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.___

Number of Americans fully vaccinated tops 100 million

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — The owners of the Dakota Access pipeline say they want the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court opinions confirming that the project deserves a thorough environmental review and is currently operating without a key federal permit.

 A Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals panel earlier this year supported the Standing Rock Indian Reservation and other tribes on those two issues. 

That has left open the possibility that the pipeline will be shut down while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducts the environmental study. 

Texas-based Energy Transfer, which operates the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile (1,886 kilometer) pipeline, said in a filing to the circuit court that it will ask the Supreme Court to take up its complaint.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — The owners of the Dakota Access pipeline say they want the U.S. Supreme Court to review lower court opinions confirming that the project deserves a thorough environmental review and is currently operating without a key federal permit. A Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals panel earlier this year supported the Standing Rock Indian Reservation and other tribes on those two issues. That has left open the possibility that the pipeline will be shut down while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducts the environmental study. Texas-based Energy Transfer, which operates the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile (1,886 kilometer) pipeline, said in a filing to the circuit court that it will ask the Supreme Court to take up its complaint.

Dakota Access pipeline wants review from US Supreme Court

SOUTH SIOUX CITY, Neb. (AP) — A former South Sioux City High School assistant coach has again been arrested after police say a second student accused him of sexual abuse. 

The Sioux City Journal reports that 25-year-old Nathan Rogers was arrested Wednesday and is being held on $1 million bail on new charges of first-degree sexual assault of a child, sexual abuse by a school employee and child pornography counts. 

Rogers was initially arrested in March on sex abuse charges accusing him of assaulting a 15-year-old girl at his home in December. 

Police say investigators found evidence on Rogers' phone of another victim and interviewed her on Wednesday. 

Police say the girl told investigators she and Rogers began a sexual relationship in 2019, when she was 15 and a South Sioux City High School freshman.

SOUTH SIOUX CITY, Neb. (AP) — A former South Sioux City High School assistant coach has again been arrested after police say a second student accused him of sexual abuse. The Sioux City Journal reports that 25-year-old Nathan Rogers was arrested Wednesday and is being held on $1 million bail on new charges of first-degree sexual assault of a child, sexual abuse by a school employee and child pornography counts. Rogers was initially arrested in March on sex abuse charges accusing him of assaulting a 15-year-old girl at his home in December. Police say investigators found evidence on Rogers' phone of another victim and interviewed her on Wednesday. Police say the girl told investigators she and Rogers began a sexual relationship in 2019, when she was 15 and a South Sioux City High School freshman.

2nd student alleges sex abuse by ex-South Sioux City coach

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The city of Omaha says eight golf carts worth more than $50,000 have been stolen from two of its public golf courses in recent weeks, mirroring a trend seen across the country. 

The Omaha World-Herald reports that four golf carts were stolen March 14 from Elmwood Park Golf Course. 

Another four were stolen April 22 from The Knolls Golf Course further west. 

City golf manager Bob Baber says the carts were parked outside and tethered with security cables when they were stolen in the middle of the night. 

The carts are valued at about $6,300 each. 

Golf cart theft has become so pervasive that an online registry for stolen carts,  StolenCarts.com., was launched six months ago.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — The city of Omaha says eight golf carts worth more than $50,000 have been stolen from two of its public golf courses in recent weeks, mirroring a trend seen across the country. The Omaha World-Herald reports that four golf carts were stolen March 14 from Elmwood Park Golf Course. Another four were stolen April 22 from The Knolls Golf Course further west. City golf manager Bob Baber says the carts were parked outside and tethered with security cables when they were stolen in the middle of the night. The carts are valued at about $6,300 each. Golf cart theft has become so pervasive that an online registry for stolen carts, StolenCarts.com., was launched six months ago.

Thousands worth of golf carts stolen from city of Omaha

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Some Omaha high school students accused of reenacting the arrest and killing of George Floyd inside the school building and then posting a photo of it to social media could not face discipline for the stunt.

 Westside Communities School District spokeswoman Brandi Paul said she could not speak on the specifics of the matter, but said if students disrupt a school's learning environment, “there are consequences to those actions.” 

The picture of the reenactment shows a Westside High School student kneeling on the neck of another student — mimicking the May 25 killing of Floyd, a Black man, under the knee of a white Minneapolis police officer.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Some Omaha high school students accused of reenacting the arrest and killing of George Floyd inside the school building and then posting a photo of it to social media could not face discipline for the stunt. Westside Communities School District spokeswoman Brandi Paul said she could not speak on the specifics of the matter, but said if students disrupt a school's learning environment, “there are consequences to those actions.” The picture of the reenactment shows a Westside High School student kneeling on the neck of another student — mimicking the May 25 killing of Floyd, a Black man, under the knee of a white Minneapolis police officer.

Omaha students face discipline for Floyd death reenactment

WASHINGTON (AP) — An unusual coalition of Supreme Court justices joined Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_6jgm.pdf" target="_blank">to rule in favor of an immigrant fighting deportation</a>&nbsp;in a case that the court said turned on the meaning of the shortest word, “a.”

By a 6-3 vote, the court sided with Agusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan immigrant who has been in the United States since 2005. Eight years later, he received a notice to appear at a deportation hearing but this notice did not include a date or time. Two months after that, a second notice instructed him when and where to show up.

By sending notice of a deportation hearing, the government can stop the clock on immigrants hoping to show they have been in the United States for at least 10 straight years. The 10-year mark makes it easier under federal law to ask to be allowed to remain in the country.

