LINCOLN, NE&nbsp;-- Today, Governor Jim Pillen announced the resignation of Charity Menefee, director of the Division of Public Health in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Menefee, who has served the state since 2021, has made the decision to step down to dedicate more time to her family. Her resignation is effective May 9.

Gov. Pillen expressed his appreciation for Menefee’s dedicated public service, including her service in the military. Menefee recently retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Tennessee Air National Guard after 25 years.

“Charity leaves public service with an impeccable record of dedication to the health and well-being of Nebraskans,” said Gov. Pillen. “Under her leadership, the division reduced processing times from 100 days to 25 for certain licenses and improved disease tracking capabilities throughout the state.”

“Director Menefee stands as the shining example of a person who puts others first,” said DHHS CEO Steve Corsi. “Whether it consisted of late-night meetings coordinating with stakeholders or spending weekends in support of operations tracking infectious diseases and ensuring they were contained, Charity was there to ensure the people of Nebraska were protected.”

“Leading and serving alongside the dedicated people at the Division of Public Health has been the greatest honor of my career,” said Menefee. “I deeply appreciate Governor Pillen for his trust in appointing me and his strong commitment to public health. I also thank CEO Steve Corsi for his support and leadership.”

LINCOLN, NE&nbsp;-- Today, Governor Jim Pillen announced the resignation of Charity Menefee, director of the Division of Public Health in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Menefee, who has served the state since 2021, has made the decision to step down to dedicate more time to her family. Her resignation is effective May 9.Gov. Pillen expressed his appreciation for Menefee’s dedicated public service, including her service in the military. Menefee recently retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Tennessee Air National Guard after 25 years.“Charity leaves public service with an impeccable record of dedication to the health and well-being of Nebraskans,” said Gov. Pillen. “Under her leadership, the division reduced processing times from 100 days to 25 for certain licenses and improved disease tracking capabilities throughout the state.”“Director Menefee stands as the shining example of a person who puts others first,” said DHHS CEO Steve Corsi. “Whether it consisted of late-night meetings coordinating with stakeholders or spending weekends in support of operations tracking infectious diseases and ensuring they were contained, Charity was there to ensure the people of Nebraska were protected.”“Leading and serving alongside the dedicated people at the Division of Public Health has been the greatest honor of my career,” said Menefee. “I deeply appreciate Governor Pillen for his trust in appointing me and his strong commitment to public health. I also thank CEO Steve Corsi for his support and leadership.”

Gov. Pillen Announces Resignation of DHHS Director Menefee of Public Health

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) detected and tracked Russian military aircraft operating in the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on Monday, according to a statement from the agency.

The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace. This Russian activity in Alaskan ADIZ occurs regularly and is not seen as a threat.&nbsp; NORAD reported similar activity in December, January and twice in February.

An ADIZ begins where sovereign airspace ends and is a defined stretch of international airspace that requires the ready identification of all aircraft in the interest of national security.

NORAD employs a layered defense network of satellites, ground-based and airborne radars and fighter aircraft to detect and track aircraft and inform appropriate actions. NORAD remains ready to employ a number of response options in defense of North America.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) detected and tracked Russian military aircraft operating in the Alaskan Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) on Monday, according to a statement from the agency.The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace. This Russian activity in Alaskan ADIZ occurs regularly and is not seen as a threat.&nbsp; NORAD reported similar activity in December, January and twice in February.An ADIZ begins where sovereign airspace ends and is a defined stretch of international airspace that requires the ready identification of all aircraft in the interest of national security.NORAD employs a layered defense network of satellites, ground-based and airborne radars and fighter aircraft to detect and track aircraft and inform appropriate actions. NORAD remains ready to employ a number of response options in defense of North America.

More Russian war planes detected flying off coast of Alaska

LINCOLN, NE –&nbsp;LINCOLN, NE – Today, Governor Jim Pillen announced a new program through the Nebraska Department of Labor (DOL) aimed at attracting and retaining production animal veterinarians in rural Nebraska. The Rural Veterinarian Grant Program is the second initiative the Governor has launched focused on growing the next generation of production animal veterinarians in the state. The first one, announced last year, is the Elite 11 Veterinary Program through the University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL).&nbsp;&nbsp;

“As I say, we feed the world and save the planet. We need to provide maximum efficiency and resources to help our producers be successful,” said Gov. Pillen. “Additionally, if a foreign animal disease were to come, we need veterinarians who are ready to respond, and enough of them, to implement the programs that would help mitigate the spread of any disease.”&nbsp;

Through DOL, recent graduates of veterinary schools will be eligible for a $150,000 grant. The same offer is available to newly practicing veterinarians who wish to move to the state and launch their own practice or join an established one in rural Nebraska. Under the program, up to 13 recipients will be selected. To be eligible, applicants must:

Upon conclusion of the agreement, the grant amount will be paid in full to the veterinarian.

“Nebraska has a talented and educated workforce, and this program is well designed to continue growing that workforce to boost the state’s animal production industry,” said DOL Commissioner Katie Thurber.

Speaking for the Nebraska State Dairy Association, Kris Bousquet noted that the grant program, as well as UNL’s Elite 11, represented a “take the bull by the horns” approach to addressing the existing gap in large animal veterinary medicine.&nbsp;

“Every animal welfare practice that a dairy producer utilizes has been reviewed and approved by their local veterinarian. Veterinarians are not only essential for animal welfare, but also for milk quality and earning and maintaining consumer trust. This program will begin to build our bench of experts to support dairy and all other aspects of livestock production as well.”

DOL’S program is funded through the Department of Labor’s workforce development fund. The grant selection process will focus on the candidate’s passion for production animal health, relevant experience, academic success and commitment to rural Nebraska.

As DOL launches its program, UNL is moving into the next phase of the Elite 11 Veterinary Program, which provides scholarships to students who are interested in becoming large animal veterinarians in rural Nebraska. Students in the first cohort selected last fall are about to conclude their first year of study and will be deployed across the state to engage in apprenticeships and other opportunities for expanding their skills.&nbsp;

“At the University of Nebraska, we are proud to work alongside Governor Pillen and state leaders to grow and sustain a robust production animal veterinarian workforce,” said Dr. Tiffany Heng-Moss, dean of UNL’s College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. “Through collaborative initiatives like the Elite 11 Veterinary Program and the Department of Labor’s new effort, we are expanding opportunities for students while strengthening the future of rural communities across Nebraska.”&nbsp;

Students enrolled in the Elite 11 Veterinary Program are not eligible for the DOL grant program.&nbsp;

More information about the Nebraska Production Animal Rural Veterinarian Grant Program, can be found at:&nbsp;<a href="https://dol.nebraska.gov/ruralvetgrant">https://dol.nebraska.gov/ruralvetgrant</a>.

LINCOLN, NE –&nbsp;LINCOLN, NE – Today, Governor Jim Pillen announced a new program through the Nebraska Department of Labor (DOL) aimed at attracting and retaining production animal veterinarians in rural Nebraska. The Rural Veterinarian Grant Program is the second initiative the Governor has launched focused on growing the next generation of production animal veterinarians in the state. The first one, announced last year, is the Elite 11 Veterinary Program through the University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL).&nbsp;&nbsp;“As I say, we feed the world and save the planet. We need to provide maximum efficiency and resources to help our producers be successful,” said Gov. Pillen. “Additionally, if a foreign animal disease were to come, we need veterinarians who are ready to respond, and enough of them, to implement the programs that would help mitigate the spread of any disease.”&nbsp;<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1744729737979.jpeg" alt="Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen with Nebraska State Dairy Association Executive Director Kris Bousquet, and Dean of UNL’s College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Tiffany Heng-Moss" />
 <figcaption>Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen with Nebraska State Dairy Association Executive Director Kris Bousquet, and Dean of UNL’s College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Tiffany Heng-Moss</figcaption>
 </figure>Through DOL, recent graduates of veterinary schools will be eligible for a $150,000 grant. The same offer is available to newly practicing veterinarians who wish to move to the state and launch their own practice or join an established one in rural Nebraska. Under the program, up to 13 recipients will be selected. To be eligible, applicants must:<ul>
 <li>Have a doctorate in veterinary medicine and be licensed to practice in Nebraska</li><li>Commit to residing and practicing in Nebraska for eight years</li><li>Work in a veterinary clinic where at least 80% of its hours are devoted to production animals in a county with a population of less than 40,000 people</li>
 </ul>Upon conclusion of the agreement, the grant amount will be paid in full to the veterinarian.“Nebraska has a talented and educated workforce, and this program is well designed to continue growing that workforce to boost the state’s animal production industry,” said DOL Commissioner Katie Thurber.Speaking for the Nebraska State Dairy Association, Kris Bousquet noted that the grant program, as well as UNL’s Elite 11, represented a “take the bull by the horns” approach to addressing the existing gap in large animal veterinary medicine.&nbsp;“Every animal welfare practice that a dairy producer utilizes has been reviewed and approved by their local veterinarian. Veterinarians are not only essential for animal welfare, but also for milk quality and earning and maintaining consumer trust. This program will begin to build our bench of experts to support dairy and all other aspects of livestock production as well.”DOL’S program is funded through the Department of Labor’s workforce development fund. The grant selection process will focus on the candidate’s passion for production animal health, relevant experience, academic success and commitment to rural Nebraska.As DOL launches its program, UNL is moving into the next phase of the Elite 11 Veterinary Program, which provides scholarships to students who are interested in becoming large animal veterinarians in rural Nebraska. Students in the first cohort selected last fall are about to conclude their first year of study and will be deployed across the state to engage in apprenticeships and other opportunities for expanding their skills.&nbsp;“At the University of Nebraska, we are proud to work alongside Governor Pillen and state leaders to grow and sustain a robust production animal veterinarian workforce,” said Dr. Tiffany Heng-Moss, dean of UNL’s College of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources. “Through collaborative initiatives like the Elite 11 Veterinary Program and the Department of Labor’s new effort, we are expanding opportunities for students while strengthening the future of rural communities across Nebraska.”&nbsp;Students enrolled in the Elite 11 Veterinary Program are not eligible for the DOL grant program.&nbsp;More information about the Nebraska Production Animal Rural Veterinarian Grant Program, can be found at:&nbsp;<a href="https://dol.nebraska.gov/ruralvetgrant">https://dol.nebraska.gov/ruralvetgrant</a>.

