in tiny Fort Calhoun, Neb. (AP Photo/Josh Funk, File)" />
 <figcaption>FILE - Kierre Williams, right, sits with his attorneys in court, Jan. 3, 2024, in Blair, Neb. Williams of Sioux City, Iowa, pleaded not guilty Thursday, Feb. 8, in the attack that killed the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10, 2023, inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in tiny Fort Calhoun, Neb. (AP Photo/Josh Funk, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>Associated PressBLAIR, Neb. (AP) — A man accused of killing a priest in a small Nebraska town pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges on Thursday.Kierre Williams, 43, of Sioux City, Iowa, also is accused of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, burglary and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His next court date is March 5,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-priest-killed-man-charged-pleads-not-guilty/46684987">KETV-TV</a>&nbsp;reported.Prosecutors have said there doesn’t appear to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-catholic-priest-killed-gutgsell-e634b68f496074893b58eb45229805ed">any connection</a>&nbsp;between Williams and the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10 inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.Williams' attorney has declined to discuss the case.The priest’s death came four months after another seemingly random home invasion killing in the town of 1,100 and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-priest-woman-killed-community-reacts-896ccd64f049303fb79bc36e08b92d01">shook residents’ confidence</a>&nbsp;in their safety.At a hearing last month, Washington County Deputy Brady Tucker testified that he found Williams lying crossways on top of Gutgsell, whose face was covered with blood. Williams didn’t have a weapon, but investigators later found a broken knife with a serrated blade lying in a blood stain on the floor of Gutgsell’s bedroom, authorities said.Williams has several felony convictions in other states.

Man accused of killing a priest in Nebraska pleads not guilty

By Nebraska Department of Agriculture

LINCOLN – The Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) is reminding poultry owners to continue to monitor for and protect their birds against Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Recently, NDA in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, confirmed a case of HPAI in Nebraska in a commercial flock in Gage County.

“Nebraska hasn’t had any reported cases of HPAI for a few months so while we are disappointed, we are not surprised, to see another case, as there have been several confirmed HPAI cases in surrounding states,” said State Veterinarian Dr. Roger Dudley. “Poultry producers need to continue to be vigilant in protecting their flocks. It’s important for producers to know the signs and symptoms of HPAI and to continue to practice good biosecurity measures to help prevent the spread of this disease into their flocks.”

HPAI is a highly contagious virus that spreads easily among birds through nasal and eye secretions, as well as manure. The virus can be spread in various ways from flock to flock, including by wild birds, through contact with infected poultry, by equipment, and on the clothing and shoes of caretakers. Wild birds can carry the virus without becoming sick, while domesticated birds can become very sick and die.

Symptoms of HPAI in poultry include: a decrease in water consumption; lack of energy and appetite; decreased egg production or soft-shelled, misshapen eggs; nasal discharge, coughing, sneezing; incoordination; and diarrhea. HPAI can also cause sudden death in birds even if they aren’t showing any other symptoms. HPAI can survive for weeks in contaminated environments.

Resources are available for poultry producers at&nbsp;<a href="https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html" target="_blank">https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html</a>. Poultry experiencing signs of HPAI or unusual death should be reported to NDA at 402-471-2351 or the USDA at 866-536-7593.

By Nebraska Department of AgricultureLINCOLN – The Nebraska Department of Agriculture (NDA) is reminding poultry owners to continue to monitor for and protect their birds against Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI). Recently, NDA in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, confirmed a case of HPAI in Nebraska in a commercial flock in Gage County.“Nebraska hasn’t had any reported cases of HPAI for a few months so while we are disappointed, we are not surprised, to see another case, as there have been several confirmed HPAI cases in surrounding states,” said State Veterinarian Dr. Roger Dudley. “Poultry producers need to continue to be vigilant in protecting their flocks. It’s important for producers to know the signs and symptoms of HPAI and to continue to practice good biosecurity measures to help prevent the spread of this disease into their flocks.”HPAI is a highly contagious virus that spreads easily among birds through nasal and eye secretions, as well as manure. The virus can be spread in various ways from flock to flock, including by wild birds, through contact with infected poultry, by equipment, and on the clothing and shoes of caretakers. Wild birds can carry the virus without becoming sick, while domesticated birds can become very sick and die.Symptoms of HPAI in poultry include: a decrease in water consumption; lack of energy and appetite; decreased egg production or soft-shelled, misshapen eggs; nasal discharge, coughing, sneezing; incoordination; and diarrhea. HPAI can also cause sudden death in birds even if they aren’t showing any other symptoms. HPAI can survive for weeks in contaminated environments.Resources are available for poultry producers at&nbsp;<a href="https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html" target="_blank">https://nda.nebraska.gov/animal/avian/index.html</a>. Poultry experiencing signs of HPAI or unusual death should be reported to NDA at 402-471-2351 or the USDA at 866-536-7593.

Nebraska Poultry producers reminded to stay vigilant after reports of HPAI

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.

Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas.

"It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.

The names of the Marines were not immediately released.

“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”

Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.

The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Update: The five 3rd MAW Marines have been confirmed deceased. “To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.” -Maj. Gen. Borgschulte, 3rd MAW Commanding General <a href="https://t.co/CBLs2jDKWG">pic.twitter.com/CBLs2jDKWG</a>&mdash; 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (@3rdmaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/3rdmaw/status/1755576079710818351?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas."It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.The names of the Marines were not immediately released.“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

5 Marines aboard helicopter that crashed confirmed dead

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral arguments

In more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.

In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.

Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”

Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.

Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”

Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.

For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.

A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.

The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.

People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.

The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.

In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.

The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707402813598.png" alt="Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral argumentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎧 Supreme Court sounds broadly skeptical of efforts to kick Trump off ballot 

JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.

CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/12/1701652753204.png" alt="Photo U.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Photo U.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

U.S. responds to new Iran-backed rebel threats in Red Sea

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.

Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.

The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.

The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.

Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.

But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.

While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.

Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.

The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.

The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.

Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673546739694.png" alt="Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.

