PERU, Neb. (AP) — Authorities in southeastern Nebraska say an Auburn woman died in a crash near Peru over the weekend. 

The Lincoln Journal Star reports that the crash happened Saturday morning on state Highway 67, about two miles west of Peru. 

The Nemaha County Sheriff’s Office says a vehicle driven by 21-year-old Grace Allgood briefly went off the road and that Allgood, who was alone in the car, overcorrected, causing the vehicle to roll down an embankment. 

Investigators say Allgood was partially ejected from the vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene. 

Investigators say she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.

PERU, Neb. (AP) — Authorities in southeastern Nebraska say an Auburn woman died in a crash near Peru over the weekend. The Lincoln Journal Star reports that the crash happened Saturday morning on state Highway 67, about two miles west of Peru. The Nemaha County Sheriff’s Office says a vehicle driven by 21-year-old Grace Allgood briefly went off the road and that Allgood, who was alone in the car, overcorrected, causing the vehicle to roll down an embankment. Investigators say Allgood was partially ejected from the vehicle and was pronounced dead at the scene. Investigators say she was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the crash.

Officials say woman killed in southeastern Nebraska crash

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that the 
application period for Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) matching grants
 for calendar year 2022 will run from May 3, 2021, to June 18, 2021.

The LITC Program is a federal grant program administered by the 
Office of the Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS, which is led by National 
Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) Erin M. Collins. LITCs can make a tremendous 
impact on the lives of taxpayers, as detailed in this recent blog from 
the NTA: <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog-not-all-superheroes-wear-capes-join-the-low-income-taxpayer-clinic-community-and-be-a-hero-to-taxpayers-most-in-need/">Not all Superheroes Wear Capes: Join the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Community and Be a Hero to Taxpayers Most in Need</a>.

Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7526, the IRS awards 
matching grants of up to $100,000 per year to qualifying organizations 
to develop, expand or maintain an LITC.&nbsp;An LITC must provide services 
for free or for no more than a nominal fee.

Qualified organizations that are awarded grants ensure the fairness 
and integrity of the tax system&nbsp;for taxpayers who are low-income or 
speak English as a second language (ESL) by&nbsp;providing pro bono 
representation on their behalf in tax disputes with the IRS, educating 
them about their rights and responsibilities as taxpayers, 
and&nbsp;identifying and advocating on issues that impact these taxpayers.

The IRS is committed to achieving maximum access to representation 
for taxpayers under the terms of the LITC Program. In awarding LITC 
grants for calendar year 2022, the IRS will continue to work toward 
providing coverage for all states and territories. Although the IRS 
welcomes all applicants and will give each application due 
consideration, the IRS is particularly interested in applicants from the
 following underserved areas in need of LITC services:

LITC grants are funded by federal appropriations.&nbsp;The clinics, 
their employees and their volunteers operate independently of the IRS. 
Examples of qualifying organizations include:

The IRS is authorized to award multi-year grants not to exceed 
three years. For an organization not currently receiving a grant for 
2021, an organization that received a single-year grant for 2021, or an 
organization whose multi-year grant ends in 2021, the organization must 
submit a <a href="https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1">full grant application electronically.</a>
 For an organization currently receiving a grant for 2021 that is 
requesting funding for the second or third year of a multi-year grant, 
the organization must submit a <a href="https://home.grantsolutions.gov/home/">request for continued funding electronically</a>.
 All organizations must use the funding number of 
TREAS-GRANTS-052022-001. Both Full Applications and Non-Competing 
Continuation Requests must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on 
June 18, 2021.

Questions about the LITC Program or grant application process can be addressed to the LITC Program Office at <a href="tel:202-317-4700">202-317-4700</a> or by email at <a href="mailto:LITCProgramOffice@irs.gov">litcprogramoffice@irs.gov</a>. In addition, individuals may contact Bill Beard at <a href="tel:949-575-6200">949-575-6200</a> or by email at <a href="mailto:beard.william@irs.gov">beard.william@irs.gov</a>.

More information about LITCs and the work they do to represent, 
educate and advocate on behalf of low-income and ESL taxpayers is 
available in IRS <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5066.pdf">Publication 5066, LITC 2020 Program Report&nbsp;PDF</a>. A short <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=BAHNRTCi7MI">video</a> about the LITC program is also available.

Interested individuals may join LITC Program Office staff for a Zoom 
webinar, where staff will provide information about the LITC Program and
 the application process. For details on the date and time of the 
webinar, please check the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/advocate/low-income-taxpayer-clinics">LITC page</a> on IRS.gov.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced that the 
application period for Low Income Taxpayer Clinic (LITC) matching grants
 for calendar year 2022 will run from May 3, 2021, to June 18, 2021.The LITC Program is a federal grant program administered by the 
Office of the Taxpayer Advocate at the IRS, which is led by National 
Taxpayer Advocate (NTA) Erin M. Collins. LITCs can make a tremendous 
impact on the lives of taxpayers, as detailed in this recent blog from 
the NTA: <a href="https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/news/nta-blog-not-all-superheroes-wear-capes-join-the-low-income-taxpayer-clinic-community-and-be-a-hero-to-taxpayers-most-in-need/">Not all Superheroes Wear Capes: Join the Low Income Taxpayer Clinic Community and Be a Hero to Taxpayers Most in Need</a>.Under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 7526, the IRS awards 
matching grants of up to $100,000 per year to qualifying organizations 
to develop, expand or maintain an LITC.&nbsp;An LITC must provide services 
for free or for no more than a nominal fee.Qualified organizations that are awarded grants ensure the fairness 
and integrity of the tax system&nbsp;for taxpayers who are low-income or 
speak English as a second language (ESL) by&nbsp;providing pro bono 
representation on their behalf in tax disputes with the IRS, educating 
them about their rights and responsibilities as taxpayers, 
and&nbsp;identifying and advocating on issues that impact these taxpayers.The IRS is committed to achieving maximum access to representation 
for taxpayers under the terms of the LITC Program. In awarding LITC 
grants for calendar year 2022, the IRS will continue to work toward 
providing coverage for all states and territories. Although the IRS 
welcomes all applicants and will give each application due 
consideration, the IRS is particularly interested in applicants from the
 following underserved areas in need of LITC services:<ul>
 <li>Arizona - Gila County</li><li>Florida - Brevard, Citrus, Flagler, Hernando, Lake, Orange, Putnam, Seminole, and Sumter Counties</li><li>Idaho - Ada, Adams, Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Boise, Bonneville,
 Butte, Canyon, Caribou, Clark, Clearwater, Custer, Franklin, Freemont, 
Gem, Idaho, Jefferson, Latah, Lemhi, Lewis, Madison, Nez Perce, Oneida, 
Owyhee, Payette, Power, Teton, Washington, and Valley Counties</li><li>Nevada - Entire state</li><li>North Dakota - Entire state</li><li>Pennsylvania - Bradford, Clinton, Lycoming, Monroe, Northumberland,
 Pike, Snyder, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Wyoming Counties</li><li>Puerto Rico - Entire territory</li><li>West Virginia - Entire state</li><li>Wyoming - Entire state</li>
 </ul>LITC grants are funded by federal appropriations.&nbsp;The clinics, 
their employees and their volunteers operate independently of the IRS. 
Examples of qualifying organizations include:<ul>
 <li>Clinical programs at accredited law, business, or accounting 
schools whose students represent low-income taxpayers in tax disputes 
with the IRS; and&nbsp;</li><li>Organizations exempt from tax under IRC Section 501(a) whose 
employees and volunteers represent or refer for representation 
low-income taxpayers in tax disputes with the IRS.</li>
 </ul>The IRS is authorized to award multi-year grants not to exceed 
three years. For an organization not currently receiving a grant for 
2021, an organization that received a single-year grant for 2021, or an 
organization whose multi-year grant ends in 2021, the organization must 
submit a <a href="https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html#sortby=1">full grant application electronically.</a>
 For an organization currently receiving a grant for 2021 that is 
requesting funding for the second or third year of a multi-year grant, 
the organization must submit a <a href="https://home.grantsolutions.gov/home/">request for continued funding electronically</a>.
 All organizations must use the funding number of 
TREAS-GRANTS-052022-001. Both Full Applications and Non-Competing 
Continuation Requests must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on 
June 18, 2021.Questions about the LITC Program or grant application process can be addressed to the LITC Program Office at <a href="tel:202-317-4700">202-317-4700</a> or by email at <a href="mailto:LITCProgramOffice@irs.gov">litcprogramoffice@irs.gov</a>. In addition, individuals may contact Bill Beard at <a href="tel:949-575-6200">949-575-6200</a> or by email at <a href="mailto:beard.william@irs.gov">beard.william@irs.gov</a>.More information about LITCs and the work they do to represent, 
educate and advocate on behalf of low-income and ESL taxpayers is 
available in IRS <a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p5066.pdf">Publication 5066, LITC 2020 Program Report&nbsp;PDF</a>. A short <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=BAHNRTCi7MI">video</a> about the LITC program is also available.Interested individuals may join LITC Program Office staff for a Zoom 
webinar, where staff will provide information about the LITC Program and
 the application process. For details on the date and time of the 
webinar, please check the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/advocate/low-income-taxpayer-clinics">LITC page</a> on IRS.gov.