Gov. Pillen Announces New Nebraska Rural Veterinarian Grant Program

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>

WASHINGTON — El Salvador President Nayib Bukele won’t return a Maryland man the United States erroneously deported to a mega-prison in his Central American country, he said Monday during a visit to the Oval Office.

Sitting beside President Donald Trump, Bukele told reporters, “Of course I’m not going to do it.”

Administration officials present for the meeting defended the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador who had a protective order from a U.S. immigration court shielding him from being sent back to his country because of risks to his life.

The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ice-admits-administrative-error-deporting-maryland-man-el-salvador-mega-prison" target="_blank">admitted</a>&nbsp;in court filings that it deported Abrego Garcia, of Beltsville, Maryland, by mistake.

“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him, that’s not up to us,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning, provide a plane,” she added.

The Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision Thursday stating the Trump administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-must-facilitate-return-wrongly-deported-man" target="_blank">must “facilitate”</a>&nbsp;the return of Abrego Garcia.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Abrego Garcia on March 15 among roughly 260 Venezuelan men the U.S. flew on commercial jets without due process to Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

ICE agents apprehended Abrego Garcia near Baltimore on March 12 when he was driving his 5-year-old son home. Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, “was called and instructed to appear at their location within ten minutes to get her five-year old son, A.A.V.; otherwise, the ICE officers threatened that the child would be handed over to Child Protective Services,” according to a court&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">filing</a>.

Garcia has no criminal history in the U.S., El Salvador or any other country, according to the filing.

The Trump administration is paying the El Salvador government $6 million to detain the men,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-human-rights-law-likely-violated-6m-payment-el-salvador-prison-experts-say" target="_blank">sparking questions</a>&nbsp;over whether the payment violates U.S. human rights law.

Lawyers for many of the Venezuelan men maintain their clients&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/venezuelans-deported-brutal-el-salvador-prison-werent-gang-members-lawyers-say" target="_blank">weren’t gang members</a>.

Trump triggered the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, specifically targeting Venezuelans 14 and older who the administration suspected of having ties to the gang Tren de Aragua.&nbsp;

Trump also told reporters in the Oval Office Monday that he wants to export “homegrown” criminals, as in U.S. citizens, to El Salvador and would be willing to assist Bukele in building more mega prisons.

“I’d like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country, but you’ll have to be looking at the laws on that,” said Trump.

The administration maintains that immigration courts connected Abrego Garcia in 2019 to the violent El Salvadoran gang MS-13 but makes no mention of the protective order granted to Abrego Garcia by an immigration judge that same year.

In addition to Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller defended Abrego Garcia’s deportation and the administration’s refusal to cooperate with a court order to return him to the U.S.

Miller said Friday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision squarely landed on the side of the administration.

“This was a 9-0 (decision) in our favor against the district court ruling saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States,” Miller told reporters in the Oval Office Monday.

“The ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador’s sole discretion, was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time. No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador,” Miller continued.

Bukele said the idea that El Salvador would return Abrego Garcia is “preposterous.”&nbsp;

“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele said.

The Department of State&nbsp;<a href="https://www.state.gov/designation-of-international-cartels/" target="_blank">designated</a>&nbsp;MS-13 as a foreign terrorist organization in February.

Rubio said he doesn’t understand “what the confusion is.”

“This individual is a citizen of El Salvador. He was illegally in the United States and was returned to his country,” Rubio said, adding that “foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court.”

Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Monday calling Bukele’s comments “pure nonsense.”

“The law is clear, due process was grossly violated, and the Supreme Court has clearly spoken that the Trump administration must facilitate and effectuate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He should be returned to the U.S. immediately.&nbsp;

“Due process and the rule of law are cornerstones of American society for citizens and noncitizens alike and not to follow that is dangerous and outrageous. A threat to one is a threat to all,” Schumer said.

Abrego Garcia’s case is winding through the federal courts.

The administration was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/doj-ordered-give-daily-updates-standoff-judge-over-wrongly-deported-maryland-man" target="_blank">ordered</a>&nbsp;Friday, after a standoff in court, to provide daily updates on Abrego Garcia’s physical location and status, and what steps the administration has taken or plans to take to facilitate his return.

Abrego Garcia’s wife&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc" target="_blank">sued</a>&nbsp;Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and immigration officials in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland last month, alleging her husband received no due process and his removal was unlawful.

District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. by April 7.

A federal appeals court unanimously upheld the lower court’s order on April 7. The Trump administration missed the deadline and immediately appealed to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket.

The high court unanimously ruled Thursday that the administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return but stopped short of requiring his return and did not give a deadline. The court also ordered Xinis to clarify language in the lower court’s ruling to test whether the court overreached into foreign affairs.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1744665072669.png" alt="&nbsp;El Salvador President Nayib Bukele and President Trump in the Oval office Monday-photo by Margo Martin, Special Assistant to the President" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;El Salvador President Nayib Bukele and President Trump in the Oval office Monday-photo by Margo Martin, Special Assistant to the President</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>WASHINGTON — El Salvador President Nayib Bukele won’t return a Maryland man the United States erroneously deported to a mega-prison in his Central American country, he said Monday during a visit to the Oval Office.Sitting beside President Donald Trump, Bukele told reporters, “Of course I’m not going to do it.”Administration officials present for the meeting defended the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador who had a protective order from a U.S. immigration court shielding him from being sent back to his country because of risks to his life.The administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/ice-admits-administrative-error-deporting-maryland-man-el-salvador-mega-prison" target="_blank">admitted</a>&nbsp;in court filings that it deported Abrego Garcia, of Beltsville, Maryland, by mistake.“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him, that’s not up to us,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi.“If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning, provide a plane,” she added.The Supreme Court issued a 9-0 decision Thursday stating the Trump administration&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-says-trump-administration-must-facilitate-return-wrongly-deported-man" target="_blank">must “facilitate”</a>&nbsp;the return of Abrego Garcia.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Abrego Garcia on March 15 among roughly 260 Venezuelan men the U.S. flew on commercial jets without due process to Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.ICE agents apprehended Abrego Garcia near Baltimore on March 12 when he was driving his 5-year-old son home. Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, “was called and instructed to appear at their location within ten minutes to get her five-year old son, A.A.V.; otherwise, the ICE officers threatened that the child would be handed over to Child Protective Services,” according to a court&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.0.pdf" target="_blank">filing</a>.Garcia has no criminal history in the U.S., El Salvador or any other country, according to the filing.The Trump administration is paying the El Salvador government $6 million to detain the men,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-human-rights-law-likely-violated-6m-payment-el-salvador-prison-experts-say" target="_blank">sparking questions</a>&nbsp;over whether the payment violates U.S. human rights law.Lawyers for many of the Venezuelan men maintain their clients&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/venezuelans-deported-brutal-el-salvador-prison-werent-gang-members-lawyers-say" target="_blank">weren’t gang members</a>.Trump triggered the deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, specifically targeting Venezuelans 14 and older who the administration suspected of having ties to the gang Tren de Aragua.&nbsp;Trump also told reporters in the Oval Office Monday that he wants to export “homegrown” criminals, as in U.S. citizens, to El Salvador and would be willing to assist Bukele in building more mega prisons.“I’d like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country, but you’ll have to be looking at the laws on that,” said Trump.<h2>Rubio, Miller defend deportation</h2>The administration maintains that immigration courts connected Abrego Garcia in 2019 to the violent El Salvadoran gang MS-13 but makes no mention of the protective order granted to Abrego Garcia by an immigration judge that same year.In addition to Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller defended Abrego Garcia’s deportation and the administration’s refusal to cooperate with a court order to return him to the U.S.Miller said Friday’s unanimous Supreme Court decision squarely landed on the side of the administration.“This was a 9-0 (decision) in our favor against the district court ruling saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States,” Miller told reporters in the Oval Office Monday.“The ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador’s sole discretion, was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time. No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador,” Miller continued.Bukele said the idea that El Salvador would return Abrego Garcia is “preposterous.”&nbsp;“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States,” Bukele said.The Department of State&nbsp;<a href="https://www.state.gov/designation-of-international-cartels/" target="_blank">designated</a>&nbsp;MS-13 as a foreign terrorist organization in February.Rubio said he doesn’t understand “what the confusion is.”“This individual is a citizen of El Salvador. He was illegally in the United States and was returned to his country,” Rubio said, adding that “foreign policy of the United States is conducted by the President of the United States, not by a court.”Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Monday calling Bukele’s comments “pure nonsense.”“The law is clear, due process was grossly violated, and the Supreme Court has clearly spoken that the Trump administration must facilitate and effectuate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He should be returned to the U.S. immediately.&nbsp;“Due process and the rule of law are cornerstones of American society for citizens and noncitizens alike and not to follow that is dangerous and outrageous. A threat to one is a threat to all,” Schumer said.<h2>Daily updates</h2>Abrego Garcia’s case is winding through the federal courts.The administration was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/doj-ordered-give-daily-updates-standoff-judge-over-wrongly-deported-maryland-man" target="_blank">ordered</a>&nbsp;Friday, after a standoff in court, to provide daily updates on Abrego Garcia’s physical location and status, and what steps the administration has taken or plans to take to facilitate his return.Abrego Garcia’s wife&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/?filed_after=&amp;filed_before=&amp;entry_gte=&amp;entry_lte=&amp;order_by=desc" target="_blank">sued</a>&nbsp;Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and immigration officials in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland last month, alleging her husband received no due process and his removal was unlawful.District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. by April 7.A federal appeals court unanimously upheld the lower court’s order on April 7. The Trump administration missed the deadline and immediately appealed to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket.The high court unanimously ruled Thursday that the administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return but stopped short of requiring his return and did not give a deadline. The court also ordered Xinis to clarify language in the lower court’s ruling to test whether the court overreached into foreign affairs.