AG: Special counsel has finished Biden classified documents probe

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/06/passionate-battle-over-school-choice-resumes-in-nebraska-legislature/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — The battle over school choice returned to the State Legislature on Tuesday over a proposal to allocate $25 million a year directly from state coffers to organizations that hand out scholarships to private and parochial schools.

Legislative Bill 1402 would serve as a replacement, according to its sponsor, for the Opportunity Scholarship Act passed last year by state lawmakers — a law that allows taxpayers to divert up to half of their state income taxes to Scholarship Granting Organizations for tuition to private and parochial schools.

That law is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for the public to decide whether to retain or repeal it&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/10/public-school-advocates-qualify-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarship-law-for-2024-election/">after 117,000 voters signed petitions</a>&nbsp;to force the vote.

Opponents of this year’s proposal called it an “end run” around the “will of the people,” and a university law professor opined that LB 1402 was most likely unconstitutional.

Scott Norby, an attorney for the Nebraska State Education Association,&nbsp; said last year’s law “does indirectly what LB 1402 does directly — the funding of private schools with public dollars.”

Passing LB 1402 would “preempt” the right of the people to vote on the measure, he said.

“The people have decided to decide that issue,” Norby said.

Rita Bennett, one of the petition circulators, compared it to a kids’ game, in which if you’re losing, you change the rules so you win.

“It says that regardless of what the voters say, we’ll find a way,” she said.

But State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the sponsor of last year’s Opportunity Scholarship law and this year’s LB 1402, called the newest measure “an end run” around a ballot initiative that she said was marred by misinformation and —<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/09/sen-linehans-letter-seeks-to-boot-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarships-off-nebraska-ballot/">&nbsp;as she argued in a recent complaint about the ballot issue</a>&nbsp;— should be removed from the ballot.

“They don’t want the competition, folks. It’s so clear,” Linehan told members of the Appropriations Committee, referring to public schools.

She added that it was her intention that if LB 1402 was passed this year, she would ask that the Opportunity Scholarship Act be repealed by the Legislature, which would serve to render the November vote on the measure moot.

Article VII-11 of the Nebraska Constitution

Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;

Provided,&nbsp;that the Legislature may provide that the state or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.

Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who specializes in the State Constitution, told committee members that LB 1402 was, in his opinion, likely unconstitutional because it appropriated public funds for private schools.

A court could always rule otherwise, Schutz said, but because LB 1402 would send state money directly to the scholarship granting groups, it was more likely to be considered an “appropriation” and likely less defensible than last year’s law, which directed taxpayer money to those groups without passing through the state.

The clearest way to make it constitutional, the professor said after the hearing, was to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so voters could decide whether to allow public funds for private schooling.

But, Schutz said, back in the 1970s when state leaders were considering revisions to the Constitution, the matter of allowing public funds for private schools was dropped as “opening a can of worms” over a variety of issues.

There is also the question of whether voters would approve use of public funds for private schools. Voters in other states have consistently defeated it at the polls.

Voices rose at times during the three hours of often passionate testimony before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.

Supporters, including a majority of the committee’s members, maintained that Nebraska families who lack the financial means to send children to a private school deserve the state’s financial help.

They maintained that the competition would improve lagging academic outcomes in public schools and joined Linehan in criticizing anti-school choice petition circulators, claiming that they convinced people to sign by falsely stating that the ballot issue was about property tax relief.

A handful of students from parochial schools testified that switching from a public school had changed their lives and improved their grades and that their parents could not afford a private school without financial help.

Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, said her grade point average increased from 1.8 on a 4.0 scale, to 3.0 after she transferred from Omaha South.

“There are parents like me who need another option,” said Clarice Jackson, a former Omaha school teacher, who called school choice “educational freedom.”

But opponents of school choice were equally passionate, maintaining that diverting $25 million a year of money intended for the state took away funds from public education and that there was no proof that “competition” from private schools improved educational outcomes.

“This bill does not require one iota of accountability, either academically or attendance, from private schools,” said Kathy Danek, a member of the Lincoln School Board.

Shavonna Holman, a member of the Omaha School Board, said she’s proud of the education provided in public schools in Omaha.

Holman said students already have “choice” in that they can transfer to a different school or, like her daughter, choose to attend one that specializes in science.

“Public schools are the best investment to reach the largest number of children,” Holman said.

Bennett and other petition circulators pushed back on criticism that signers were deceived. They said they were well trained and versed on what the ballot initiative would do. They added that the people who misbehaved were petition “blockers” hired by pro-school choice forces to prevent people from signing, or to sign an unofficial petition supporting choice.

The Appropriations Committee took no action on LB 1402 after the lengthy public hearing, but it appeared certain to have enough votes to advance the bill for debate by the full Legislature. The bill has yet to get priority designation, which would ensure another emotional debate over school choice.

One wild card: Secretary of State Bob Evnen has yet to issue a ruling on a complaint lodged by Linehan a month ago that the Opportunity Scholarship ballot issue should be tossed off the ballot.