IRS: Low Income Taxpayer Clinic 2022 grant application period now open

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The University of Nebraska at Omaha’s next chancellor will be the first Asian American to hold an executive leadership position in the state’s university system.

 The University of Nebraska’s Board of Regents unanimously endorsed Joanne Li as UNO’s new chancellor on Saturday. 

University of Nebraska President Ted Carter said the 56-year-old Li is a proven leader with a record of significant accomplishments. 

For instance, the graduation rate at Florida International’s College of Business, where Li was dean, improved from 29% in 2017 to what is expected to be a 70% rate this year. 

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The University of Nebraska at Omaha’s next chancellor will be the first Asian American to hold an executive leadership position in the state’s university system. The University of Nebraska’s Board of Regents unanimously endorsed Joanne Li as UNO’s new chancellor on Saturday. University of Nebraska President Ted Carter said the 56-year-old Li is a proven leader with a record of significant accomplishments. For instance, the graduation rate at Florida International’s College of Business, where Li was dean, improved from 29% in 2017 to what is expected to be a 70% rate this year. Li is set to earn $430,000 a year.

New chancellor chosen for University of Nebraska at Omaha

PAPILLION, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska couple has sued three Papillion police officers they say wrongfully and violently targeted them in a 2019 traffic stop. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of Jason Storrs and Amber Smith, accusing police of violating their civil rights. 

The lawsuit says Storrs was driving Smith home from work when police responding to a shoplifting report from a nearby store stopped them. 

The lawsuit says officers shocked Storrs with a stun gun even as he was complying with police commands and threw Smith to the ground so violently she had to be taken to a hospital. 

Police later determined Storrs and Smith were not involved in the shoplifting and let them go with no charges.

PAPILLION, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska couple has sued three Papillion police officers they say wrongfully and violently targeted them in a 2019 traffic stop. The Omaha World-Herald reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska filed the federal lawsuit Tuesday on behalf of Jason Storrs and Amber Smith, accusing police of violating their civil rights. The lawsuit says Storrs was driving Smith home from work when police responding to a shoplifting report from a nearby store stopped them. The lawsuit says officers shocked Storrs with a stun gun even as he was complying with police commands and threw Smith to the ground so violently she had to be taken to a hospital. Police later determined Storrs and Smith were not involved in the shoplifting and let them go with no charges.

Couple sues officers, saying they were wrongly targeted

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden laid out a long list of policy priorities in his speech to Congress — and some are more politically plausible than others.

The two parties are working together in some areas, including on changes to policing and confronting the rise of hate crimes against Asian Americans. But Republicans are likely to block other Democratic initiatives on immigration and voting rights.

On some of Biden’s top priorities, Democrats may choose to find ways to cut out Republicans entirely. The president told lawmakers that “doing nothing is not an option” when it comes to his two massive infrastructure proposals, which would cost $4.1 trillion.

A look at what’s possible, and what’s unlikely, when it comes to action in Congress:

Biden won an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-ap-top-news-legislation-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-manchin-298ad8c447e9a121ece9529221e83136">early victory</a>&nbsp;in March when he signed the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package into law. Democrats passed that bill over unanimous Republican opposition, using special budget rules that bypass the Senate filibuster.

While they can’t use that tactic on every piece of legislation, Democrats might return to the same procedure for Biden’s two signature proposals — his $2.3 trillion&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-politics-corporate-taxes-00c9edd7b759a8787ea1bb31f48f4016">infrastructure jobs plan,</a>&nbsp;which would rebuild roads and bridges, boost broadband access and make other improvements; and his $1.8 trillion&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-preschool-community-college-tax-rate-9e352e3dea44997725edb279751abab3">families plan</a>, which would expand preschool and college opportunities, create a national family and medical leave program, distribute child care subsidies and make other similar investments.

Republicans have proposed a much smaller&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-technology-business-government-and-politics-a50c67d13802026231ee29467efc8abe">$568 billion infrastructure package</a>, and both sides have shown a willingness to negotiate. But their differences are broad — including on how they would pay for the plans and whether to raise taxes — and Democrats are intent on passing a major infrastructure boost this year, with or without GOP support.

“We’ve talked about it long enough — Democrats and Republicans,” Biden said in his speech. “Let’s get it done this year.”

Democrats and Republicans have fallen out of the habit of working together, as President Donald Trump’s tenure was mostly dominated by partisan division. But they have edged a bit closer to bipartisanship on some topics since Biden took office, including on police reform, gun control and efforts to reduce violence against women.

All of those bills are still heavy lifts in the evenly divided, 50-50 Senate. But negotiations are underway, and members of both parties have signaled that they want legislation passed.

Both parties say they were encouraged last week by the Senate approval of a bill to combat the rise of hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The legislation&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-news-health-race-and-ethnicity-government-and-politics-hate-crimes-7728ae812aa0183d7682f3b26f9ffd82">passed 94-1</a>&nbsp;after Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii worked with Republicans to reach a compromise. In his speech, Biden thanked the Senate and urged the House “to do the same and send that legislation to my desk as soon as possible.”

Compromise on the other bills, such as the policing overhaul, will not come as easily. Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-violence-legislation-death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-8ebf3f4d1552879034af641ada64a62f">negotiating with Democrats</a>&nbsp;to change some of the nation’s policing laws following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last year and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-live-updates-04-20-2021-955a78df9a7a51835ad63afb8ce9b5c1">conviction this month&nbsp;</a>of the officer who killed him. A Democratic bill passed by the House would allow police officers to be sued, would ban chokeholds and would create national databases of police misconduct. Scott’s GOP proposal doesn’t go as far but does have some similar provisions.

Democrats have pushed to finish the negotiations by the anniversary of Floyd’s death at the end of May, and Biden endorsed that timeline in Wednesday night’s speech. But Scott has not made a similar commitment.

Changes to gun laws — long one of the most divisive issues in Congress — could be even more difficult, even though there’s widespread public support for some measures. Democrats hope to expand background checks, especially in the wake of several mass shootings in recent weeks. Many Republicans would back an expansion of background checks, as well, but&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/private-sales-obstacle-senate-gun-control-law-c15fee9f10a752480353fa435ea2d3d6">would not go as far</a>&nbsp;as Democratic legislation passed in the House in March. Bipartisan Senate talks have so far failed to yield a compromise.

Senators in both parties have also expressed interest in finding agreement on a House-passed bill that aims to reduce domestic and sexual violence against women, but they have disagreed on provisions in the legislation that could keep guns out of the hands of abusers, among other matters.

Biden introduced the original Violence Against Women Act in June 1990 when serving as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the legislation has since been passed four times. “It’s estimated that more than 50 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in America,” Biden said Wednesday. “Pass it and save lives.”