President of El Salvador refuses to return wrongly deported man to the U.S.

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

The U.S. Education Department has agreed to delay for nearly two weeks enforcement of a disputed directive seeking to ban diversity, equity and inclusion practices, according to a court filing Thursday in the case challenging the order.

The agreement between the department and the groups suing it over the order pauses enforcement until after April 24. According to the<a href="https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-education-association-et-al-v-us-department-of-education-et-al?document=Agreement" target="_blank">&nbsp;agreement</a>, states and local education agencies until then cannot be investigated or asked to provide certification that they are not using DEI, a term for race- and gender-conscious practices, in admissions, programming, training, hiring or scholarships.

Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann said the department and the groups reached the agreement Monday.

<a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/reminder-of-legal-obligations-undertaken-exchange-receiving-federal-financial-assistance-and-request-certification-under-title-vi-and-sffa-v-harvard-april-3">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the full notice

An April 3 letter from the department&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/states-ordered-us-education-department-certify-school-dei-ban-or-lose-funds" target="_blank">demanded states and districts provide certifications</a>&nbsp;they were complying with the order within 10 days or risk losing federal funding. That letter<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-education-department-threatens-yanking-funds-schools-use-race-decisions" target="_blank">&nbsp;followed a February missive</a>&nbsp;introducing the order.

The National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aclu.org/documents/complaint-in-aclu-nea-et-al-v-u-s-department-of-education" target="_blank">sued</a>&nbsp;in New Hampshire federal court last month to block enforcement of the directive.

“This pause in enforcement provides immediate relief to schools across the country while the broader legal challenge continues,” the NEA said in a Thursday statement.

In a written statement, Biedermann said the extension was due to what the department saw as states’ efforts to comply with the order.

“The Department extended the certification requirement on Monday in response to states’ good-faith inquiries to ensure compliance,” Biedermann wrote. “Having voluntarily extended the deadline, commonsense would dictate the Department would not take enforcement action until the deadline had passed.”

The groups asked the court to issue an emergency ruling to block enforcement of the department’s order while the case is ongoing.

The agreement effectively grants that request without a court order.

“No school district, state agency, or higher education institution will face investigation or penalties for failure to return the challenged certification that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts do not exist within their curriculums,” the NEA said.

The suit challenges the department’s authority to impose restrictions on state K-12 curriculum and says the order limits academic freedom and restricts educators’ ability to teach.

President Donald Trump campaigned against progressive cultural positions, including how race, gender and sexuality are handled in public schools.

In the early months of his second presidency, the entire executive branch has moved to restrict DEI initiatives and education policy, which has long been a battleground for such issues, has been a focal point.

The administration has used antidiscrimination requirements to pursue restrictions on DEI initiatives in education, arguing that DEI discriminates against white students.

DEI programs “discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI,” Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting head of civil rights, said in an April 3 statement.

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">Jacob Fischler</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>The U.S. Education Department has agreed to delay for nearly two weeks enforcement of a disputed directive seeking to ban diversity, equity and inclusion practices, according to a court filing Thursday in the case challenging the order.The agreement between the department and the groups suing it over the order pauses enforcement until after April 24. According to the<a href="https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-education-association-et-al-v-us-department-of-education-et-al?document=Agreement" target="_blank">&nbsp;agreement</a>, states and local education agencies until then cannot be investigated or asked to provide certification that they are not using DEI, a term for race- and gender-conscious practices, in admissions, programming, training, hiring or scholarships.Education Department spokeswoman Madi Biedermann said the department and the groups reached the agreement Monday.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1743709447177.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><a href="https://www.ed.gov/media/document/reminder-of-legal-obligations-undertaken-exchange-receiving-federal-financial-assistance-and-request-certification-under-title-vi-and-sffa-v-harvard-april-3">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the full noticeAn April 3 letter from the department&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/states-ordered-us-education-department-certify-school-dei-ban-or-lose-funds" target="_blank">demanded states and districts provide certifications</a>&nbsp;they were complying with the order within 10 days or risk losing federal funding. That letter<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-education-department-threatens-yanking-funds-schools-use-race-decisions" target="_blank">&nbsp;followed a February missive</a>&nbsp;introducing the order.The National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aclu.org/documents/complaint-in-aclu-nea-et-al-v-u-s-department-of-education" target="_blank">sued</a>&nbsp;in New Hampshire federal court last month to block enforcement of the directive.“This pause in enforcement provides immediate relief to schools across the country while the broader legal challenge continues,” the NEA said in a Thursday statement.In a written statement, Biedermann said the extension was due to what the department saw as states’ efforts to comply with the order.“The Department extended the certification requirement on Monday in response to states’ good-faith inquiries to ensure compliance,” Biedermann wrote. “Having voluntarily extended the deadline, commonsense would dictate the Department would not take enforcement action until the deadline had passed.”<h2>Court battle</h2>The groups asked the court to issue an emergency ruling to block enforcement of the department’s order while the case is ongoing.The agreement effectively grants that request without a court order.“No school district, state agency, or higher education institution will face investigation or penalties for failure to return the challenged certification that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts do not exist within their curriculums,” the NEA said.The underlying lawsuit remains ongoing.The suit challenges the department’s authority to impose restrictions on state K-12 curriculum and says the order limits academic freedom and restricts educators’ ability to teach.<h2>Trump and DEI</h2>President Donald Trump campaigned against progressive cultural positions, including how race, gender and sexuality are handled in public schools.In the early months of his second presidency, the entire executive branch has moved to restrict DEI initiatives and education policy, which has long been a battleground for such issues, has been a focal point.The administration has used antidiscrimination requirements to pursue restrictions on DEI initiatives in education, arguing that DEI discriminates against white students.DEI programs “discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI,” Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting head of civil rights, said in an April 3 statement.

Deadline extended for schools to meet anti-DEI order or lose funds

LINCOLN, Neb - A bill that would require parental consent for Nebraska minors to create social media accounts advanced to the second round of debate April 11 after lawmakers amended it to include an additional proposal.

<a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_number.php?DocumentNumber=LB383&amp;Legislature=109th" target="_blank">LB383</a>, as introduced by Whitman Sen. Tanya Storer at the request of Gov. Jim Pillen, would create the Parental Rights in Social Media Act. The bill would require social media companies operating in Nebraska to utilize “reasonable age verification” processes to ensure anyone creating an account on their platform is at least 18 years old, beginning Jan. 1, 2026.

Individuals younger than 18 could obtain an account if their parent, who also would be subject to age verification, submits a signed document confirming their consent.

Under the bill, digitized identification cards or third-party services would qualify as a reasonable age verification method. A commercial entity or third party would be prohibited from retaining a person’s identifying information after verification.

LB383 also would require social media companies to provide methods for parents to monitor a minor’s account activity and include options for a parent to:● view all posts the minor account holder makes under the social media platform account;● view all responses and messages sent to or by the minor account holder in the social media platform account;● control the minor’s privacy and account settings; and● monitor and limit the amount of time the minor account holder spends using the social media platform.

The Nebraska attorney general would be responsible for enforcing the act, which allows for penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation.

Storer said the impact social media has on the mental health and safety of young people is no longer up for debate. According to a 2023 U.S. Surgeon General advisory warning, she said, social media is a risk factor for adolescent mental health and can exacerbate issues such as negative body image, eating disorders, poor sleep quality, depression and anxiety.

LB383 would not ban access to social media, she said, but simply would give parents greater control over their children’s online activity.

“It puts parents back in the driver’s seat,” Storer said. “We are asking that parents be given the tools to make decisions for what social media platforms their children have access to. It’s really that simple.”

Omaha Sen. Megan Hunt filed a motion to bracket LB383 until June 9, saying the bill aims to control kids, not protect them. Social media can provide struggling young people with access to community and affirmation that they may not find within their own families, she said.

Sen. Jared Storm of David City spoke in support of LB383, saying he has five children at home who he struggles to protect from too much online activity. He cited research from Yale University that found youth who spend more than three hours a day on social media face twice the risk of negative mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety.

“I’m living this right now,” Storm said. “It’s a full-time job to try to police social media.”

Lincoln Sen. Carolyn Bosn also supported the proposal, saying it would provide guardrails rather than barriers for social media use by young Nebraskans. As chairperson, she introduced a&nbsp;<a href="http://news.legislature.ne.gov/jud" target="_blank">Judiciary Committee</a>&nbsp;amendment that would have added the provisions of Gering Sen. Brian Hardin’s LB172 to update the Child Pornography Prevention Act.

Lincoln Sen. George Dungan made a motion to divide the committee amendment and consider the provisions of LB383 separately from those of LB172. That motion was successful.

Dungan opposed the portion of the divided amendment containing LB383. Requiring someone to prove their age in order to participate in a public forum such as social media “runs afoul” of the First Amendment, he said.

Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha also opposed the measure, which he said could unintentionally make it harder for adults to access social media by requiring them to provide proof of identification in order for their children to open accounts.

Also speaking in opposition was Omaha Sen. Terrell McKinney. Storer’s proposal likely would lead to a legal challenge, he said, noting that a similar measure passed in Arkansas was struck down recently by the courts on First Amendment grounds.

“I want to protect kids too, but we have to balance that,” McKinney said. “We have to think about the pros and cons and the likely outcomes — and the consequences.”

Senators adopted a technical amendment offered by Cavanaugh before voting 30-4 to adopt the divided portion of the committee amendment containing provisions of Storer’s LB383.

The remaining portion of the divided amendment containing Hardin’s LB172 would update the definition of child pornography to “visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that has a child, other than the defendant, as one of its participants or portrayed observers.”

Additionally, the amendment would expand the definition of child pornography to include images generated by artificial intelligence or computers and would criminalize the act of knowingly receiving child pornography.