A ruling from Evnen could come as early as this week.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707335544830.jpeg" alt="Among those testifying in favor of a school choice bill at the State Capitol Tuesday was Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, and her brother, Javier, a second grader at St. Thomas More Catholic School. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>Among those testifying in favor of a school choice bill at the State Capitol Tuesday was Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, and her brother, Javier, a second grader at St. Thomas More Catholic School. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/06/passionate-battle-over-school-choice-resumes-in-nebraska-legislature/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — The battle over school choice returned to the State Legislature on Tuesday over a proposal to allocate $25 million a year directly from state coffers to organizations that hand out scholarships to private and parochial schools.Legislative Bill 1402 would serve as a replacement, according to its sponsor, for the Opportunity Scholarship Act passed last year by state lawmakers — a law that allows taxpayers to divert up to half of their state income taxes to Scholarship Granting Organizations for tuition to private and parochial schools.That law is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for the public to decide whether to retain or repeal it&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/10/public-school-advocates-qualify-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarship-law-for-2024-election/">after 117,000 voters signed petitions</a>&nbsp;to force the vote.Opponents of this year’s proposal called it an “end run” around the “will of the people,” and a university law professor opined that LB 1402 was most likely unconstitutional.<h2>‘Preempts’ vote of the people</h2>Scott Norby, an attorney for the Nebraska State Education Association,&nbsp; said last year’s law “does indirectly what LB 1402 does directly — the funding of private schools with public dollars.”Passing LB 1402 would “preempt” the right of the people to vote on the measure, he said.“The people have decided to decide that issue,” Norby said.Rita Bennett, one of the petition circulators, compared it to a kids’ game, in which if you’re losing, you change the rules so you win.“It says that regardless of what the voters say, we’ll find a way,” she said.But State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the sponsor of last year’s Opportunity Scholarship law and this year’s LB 1402, called the newest measure “an end run” around a ballot initiative that she said was marred by misinformation and —<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/09/sen-linehans-letter-seeks-to-boot-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarships-off-nebraska-ballot/">&nbsp;as she argued in a recent complaint about the ballot issue</a>&nbsp;— should be removed from the ballot.<h2>Public schools don’t want competition</h2>“They don’t want the competition, folks. It’s so clear,” Linehan told members of the Appropriations Committee, referring to public schools.She added that it was her intention that if LB 1402 was passed this year, she would ask that the Opportunity Scholarship Act be repealed by the Legislature, which would serve to render the November vote on the measure moot.<h2>Article VII-11 of the Nebraska Constitution</h2>Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;Provided,&nbsp;that the Legislature may provide that the state or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who specializes in the State Constitution, told committee members that LB 1402 was, in his opinion, likely unconstitutional because it appropriated public funds for private schools.A court could always rule otherwise, Schutz said, but because LB 1402 would send state money directly to the scholarship granting groups, it was more likely to be considered an “appropriation” and likely less defensible than last year’s law, which directed taxpayer money to those groups without passing through the state.The clearest way to make it constitutional, the professor said after the hearing, was to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so voters could decide whether to allow public funds for private schooling.<h2>‘Opening a can of worms’</h2>But, Schutz said, back in the 1970s when state leaders were considering revisions to the Constitution, the matter of allowing public funds for private schools was dropped as “opening a can of worms” over a variety of issues.There is also the question of whether voters would approve use of public funds for private schools. Voters in other states have consistently defeated it at the polls.Voices rose at times during the three hours of often passionate testimony before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.<h2>All parents deserve choice</h2>Supporters, including a majority of the committee’s members, maintained that Nebraska families who lack the financial means to send children to a private school deserve the state’s financial help.They maintained that the competition would improve lagging academic outcomes in public schools and joined Linehan in criticizing anti-school choice petition circulators, claiming that they convinced people to sign by falsely stating that the ballot issue was about property tax relief.A handful of students from parochial schools testified that switching from a public school had changed their lives and improved their grades and that their parents could not afford a private school without financial help.Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, said her grade point average increased from 1.8 on a 4.0 scale, to 3.0 after she transferred from Omaha South.“There are parents like me who need another option,” said Clarice Jackson, a former Omaha school teacher, who called school choice “educational freedom.”<h2>No accountability</h2>But opponents of school choice were equally passionate, maintaining that diverting $25 million a year of money intended for the state took away funds from public education and that there was no proof that “competition” from private schools improved educational outcomes.“This bill does not require one iota of accountability, either academically or attendance, from private schools,” said Kathy Danek, a member of the Lincoln School Board.Shavonna Holman, a member of the Omaha School Board, said she’s proud of the education provided in public schools in Omaha.Holman said students already have “choice” in that they can transfer to a different school or, like her daughter, choose to attend one that specializes in science.“Public schools are the best investment to reach the largest number of children,” Holman said.Bennett and other petition circulators pushed back on criticism that signers were deceived. They said they were well trained and versed on what the ballot initiative would do. They added that the people who misbehaved were petition “blockers” hired by pro-school choice forces to prevent people from signing, or to sign an unofficial petition supporting choice.The Appropriations Committee took no action on LB 1402 after the lengthy public hearing, but it appeared certain to have enough votes to advance the bill for debate by the full Legislature. The bill has yet to get priority designation, which would ensure another emotional debate over school choice.One wild card: Secretary of State Bob Evnen has yet to issue a ruling on a complaint lodged by Linehan a month ago that the Opportunity Scholarship ballot issue should be tossed off the ballot.A ruling from Evnen could come as early as this week.

Passionate battle over school choice resumes in Nebraska Legislature

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package Wednesday, scuttling months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings.

Many Republicans said the election-year compromise&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-bill-ukraine-b386eae0c4947497da931870dbcb28a0">wasn't enough</a>, even as supporters of the bill insisted it was the best possible in divided government.

The 49-50 vote, far short of the 60 ayes needed to take up the bill, came after most Republicans said they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d">would vote against the legislation,</a>&nbsp;which also includes $60 billion in wartime aid to Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel and was backed by President Joe Biden. GOP lawmakers had insisted that the money for conflicts abroad be paired with help for the U.S. border. Nebraska U.S. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts voted with the majority. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah were the only Republicans who voted to advance.

Forcing the showdown with Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier that he would try to salvage the wartime funding, and would next push ahead on a crucial test vote for tens of billions of dollars for Kyiv, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out.

The bipartisan group of senators who negotiated the compromise for the last four months said it was a missed opportunity to try and make some progress toward one of the most intractable issues in American politics.

In a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said that it was a chance for the Senate to decide “if we’re going to do nothing, or something.”

“It’s an issue that’s bedevilled, quite frankly, this body for decades,” Lankford said. “It’s been three decades since we’ve passed anything into law to be able to change border security.”

Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona blamed Republicans for not giving the bill a chance.

“Finally, it seemed, we had the opportunity to solve the nightmare my state has lived for over 40 years,” she said.

Four Republicans voted to move forward with the legislation and six Democrats voted against it, some of whom said the border compromise went too far.

It is unclear if enough Republicans will vote to move ahead with the standalone legislation for the wartime aid, which also would need 60 votes in the 51-49 Senate. If it did pass, it would still take days for the Senate to reach a final vote.