The list of long-shot bills on Biden’s agenda is much longer.

At the top of that list is Democrats’&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-voting-voting-rights-legislation-elections-5fde82aee5edbdabde43f48d7fc60e09">wide-ranging effort</a>&nbsp;to overhaul U.S. elections, legislation that would create automatic voter registration nationwide, promote early voting, require more disclosure from political donors and restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, among other changes. Senate Republicans are unanimously opposed to the measure, which has already passed the House, arguing it is designed to help Democrats win elections.

Democrats’ eagerness to pass the legislation — which Biden said in his speech would “restore the soul of America” by protecting the sacred right to vote — could eventually prompt them to change filibuster rules in the Senate. But the party is not yet united on such a move, and a decision isn’t expected soon.

Immigration is another intractable matter.

The Democratic-led House&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-politics-bills-legislation-immigration-6473456708357fc5e151218fa2820f25">approved a pair of bills</a>&nbsp;creating a pathway to citizenship for young “Dreamers” in the U.S. since childhood, immigrants who fled wars or natural disasters, and migrant farm workers. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have introduced legislation giving “Dreamers” a chance for citizenship, and there have been some bipartisan talks among senators.

But Republicans&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-ap-top-news-immigration-coronavirus-pandemic-4dcf287375d1a1563deb737988b84dd4">have latched onto</a>&nbsp;the huge numbers of migrants seeking to cross the southwest border as a fertile campaign issue. And many in the GOP are demanding tough border security restrictions as their price for cooperation.

Several other policy priorities appear stalled, for now, including legislation to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-vote-lgbtq-protections-9347578b80d3ad3ac4b92365da81096e">enshrine LGBTQ protections</a>&nbsp;in the nation’s labor and civil rights laws and bills to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bills-legislation-laws-77d8751ba2f364016374cc171c73bb89">protect unions</a>&nbsp;and raise the minimum wage.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619658477245.png" alt="President Biden during Wednesday's address before a joint session of Congress -photo CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during Wednesday's address before a joint session of Congress -photo CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden laid out a long list of policy priorities in his speech to Congress — and some are more politically plausible than others.The two parties are working together in some areas, including on changes to policing and confronting the rise of hate crimes against Asian Americans. But Republicans are likely to block other Democratic initiatives on immigration and voting rights.On some of Biden’s top priorities, Democrats may choose to find ways to cut out Republicans entirely. The president told lawmakers that “doing nothing is not an option” when it comes to his two massive infrastructure proposals, which would cost $4.1 trillion.A look at what’s possible, and what’s unlikely, when it comes to action in Congress:GO IT ALONE?Biden won an&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-ap-top-news-legislation-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-manchin-298ad8c447e9a121ece9529221e83136">early victory</a>&nbsp;in March when he signed the $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief package into law. Democrats passed that bill over unanimous Republican opposition, using special budget rules that bypass the Senate filibuster.While they can’t use that tactic on every piece of legislation, Democrats might return to the same procedure for Biden’s two signature proposals — his $2.3 trillion&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-politics-corporate-taxes-00c9edd7b759a8787ea1bb31f48f4016">infrastructure jobs plan,</a>&nbsp;which would rebuild roads and bridges, boost broadband access and make other improvements; and his $1.8 trillion&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-preschool-community-college-tax-rate-9e352e3dea44997725edb279751abab3">families plan</a>, which would expand preschool and college opportunities, create a national family and medical leave program, distribute child care subsidies and make other similar investments.Republicans have proposed a much smaller&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-technology-business-government-and-politics-a50c67d13802026231ee29467efc8abe">$568 billion infrastructure package</a>, and both sides have shown a willingness to negotiate. But their differences are broad — including on how they would pay for the plans and whether to raise taxes — and Democrats are intent on passing a major infrastructure boost this year, with or without GOP support.“We’ve talked about it long enough — Democrats and Republicans,” Biden said in his speech. “Let’s get it done this year.”GO IT TOGETHER?Democrats and Republicans have fallen out of the habit of working together, as President Donald Trump’s tenure was mostly dominated by partisan division. But they have edged a bit closer to bipartisanship on some topics since Biden took office, including on police reform, gun control and efforts to reduce violence against women.All of those bills are still heavy lifts in the evenly divided, 50-50 Senate. But negotiations are underway, and members of both parties have signaled that they want legislation passed.Both parties say they were encouraged last week by the Senate approval of a bill to combat the rise of hate crimes against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. The legislation&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/us-news-health-race-and-ethnicity-government-and-politics-hate-crimes-7728ae812aa0183d7682f3b26f9ffd82">passed 94-1</a>&nbsp;after Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii worked with Republicans to reach a compromise. In his speech, Biden thanked the Senate and urged the House “to do the same and send that legislation to my desk as soon as possible.”Compromise on the other bills, such as the policing overhaul, will not come as easily. Republican Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-violence-legislation-death-of-george-floyd-racial-injustice-8ebf3f4d1552879034af641ada64a62f">negotiating with Democrats</a>&nbsp;to change some of the nation’s policing laws following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis last year and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/derek-chauvin-trial-live-updates-04-20-2021-955a78df9a7a51835ad63afb8ce9b5c1">conviction this month&nbsp;</a>of the officer who killed him. A Democratic bill passed by the House would allow police officers to be sued, would ban chokeholds and would create national databases of police misconduct. Scott’s GOP proposal doesn’t go as far but does have some similar provisions.Democrats have pushed to finish the negotiations by the anniversary of Floyd’s death at the end of May, and Biden endorsed that timeline in Wednesday night’s speech. But Scott has not made a similar commitment.Changes to gun laws — long one of the most divisive issues in Congress — could be even more difficult, even though there’s widespread public support for some measures. Democrats hope to expand background checks, especially in the wake of several mass shootings in recent weeks. Many Republicans would back an expansion of background checks, as well, but&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/private-sales-obstacle-senate-gun-control-law-c15fee9f10a752480353fa435ea2d3d6">would not go as far</a>&nbsp;as Democratic legislation passed in the House in March. Bipartisan Senate talks have so far failed to yield a compromise.Senators in both parties have also expressed interest in finding agreement on a House-passed bill that aims to reduce domestic and sexual violence against women, but they have disagreed on provisions in the legislation that could keep guns out of the hands of abusers, among other matters.Biden introduced the original Violence Against Women Act in June 1990 when serving as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the legislation has since been passed four times. “It’s estimated that more than 50 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month in America,” Biden said Wednesday. “Pass it and save lives.”GOING NOWHERE?The list of long-shot bills on Biden’s agenda is much longer.At the top of that list is Democrats’&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-voting-voting-rights-legislation-elections-5fde82aee5edbdabde43f48d7fc60e09">wide-ranging effort</a>&nbsp;to overhaul U.S. elections, legislation that would create automatic voter registration nationwide, promote early voting, require more disclosure from political donors and restrict partisan gerrymandering of congressional districts, among other changes. Senate Republicans are unanimously opposed to the measure, which has already passed the House, arguing it is designed to help Democrats win elections.Democrats’ eagerness to pass the legislation — which Biden said in his speech would “restore the soul of America” by protecting the sacred right to vote — could eventually prompt them to change filibuster rules in the Senate. But the party is not yet united on such a move, and a decision isn’t expected soon.Immigration is another intractable matter.The Democratic-led House&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-politics-bills-legislation-immigration-6473456708357fc5e151218fa2820f25">approved a pair of bills</a>&nbsp;creating a pathway to citizenship for young “Dreamers” in the U.S. since childhood, immigrants who fled wars or natural disasters, and migrant farm workers. Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., have introduced legislation giving “Dreamers” a chance for citizenship, and there have been some bipartisan talks among senators.But Republicans&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-ap-top-news-immigration-coronavirus-pandemic-4dcf287375d1a1563deb737988b84dd4">have latched onto</a>&nbsp;the huge numbers of migrants seeking to cross the southwest border as a fertile campaign issue. And many in the GOP are demanding tough border security restrictions as their price for cooperation.Several other policy priorities appear stalled, for now, including legislation to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/house-vote-lgbtq-protections-9347578b80d3ad3ac4b92365da81096e">enshrine LGBTQ protections</a>&nbsp;in the nation’s labor and civil rights laws and bills to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/bills-legislation-laws-77d8751ba2f364016374cc171c73bb89">protect unions</a>&nbsp;and raise the minimum wage.___

Biden's agenda: What can pass and what faces steep odds

The Internal Revenue Services offers an online tool to track your federal tax refund status.