Hardin said emerging technology presents new challenges in combating the exploitation of children and that AI, deepfakes and digital manipulation allow predators to create lifelike computer-generated child pornography.

“This is not a victimless crime,” Hardin said. “Offenders often morph real images from social media into explicit content, causing real harm, and current laws do not always cover these cases.”

Senators adopted the portion of the divided amendment containing the provisions of LB172 on a 41-0 vote.

After also adopting an amendment from Storer to push back the effective date of her measure from Jan. 1 to July 1, 2026, senators voted 38-2 to advance LB383 to select file.

LINCOLN, Neb - A bill that would require parental consent for Nebraska minors to create social media accounts advanced to the second round of debate April 11 after lawmakers amended it to include an additional proposal.<a href="http://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/search_by_number.php?DocumentNumber=LB383&amp;Legislature=109th" target="_blank">LB383</a>, as introduced by Whitman Sen. Tanya Storer at the request of Gov. Jim Pillen, would create the Parental Rights in Social Media Act. The bill would require social media companies operating in Nebraska to utilize “reasonable age verification” processes to ensure anyone creating an account on their platform is at least 18 years old, beginning Jan. 1, 2026.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1744629995736.jpeg" alt="Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman, photo by&nbsp;Bess Ghormley" />
 <figcaption>Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman, photo by&nbsp;Bess Ghormley</figcaption>
 </figure>Individuals younger than 18 could obtain an account if their parent, who also would be subject to age verification, submits a signed document confirming their consent.Under the bill, digitized identification cards or third-party services would qualify as a reasonable age verification method. A commercial entity or third party would be prohibited from retaining a person’s identifying information after verification.LB383 also would require social media companies to provide methods for parents to monitor a minor’s account activity and include options for a parent to:● view all posts the minor account holder makes under the social media platform account;● view all responses and messages sent to or by the minor account holder in the social media platform account;● control the minor’s privacy and account settings; and● monitor and limit the amount of time the minor account holder spends using the social media platform.The Nebraska attorney general would be responsible for enforcing the act, which allows for penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation.Storer said the impact social media has on the mental health and safety of young people is no longer up for debate. According to a 2023 U.S. Surgeon General advisory warning, she said, social media is a risk factor for adolescent mental health and can exacerbate issues such as negative body image, eating disorders, poor sleep quality, depression and anxiety.LB383 would not ban access to social media, she said, but simply would give parents greater control over their children’s online activity.“It puts parents back in the driver’s seat,” Storer said. “We are asking that parents be given the tools to make decisions for what social media platforms their children have access to. It’s really that simple.”Omaha Sen. Megan Hunt filed a motion to bracket LB383 until June 9, saying the bill aims to control kids, not protect them. Social media can provide struggling young people with access to community and affirmation that they may not find within their own families, she said.The motion failed on a vote of 4-26.Sen. Jared Storm of David City spoke in support of LB383, saying he has five children at home who he struggles to protect from too much online activity. He cited research from Yale University that found youth who spend more than three hours a day on social media face twice the risk of negative mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety.“I’m living this right now,” Storm said. “It’s a full-time job to try to police social media.”Lincoln Sen. Carolyn Bosn also supported the proposal, saying it would provide guardrails rather than barriers for social media use by young Nebraskans. As chairperson, she introduced a&nbsp;<a href="http://news.legislature.ne.gov/jud" target="_blank">Judiciary Committee</a>&nbsp;amendment that would have added the provisions of Gering Sen. Brian Hardin’s LB172 to update the Child Pornography Prevention Act.Lincoln Sen. George Dungan made a motion to divide the committee amendment and consider the provisions of LB383 separately from those of LB172. That motion was successful.Dungan opposed the portion of the divided amendment containing LB383. Requiring someone to prove their age in order to participate in a public forum such as social media “runs afoul” of the First Amendment, he said.Sen. John Cavanaugh of Omaha also opposed the measure, which he said could unintentionally make it harder for adults to access social media by requiring them to provide proof of identification in order for their children to open accounts.Also speaking in opposition was Omaha Sen. Terrell McKinney. Storer’s proposal likely would lead to a legal challenge, he said, noting that a similar measure passed in Arkansas was struck down recently by the courts on First Amendment grounds.“I want to protect kids too, but we have to balance that,” McKinney said. “We have to think about the pros and cons and the likely outcomes — and the consequences.”Senators adopted a technical amendment offered by Cavanaugh before voting 30-4 to adopt the divided portion of the committee amendment containing provisions of Storer’s LB383.The remaining portion of the divided amendment containing Hardin’s LB172 would update the definition of child pornography to “visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that has a child, other than the defendant, as one of its participants or portrayed observers.”Additionally, the amendment would expand the definition of child pornography to include images generated by artificial intelligence or computers and would criminalize the act of knowingly receiving child pornography.Hardin said emerging technology presents new challenges in combating the exploitation of children and that AI, deepfakes and digital manipulation allow predators to create lifelike computer-generated child pornography.“This is not a victimless crime,” Hardin said. “Offenders often morph real images from social media into explicit content, causing real harm, and current laws do not always cover these cases.”Senators adopted the portion of the divided amendment containing the provisions of LB172 on a 41-0 vote.After also adopting an amendment from Storer to push back the effective date of her measure from Jan. 1 to July 1, 2026, senators voted 38-2 to advance LB383 to select file.

Legislature advances age verification for social media use to second round

WASHINGTON, D.C.: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) has been alerted of a scam impacting incarcerated individuals and their families where callers are identifying themselves as FBOP employees to secure money for community placement services. 

The FBOP will not contact individuals to request personal information or money. Also, there appear to be other scams affecting incarcerated individuals and their families. Specifically, callers are identifying as “Federal Bureau of Prisons Reentry Division Services” to gain personal information or money for early release and/or community placement services.

Individuals who are contacted by persons purporting to be employees of the FBOP requesting money and/or compensation should report these calls to the Federal Trade Commission online <a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">by clicking here</a>&nbsp;or by phone at 1-877-382-4357 (9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.).

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1712245575011.jpeg" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON, D.C.: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) has been alerted of a scam impacting incarcerated individuals and their families where callers are identifying themselves as FBOP employees to secure money for community placement services. The FBOP will not contact individuals to request personal information or money. Also, there appear to be other scams affecting incarcerated individuals and their families. Specifically, callers are identifying as “Federal Bureau of Prisons Reentry Division Services” to gain personal information or money for early release and/or community placement services.Individuals who are contacted by persons purporting to be employees of the FBOP requesting money and/or compensation should report these calls to the Federal Trade Commission online <a href="https://reportfraud.ftc.gov/">by clicking here</a>&nbsp;or by phone at 1-877-382-4357 (9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.).

Federal Bureau of Prisons alerts public to a scam

LINCOLN, NE&nbsp;– Governor Jim Pillen has sent a request to President Donald J. Trump asking for a major disaster declaration resulting from the winter storm that hit the state March 18 and 19. Twenty-seven counties have met damage assessments making them eligible for a federal declaration request. So far, damage estimates have exceeded $64.8 million. The bulk of those costs are due to utility repairs.

Counties requested to be covered in the declaration include Boone, Burt, Butler, Cass, Clay, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Douglas, Fillmore, Hamilton, Jefferson, Johnson, Lancaster, Nuckolls, Otoe, Platte, Polk, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders, Seward, Thayer, Thurston, Washington, Webster and York.

The storm, which produced thunderstorms, sleet, high winds and blizzard conditions resulted in the closure of major roadways, including 160 miles of Interstate 80 and 70 miles of Interstate 29. The most significant damage was to power poles and electrical lines. More than 1,700 poles were downed or destroyed. At the height of the storm, an estimated 200,000 customers were without power. To assist those who were without electricity for a prolonged period, some communities – including York and Fremont – established emergency shelters. Additional damage reports have included downed trees and structures.

In his letter to the President, Gov. Pillen called the mid-March storm “one of the most destructive winter weather events to impact Nebraska in recent history…”

Federal funding approval would help cover costs in the above-named counties to repair damaged infrastructure and assist with debris clean up.

LINCOLN, NE&nbsp;– Governor Jim Pillen has sent a request to President Donald J. Trump asking for a major disaster declaration resulting from the winter storm that hit the state March 18 and 19. Twenty-seven counties have met damage assessments making them eligible for a federal declaration request. So far, damage estimates have exceeded $64.8 million. The bulk of those costs are due to utility repairs.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/8/1691680806458.jpeg" alt="Gov. Jim Pillen (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>Gov. Jim Pillen (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Counties requested to be covered in the declaration include Boone, Burt, Butler, Cass, Clay, Colfax, Cuming, Dodge, Douglas, Fillmore, Hamilton, Jefferson, Johnson, Lancaster, Nuckolls, Otoe, Platte, Polk, Saline, Sarpy, Saunders, Seward, Thayer, Thurston, Washington, Webster and York.The storm, which produced thunderstorms, sleet, high winds and blizzard conditions resulted in the closure of major roadways, including 160 miles of Interstate 80 and 70 miles of Interstate 29. The most significant damage was to power poles and electrical lines. More than 1,700 poles were downed or destroyed. At the height of the storm, an estimated 200,000 customers were without power. To assist those who were without electricity for a prolonged period, some communities – including York and Fremont – established emergency shelters. Additional damage reports have included downed trees and structures.In his letter to the President, Gov. Pillen called the mid-March storm “one of the most destructive winter weather events to impact Nebraska in recent history…”Federal funding approval would help cover costs in the above-named counties to repair damaged infrastructure and assist with debris clean up.

Pillen requests disaster declaration from March snow storms

WASHINGTON — Fired federal probationary workers saw setbacks this week, as the U.S. Supreme Court and an appeals court dealt blows in two separate cases, leaving the newly hired or recently promoted employees hit by the administration’s mass firings once again in limbo.

In a case that affected up to 24,000 fired probationary employees across 17 federal agencies, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday blocked a lower court order requiring the government to rehire the workers.

A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to stay the order, writing that the Trump administration is “likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.”