As some Republicans have grown skeptical of sending money to Ukraine in its war with Russia, Schumer said that “history will cast a permanent and shameful shadow” on those who attempt to block it.

“Will the Senate stand up to brutish thugs like Vladimir Putin and reassure our friends abroad that America will never abandon them in the hour of need?” Schumer asked as he opened the Senate.

The roughly $60 billion in Ukraine aid has been stalled in Congress for months because of growing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-congress-border-immigration-china-31075fce7dfcb3aaa6d3eb595e62ed09">opposition from hardline conservatives</a>&nbsp;in the House and Senate who criticize it as wasteful and demand an exit strategy for the war.

“We still need to secure America’s borders before sending another dime overseas,” Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wrote in a post on X.

The impasse means that the U.S. has halted arms shipments to Kyiv at a crucial point in the nearly two-year-old conflict, leaving Ukrainian soldiers without ample ammunition and missiles as Russian President Putin has mounted relentless attacks.

Ukraine's cause still enjoys support from many Senate Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell, but the question vexing lawmakers has always been how to craft a package that could clear the Republican-controlled House.

A pairing of border policies and aid for allies — first proposed by Republicans — was intended to help squeeze the package through the House where archconservatives hold control. But GOP senators —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-15e2e3fac2b29b5b4bbe1eae8eb1c924">some within minutes of the bill's release Sunday</a>&nbsp;— rejected the compromise as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-trump-biden-2d2f804057a77bfaa41e64ab601f9b0e">election-year politics</a>.

The wartime funding also would invest in domestic defense manufacturing, send funding to allies in Asia, and provide $10 billion for humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and other places.

Schumer said the revamped package would include legislation to authorize sanctions and anti-money laundering tools against criminal enterprises that traffic fentanyl into the U.S. A separate section of the compromise border legislation that would have provided a long-awaited&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/afghan-allies-kabul-congress-taliban-8ffcd4df9398194f1ed2b5369ba33f6a">pathway to residency for tens of thousands of Afghan refugees</a>&nbsp;was dropped in the slimmed-down bill.

It was not clear whether the new plan, even if it passed the Senate, would gain support from House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans are still insisting on a border plan, even though they rejected the deal negotiated in the Senate as insufficient.

“We'll see what the Senate does,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning. “We're going to allow the process to play out.”

Some were skeptical that a standalone aid package would be viable in the House.

“I don’t see how that moves in this chamber. I don’t know how the speaker puts that on the floor,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said, adding that he still wanted tougher border policies attached.

After Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, eviscerated the Senate's bipartisan border proposal, Johnson quickly rejected it. Trump has also led many Republicans to question supporting Ukraine, suggesting he could negotiate an end to the war and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-russia-ukraine-trump-war-130e617cfebebeeba61044a0cb68a933">lavishing praise</a>&nbsp;on Russian President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-dc89488c40360150afeeb25941bd44fc">Vladimir Putin</a>, including after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Johnson said this week he wanted to handle wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine in separate packages, but a bill he advanced that only included funds for Israel failed on the House floor Tuesday night.

House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday that the “only path forward” is a comprehensive approach that includes funding for U.S. allies around the world, as well as humanitarian support for civilians caught in conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.

The White House said that Biden believes there should be new border policy but would also support moving the aid for Ukraine and Israel alone, as he has from the start.

“We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians," said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.

“Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707338543070.png" alt="Members of the U.S. Senate during the Wednesday afternoon vote count -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Members of the U.S. Senate during the Wednesday afternoon vote count -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republicans blocked a bipartisan border package Wednesday, scuttling months of negotiations with Democrats on legislation intended to cut back record numbers of illegal border crossings.Many Republicans said the election-year compromise&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-bill-ukraine-b386eae0c4947497da931870dbcb28a0">wasn't enough</a>, even as supporters of the bill insisted it was the best possible in divided government.The 49-50 vote, far short of the 60 ayes needed to take up the bill, came after most Republicans said they&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-a39e188fa2c6a563203d2c69eaabdc6d">would vote against the legislation,</a>&nbsp;which also includes $60 billion in wartime aid to Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel and was backed by President Joe Biden. GOP lawmakers had insisted that the money for conflicts abroad be paired with help for the U.S. border. Nebraska U.S. Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts voted with the majority. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah were the only Republicans who voted to advance.Forcing the showdown with Republicans, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said earlier that he would try to salvage the wartime funding, and would next push ahead on a crucial test vote for tens of billions of dollars for Kyiv, Israel and other U.S. allies — a modified package with the border portion stripped out.The bipartisan group of senators who negotiated the compromise for the last four months said it was a missed opportunity to try and make some progress toward one of the most intractable issues in American politics.In a speech on the Senate floor just before the vote, Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma said that it was a chance for the Senate to decide “if we’re going to do nothing, or something.”“It’s an issue that’s bedevilled, quite frankly, this body for decades,” Lankford said. “It’s been three decades since we’ve passed anything into law to be able to change border security.”Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona blamed Republicans for not giving the bill a chance.“Finally, it seemed, we had the opportunity to solve the nightmare my state has lived for over 40 years,” she said.Four Republicans voted to move forward with the legislation and six Democrats voted against it, some of whom said the border compromise went too far.It is unclear if enough Republicans will vote to move ahead with the standalone legislation for the wartime aid, which also would need 60 votes in the 51-49 Senate. If it did pass, it would still take days for the Senate to reach a final vote.As some Republicans have grown skeptical of sending money to Ukraine in its war with Russia, Schumer said that “history will cast a permanent and shameful shadow” on those who attempt to block it.“Will the Senate stand up to brutish thugs like Vladimir Putin and reassure our friends abroad that America will never abandon them in the hour of need?” Schumer asked as he opened the Senate.The roughly $60 billion in Ukraine aid has been stalled in Congress for months because of growing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-congress-border-immigration-china-31075fce7dfcb3aaa6d3eb595e62ed09">opposition from hardline conservatives</a>&nbsp;in the House and Senate who criticize it as wasteful and demand an exit strategy for the war.“We still need to secure America’s borders before sending another dime overseas,” Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah wrote in a post on X.The impasse means that the U.S. has halted arms shipments to Kyiv at a crucial point in the nearly two-year-old conflict, leaving Ukrainian soldiers without ample ammunition and missiles as Russian President Putin has mounted relentless attacks.Ukraine's cause still enjoys support from many Senate Republicans, including GOP leader Mitch McConnell, but the question vexing lawmakers has always been how to craft a package that could clear the Republican-controlled House.A pairing of border policies and aid for allies — first proposed by Republicans — was intended to help squeeze the package through the House where archconservatives hold control. But GOP senators —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-ukraine-15e2e3fac2b29b5b4bbe1eae8eb1c924">some within minutes of the bill's release Sunday</a>&nbsp;— rejected the compromise as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-border-security-trump-biden-2d2f804057a77bfaa41e64ab601f9b0e">election-year politics</a>.The wartime funding also would invest in domestic defense manufacturing, send funding to allies in Asia, and provide $10 billion for humanitarian efforts in Ukraine, Israel, Gaza and other places.Schumer said the revamped package would include legislation to authorize sanctions and anti-money laundering tools against criminal enterprises that traffic fentanyl into the U.S. A separate section of the compromise border legislation that would have provided a long-awaited&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/afghan-allies-kabul-congress-taliban-8ffcd4df9398194f1ed2b5369ba33f6a">pathway to residency for tens of thousands of Afghan refugees</a>&nbsp;was dropped in the slimmed-down bill.It was not clear whether the new plan, even if it passed the Senate, would gain support from House Speaker Mike Johnson. House Republicans are still insisting on a border plan, even though they rejected the deal negotiated in the Senate as insufficient.“We'll see what the Senate does,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning. “We're going to allow the process to play out.”Some were skeptical that a standalone aid package would be viable in the House.“I don’t see how that moves in this chamber. I don’t know how the speaker puts that on the floor,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., said, adding that he still wanted tougher border policies attached.After Donald Trump, the likely Republican presidential nominee, eviscerated the Senate's bipartisan border proposal, Johnson quickly rejected it. Trump has also led many Republicans to question supporting Ukraine, suggesting he could negotiate an end to the war and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/zelenskyy-russia-ukraine-trump-war-130e617cfebebeeba61044a0cb68a933">lavishing praise</a>&nbsp;on Russian President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/russia-vladimir-putin-donald-trump-dc89488c40360150afeeb25941bd44fc">Vladimir Putin</a>, including after Moscow’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine.Johnson said this week he wanted to handle wartime aid for Israel and Ukraine in separate packages, but a bill he advanced that only included funds for Israel failed on the House floor Tuesday night.House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Wednesday that the “only path forward” is a comprehensive approach that includes funding for U.S. allies around the world, as well as humanitarian support for civilians caught in conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine.The White House said that Biden believes there should be new border policy but would also support moving the aid for Ukraine and Israel alone, as he has from the start.“We support this bill which would protect America’s national security interests by stopping Putin’s onslaught in Ukraine before he turns to other countries, helping Israel defend itself against Hamas terrorists and delivering live-saving humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinian civilians," said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.“Even if some congressional Republicans’ commitment to border security hinges on politics, President Biden’s does not.”__

Fischer, Ricketts help Senate Republicans block $118B border deal

<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/home/search/?query=byline:%22MARGERY%20A.%20BECK%22&amp;mediaType=text&amp;st=keyword&amp;sortOrder=newest">By MARGERY A. BECK Associated Press</a>

A bill that would allow teachers and other staff in schools to be armed in the hopes of deterring school shootings drew dozens of people and some emotional testimony to the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee on Tuesday.

State Sen. Tom Brewer's bill is among the latest in GOP-led state legislatures across the country embracing bills expanding gun rights.

The Nebraska bill is made up of three parts. It would give local school boards the ability to allow off-duty law enforcement to carry guns onto school property and create detailed maps of schools' buildings and grounds to give to local law enforcement and first responders to use in the event of a school shooting.

It would also allow for teachers or other school staff to be armed, as long as they undertook gun handling and safety training.

The bill is needed in Nebraska's rural districts, Brewer said, where schools can be many miles away from the nearest law enforcement and rarely have access to resource officers that are prevalent in cities like Omaha and Lincoln.

At least 32 states have laws allowing teachers or other school staff to be armed during school hours, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. That includes all of Nebraska's neighboring states, including Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota.

“We are an island that has decided not to protect our children,” he said.

Most of those testifying in favor of the bill focused on its school mapping provision. Even opponents of the bill said they supported its school mapping.

But the sanctioning of armed school staff drew some emotional testimony, including from one teacher who was present for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/eb88a86b47024f28bd370bc2f41952dd">deadly school shooting</a>&nbsp;in Omaha 13 years ago.

Tim Royers, president of the Millard Education Association, told the committee he was in his school's lunchroom overseeing students on Jan. 5, 2011, when someone announced over the school's speakers, “Code Red.”

Royers and other teachers scrambled to gather as many students as possible and search for a room in which to hide.

“I will never forget the looks on those students’ faces,” he said.

Authorities later said that a 17-year-old student — the son of an Omaha police detective — had been suspended from Millard South High School, but he returned that same day with his father's service revolver. He fatally shot the assistant principal and wounded the school's principal before fatally shooting himself.

In the years since, he has never heard any educators express a desire to be armed, Royer said.

“But I've had plenty of them tell me that a provision like this would drive them out of the profession,” he said to the committee.

Brewer said those opposing the bill aren't being fair to schools in rural areas that “are unable to fill law enforcement positions, let alone resource officer positions.”

Brewer has long been an opponent of laws regulating guns. A bill that he pushed since he was first elected in 2016 to allow Nebraska residents to carry concealed guns&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/constitutional-carry-bill-nebraska-a8168215d00c1e4bf51017e82e8da80b">without a permit</a>&nbsp;was passed and enacted last year. Similar to other so-called constitutional carry laws in other states, it allows people to carry guns hidden in their clothing or vehicle without having to pay for a government permit or take a gun safety course.