• Social Security number or TIN • Filing status • Exact refund amount

Click <a href="https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof/lang/en/irfofgetstatus.jsp">HERE</a> to track your refund.

<a href="https://jcpost.com/posts/5111ac96-78e8-40b9-bae8-47365bed8d87">RELATED: IRS will delay tax filing deadline.</a>

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSThe Internal Revenue Services offers an online tool to track your federal tax refund status.To track a refund, taxpayers will need:• Social Security number or TIN • Filing status • Exact refund amountClick <a href="https://sa.www4.irs.gov/irfof/lang/en/irfofgetstatus.jsp">HERE</a> to track your refund.<a href="https://jcpost.com/posts/5111ac96-78e8-40b9-bae8-47365bed8d87">RELATED: IRS will delay tax filing deadline.</a>

IRS: Where's my tax refund? Here's how to find out

WASHINGTON (AP) — A wary Supreme Court on has weighed whether public schools can discipline students for things they say off campus, worrying about overly restricting speech on the one hand and leaving educators powerless to deal with bullying on the other.

The justices, hearing arguments in the case of a 14-year-old high school freshman’s Snapchat F-bombs, struggled to fit the need to protect students’ political and religious expression with the ability of schools to get at disruptive, even potentially dangerous, speech that occurs outside the school setting.

In one of many examples members of the court offered, Justice Elena Kagan described boys who keep a sexually charged online ranking of girls based on their looks. “You can’t put people in jail for commenting on people’s appearance, but shouldn’t a school be able to deal with it?” Kagan asked.

The court tested out possible outcomes in the case of the student’s profanity-laced social media rant , which Justice Brett Kavanaugh described as her blowing off steam just like “millions of kids” do.

Kavanaugh is one of several justices who have children in high school, or recently did. The court heard just under two hours of arguments by telephone because of the coronavirus pandemic, well beyond the allotted 60 minutes.

The current dispute stems from Tinker v. Des Moines, the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

The court also held then that schools retained the authority to restrict speech that would disrupt the school environment.

At the center of this case is Brandi Levy of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.

Levy and a friend were at a convenience store when she used Snapchat to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.

“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers. A second post questioned how an incoming freshman could have made the varsity.

The posts were brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year. Levy’s parents responded with a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional rights to free speech.

The case’s potential importance grew when the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also sided with Levy and held that schools can’t impose discipline for what students say when they’re off campus.

American Civil Liberties Union lawyer David Cole, representing Levy, urged the justices to affirm the clean line the appeals court drew, making clear educators have no authority over children when they are not under a school’s supervision, .

“Expanding Tinker would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule,” Cole said.

But several justices said the campus border is not so clear in the age of the internet and the remote learning that has come with the pandemic.

“How does that fit with modern technology?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

The school district and the Biden administration both argued that the justices should reject the appellate ruling because it draws an artificial line.

Suspending Levy from cheerleading was a reasonable response because she targeted her coaches and a teammate’s ability to compete, said Lisa Blatt, representing the district.

Levy is “not somebody you’d want at the bottom of the pyramid,” Blatt said, referring to a cheerleading formation.

But if the court didn’t appear ready to embrace Levy’s argument, some justices also were concerned that a ruling for the district could give schools too much power to shut down speech they just don’t like.

“Kids basically talk to their classmates. Most of their conversation is about school. Most of their exchanges have to do with their perceptions of the authoritarian nature of their teachers and others. And why isn’t this any different than just that the coach of this team took personal offense?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, noting that her law clerks told her that among teenagers “how much you curse is a badge of honor.”

Kavanaugh also said the coach maybe went too far by suspending Levy.

“But, as a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent, too, it seems like maybe a bit of overreaction by the coach,” Kavanaugh said.

By the end of the arguments, there was perhaps a sense among the justices that Levy’s case — a teenager venting her unhappiness about an extracurricular program — may not be the best one to use to write a sweeping rule about student speech in the digital age.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen-year-old Brandi Levy was having that kind of day where she just wanted to scream. So she did, in a profanity-laced posting on Snapchat that has, improbably, ended up before the Supreme Court in the most significant case on student speech in more than 50 years.

At issue is whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus. The topic is especially meaningful in a time of remote learning because of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus pandemic</a>&nbsp;and a rising awareness of the pernicious effects of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/f52ab056e47a4025ac8b10d67cca2949">online bullying</a>.

Arguments are on Wednesday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/dc-wire-virus-outbreak-ap-top-news-courts-supreme-courts-19b82f029dcb760dc7f0c644472192fb">via telephone</a>&nbsp;because of the pandemic, before a court on which several justices have school-age children or recently did.

The case has its roots in the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Ever since, courts have wrestled with the contours of the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969.

Levy’s case has none of the lofty motives of Tinker and more than its share of teenage angst.

Levy and a friend were at a convenience store in her hometown of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, when she took to social media to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.

“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers.

The post was brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year.

Levy, now 18, is finishing her freshman year in college. “I was a 14-year-old kid. I was upset, I was angry. Everyone, every 14-year-old kid speaks like that at one point,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Her parents knew nothing about the Snapchat post until she was suspended, she said. “My parents were more concerned on how I was feeling,” Levy said, adding she wasn’t grounded or otherwise punished for what she did.

Instead, her parents filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional speech rights.

Lower courts agreed and restored her to the cheerleading team. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that “Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.” The court said it was leaving for another day “the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others.”

But the school district, education groups, the Biden administration and anti-bullying organizations said in court filings that the appeals court went too far.

“The First Amendment does not categorically prohibit public schools from disciplining students for speech that occurs off campus,” acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote on behalf of the administration.

Philip Lee, a University of District of Columbia law professor who has written about regulation of cyberbullying, said it makes no sense to draw the line on policing students’ speech at the edge of campus.

“Most cyberbullying content is created off campus on computers, iPads, all kinds of electronic devices,” said Lee, who joined a legal brief with other education scholars that calls for a nuanced approach to regulating student speech in the Internet age.

“But at same time, you don’t want situation where schools are monitoring everyone’s speech at home,” he said.

The Mahanoy Area School District declined to comment on the case, its lawyer, Lisa Blatt, said.

But in her brief for the district, Blatt wrote, “This case is about how schools address the bad days.”

Schools should not be forced “to ignore speech that disrupts the school environment or invades other students’ rights just because students launched that speech from five feet outside the schoolhouse gate,” Blatt wrote.

The school’s approach would allow educators to police what students say round the clock, said Witold “Vic” Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Levy.

“And that is super dangerous. Not only would students like Brandi not be able to express non-threatening, non-harassing bursts of frustration, but it would give schools the possibility of regulating important political and religious speech,” Walczak said.

An unusual alliance of conservative and liberal interest groups has formed behind Levy, all pointing to the dangers of expanding school regulation of students speech.

The Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society urged the court to affirm the appellate ruling because of “the perils of schools regulating off-campus speech. Religious speech, in particular, provokes debate and inflames passions.”

Mary Beth and John Tinker, the siblings at the center of the 1969 case, also are on Levy’s side. Their protest, updated for the digital age, would have included a social media component, perhaps a black armband digitally imposed on their school’s logo, they wrote in a high-court brief.

The outcome proposed by the school district would have left them subject to discipline, the Tinkers wrote.