Judge Allison Rushing, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, directed the order, with Judge James Wilkinson, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, concurring. Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023, dissented.

The case centered on a lawsuit filed by the Democratic attorneys general for 19 states and the District of Columbia, who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/democratic-attorneys-general-face-trump-administration-over-rehiring-fired-feds" target="_blank">allege</a>&nbsp;economic harm because the federal government did not provide legally required warning ahead of an influx of unemployed state residents.

Federal Judge James Bredar for the District of Maryland&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/judge-orders-fired-federal-probationary-workers-reinstated-19-states-dc" target="_blank">issued a preliminary injunction</a>&nbsp;on April 2 requiring the government to rehire thousands of workers who either lived or reported to work only in the 19 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia while the case moved forward. They included:

The case marked the first time the government provided the number of probationary employees fired at each agency.

Bredar required the figures from the government to show compliance with his&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/second-federal-judge-orders-reversal-some-trump-workforce-cuts" target="_blank">mid-March emergency order</a>&nbsp;that the agencies reinstate the workers. The documents showed that the majority of the employees were not recalled to active duty, but&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fired-fed-workers-won-their-jobs-back-many-linger-administrative-leave-limbo" target="_blank">placed on administrative leave</a>.

In the second case bearing on fired federal workers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a lower court order mandating the federal government reinstate the jobs of 16,000 fired probationary federal workers across six agencies.

The unsigned two-page&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040825zr_1b8e.pdf" target="_blank">order</a>&nbsp;stated the nine nonprofits that brought the case do not have legal standing. The justices did not address the question at the center of the lawsuit: whether the firings were illegal.

The Trump administration had escalated the case to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket after the U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-appeals-court-turns-down-trump-attempt-block-rehiring-fired-workers" target="_blank">denied</a>&nbsp;the government’s request to block the agencies from rehiring the employees.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup for the Northern District of California&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/judge-orders-rehiring-thousands-fired-probationary-federal-employees" target="_blank">extended</a>&nbsp;his temporary emergency order on March 13, mandating the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs reinstate employees who were fired under a directive from the Office of Personnel Management as part of an agenda by President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-workforce-hit-trumps-sweeping-firings-thousands-probationary-employees" target="_blank">slash the federal workforce</a>.

As the case continues on the lower court track, lawyers for the American Federal of Government Employees, AFL-CIO faced the Trump administration in court Wednesday before Alsup, a Clinton appointee. Alsup ordered both to provide more information by the end of the day Friday, including a comprehensive list of those fired and statements about economic harms.&nbsp;

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/3/1741729690736.png" alt="Department of Education in Washington -AP photo" />
 <figcaption>Department of Education in Washington -AP photo</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>WASHINGTON — Fired federal probationary workers saw setbacks this week, as the U.S. Supreme Court and an appeals court dealt blows in two separate cases, leaving the newly hired or recently promoted employees hit by the administration’s mass firings once again in limbo.In a case that affected up to 24,000 fired probationary employees across 17 federal agencies, the U.S. Appeals Court for the 4th Circuit on Wednesday blocked a lower court order requiring the government to rehire the workers.A three-judge panel ruled 2-1 to stay the order, writing that the Trump administration is “likely to succeed in showing the district court lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims.”Judge Allison Rushing, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, directed the order, with Judge James Wilkinson, a President Ronald Reagan appointee, concurring. Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023, dissented.The case centered on a lawsuit filed by the Democratic attorneys general for 19 states and the District of Columbia, who&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/democratic-attorneys-general-face-trump-administration-over-rehiring-fired-feds" target="_blank">allege</a>&nbsp;economic harm because the federal government did not provide legally required warning ahead of an influx of unemployed state residents.Federal Judge James Bredar for the District of Maryland&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/judge-orders-fired-federal-probationary-workers-reinstated-19-states-dc" target="_blank">issued a preliminary injunction</a>&nbsp;on April 2 requiring the government to rehire thousands of workers who either lived or reported to work only in the 19 plaintiff states and the District of Columbia while the case moved forward. They included:<ul>
 <li>Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.</li>
 </ul>The affected agencies included:<ul>
 <li>The departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense (civilian employees only), Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration and the U.S. Agency for International Development.</li>
 </ul>The case marked the first time the government provided the number of probationary employees fired at each agency.Bredar required the figures from the government to show compliance with his&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/second-federal-judge-orders-reversal-some-trump-workforce-cuts" target="_blank">mid-March emergency order</a>&nbsp;that the agencies reinstate the workers. The documents showed that the majority of the employees were not recalled to active duty, but&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fired-fed-workers-won-their-jobs-back-many-linger-administrative-leave-limbo" target="_blank">placed on administrative leave</a>.<h2>Supreme Court action</h2>In the second case bearing on fired federal workers, the Supreme Court on Tuesday blocked a lower court order mandating the federal government reinstate the jobs of 16,000 fired probationary federal workers across six agencies.The unsigned two-page&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040825zr_1b8e.pdf" target="_blank">order</a>&nbsp;stated the nine nonprofits that brought the case do not have legal standing. The justices did not address the question at the center of the lawsuit: whether the firings were illegal.The Trump administration had escalated the case to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket after the U.S. Appeals Court for the 9th Circuit&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-appeals-court-turns-down-trump-attempt-block-rehiring-fired-workers" target="_blank">denied</a>&nbsp;the government’s request to block the agencies from rehiring the employees.U.S. District Judge William Alsup for the Northern District of California&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/judge-orders-rehiring-thousands-fired-probationary-federal-employees" target="_blank">extended</a>&nbsp;his temporary emergency order on March 13, mandating the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs reinstate employees who were fired under a directive from the Office of Personnel Management as part of an agenda by President Donald Trump and adviser Elon Musk to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/federal-workforce-hit-trumps-sweeping-firings-thousands-probationary-employees" target="_blank">slash the federal workforce</a>.As the case continues on the lower court track, lawyers for the American Federal of Government Employees, AFL-CIO faced the Trump administration in court Wednesday before Alsup, a Clinton appointee. Alsup ordered both to provide more information by the end of the day Friday, including a comprehensive list of those fired and statements about economic harms.&nbsp;

Fired federal probationary employees thrown back in limbo after court losses

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/04/10/bill-advances-to-end-lifetime-food-aid-ban-for-nebraskans-who-served-time-for-drug-felonies/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN —&nbsp;A Bellevue state senator’s priority bill to remove a lifetime ban on public food assistance for Nebraskans convicted of drug felonies advanced Thursday to its next law-making step, despite resistance from a fellow Sarpy County lawmaker.

Currently, Nebraska has a narrow exception to the ban for people with one or two drug possession or drug use felony convictions. They can access Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps, if they have completed a licensed and accredited treatment program.

<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59057" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 319,</a>&nbsp;championed by State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, would open the door for other felony drug offenders who currently can’t access SNAP benefits, as long as they’ve completed their sentence or are on parole or under post-release supervision.

A 32-5 vote moved LB 319 forward. Seven lawmakers were present and did not vote.

The most vocal opponent was State Sen. Bob Andersen, also of Sarpy County.

“They chose to be a drug dealer, and now when they come out of prison you want to give them more money in food stamps,” said Andersen, who is serving his first term.&nbsp;

Rountree, also a freshman lawmaker, said his time on the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee has given him a deeper appreciation of the rehabilitation needs for those transitioning out of prison.

He and others noted that Nebraskans who kill or rape someone can get access to SNAP benefits after they’ve served their sentences. But that’s not the same for people with certain felony drug convictions.

“That doesn’t make sense to me,” said State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward. “At what point do you get to become a citizen of the United States again and try to do better?”

Rountree said his bill is “a piece of the puzzle” needed to fortify inmate rehabilitation efforts and continues the effort led in the last legislative session by State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha.

About 1,000 Nebraskans would be impacted by his bill, Rountree said. It comes with no additional state cost, according to a fiscal analysis, as&nbsp;<a href="https://dhhs.ne.gov/pages/SNAP-Next-Step.aspx" target="_blank">SNAP benefits</a>&nbsp;are paid with federal funds. SNAP provides low-income people with a stipend to buy food at certain retailers and also has an employment and training component.

“Everybody has to eat,” Rountree said, adding that hunger can lead to circumstances that increase the chances of someone committing another crime.

“It’s righting a wrong. It’s righting an injustice,” said State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, a proponent.

She noted that 220 people wrote in support of the bill, versus 12 who opposed it.&nbsp;

Andersen, questioning Rountree during legislative debate, said those affected should turn to nonprofits and philanthropic groups – not the government – for help after they’ve served their time in prison.

He was not swayed by comments from State Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering, a proponent of LB 319 who said that three of the “most conservative states around us are already doing this, that would be Iowa, Wyoming and South Dakota.”

Rountree said 26 states have opted out of the SNAP ban entirely.

Hardin said that when the ban is in place, the recidivism goes up “pretty dramatically from about 3% to about 10%.”&nbsp;He said without the change, more people would go back to prison because of bad things they do outside of prison when they don’t have access to food.

Said Andersen: “Just cause all the other states are doing it doesn’t mean we should, too.”&nbsp;

The ban dates back to 1996 welfare reform and the nation’s “war on drugs.” States can pass laws to opt out or modify the ban.

That is how Nebraska previously created the exception for people with lesser drug offenses. A full prohibition remains for those with a felony conviction for drug sale or distribution.

State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte was a yes vote but said he was conflicted partly because the bill didn’t cut off benefits after a certain number of felony drug offenses.