<a href="https://newsroom.ap.org/home/search/?query=byline:%22MARGERY%20A.%20BECK%22&amp;mediaType=text&amp;st=keyword&amp;sortOrder=newest">By MARGERY A. BECK Associated Press</a>A bill that would allow teachers and other staff in schools to be armed in the hopes of deterring school shootings drew dozens of people and some emotional testimony to the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee on Tuesday.State Sen. Tom Brewer's bill is among the latest in GOP-led state legislatures across the country embracing bills expanding gun rights.The Nebraska bill is made up of three parts. It would give local school boards the ability to allow off-duty law enforcement to carry guns onto school property and create detailed maps of schools' buildings and grounds to give to local law enforcement and first responders to use in the event of a school shooting.It would also allow for teachers or other school staff to be armed, as long as they undertook gun handling and safety training.The bill is needed in Nebraska's rural districts, Brewer said, where schools can be many miles away from the nearest law enforcement and rarely have access to resource officers that are prevalent in cities like Omaha and Lincoln.At least 32 states have laws allowing teachers or other school staff to be armed during school hours, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. That includes all of Nebraska's neighboring states, including Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota.“We are an island that has decided not to protect our children,” he said.Most of those testifying in favor of the bill focused on its school mapping provision. Even opponents of the bill said they supported its school mapping.But the sanctioning of armed school staff drew some emotional testimony, including from one teacher who was present for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/eb88a86b47024f28bd370bc2f41952dd">deadly school shooting</a>&nbsp;in Omaha 13 years ago.Tim Royers, president of the Millard Education Association, told the committee he was in his school's lunchroom overseeing students on Jan. 5, 2011, when someone announced over the school's speakers, “Code Red.”Royers and other teachers scrambled to gather as many students as possible and search for a room in which to hide.“I will never forget the looks on those students’ faces,” he said.Authorities later said that a 17-year-old student — the son of an Omaha police detective — had been suspended from Millard South High School, but he returned that same day with his father's service revolver. He fatally shot the assistant principal and wounded the school's principal before fatally shooting himself.In the years since, he has never heard any educators express a desire to be armed, Royer said.“But I've had plenty of them tell me that a provision like this would drive them out of the profession,” he said to the committee.Brewer said those opposing the bill aren't being fair to schools in rural areas that “are unable to fill law enforcement positions, let alone resource officer positions.”Brewer has long been an opponent of laws regulating guns. A bill that he pushed since he was first elected in 2016 to allow Nebraska residents to carry concealed guns&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/constitutional-carry-bill-nebraska-a8168215d00c1e4bf51017e82e8da80b">without a permit</a>&nbsp;was passed and enacted last year. Similar to other so-called constitutional carry laws in other states, it allows people to carry guns hidden in their clothing or vehicle without having to pay for a government permit or take a gun safety course.

A bill that would allow armed teachers in Nebraska schools prompts emotional testimony

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. drone strike hit a car in the Iraqi capital Wednesday night, killing three members of the powerful Kataib Hezbollah militia, including a high-ranking commander, officials said.

The strike came on a main thoroughfare in the Mashtal neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A crowd gathered as emergency response teams picked through the wreckage. Security forces closed off the heavily guarded Green Zone, where a number of diplomatic compounds are located, amid calls for protesters to storm the U.S. embassy.

Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander was targeted in a U.S. strike on Wednesday in Iraq. They were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Two officials with Iran-backed militias in Iraq said that one of the three killed was Wissam Mohammed “Abu Bakr” al-Saadi, the commander in charge of Kataib Hezbollah’s operations in Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.

The strike came amid roiling tensions in the region and days after the U.S. military launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan in late January.

The U.S. has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a broad coalition of Iran-backed militias, for the attack in Jordan, and officials have said they suspect Kataib Hezbollah in particular of leading it.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has regularly claimed strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria against the backdrop of the ongoing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel-Hamas war</a>, saying that they are in retaliation for Washington's support of Israel in its war in Gaza that has killed 27,707 Palestinians, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory</a>.

Kataib Hezbollah had said in a statement that it was suspending attacks on American troops to avoid “embarrassing the Iraqi government” after the strike in Jordan, but others have vowed to continue fighting.

On Sunday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/syria-iraq-sdf-islamic-resistance-us-c621972db21d6b3db7ca1bccd50ce6ef?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=share">claimed a drone attack</a>&nbsp;on a base housing U.S. troops in eastern Syria killed six fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group allied with the United States.

The latest surge in the regional conflict came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-07-2024-6ceffca2970243cd039e90268c32c617">rejected terms proposed by Hamas</a>&nbsp;for a hostage-release agreement that would lead to a permanent cease-fire, vowing to continue the war until “absolute victory.”

Also on Wednesday, the media office of the Houthi rebels in Yemen reported two airstrikes in Ras Issa area in Salif district in Hodeida province.

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. drone strike hit a car in the Iraqi capital Wednesday night, killing three members of the powerful Kataib Hezbollah militia, including a high-ranking commander, officials said.The strike came on a main thoroughfare in the Mashtal neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A crowd gathered as emergency response teams picked through the wreckage. Security forces closed off the heavily guarded Green Zone, where a number of diplomatic compounds are located, amid calls for protesters to storm the U.S. embassy.Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander was targeted in a U.S. strike on Wednesday in Iraq. They were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.Two officials with Iran-backed militias in Iraq said that one of the three killed was Wissam Mohammed “Abu Bakr” al-Saadi, the commander in charge of Kataib Hezbollah’s operations in Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.The strike came amid roiling tensions in the region and days after the U.S. military launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan in late January.The U.S. has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a broad coalition of Iran-backed militias, for the attack in Jordan, and officials have said they suspect Kataib Hezbollah in particular of leading it.The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has regularly claimed strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria against the backdrop of the ongoing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel-Hamas war</a>, saying that they are in retaliation for Washington's support of Israel in its war in Gaza that has killed 27,707 Palestinians, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory</a>.Kataib Hezbollah had said in a statement that it was suspending attacks on American troops to avoid “embarrassing the Iraqi government” after the strike in Jordan, but others have vowed to continue fighting.On Sunday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/syria-iraq-sdf-islamic-resistance-us-c621972db21d6b3db7ca1bccd50ce6ef?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=share">claimed a drone attack</a>&nbsp;on a base housing U.S. troops in eastern Syria killed six fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group allied with the United States.The latest surge in the regional conflict came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-07-2024-6ceffca2970243cd039e90268c32c617">rejected terms proposed by Hamas</a>&nbsp;for a hostage-release agreement that would lead to a permanent cease-fire, vowing to continue the war until “absolute victory.”Also on Wednesday, the media office of the Houthi rebels in Yemen reported two airstrikes in Ras Issa area in Salif district in Hodeida province.