Walczak, the ACLU lawyer, acknowledged that the “speech here is not the most important in the world. This isn’t political or religious speech.”

But Levy’s outburst has made her a potential successor to the Tinkers and their antiwar protest from the 1960s.

“I’m just trying to prove a point that young students and adults like me shouldn’t be punished for them expressing their own feelings and letting others know how they feel,” Levy said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/1/1578090484280.jpeg" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — A wary Supreme Court on has weighed whether public schools can discipline students for things they say off campus, worrying about overly restricting speech on the one hand and leaving educators powerless to deal with bullying on the other.The justices, hearing arguments in the case of a 14-year-old high school freshman’s Snapchat F-bombs, struggled to fit the need to protect students’ political and religious expression with the ability of schools to get at disruptive, even potentially dangerous, speech that occurs outside the school setting.In one of many examples members of the court offered, Justice Elena Kagan described boys who keep a sexually charged online ranking of girls based on their looks. “You can’t put people in jail for commenting on people’s appearance, but shouldn’t a school be able to deal with it?” Kagan asked.The court tested out possible outcomes in the case of the student’s profanity-laced social media rant , which Justice Brett Kavanaugh described as her blowing off steam just like “millions of kids” do.Kavanaugh is one of several justices who have children in high school, or recently did. The court heard just under two hours of arguments by telephone because of the coronavirus pandemic, well beyond the allotted 60 minutes.The current dispute stems from Tinker v. Des Moines, the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”The court also held then that schools retained the authority to restrict speech that would disrupt the school environment.At the center of this case is Brandi Levy of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania.Levy and a friend were at a convenience store when she used Snapchat to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers. A second post questioned how an incoming freshman could have made the varsity.The posts were brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year. Levy’s parents responded with a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional rights to free speech.The case’s potential importance grew when the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia also sided with Levy and held that schools can’t impose discipline for what students say when they’re off campus.American Civil Liberties Union lawyer David Cole, representing Levy, urged the justices to affirm the clean line the appeals court drew, making clear educators have no authority over children when they are not under a school’s supervision, .“Expanding Tinker would transform a limited exception into a 24/7 rule,” Cole said.But several justices said the campus border is not so clear in the age of the internet and the remote learning that has come with the pandemic.“How does that fit with modern technology?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked.The school district and the Biden administration both argued that the justices should reject the appellate ruling because it draws an artificial line.Suspending Levy from cheerleading was a reasonable response because she targeted her coaches and a teammate’s ability to compete, said Lisa Blatt, representing the district.Levy is “not somebody you’d want at the bottom of the pyramid,” Blatt said, referring to a cheerleading formation.But if the court didn’t appear ready to embrace Levy’s argument, some justices also were concerned that a ruling for the district could give schools too much power to shut down speech they just don’t like.“Kids basically talk to their classmates. Most of their conversation is about school. Most of their exchanges have to do with their perceptions of the authoritarian nature of their teachers and others. And why isn’t this any different than just that the coach of this team took personal offense?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, noting that her law clerks told her that among teenagers “how much you curse is a badge of honor.”Kavanaugh also said the coach maybe went too far by suspending Levy.“But, as a judge and maybe as a coach and a parent, too, it seems like maybe a bit of overreaction by the coach,” Kavanaugh said.By the end of the arguments, there was perhaps a sense among the justices that Levy’s case — a teenager venting her unhappiness about an extracurricular program — may not be the best one to use to write a sweeping rule about student speech in the digital age.A decision is expected by late June.-----------WASHINGTON (AP) — Fourteen-year-old Brandi Levy was having that kind of day where she just wanted to scream. So she did, in a profanity-laced posting on Snapchat that has, improbably, ended up before the Supreme Court in the most significant case on student speech in more than 50 years.At issue is whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus. The topic is especially meaningful in a time of remote learning because of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/coronavirus-pandemic">the coronavirus pandemic</a>&nbsp;and a rising awareness of the pernicious effects of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/f52ab056e47a4025ac8b10d67cca2949">online bullying</a>.Arguments are on Wednesday,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/dc-wire-virus-outbreak-ap-top-news-courts-supreme-courts-19b82f029dcb760dc7f0c644472192fb">via telephone</a>&nbsp;because of the pandemic, before a court on which several justices have school-age children or recently did.The case has its roots in the Vietnam-era case of a high school in Des Moines, Iowa, that suspended students who wore armbands to protest the war. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the students, declaring students don’t “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”Ever since, courts have wrestled with the contours of the decision in Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969.Levy’s case has none of the lofty motives of Tinker and more than its share of teenage angst.Levy and a friend were at a convenience store in her hometown of Mahanoy City, Pennsylvania, when she took to social media to express her frustration at being kept on her high school’s junior varsity cheerleading squad for another year.“F——— school f——— softball f——— cheer f——— everything,” Levy wrote, in a post that also contained a photo in which she and a classmate raised their middle fingers.The post was brought to the attention of the team’s coaches, who suspended Levy from the cheerleading team for a year.Levy, now 18, is finishing her freshman year in college. “I was a 14-year-old kid. I was upset, I was angry. Everyone, every 14-year-old kid speaks like that at one point,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press.Her parents knew nothing about the Snapchat post until she was suspended, she said. “My parents were more concerned on how I was feeling,” Levy said, adding she wasn’t grounded or otherwise punished for what she did.Instead, her parents filed a federal lawsuit, claiming the suspension violated their daughter’s constitutional speech rights.Lower courts agreed and restored her to the cheerleading team. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia held that “Tinker does not apply to off-campus speech.” The court said it was leaving for another day “the First Amendment implications of off-campus student speech that threatens violence or harasses others.”But the school district, education groups, the Biden administration and anti-bullying organizations said in court filings that the appeals court went too far.“The First Amendment does not categorically prohibit public schools from disciplining students for speech that occurs off campus,” acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote on behalf of the administration.Philip Lee, a University of District of Columbia law professor who has written about regulation of cyberbullying, said it makes no sense to draw the line on policing students’ speech at the edge of campus.“Most cyberbullying content is created off campus on computers, iPads, all kinds of electronic devices,” said Lee, who joined a legal brief with other education scholars that calls for a nuanced approach to regulating student speech in the Internet age.“But at same time, you don’t want situation where schools are monitoring everyone’s speech at home,” he said.The Mahanoy Area School District declined to comment on the case, its lawyer, Lisa Blatt, said.But in her brief for the district, Blatt wrote, “This case is about how schools address the bad days.”Schools should not be forced “to ignore speech that disrupts the school environment or invades other students’ rights just because students launched that speech from five feet outside the schoolhouse gate,” Blatt wrote.The school’s approach would allow educators to police what students say round the clock, said Witold “Vic” Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Levy.“And that is super dangerous. Not only would students like Brandi not be able to express non-threatening, non-harassing bursts of frustration, but it would give schools the possibility of regulating important political and religious speech,” Walczak said.An unusual alliance of conservative and liberal interest groups has formed behind Levy, all pointing to the dangers of expanding school regulation of students speech.The Alliance Defending Freedom and Christian Legal Society urged the court to affirm the appellate ruling because of “the perils of schools regulating off-campus speech. Religious speech, in particular, provokes debate and inflames passions.”Mary Beth and John Tinker, the siblings at the center of the 1969 case, also are on Levy’s side. Their protest, updated for the digital age, would have included a social media component, perhaps a black armband digitally imposed on their school’s logo, they wrote in a high-court brief.The outcome proposed by the school district would have left them subject to discipline, the Tinkers wrote.Walczak, the ACLU lawyer, acknowledged that the “speech here is not the most important in the world. This isn’t political or religious speech.”But Levy’s outburst has made her a potential successor to the Tinkers and their antiwar protest from the 1960s.“I’m just trying to prove a point that young students and adults like me shouldn’t be punished for them expressing their own feelings and letting others know how they feel,” Levy said.

Supreme Court to decide student's Snapchat profanity case

CASPER, Wyo. (AP) — A jury has awarded $2 million to the widow and daughter of a motorcycle rider killed by a Wyoming intersection crash.