Rountree said he was willing to work with Jacobson and others before the bill is debated at a later stage. He said the bill had much support during a previous public hearing. Proponents include the Lincoln police chief and the Omaha Police Officers Association.&nbsp;

“If our law enforcement says this is going to help us have better interactions on the streets. If it is going to cut that recidivism rate down … then my fellow senators, this is what we need to do,” said Rountree.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1744382678378.jpeg" alt=" State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, on April 10, 2025, as lawmakers debate his priority bill before eventually advancing it to the next stage. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, on April 10, 2025, as lawmakers debate his priority bill before eventually advancing it to the next stage. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Cindy Gonzalez<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/04/10/bill-advances-to-end-lifetime-food-aid-ban-for-nebraskans-who-served-time-for-drug-felonies/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN —&nbsp;A Bellevue state senator’s priority bill to remove a lifetime ban on public food assistance for Nebraskans convicted of drug felonies advanced Thursday to its next law-making step, despite resistance from a fellow Sarpy County lawmaker.Currently, Nebraska has a narrow exception to the ban for people with one or two drug possession or drug use felony convictions. They can access Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps, if they have completed a licensed and accredited treatment program.<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59057" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 319,</a>&nbsp;championed by State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue, would open the door for other felony drug offenders who currently can’t access SNAP benefits, as long as they’ve completed their sentence or are on parole or under post-release supervision.A 32-5 vote moved LB 319 forward. Seven lawmakers were present and did not vote.<h2>‘Piece of the puzzle’</h2>The most vocal opponent was State Sen. Bob Andersen, also of Sarpy County.“They chose to be a drug dealer, and now when they come out of prison you want to give them more money in food stamps,” said Andersen, who is serving his first term.&nbsp;Rountree, also a freshman lawmaker, said his time on the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee has given him a deeper appreciation of the rehabilitation needs for those transitioning out of prison.He and others noted that Nebraskans who kill or rape someone can get access to SNAP benefits after they’ve served their sentences. But that’s not the same for people with certain felony drug convictions.“That doesn’t make sense to me,” said State Sen. Jana Hughes of Seward. “At what point do you get to become a citizen of the United States again and try to do better?”Rountree said his bill is “a piece of the puzzle” needed to fortify inmate rehabilitation efforts and continues the effort led in the last legislative session by State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha.About 1,000 Nebraskans would be impacted by his bill, Rountree said. It comes with no additional state cost, according to a fiscal analysis, as&nbsp;<a href="https://dhhs.ne.gov/pages/SNAP-Next-Step.aspx" target="_blank">SNAP benefits</a>&nbsp;are paid with federal funds. SNAP provides low-income people with a stipend to buy food at certain retailers and also has an employment and training component.“Everybody has to eat,” Rountree said, adding that hunger can lead to circumstances that increase the chances of someone committing another crime.“It’s righting a wrong. It’s righting an injustice,” said State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln, a proponent.She noted that 220 people wrote in support of the bill, versus 12 who opposed it.&nbsp;<h2>Not swayed</h2>Andersen, questioning Rountree during legislative debate, said those affected should turn to nonprofits and philanthropic groups – not the government – for help after they’ve served their time in prison.He was not swayed by comments from State Sen. Brian Hardin of Gering, a proponent of LB 319 who said that three of the “most conservative states around us are already doing this, that would be Iowa, Wyoming and South Dakota.”Rountree said 26 states have opted out of the SNAP ban entirely.Hardin said that when the ban is in place, the recidivism goes up “pretty dramatically from about 3% to about 10%.”&nbsp;He said without the change, more people would go back to prison because of bad things they do outside of prison when they don’t have access to food.Said Andersen: “Just cause all the other states are doing it doesn’t mean we should, too.”&nbsp;<h2>Ban dates back to 1996</h2>The ban dates back to 1996 welfare reform and the nation’s “war on drugs.” States can pass laws to opt out or modify the ban.That is how Nebraska previously created the exception for people with lesser drug offenses. A full prohibition remains for those with a felony conviction for drug sale or distribution.State Sen. Mike Jacobson of North Platte was a yes vote but said he was conflicted partly because the bill didn’t cut off benefits after a certain number of felony drug offenses.Rountree said he was willing to work with Jacobson and others before the bill is debated at a later stage. He said the bill had much support during a previous public hearing. Proponents include the Lincoln police chief and the Omaha Police Officers Association.&nbsp;“If our law enforcement says this is going to help us have better interactions on the streets. If it is going to cut that recidivism rate down … then my fellow senators, this is what we need to do,” said Rountree.

Bill advances to end lifetime food aid ban for Nebraskans who served time for drug felonies

Office of U.S. Senator Deb Fischer

WASHINGTON&nbsp;– Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, reintroduced&nbsp;Hammers’ Law&nbsp;to hold the cruise industry accountable for the wrongful deaths of passengers who do not have dependents or income — including children, students, and retirees. In addition to Fischer, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.).

The bill is named for Larry and Christy Hammer of Omaha, who tragically lost their lives in a fire in their cabin onboard a Peruvian river cruise on April 10th, 2016. Today marks the nine-year anniversary of the incident.

“Nine years ago today, Larry and Christy Hammer tragically and unexpectedly lost their lives because of the negligence of a cruise company. Since then, their bereaved daughters, Jill and Kelly, have endured a frustrating fight for accountability. My Hammers’ Law, named for Larry and Christy, will help prevent future tragedies and give families fairer compensation if tragedy does strike,”&nbsp;said Fischer.

“A century-old law has prevented families from obtaining fair financial accountability when their loved ones die tragically onboard a cruise ship. Our bipartisan effort will ensure that bad actors in the cruise industry fairly compensate Americans whose family members are killed on their ships – just like an airline does, when something goes wrong on a plane. No amount of money can ever fully compensate a family for this kind of tragic loss, but our measure will help bring about some small measure of justice after a cruise catastrophe,”&nbsp;said Blumenthal.

“Families like the Hammers deserve justice when loved ones are wrongfully lost at sea. This bipartisan bill ensures that cruise lines are held to the same accountability standards as airlines,”&nbsp;said Ricketts.

"Hammers' Law is a crucial step toward justice and accountability for the countless families who have tragically lost loved ones due to negligence onboard cruise ships. This legislation ensures that no victim's family is denied the right to seek justice solely because of antiquated laws. Hammers' Law will extend to cruise passengers the same protections airline passengers have enjoyed for decades, compelling cruise companies to prioritize safety and protecting millions of travelers each year,”&nbsp;said the Hammers’ daughters, Jill Hammer Malott and Kelly Hammer Lankford.

Hammers’ Law would amend an over 100-year-old law, known as the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Today, the cruise industry uses DOHSA to avoid financial accountability for the wrongful deaths of passengers who do not have dependents or income. These passengers — including children, students, and retirees — account for a significant portion of the 12 million Americans who cruise each year.&nbsp;As retirees, Larry and Christy Hammer did not have financial dependents or wages, so antiquated DOHSA rules restricted the Hammer family from pursuing the accountability that would likely be available for wrongful deaths occurring on dry land. DOHSA was amended in 2000 to allow the same kind of compensation for victims of major airline accidents.

Passing Hammers’ Law will enable future families to pursue fairer compensation when similar tragedies strike, and it will hold the responsible cruise line accountable by allowing for compensation that more fully reflects the company’s negligence.

Hammers’ Law was first&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/fischer-introduces-hammers-law-named-after-omaha-natives-killed-in-cruise-ship-fire">introduced</a>&nbsp;in 2019. Since then, Fischer has continued to grow support for this legislation, reintroducing it during the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/4/fischer-blumenthal-reintroduce-hammers-law-for-omaha-natives-killed-in-2019-cruise-ship-fire">117th Congress</a>&nbsp;and again&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/4/fischer-blumenthal-reintroduce-hammers-law-named-after-omaha-natives-killed-in-2016-cruise-ship-fire">last Congress</a>.

Click&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d5c47d4b-b788-4fe0-bc4c-2f4677c45c7d/4.10.25-hammers-law.pdf">here</a>&nbsp;to read the full text of the bill.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Office of U.S. Senator Deb FischerWASHINGTON&nbsp;– Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, reintroduced&nbsp;Hammers’ Law&nbsp;to hold the cruise industry accountable for the wrongful deaths of passengers who do not have dependents or income — including children, students, and retirees. In addition to Fischer, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.).The bill is named for Larry and Christy Hammer of Omaha, who tragically lost their lives in a fire in their cabin onboard a Peruvian river cruise on April 10th, 2016. Today marks the nine-year anniversary of the incident.“Nine years ago today, Larry and Christy Hammer tragically and unexpectedly lost their lives because of the negligence of a cruise company. Since then, their bereaved daughters, Jill and Kelly, have endured a frustrating fight for accountability. My Hammers’ Law, named for Larry and Christy, will help prevent future tragedies and give families fairer compensation if tragedy does strike,”&nbsp;said Fischer.“A century-old law has prevented families from obtaining fair financial accountability when their loved ones die tragically onboard a cruise ship. Our bipartisan effort will ensure that bad actors in the cruise industry fairly compensate Americans whose family members are killed on their ships – just like an airline does, when something goes wrong on a plane. No amount of money can ever fully compensate a family for this kind of tragic loss, but our measure will help bring about some small measure of justice after a cruise catastrophe,”&nbsp;said Blumenthal.“Families like the Hammers deserve justice when loved ones are wrongfully lost at sea. This bipartisan bill ensures that cruise lines are held to the same accountability standards as airlines,”&nbsp;said Ricketts."Hammers' Law is a crucial step toward justice and accountability for the countless families who have tragically lost loved ones due to negligence onboard cruise ships. This legislation ensures that no victim's family is denied the right to seek justice solely because of antiquated laws. Hammers' Law will extend to cruise passengers the same protections airline passengers have enjoyed for decades, compelling cruise companies to prioritize safety and protecting millions of travelers each year,”&nbsp;said the Hammers’ daughters, Jill Hammer Malott and Kelly Hammer Lankford.Background:Hammers’ Law would amend an over 100-year-old law, known as the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA). Today, the cruise industry uses DOHSA to avoid financial accountability for the wrongful deaths of passengers who do not have dependents or income. These passengers — including children, students, and retirees — account for a significant portion of the 12 million Americans who cruise each year.&nbsp;As retirees, Larry and Christy Hammer did not have financial dependents or wages, so antiquated DOHSA rules restricted the Hammer family from pursuing the accountability that would likely be available for wrongful deaths occurring on dry land. DOHSA was amended in 2000 to allow the same kind of compensation for victims of major airline accidents.Passing Hammers’ Law will enable future families to pursue fairer compensation when similar tragedies strike, and it will hold the responsible cruise line accountable by allowing for compensation that more fully reflects the company’s negligence.Hammers’ Law was first&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2019/4/fischer-introduces-hammers-law-named-after-omaha-natives-killed-in-cruise-ship-fire">introduced</a>&nbsp;in 2019. Since then, Fischer has continued to grow support for this legislation, reintroducing it during the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/4/fischer-blumenthal-reintroduce-hammers-law-for-omaha-natives-killed-in-2019-cruise-ship-fire">117th Congress</a>&nbsp;and again&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2023/4/fischer-blumenthal-reintroduce-hammers-law-named-after-omaha-natives-killed-in-2016-cruise-ship-fire">last Congress</a>.Click&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/d5c47d4b-b788-4fe0-bc4c-2f4677c45c7d/4.10.25-hammers-law.pdf">here</a>&nbsp;to read the full text of the bill.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Fischer Reintroduces Hammers’ Law to Honor Omaha Natives, Hold Cruise Industry Accountable

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/04/10/lawmakers-approve-no-longer-issuing-front-facing-license-plates-in-nebraska-by-2029/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — By the start of Nebraska’s next license plate cycle in 2029, the state could only issue drivers a rear-facing license plate and allow multiyear registrations.