U.S. drone strike in Baghdad kills high-ranking militia commander

WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to return to the White House is in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24">hands of the U.S. Supreme Court</a>.

On Thursday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-election-insurrection-719eac1b23ee7103c5d84914156e4236">the justices will hear arguments</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-ballot-disqualification-5ba83d718b97150447acf15cee75c7a3">Trump’s appeal</a>&nbsp;of a Colorado Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">ruling</a>&nbsp;that he is not eligible to run again for president because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

Many legal observers expect the nation’s highest court will reverse the Colorado ruling rather than remove the leading contender for the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/elections">Republican presidential nomination</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But it’s always tricky to try to predict a Supreme Court ruling, and the case against Trump has already broken new legal ground.

Some of the main issues involved in the 14th Amendment case:

It’s called&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-2024-election-ballot-9c5f79203109ba221b35a48e708ad725">Section 3</a>&nbsp;and it’s pretty brief. It reads:

“No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Trump’s lawyers say this part of the Constitution wasn’t meant to apply to the president. Notice how it specifically mentions electors, senators and representatives, but not the presidency.

It also says those who take an oath to “support” the United States, but the presidential oath doesn’t use that word. Instead, the Constitution requires presidents to say they will “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. And finally, Section 3 talks about any other “officer” of the United States, but Trump’s lawyers argue that language is meant to apply to presidential appointees, not the president.

That was enough to convince the Colorado district court judge who initially heard the case. She found that Trump had engaged in insurrection,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055">but also agreed</a>&nbsp;that it wasn’t clear that Section 3 applied to the president. That part of her decision was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court.

The majority of the state’s highest court wrote: “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.”

Trump's lawyers contend that the question of who is covered by a rarely used, once obscure clause should be decided by Congress, not unelected judges. They contend that the Jan. 6, 2021,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;wasn’t&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-election-64ea3e076af335a3e1bce6d7620d58a3">an insurrection</a>. They say the attack wasn’t widespread, didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or include other markers of sedition. They say Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-6a8528813e29c9f45a0bb4972369e97e">didn’t “engage”</a>&nbsp;in anything that day other than in exercising his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-speech-colorado-9626b6ae8479e6a4ce34c3391f207426">protected free speech rights</a>.

Others who have been skeptical of applying Section 3 to Trump have made an argument that the dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices also found persuasive: The way the court went about finding that Trump violated Section 3 violated the former president’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-2024-14th-amendment-insurrection-colorado-280bc28e57a965a8d6e4d3329dc6aa07">due process rights</a>. They contend he was entitled to a structured legal process rather than a court in Colorado trying to figure out if the Constitution applied to him.

That gets at the unprecedented nature of the cases. Section 3 has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-ca5a632f46066bc31349849fe60a781a">rarely been used</a>&nbsp;after an 1872 congressional amnesty excluded most former Confederates from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard such a case.

Arguments about legal precedents go back to a lone 1869 opinion from Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was hearing an appeal as a circuit judge rather than for the high court.

The Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-2b9d5b628cb2779fc84212cdc651e4e7">case is historic</a>&nbsp;and is expected to create new law.