 Sixty-two-year-old Bill Gray, of Casper, died two weeks after a driver struck him on his motorcycle in the Evansville intersection in 2017. 

A lawsuit alleged construction contractor Knife River Corp. and its subcontractor for traffic control, Roadworx, were negligent in guiding traffic through the intersection. 

The Casper Star-Tribune reports jurors found Knife River 60% at fault and Roadworx 30% responsible; the driver's responsibility was 10%. 

A Roadworx attorney declined comment and a Knife River attorney didn't immediately return a message Friday seeking comment.

CASPER, Wyo. (AP) — A jury has awarded $2 million to the widow and daughter of a motorcycle rider killed by a Wyoming intersection crash. Sixty-two-year-old Bill Gray, of Casper, died two weeks after a driver struck him on his motorcycle in the Evansville intersection in 2017. A lawsuit alleged construction contractor Knife River Corp. and its subcontractor for traffic control, Roadworx, were negligent in guiding traffic through the intersection. The Casper Star-Tribune reports jurors found Knife River 60% at fault and Roadworx 30% responsible; the driver's responsibility was 10%. A Roadworx attorney declined comment and a Knife River attorney didn't immediately return a message Friday seeking comment.

Wyoming jury awards $2M to widow, daughter for biker crash

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska community college is using federal COVID-19 relief funds to pay for tuition and books for high schoolers from the state to take courses this summer. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that officials at the Metropolitan Community College hope their newly approved offer will pull in thousands of students. 

The college saw about a 15% drop in summer enrollment from 2019 to 2020, said Bill Owen, the college’s vice president for strategic initiatives. 

Typically, high school students who enroll in a program called CollegeNow that is designed for high school students to jumpstart their college education pay $33 per credit hour — half the full rate.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A Nebraska community college is using federal COVID-19 relief funds to pay for tuition and books for high schoolers from the state to take courses this summer. The Omaha World-Herald reports that officials at the Metropolitan Community College hope their newly approved offer will pull in thousands of students. The college saw about a 15% drop in summer enrollment from 2019 to 2020, said Bill Owen, the college’s vice president for strategic initiatives. Typically, high school students who enroll in a program called CollegeNow that is designed for high school students to jumpstart their college education pay $33 per credit hour — half the full rate.

Community college to use COVID relief to offer free classes

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Federal officials are giving Nebraska more than $50 million to work on a Niobrara River dam that collapsed during the disastrous March 2019 flooding, killing a man who lived just below it. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced the award Friday. 

The money is intended to cover 75% of the cost of the project, with the rest coming from state and local sources. 

The 93-year-old Spencer Dam was overwhelmed in a surge of ice boulders, with some chunks measured up to 2 feet thick and 20 feet long. 

The storm also caused other major damage across Nebraska.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2019/8/1565551148180.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Federal officials are giving Nebraska more than $50 million to work on a Niobrara River dam that collapsed during the disastrous March 2019 flooding, killing a man who lived just below it. The Omaha World-Herald reports that the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced the award Friday. The money is intended to cover 75% of the cost of the project, with the rest coming from state and local sources. The 93-year-old Spencer Dam was overwhelmed in a surge of ice boulders, with some chunks measured up to 2 feet thick and 20 feet long. The storm also caused other major damage across Nebraska.

Nebraska gets $50M for dam destroyed during 2019 floods

When U.S. Catholic bishops hold their next national meeting in June, they’ll be deciding whether to send a tougher-than-ever message to President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians: Don’t receive Communion if you persist in public advocacy of abortion rights.

At issue is a document that will be prepared for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by its Committee on Doctrine, with the aim of clarifying the church’s stance on an issue that has repeatedly vexed the bishops in recent decades. It’s taken on new urgency now, in the eyes of many bishops, because Biden — only the second Catholic president — is the first to hold that office while espousing clear-cut support for abortion rights.

Such a stance, by a public figure, is “a grave moral evil,” according to Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities and believes it’s necessary to publicly rebuke Biden on the issue.

“Because President Biden is Catholic, it presents a unique problem for us,” Naumann told The Associated Press. “It can create confusion. ... How can he say he’s a devout Catholic and he’s doing these things that are contrary to the church’s teaching?”

The document, if approved, would make clear the USCCB’s view that Biden and other Catholic public figures with similar viewpoints should not present themselves for Communion, Naumann said.

In accordance with existing USCCB policy, it would still leave decisions on withholding Communion up to individual bishops. In Biden’s case, the top prelates of the jurisdictions where he frequently worships — Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Delaware, and Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C. — have made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches they oversee.

The document-in-the-works results from a decision in November by the USCCB’s president, Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, to form a working group to address the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-joe-biden-elections-presidential-elections-ebeb54b08dc8fee544fd9bf74c9db730">“complex and difficult situation”</a>&nbsp;posed by Biden’s stances on abortion and other issues that differ from official church teaching. Before disbanding, the group proposed the drafting of a new document addressing the issue of Communion — a project assigned to the doctrine committee.

The committee has not released details about its work. Naumann said the matter will be discussed at the USCCB’s meeting in June and the bishops will vote on whether the committee should continue working on the document so it could be publicly released later.

A two-thirds majority would be needed for work to proceed, Naumann said. But even critics of the initiative, such as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, predict the endeavor will win overwhelming approval.

Stowe is among a relatively small group of U.S. bishops who worry that the USCCB’s emphasis on abortion is undercutting Pope Francis’ exhortations for the church to also stress such issues as climate change, immigration and inequality. Stowe also worries that the U.S. bishops are missing a chance to find common ground with Biden on such issues.

“If a politician is targeted as a negative example by his own church, that sets a sad context in which the church can deal with this Catholic president,” Stowe said. “It contributes to the polarization of the church and of society.”

Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has expressed similar concerns.

“I do not see how depriving the president or other political leaders of the Eucharist based on their public policy stance can be interpreted in our society as anything other than a weaponization of the Eucharist ... to pummel them into submission,” McElroy said during an online forum in February.

Nonetheless, the bishops wanting to send a tough message to Biden are determined to press ahead.

“There’s a growing sense of urgency,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. “Abortion is not just one among many important issues. ... It’s a direct attack on human life.”

Cordileone envisions a statement from the USCCB to Biden and others “that would move them in their conscience.”

“They need to understand the scandal that is caused when they say they are faithfully Catholic and yet oppose the church on such a basic concept,” he said.

American Cardinal Raymond Burke has broached the possibility of Catholicism’s ultimate sanction. He says politicians who “publicly and obstinately” support abortion are “apostates” who not only should be barred from receiving Communion but deserve excommunication.

Bishops already troubled by Biden’s stance on abortion grew more dismayed by three measures from his administration in mid-April.

It lifted restrictions on federal funding for research involving human fetal tissue. It rescinded a Trump administration policy barring organizations such as Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning grants if they also refer women for abortions. And it said women seeking an abortion pill will not be required to visit a doctor’s office or clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling women to get a prescription via telemedicine and receive the pill by mail.

Naumann, who issued strongly worded denunciations after each action, told AP he was frustrated that Biden could authorize those while identifying as a devout Catholic.

“He doesn’t have the authority to teach what it means to be Catholic — that’s our responsibility as bishops,” Naumann said, “Whether intentional or not, he’s trying to usurp our authority.”

&nbsp;The newly appointed bishop of President Joe Biden's home diocese in Delaware says he would gladly speak with the president about his stance on abortion but he's not saying whether he would allow Biden to keep receiving Communion, as his predecessor has. Monsignor William Koenig said Friday at a news conference that as a bishop, he is called to teach “the fullness and the beauty of the Catholic faith.”

The Vatican has not ruled on the specific matter of Communion and politicians supporting abortion in a major teaching document, though the church’s in-house canon law says people in a situation of persistent sin shouldn’t be allowed to receive Communion. It has also issued guidelines for the behavior of Catholics in political life exhorting them to uphold principles consistent with church doctrine.