State lawmakers gave near-unanimous approval Thursday, on a&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=12046" target="_blank">46-0 vote</a>, to approve&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59072&amp;docnum=LB97&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 97</a>&nbsp;led by State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha. It included the new license plate change from State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area (originally&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59295&amp;docnum=LB297&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 297</a>) and the multiyear registration allowance from State Sen. Rob Dover of Norfolk (originally&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59074&amp;docnum=LB543&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 543</a>).

Von Gillern said he brought his change partly because it is often the “norm” for new cars to no longer have brackets or mounts for front-facing license plates.

He said that means some new car owners are left with three options:

Von Gillern said his bill, originally LB 297, could save taxpayer dollars by not issuing dual license plates to about 2 million vehicles in the state. Nebraskans currently pay&nbsp;<a href="https://dmv.nebraska.gov/dvr/reg/registration-fees-and-taxes#:~:text=$1.50%20%2D%20County%20General%20Fund%20%2D%20this,%C2%A760%2D3%2C102" target="_blank">$4.10 per license plate</a>, leading to potential savings of about $8 million.&nbsp;<a href="https://csi.nebraska.gov/products/license-plates" target="_blank">Nebraskans incarcerated at the Nebraska State Penitentiary</a>&nbsp;manufacture state plates. New car buyers could also save about $6 million to $8 million, von Gillern estimated.

His bill could also have an environmental benefit, von Gillern said, reducing 200 tons of aluminum mined. At least 26 other states no longer require front-facing plates.

Law enforcement officials from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and the Omaha Police Officer’s Association have testified neutral or in support of similar legislation in recent years. Von Gillern’s proposal was added to LB 97 during first-round debate in a&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11820" target="_blank">30-5 vote</a>.

Under Dover’s bill, auto owners could pay up to three years of&nbsp;<a href="https://dmv.nebraska.gov/dvr/reg/registration-fees-and-taxes#:~:text=$1.50%20%2D%20County%20General%20Fund%20%2D%20this,%C2%A760%2D3%2C102" target="_blank">registration taxes or fees</a>&nbsp;in advance, giving them the chance to save if local taxes or fees increased in future years.

Lawmakers during debate Thursday also passed&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59465&amp;docnum=LB113&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 113</a>&nbsp;from State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, which would allow licensed craft breweries to operate up to eight separate retail locations (up from five) and allow such license holders to directly sell for resale up to 3,500 gallons of microdistilled products (up from 500 gallons) each year to retail licensees in the state.

State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln led opposition to the bill, as she’s done during each of the bill’s three stages of debate. She alleged it would give “preferential treatment” to in-state operators compared to out-of-state or regional distributors, risking a lawsuit.

“It is only a matter of time that some regional distributor that plays by all the rules and adheres to the regulations and standards gets frustrated and files a lawsuit,” Raybould said.

The longtime grocery store executive&nbsp;<a href="https://ago.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/docs/opinions/Opinion%20No.%2025-001.pdf" target="_blank">sought an attorney general’s opinion</a>&nbsp;on whether LB 113 could increase the risk of a lawsuit against the state’s craft brewery laws on the grounds of violating the constitutional clause about regulating commerce over state lines. Raybould argued the lawsuit could undo some of the state’s other alcohol-related laws.

Quick told his colleagues to remember that they were discussing Nebraska small businesses and that lawmakers had added an earlier amendment to protect other statutes if LB 113 was ever challenged and ruled unconstitutional.

“This is a good bill,” Quick said. “It will help a lot of our Nebraska businesses grow their business model.”

State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman also defended the proposal. She said it had gone through “significant compromises” from its original version and was “just government allowing someone to distribute their own product to the retail market without being forced to pay a middleman some fee to distribute that for them.”

The bill passed&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=12048" target="_blank">33-13</a>&nbsp;— six senators were present but did not vote, which, under a legislative rule adopted earlier this year for final reading votes, meant their votes had to be&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/23/lawmakers-vote-to-limit-soft-nos-during-final-stage-of-debate-on-nebraska-bills/">categorized as “no” votes</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1744308775198.jpeg" alt=""The Genius of Creative Energy," a mosaic at the Nebraska State Capitol, was unveiled as the backdrop for the new state license plate in May 2022. A new license plate cycle will begin in 2029, bringing a new design and changes to registration. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>"The Genius of Creative Energy," a mosaic at the Nebraska State Capitol, was unveiled as the backdrop for the new state license plate in May 2022. A new license plate cycle will begin in 2029, bringing a new design and changes to registration. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/04/10/lawmakers-approve-no-longer-issuing-front-facing-license-plates-in-nebraska-by-2029/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — By the start of Nebraska’s next license plate cycle in 2029, the state could only issue drivers a rear-facing license plate and allow multiyear registrations.State lawmakers gave near-unanimous approval Thursday, on a&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=12046" target="_blank">46-0 vote</a>, to approve&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59072&amp;docnum=LB97&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">Legislative Bill 97</a>&nbsp;led by State Sen. John Fredrickson of Omaha. It included the new license plate change from State Sen. Brad von Gillern of the Elkhorn area (originally&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59295&amp;docnum=LB297&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 297</a>) and the multiyear registration allowance from State Sen. Rob Dover of Norfolk (originally&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59074&amp;docnum=LB543&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 543</a>).Von Gillern said he brought his change partly because it is often the “norm” for new cars to no longer have brackets or mounts for front-facing license plates.He said that means some new car owners are left with three options:<ul>
 <li>Pay the car dealership an average of $100 to furnish and install a front plate holder.</li><li>Pay a $50 annual fee for a windshield decal conferring the right to display just a rear plate.</li><li>Drill holes in the front bumper of someone’s “dream” car.</li>
 </ul>Von Gillern said his bill, originally LB 297, could save taxpayer dollars by not issuing dual license plates to about 2 million vehicles in the state. Nebraskans currently pay&nbsp;<a href="https://dmv.nebraska.gov/dvr/reg/registration-fees-and-taxes#:~:text=$1.50%20%2D%20County%20General%20Fund%20%2D%20this,%C2%A760%2D3%2C102" target="_blank">$4.10 per license plate</a>, leading to potential savings of about $8 million.&nbsp;<a href="https://csi.nebraska.gov/products/license-plates" target="_blank">Nebraskans incarcerated at the Nebraska State Penitentiary</a>&nbsp;manufacture state plates. New car buyers could also save about $6 million to $8 million, von Gillern estimated.His bill could also have an environmental benefit, von Gillern said, reducing 200 tons of aluminum mined. At least 26 other states no longer require front-facing plates.Law enforcement officials from the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office and the Omaha Police Officer’s Association have testified neutral or in support of similar legislation in recent years. Von Gillern’s proposal was added to LB 97 during first-round debate in a&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11820" target="_blank">30-5 vote</a>.Under Dover’s bill, auto owners could pay up to three years of&nbsp;<a href="https://dmv.nebraska.gov/dvr/reg/registration-fees-and-taxes#:~:text=$1.50%20%2D%20County%20General%20Fund%20%2D%20this,%C2%A760%2D3%2C102" target="_blank">registration taxes or fees</a>&nbsp;in advance, giving them the chance to save if local taxes or fees increased in future years.Lawmakers during debate Thursday also passed&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59465&amp;docnum=LB113&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 113</a>&nbsp;from State Sen. Dan Quick of Grand Island, which would allow licensed craft breweries to operate up to eight separate retail locations (up from five) and allow such license holders to directly sell for resale up to 3,500 gallons of microdistilled products (up from 500 gallons) each year to retail licensees in the state.State Sen. Jane Raybould of Lincoln led opposition to the bill, as she’s done during each of the bill’s three stages of debate. She alleged it would give “preferential treatment” to in-state operators compared to out-of-state or regional distributors, risking a lawsuit.“It is only a matter of time that some regional distributor that plays by all the rules and adheres to the regulations and standards gets frustrated and files a lawsuit,” Raybould said.The longtime grocery store executive&nbsp;<a href="https://ago.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/docs/opinions/Opinion%20No.%2025-001.pdf" target="_blank">sought an attorney general’s opinion</a>&nbsp;on whether LB 113 could increase the risk of a lawsuit against the state’s craft brewery laws on the grounds of violating the constitutional clause about regulating commerce over state lines. Raybould argued the lawsuit could undo some of the state’s other alcohol-related laws.Quick told his colleagues to remember that they were discussing Nebraska small businesses and that lawmakers had added an earlier amendment to protect other statutes if LB 113 was ever challenged and ruled unconstitutional.“This is a good bill,” Quick said. “It will help a lot of our Nebraska businesses grow their business model.”State Sen. Tanya Storer of Whitman also defended the proposal. She said it had gone through “significant compromises” from its original version and was “just government allowing someone to distribute their own product to the retail market without being forced to pay a middleman some fee to distribute that for them.”The bill passed&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=12048" target="_blank">33-13</a>&nbsp;— six senators were present but did not vote, which, under a legislative rule adopted earlier this year for final reading votes, meant their votes had to be&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/23/lawmakers-vote-to-limit-soft-nos-during-final-stage-of-debate-on-nebraska-bills/">categorized as “no” votes</a>.The Legislature also approved Thursday:<ul>
 <li><a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59626&amp;docnum=LB390&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 390</a>, from State Sen. Dave Murman of Glenvil, to require that public schools by the start of the 2026-27 school year&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/a-proposed-school-book-database-law-moves-forward-in-nebraska-statehouse/">publicly catalog all library books by school building</a>. Parents could opt-in to be notified via email of when their child checks out a book, including the title, author name and the book due date. It passed&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=12056" target="_blank">34-14</a>.</li><li><a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=59534&amp;docnum=LB457&amp;leg=109" target="_blank">LB 457</a>, from State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, to&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/03/12/bill-for-nebraska-epinephrine-injector-cost-cap-severe-allergy-response-plans-advances/">cap out-of-pocket costs for medically necessary epinephrine injectors</a>, such as EpiPens, to no more than $60 for a two-pack. It also would require the state’s health and education agencies to create model policies for schools and licensed child care programs for responding to severe allergic reactions, or anaphylaxis. It passed&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=12057" target="_blank">47-1</a>.</li>
 </ul>