Not really. A lot of Democrats are rooting for Trump to get kicked off the ballot and a lot of Republicans are angry about the campaign against him. The case was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1706097331546.png" alt="File -Trump celebrating his primary election victory i New Hampshire last month-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>File -Trump celebrating his primary election victory i New Hampshire last month-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The fate of former President Donald Trump’s attempt to return to the White House is in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-insurrection-2024-election-0baac5ba0c1868e437e365af17eeab24">hands of the U.S. Supreme Court</a>.On Thursday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-election-insurrection-719eac1b23ee7103c5d84914156e4236">the justices will hear arguments</a>&nbsp;in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-ballot-disqualification-5ba83d718b97150447acf15cee75c7a3">Trump’s appeal</a>&nbsp;of a Colorado Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">ruling</a>&nbsp;that he is not eligible to run again for president because he violated a provision in the 14th Amendment preventing those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.Many legal observers expect the nation’s highest court will reverse the Colorado ruling rather than remove the leading contender for the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/elections">Republican presidential nomination</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But it’s always tricky to try to predict a Supreme Court ruling, and the case against Trump has already broken new legal ground.Some of the main issues involved in the 14th Amendment case:WHAT DID TRUMP POTENTIALLY VIOLATE?It’s called&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-2024-election-ballot-9c5f79203109ba221b35a48e708ad725">Section 3</a>&nbsp;and it’s pretty brief. It reads:“No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two thirds of each House, remove such disability.”Nice and simple, right?Not so fast, Trump’s lawyers say.TRUMP’S DEFENSETrump’s lawyers say this part of the Constitution wasn’t meant to apply to the president. Notice how it specifically mentions electors, senators and representatives, but not the presidency.It also says those who take an oath to “support” the United States, but the presidential oath doesn’t use that word. Instead, the Constitution requires presidents to say they will “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. And finally, Section 3 talks about any other “officer” of the United States, but Trump’s lawyers argue that language is meant to apply to presidential appointees, not the president.That was enough to convince the Colorado district court judge who initially heard the case. She found that Trump had engaged in insurrection,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-amendment-2024-ballot-colorado-5b6e40f069abc1b8604ec37c46621055">but also agreed</a>&nbsp;that it wasn’t clear that Section 3 applied to the president. That part of her decision was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court.The majority of the state’s highest court wrote: “President Trump asks us to hold that Section 3 disqualifies every oath-breaking insurrectionist except the most powerful one and that it bars oath-breakers from virtually every office, both state and federal, except the highest one in the land.”OTHER TRUMP ARGUMENTSTrump's lawyers contend that the question of who is covered by a rarely used, once obscure clause should be decided by Congress, not unelected judges. They contend that the Jan. 6, 2021,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">attack on the U.S. Capitol</a>&nbsp;wasn’t&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-election-64ea3e076af335a3e1bce6d7620d58a3">an insurrection</a>. They say the attack wasn’t widespread, didn’t involve large amounts of firearms or include other markers of sedition. They say Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-ballot-14th-amendment-colorado-6a8528813e29c9f45a0bb4972369e97e">didn’t “engage”</a>&nbsp;in anything that day other than in exercising his&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-speech-colorado-9626b6ae8479e6a4ce34c3391f207426">protected free speech rights</a>.Others who have been skeptical of applying Section 3 to Trump have made an argument that the dissenting Colorado Supreme Court justices also found persuasive: The way the court went about finding that Trump violated Section 3 violated the former president’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-2024-14th-amendment-insurrection-colorado-280bc28e57a965a8d6e4d3329dc6aa07">due process rights</a>. They contend he was entitled to a structured legal process rather than a court in Colorado trying to figure out if the Constitution applied to him.That gets at the unprecedented nature of the cases. Section 3 has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-ca5a632f46066bc31349849fe60a781a">rarely been used</a>&nbsp;after an 1872 congressional amnesty excluded most former Confederates from it. The U.S. Supreme Court has never heard such a case.Arguments about legal precedents go back to a lone 1869 opinion from Chief Justice Salmon Chase, who was hearing an appeal as a circuit judge rather than for the high court.The Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-2b9d5b628cb2779fc84212cdc651e4e7">case is historic</a>&nbsp;and is expected to create new law.ISN’T THIS JUST A PARTISAN CASE?Not really. A lot of Democrats are rooting for Trump to get kicked off the ballot and a lot of Republicans are angry about the campaign against him. The case was filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning group.But some of the most vocal proponents of removing Trump from the ballot are conservative legal scholars who believe in following the strict words of the Constitution. There’s no way around the insurrection disqualification for Trump, they argue, adding it's there in the plain text and was intended by the authors. The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-79373b5043976588b599fc00ede049e8">plaintiffs in Colorado</a>&nbsp;are all Republicans or unaffiliated voters.All seven of the justices on Colorado’s Supreme Court were appointed by Democrats. But they split 4-3 on the decision, a stark demonstration that this case doesn’t divide neatly along partisan lines.The majority quoted a ruling from Neil Gorsuch, one of Trump’s conservative Supreme Court nominees, from when he was a federal judge in Colorado. He ruled then that the state properly kept a naturalized citizen born in Guyana off the presidential ballot because the he didn’t meet the constitutional qualifications.In Maine, the Democratic secretary of state also&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">removed Trump</a>&nbsp;from the ballot. But in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-ballot-illinois-8709a8dbf12f845ed30fce22c9bff469">Illinois</a>, a Republican retired judge serving as a hearing officer for the state Board of Election suggested keeping Trump on, but only because he thought courts should decide on eligibility. The retired judge found it was likely Trump was disqualified due to Section 3, making him a notable Republican to side with those trying to remove the former president.The U.S. Supreme Court is comprised of six justices nominating by&nbsp;<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/news/topic/republican-party">Republican presidents</a>, including three by Trump. Partly because this is completely new legal ground, it’s hard to predict how individual justices will rule based on their ideology.WHAT COULD THE COURT DO?Several outcomes are possible but they generally fall into three areas.The first is the court could uphold Colorado’s ruling. That would require wins for the plaintiffs on the whole array of Trump's defenses.The second is the court could rule that Trump cannot be disqualified under Section 3, period. There are a lot of ways the court could do this, but the result would be to end the case against him, as well as dozens of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-ballot-michigan-b2a870f98a60dffbe4c9566cfe97457c">similar challenges</a>&nbsp;filed across the country.The third possibility unnerves a lot of legal experts. The court could effectively punt and not make a final decision on whether Trump is qualified to serve as president. That could kick the question down the road to Jan. 6, 2025, if he wins the election and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-house-speaker-2024-election-certification-8cd7c5a9e6ae69635bbb4624cc78e5c5#:~:text=Mike%20Johnson%2C%20the%20Louisiana%20congressman,Biden's%202020%20presidential%20election%20win">Congress has to decide</a>&nbsp;whether to certify his victory.It also would keep alive many of the challenges across the country. A number of them are on hold because state courts are waiting to see what the U.S. Supreme Court will do. Places where a Trump challenge could be rekindled if the high court doesn’t squelch it include&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-ballot-illinois-8709a8dbf12f845ed30fce22c9bff469">Illinois</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-election-president-f6b72c94bb351c1b870d4884e54f6a75">Minnesota</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-oregon-14th-amendment-supreme-court-f9e80393633c3f232c2225b91928e75a">Oregon</a>. It could add further pressure to challenge Trump’s position on the ballot in other Democratic strongholds such as California and New York, where there have been pushes to invalidate his candidacy that have been comparatively muted.While the Trump campaign says more than 60 Section 3 cases have been filed nationally, most are by low-profile figures and have generally been dismissed for procedural issues. Uncertainty from the nation's highest court could encourage a new wave of cases in those states, too.The lack of a clear ruling also could create counter-challenges. Republicans have warned that Section 3 also can be applied to Democrats.Some already have proposed filing against Biden under the theory that his inability to stem the flow of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border amounts to providing “aid and comfort” to the country’s enemies. Vice President Kamala Harris also could be targeted under the theory that her raising bail money for people arrested during the protests over George Floyd’s 2020 murder by Minneapolis police amounts to “engaging in insurrection.”