The then-head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, told U.S. bishops in 2004 that priests “must” deny the sacrament if a politician goes to receive Communion despite an “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” including the sin of consistently campaigning for permissive abortion laws.

Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter outlining the principles to U.S. bishops in response to their question about whether to deny Communion to John Kerry, who was the Democratic nominee for president. In the end the bishops ignored Ratzinger’s advice and voted instead for the policy currently in place allowing bishops to decide themselves whether to withhold it.

The document being drafted by the doctrine committee may contain some guidelines for bishops, Cordileone said, but it will not seek to strip their decision-making authority.

“This will put the burden of responsibility on Catholics who are prominent in public life,” he said.

Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, who has sharply criticized Biden’s abortion stance, told the AP he favors creation of a national policy on Communion, as opposed to the current “patchwork approach.” He said bishops should first have a private conversation with an individual deemed to be in a state of sin, and deny Communion if they persist.

Edward Peters, who teaches canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said the USCCB would have the option of seeking Vatican approval for a unified Communion policy applying to all bishops. But he doubted such a request would be made.

“The bishops’ conference does have broad responsibility to speak out on matters that impact the effectiveness and clarity of Church’s mission,” Peters said via email. “The bad example being given by some high-profile Catholics who consistently fail to protect innocent human life is surely one of those matters.”

Some Catholic academics are uneasy about the document.

“Are you really going to deny Communion for the president of the United States?” asked Margaret McGuinness, a religion professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia. “I don’t think this is going to shake his faith. ... I don’t see anything constructive coming out of it.”

She noted that a majority of U.S. Catholics, according to polls, say abortion should be legal in at least some cases.

Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said the Catholic church received significant financial support in recent years from conservative philanthropists who are skeptical of Francis and favored Donald Trump over Biden in the 2020 election.

“What we’re seeing now is an effort to please donors who want a church which will wage a culture war,” Millies said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619629905595.png" alt="President Biden during the Inauguration Day Mass in Washington-image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>President Biden during the Inauguration Day Mass in Washington-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>By DAVID CRARY, Associated&nbsp; PressWhen U.S. Catholic bishops hold their next national meeting in June, they’ll be deciding whether to send a tougher-than-ever message to President Joe Biden and other Catholic politicians: Don’t receive Communion if you persist in public advocacy of abortion rights.At issue is a document that will be prepared for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops by its Committee on Doctrine, with the aim of clarifying the church’s stance on an issue that has repeatedly vexed the bishops in recent decades. It’s taken on new urgency now, in the eyes of many bishops, because Biden — only the second Catholic president — is the first to hold that office while espousing clear-cut support for abortion rights.Such a stance, by a public figure, is “a grave moral evil,” according to Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, who chairs the USCCB’s Committee on Pro-Life Activities and believes it’s necessary to publicly rebuke Biden on the issue.“Because President Biden is Catholic, it presents a unique problem for us,” Naumann told The Associated Press. “It can create confusion. ... How can he say he’s a devout Catholic and he’s doing these things that are contrary to the church’s teaching?”The document, if approved, would make clear the USCCB’s view that Biden and other Catholic public figures with similar viewpoints should not present themselves for Communion, Naumann said.In accordance with existing USCCB policy, it would still leave decisions on withholding Communion up to individual bishops. In Biden’s case, the top prelates of the jurisdictions where he frequently worships — Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Delaware, and Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington, D.C. — have made clear that Biden is welcome to receive Communion at churches they oversee.The document-in-the-works results from a decision in November by the USCCB’s president, Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, to form a working group to address the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-joe-biden-elections-presidential-elections-ebeb54b08dc8fee544fd9bf74c9db730">“complex and difficult situation”</a>&nbsp;posed by Biden’s stances on abortion and other issues that differ from official church teaching. Before disbanding, the group proposed the drafting of a new document addressing the issue of Communion — a project assigned to the doctrine committee.The committee has not released details about its work. Naumann said the matter will be discussed at the USCCB’s meeting in June and the bishops will vote on whether the committee should continue working on the document so it could be publicly released later.A two-thirds majority would be needed for work to proceed, Naumann said. But even critics of the initiative, such as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, predict the endeavor will win overwhelming approval.Stowe is among a relatively small group of U.S. bishops who worry that the USCCB’s emphasis on abortion is undercutting Pope Francis’ exhortations for the church to also stress such issues as climate change, immigration and inequality. Stowe also worries that the U.S. bishops are missing a chance to find common ground with Biden on such issues.“If a politician is targeted as a negative example by his own church, that sets a sad context in which the church can deal with this Catholic president,” Stowe said. “It contributes to the polarization of the church and of society.”Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has expressed similar concerns.“I do not see how depriving the president or other political leaders of the Eucharist based on their public policy stance can be interpreted in our society as anything other than a weaponization of the Eucharist ... to pummel them into submission,” McElroy said during an online forum in February.Nonetheless, the bishops wanting to send a tough message to Biden are determined to press ahead.“There’s a growing sense of urgency,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone. “Abortion is not just one among many important issues. ... It’s a direct attack on human life.”Cordileone envisions a statement from the USCCB to Biden and others “that would move them in their conscience.”“They need to understand the scandal that is caused when they say they are faithfully Catholic and yet oppose the church on such a basic concept,” he said.American Cardinal Raymond Burke has broached the possibility of Catholicism’s ultimate sanction. He says politicians who “publicly and obstinately” support abortion are “apostates” who not only should be barred from receiving Communion but deserve excommunication.Bishops already troubled by Biden’s stance on abortion grew more dismayed by three measures from his administration in mid-April.It lifted restrictions on federal funding for research involving human fetal tissue. It rescinded a Trump administration policy barring organizations such as Planned Parenthood from receiving federal family planning grants if they also refer women for abortions. And it said women seeking an abortion pill will not be required to visit a doctor’s office or clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling women to get a prescription via telemedicine and receive the pill by mail.Naumann, who issued strongly worded denunciations after each action, told AP he was frustrated that Biden could authorize those while identifying as a devout Catholic.“He doesn’t have the authority to teach what it means to be Catholic — that’s our responsibility as bishops,” Naumann said, “Whether intentional or not, he’s trying to usurp our authority.”&nbsp;The newly appointed bishop of President Joe Biden's home diocese in Delaware says he would gladly speak with the president about his stance on abortion but he's not saying whether he would allow Biden to keep receiving Communion, as his predecessor has. Monsignor William Koenig said Friday at a news conference that as a bishop, he is called to teach “the fullness and the beauty of the Catholic faith.”The Vatican has not ruled on the specific matter of Communion and politicians supporting abortion in a major teaching document, though the church’s in-house canon law says people in a situation of persistent sin shouldn’t be allowed to receive Communion. It has also issued guidelines for the behavior of Catholics in political life exhorting them to uphold principles consistent with church doctrine.The then-head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, told U.S. bishops in 2004 that priests “must” deny the sacrament if a politician goes to receive Communion despite an “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” including the sin of consistently campaigning for permissive abortion laws.Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter outlining the principles to U.S. bishops in response to their question about whether to deny Communion to John Kerry, who was the Democratic nominee for president. In the end the bishops ignored Ratzinger’s advice and voted instead for the policy currently in place allowing bishops to decide themselves whether to withhold it.The document being drafted by the doctrine committee may contain some guidelines for bishops, Cordileone said, but it will not seek to strip their decision-making authority.“This will put the burden of responsibility on Catholics who are prominent in public life,” he said.Archbishop Samuel Aquila of Denver, who has sharply criticized Biden’s abortion stance, told the AP he favors creation of a national policy on Communion, as opposed to the current “patchwork approach.” He said bishops should first have a private conversation with an individual deemed to be in a state of sin, and deny Communion if they persist.Edward Peters, who teaches canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said the USCCB would have the option of seeking Vatican approval for a unified Communion policy applying to all bishops. But he doubted such a request would be made.“The bishops’ conference does have broad responsibility to speak out on matters that impact the effectiveness and clarity of Church’s mission,” Peters said via email. “The bad example being given by some high-profile Catholics who consistently fail to protect innocent human life is surely one of those matters.”Some Catholic academics are uneasy about the document.“Are you really going to deny Communion for the president of the United States?” asked Margaret McGuinness, a religion professor at La Salle University in Philadelphia. “I don’t think this is going to shake his faith. ... I don’t see anything constructive coming out of it.”She noted that a majority of U.S. Catholics, according to polls, say abortion should be legal in at least some cases.Steven Millies, a professor of public theology at Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, said the Catholic church received significant financial support in recent years from conservative philanthropists who are skeptical of Francis and favored Donald Trump over Biden in the 2020 election.“What we’re seeing now is an effort to please donors who want a church which will wage a culture war,” Millies said.