Lawmakers approve no longer issuing front-facing license plates in Nebraska by 2029

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>

WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted a budget resolution Thursday, clearing the way for both chambers of Congress to write a bill extending 2017 tax cuts and bolstering funding for border security and defense, though the blueprint set vastly different targets for spending cuts.

<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025100" target="_blank">The cliff-hanger 216-214 vote</a>&nbsp;followed a tumultuous week on Capitol Hill. Far-right members of the GOP Conference said repeatedly they wouldn’t accept the outline, since it requires the House to write a bill that cuts spending by at least $1.5 trillion, while senators set themselves a floor of $4 billion in cuts.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-gop-punts-vote-trump-backed-budget-now-amid-battle-over-spending-cuts" target="_blank">forced to postpone a floor vote</a>&nbsp;on the budget resolution on Wednesday evening. But Johnson was able to secure the votes needed after he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Thursday morning that they were in agreement about meeting the higher threshold for spending cuts.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/4/1744299694388.png" alt="House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune during the press briefing ahead of the vote -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune during the press briefing ahead of the vote -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">JENNIFER SHUTT</a>WASHINGTON — U.S. House Republicans adopted a budget resolution Thursday, clearing the way for both chambers of Congress to write a bill extending 2017 tax cuts and bolstering funding for border security and defense, though the blueprint set vastly different targets for spending cuts.<a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025100" target="_blank">The cliff-hanger 216-214 vote</a>&nbsp;followed a tumultuous week on Capitol Hill. Far-right members of the GOP Conference said repeatedly they wouldn’t accept the outline, since it requires the House to write a bill that cuts spending by at least $1.5 trillion, while senators set themselves a floor of $4 billion in cuts.Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., was&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-gop-punts-vote-trump-backed-budget-now-amid-battle-over-spending-cuts" target="_blank">forced to postpone a floor vote</a>&nbsp;on the budget resolution on Wednesday evening. But Johnson was able to secure the votes needed after he and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., announced Thursday morning that they were in agreement about meeting the higher threshold for spending cuts.Johnson said both chambers of Congress “are committed to finding at least $1.5 trillion in savings for the American people, while also preserving our essential programs.”“Many of us are going to aim much higher and find those savings because we believe they are there,” Johnson said. “We want to make the government more efficient, effective and leaner for the American people. And I think that will serve every American of every party. And we’re happy to do that.”Despite the difference in reconciliation instructions, Thune said the Senate is “aligned with the House” when it comes to cutting spending over the next decade.“The speaker has talked about $1.5 trillion,” Thune said. “We have a lot of United States senators who believe that is a minimum.”Thune added he believes it’s time for Congress “to get the country on a more sustainable fiscal path and that entails us taking a hard scrub of our government and figuring out where we can find those savings.”Democrats, and some centrist Republicans, have expressed deep concerns the House’s instructions require the Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees Medicaid, to cut at least $880 billion.The panel, which also oversees Medicare and other programs, could not recoup that level of spending without pulling hundreds of billions from Medicaid,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/gop-tax-cut-plans-may-depend-savings-medicaid-what-it-and-who-relies-it" target="_blank">the state-federal program</a>&nbsp;for lower-income Americans and some people with disabilities.The budget resolution has been endorsed by President Donald Trump, who’s repeatedly urged the House to adopt the measure. “Great News! “The Big, Beautiful Bill” is coming along really well. Republicans are working together nicely. Biggest Tax Cuts in USA History!!! Getting close. DJT,” Trump posted on social media Thursday morning prior to the vote.Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie and Indiana Rep. Victoria Spartz were the only members of the Republican Party to vote against approval.“If you were trying to hasten financial collapse of our country and bribe voters to go along with it, the strategy wouldn’t look much different than what Congress is doing today,” Massie wrote on social media. “The big beautiful bill cuts taxes while keeping spending on an increasingly unsustainable trajectory.”Spartz wrote in a social media post of her own that the reconciliation instructions “we voted on today are still setting us up for the largest deficit increase in the history of our Republic, &amp; opening up a ‘pandora’s box’ by changing accounting rules to hide it.“In good conscience, I couldn’t vote YES.”<h2>Only a beginning</h2>The House adopting the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/14/text" target="_blank">68-page budget resolution</a>&nbsp;only marks the start of the months-long journey of writing and voting on the reconciliation package.Republicans hope to use that bill to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars and rework energy policy.The budget resolution includes different budget targets for many of those goals, and for raising the debt limit. It calls on the House to increase the country’s borrowing authority by $4 trillion, while the Senate’s instructions say that chamber would lift the debt ceiling by up to $5 trillion.Writing the various elements of the reconciliation package will fall to 11 committee chairs in the House and 10 committee leaders in the Senate, as well as Johnson, Thune and a lot of staffers.In the House, the Agriculture Committee needs to slice at least $230 billion; Education and Workforce must reduce spending by a minimum of $330 billion; Energy and Commerce needs to cut no less than $880 billion; Financial Services must find at least $1 billion in savings; Natural Resources has a minimum of $1 billion; Oversight and Government Reform has a floor of $50 billion; and the Transportation Committee needs to reduce deficits by $10 billion or more.Four Senate committees — Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry; Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Energy and Natural Resources; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP — must each find at least $1 billion in spending cuts over the 10-year budget window.House committees that can increase the federal deficit include the Armed Services Committee with a cap of $100 billion in new spending, Homeland Security with a $90 billion ceiling for new funding for programs it oversees, Judiciary with a maximum of $110 billion and Ways and Means, which can increase deficits up to $4.5 trillion for tax cuts.Senate committees also got instructions for increasing the deficit, which will allow them to spend up to the dollar amount outlined in the budget resolution. Those committees include Armed Services at $150 billion; Commerce, Science and Transportation with $20 billion; Environment and Public Works at $1 billion; Finance with $1.5 trillion in new deficits, likely for tax cuts; Homeland Security at $175 billion and Judiciary with $175 billion.<h2>The back story</h2>If the process to reach agreement on a final reconciliation package is anything like the path to adopting the budget resolution, it will be long, winding and filled with drama.The Senate&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-adopts-plan-b-budget-gop-seeks-billions-border-security" target="_blank">voted for a completely different budget resolution</a>&nbsp;in February that would have set up Congress to enact Republicans’ agenda in two reconciliation bills instead of one.Budget Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., referred to the reconciliation instructions in that budget proposal as “Plan B.”That tax-and-spending blueprint would have had lawmakers first write a bill increasing funding for border security and defense, and rewriting energy policy, before debating another bill later in the year to extend the 2017 tax law and cut federal spending.The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-overcome-own-members-doubts-push-through-sweeping-budget" target="_blank">voted about a week later to approve its original budget resolution</a>, but not without a bit of theatrics.Johnson didn’t originally have the votes and opted to recess the chamber before calling lawmakers back about 15 minutes later to approve that version of the budget resolution.The Senate made changes to its reconciliation instructions in the House-approved budget resolution, before&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-wins-approval-sprawling-budget-blueprint-shipping-it-house" target="_blank">voting to send it back across the Capitol</a>&nbsp;for their colleagues to vote on final approval, which they did Thursday.<h2>Politically difficult votes ahead</h2>Each time the Senate voted on a budget resolution it undertook a marathon amendment voting session, known as a vote-a-rama, where lawmakers stay on the floor overnight to debate various aspects of the outline.Senators will need to undertake one more of those when they debate the actual reconciliation package later this year, though the stakes will be much higher.The budget resolution is a blueprint for how Congress wants to shape tax and spending policy during the 10-year budget window. It’s not a bill so it never becomes law. And it contains no actual money, it’s simply a plan for how lawmakers want to structure policy.The reconciliation package, once written, will have the chance of becoming law, so any amendments offered during the Senate’s vote-a-rama will carry greater weight than the proposals voted on when the chamber took up the two budget resolutions.Democrats will have an opportunity to challenge centrist GOP senators on whether they support or want to remove every single policy that Republicans put in their reconciliation package.That could create real issues for GOP leadership if they include tax policy or spending cuts that cannot garner the backing of senators like Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, Maine’s Susan Collins and others.The final reconciliation package will need support from nearly every Republican in Congress. GOP leaders will not be able to lose more than three House lawmakers or three Republican senators, under their very slender majorities.&nbsp;Four or more Republicans opposing the reconciliation package in one chamber, either because it cuts too much spending or doesn’t cut enough, would likely prevent it from becoming law.&nbsp;