Kan. Catholic Archbishop may press Biden to stop taking Communion

KANSAS CITY (AP) —Disneyland reopened on Friday and cruise lines welcomed the news that they could be sailing again in the U.S. by midsummer, as the number of Americans fully vaccinated against COVID-19 reached another milestone: 100 million.

Visitors cheered and screamed with delight as the Southern California theme park swung open its gates for the first time in 13 months in a powerful symbol of the U.S. rebound, even though the self-proclaimed Happiest Place on Earth is allowing only in-state guests for now and operating at just 25% capacity.

The reopening and similar steps elsewhere around the country reflect increasing optimism as COVID-19 deaths tumble and the ranks of the vaccinated grow — a stark contrast to the worsening disaster in India and Brazil and the scant availability of vaccines in many poor parts of the world.

In fact, the U.S. said Friday it will restrict travel from India starting Tuesday, citing a devastating rise in COVID-19 cases in the country and the emergence of potentially dangerous variants of the coronavirus.

While the overall number of lives lost to COVID-19 in the U.S. has eclipsed 575,000, deaths have plummeted to an average of about 670 per day from a peak of around 3,400 in mid-January.

Thirty-nine percent of the nation’s adult population has been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Over 55% of adults have received at least one dose.

However, about 8% of those who have gotten one dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine have not returned for their second shot, officials said. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said it is important to complete the course to gain maximum protection against the coronavirus.

“Make sure you get that second dose,” he said at a White House briefing.

Dr. Leana Wen, former Baltimore health commissioner and a visiting professor of health policy at George Washington University, said fully vaccinating about 40% of American adults is a great achievement but not enough.

“The hardest part is ahead of us,” she said. “I’m very concerned that we are not going to come anywhere close to reaching herd immunity in 2021.”

Wen noted that Fauci has estimated 70% to 85% of the U.S. population would need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.

The immunization drive has slowed in recent weeks, even as shots have been thrown open to all adults. Wen said better weather and falling case counts will make it harder to reach people who have not yet been vaccinated.

“Those people who are on the fence about getting a vaccine may have less reason to get one now because they don’t see coronavirus as an existential crisis anymore,” she said.

CDC officials also reported Friday that it was anxiety — not a problem with the shots — that caused fainting, dizziness and other reactions reported in 64 people at vaccine clinics in five states in early April. None got seriously ill.

Cruise lines, meanwhile, cheered the news that the CDC is committed to resuming sailing in the U.S. by midsummer and is adjusting some of the rules to speed the process.

Earlier this week, the CDC said in a letter to the industry that it will let ships cruise without going through practice trips first if 98% of the crew and 95% of the passengers are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

“The voices of community leaders and the wider cruise community are being heard — and we are very grateful for that,” said Laziza Lambert, a spokeswoman for the Cruise Lines International Association.

U.S. cruises have been shut down by the pandemic since March 2020.

In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Thursday he expects to see COVID-19 restrictions lifted and the city “fully reopen” by July 1. He cited rising vaccination rates and decreasing hospitalizations.

“We are ready for stores to open, for businesses to open, offices, theaters, full strength,” he said on MSNBC.

However, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has maintained throughout the crisis that such decisions are his alone, and he said Thursday he would like to lift restrictions even sooner.

“I don’t want to wait that long. I think if we do what we have to do, we can be reopened earlier,” he said.

Cuomo said on Friday that New York City can increase indoor dining to 75% of capacity starting May 7.

In Michigan, which in recent weeks became the worst hot spot in the U.S., the numbers are finally showing improvement, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced a plan to tie the lifting of restrictions to the state’s vaccination rate.

KANSAS CITY (AP) —Disneyland reopened on Friday and cruise lines welcomed the news that they could be sailing again in the U.S. by midsummer, as the number of Americans fully vaccinated against COVID-19 reached another milestone: 100 million.Visitors cheered and screamed with delight as the Southern California theme park swung open its gates for the first time in 13 months in a powerful symbol of the U.S. rebound, even though the self-proclaimed Happiest Place on Earth is allowing only in-state guests for now and operating at just 25% capacity.The reopening and similar steps elsewhere around the country reflect increasing optimism as COVID-19 deaths tumble and the ranks of the vaccinated grow — a stark contrast to the worsening disaster in India and Brazil and the scant availability of vaccines in many poor parts of the world.In fact, the U.S. said Friday it will restrict travel from India starting Tuesday, citing a devastating rise in COVID-19 cases in the country and the emergence of potentially dangerous variants of the coronavirus.While the overall number of lives lost to COVID-19 in the U.S. has eclipsed 575,000, deaths have plummeted to an average of about 670 per day from a peak of around 3,400 in mid-January.Thirty-nine percent of the nation’s adult population has been fully vaccinated, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Over 55% of adults have received at least one dose.However, about 8% of those who have gotten one dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine have not returned for their second shot, officials said. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, said it is important to complete the course to gain maximum protection against the coronavirus.“Make sure you get that second dose,” he said at a White House briefing.Dr. Leana Wen, former Baltimore health commissioner and a visiting professor of health policy at George Washington University, said fully vaccinating about 40% of American adults is a great achievement but not enough.“The hardest part is ahead of us,” she said. “I’m very concerned that we are not going to come anywhere close to reaching herd immunity in 2021.”Wen noted that Fauci has estimated 70% to 85% of the U.S. population would need to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity.The immunization drive has slowed in recent weeks, even as shots have been thrown open to all adults. Wen said better weather and falling case counts will make it harder to reach people who have not yet been vaccinated.“Those people who are on the fence about getting a vaccine may have less reason to get one now because they don’t see coronavirus as an existential crisis anymore,” she said.CDC officials also reported Friday that it was anxiety — not a problem with the shots — that caused fainting, dizziness and other reactions reported in 64 people at vaccine clinics in five states in early April. None got seriously ill.Cruise lines, meanwhile, cheered the news that the CDC is committed to resuming sailing in the U.S. by midsummer and is adjusting some of the rules to speed the process.Earlier this week, the CDC said in a letter to the industry that it will let ships cruise without going through practice trips first if 98% of the crew and 95% of the passengers are fully vaccinated against COVID-19.“The voices of community leaders and the wider cruise community are being heard — and we are very grateful for that,” said Laziza Lambert, a spokeswoman for the Cruise Lines International Association.U.S. cruises have been shut down by the pandemic since March 2020.In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Thursday he expects to see COVID-19 restrictions lifted and the city “fully reopen” by July 1. He cited rising vaccination rates and decreasing hospitalizations.“We are ready for stores to open, for businesses to open, offices, theaters, full strength,” he said on MSNBC.However, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has maintained throughout the crisis that such decisions are his alone, and he said Thursday he would like to lift restrictions even sooner.“I don’t want to wait that long. I think if we do what we have to do, we can be reopened earlier,” he said.Cuomo said on Friday that New York City can increase indoor dining to 75% of capacity starting May 7.In Michigan, which in recent weeks became the worst hot spot in the U.S., the numbers are finally showing improvement, and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer announced a plan to tie the lifting of restrictions to the state’s vaccination rate.___