The court was deciding whether immigration officials had to include all the relevant information in a single notice.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his majority opinion that they do, criticizing the government’s “notice by installment.”

Two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, signed on, as did the court’s three liberal members, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. The case was argued in November during the Trump administration.

“Anyone who has applied for a passport, filed for Social Security benefits, or sought a license understands the government’s affinity for forms. Make a mistake or skip a page? Go back and try again, sometimes with a penalty for the trouble. But it turns out the federal government finds some of its forms frustrating too,” Gorsuch wrote.

A 1996 immigration law specifies “a notice to appear” for people the government wants to deport, Gorsuch said.

“At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that — a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing. But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing. It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient),” he wrote.

Gorsuch acknowledged that a lot seemed to be hanging on one word, but he said the court’s role is to make sure the executive branch does not exceed the power Congress gave it.

“Interpreting the phrase ‘a notice to appear’ to require a single notice — rather than 2 or 20 documents — does just that,” he wrote.

In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — an appointee of President Donald Trump along with Gorsuch and Barrett — called Gorsuch’s conclusion “rather perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.”

Kavanaugh pointed out that Niz-Chavez had adequate notice because he showed up at his hearing with a lawyer. “Niz-Chavez received written notice of the charges and all the required information, including the time and place of his hearing,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Receiving the first notice without a hearing date “affords the noncitizen more time to prepare a defense. And a noncitizen suffers no prejudice from receiving notice in two documents rather than one, as Niz-Chavez’s case amply demonstrates,” Kavanaugh wrote.

It wasn’t the first time the two former law clerks to now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and alumni of Georgetown Preparatory School in suburban Maryland have been on opposite sides of a case.

Last year, Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion that held federal law bars workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people. Kavanaugh dissented.

WASHINGTON (AP) — An unusual coalition of Supreme Court justices joined Thursday&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-863_6jgm.pdf" target="_blank">to rule in favor of an immigrant fighting deportation</a>&nbsp;in a case that the court said turned on the meaning of the shortest word, “a.”By a 6-3 vote, the court sided with Agusto Niz-Chavez, a Guatemalan immigrant who has been in the United States since 2005. Eight years later, he received a notice to appear at a deportation hearing but this notice did not include a date or time. Two months after that, a second notice instructed him when and where to show up.By sending notice of a deportation hearing, the government can stop the clock on immigrants hoping to show they have been in the United States for at least 10 straight years. The 10-year mark makes it easier under federal law to ask to be allowed to remain in the country.The court was deciding whether immigration officials had to include all the relevant information in a single notice.Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in his majority opinion that they do, criticizing the government’s “notice by installment.”Two other conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, signed on, as did the court’s three liberal members, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. The case was argued in November during the Trump administration.“Anyone who has applied for a passport, filed for Social Security benefits, or sought a license understands the government’s affinity for forms. Make a mistake or skip a page? Go back and try again, sometimes with a penalty for the trouble. But it turns out the federal government finds some of its forms frustrating too,” Gorsuch wrote.A 1996 immigration law specifies “a notice to appear” for people the government wants to deport, Gorsuch said.“At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that — a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing. But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing. It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient),” he wrote.Gorsuch acknowledged that a lot seemed to be hanging on one word, but he said the court’s role is to make sure the executive branch does not exceed the power Congress gave it.“Interpreting the phrase ‘a notice to appear’ to require a single notice — rather than 2 or 20 documents — does just that,” he wrote.In dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh — an appointee of President Donald Trump along with Gorsuch and Barrett — called Gorsuch’s conclusion “rather perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.”Kavanaugh pointed out that Niz-Chavez had adequate notice because he showed up at his hearing with a lawyer. “Niz-Chavez received written notice of the charges and all the required information, including the time and place of his hearing,” Kavanaugh wrote, in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.Receiving the first notice without a hearing date “affords the noncitizen more time to prepare a defense. And a noncitizen suffers no prejudice from receiving notice in two documents rather than one, as Niz-Chavez’s case amply demonstrates,” Kavanaugh wrote.It wasn’t the first time the two former law clerks to now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and alumni of Georgetown Preparatory School in suburban Maryland have been on opposite sides of a case.Last year, Gorsuch wrote the court’s opinion that held federal law bars workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people. Kavanaugh dissented.

Supreme Court rules for immigrants in deportation case

WASHINGTON — Eligible organizations can now submit applications for 
the Internal Revenue Service's Tax Counseling for the Elderly and 
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance grant programs, allowing some 
organizations to apply for up to three years of annual funding.

Organizations can apply on <a href="http://www.grants.gov/">Grants.gov</a>
 through June 4, 2021, and can find application packages and guidelines 
on IRS.gov. In 2021, the IRS awarded 31 TCE grantees $11 million and 297
 VITA grantees $25 million. The two programs prepare millions of tax 
returns each year.

The IRS established the TCE program in 1978 to provide tax counseling
 and return preparation to persons age 60 or older and to give training 
and technical assistance to the volunteers who provide free federal 
income tax assistance within elderly communities across the nation. For 
more information visit the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-counseling-for-the-elderly">TCE</a> webpage on IRS.gov.

The IRS created the VITA program in 1969. In 2007, the IRS 
established the VITA Grant program to supplement VITA partners' efforts.
 VITA provides free tax filing assistance to underserved communities. 
The grant program enables VITA to extend services to underserved 
populations in the hardest-to-reach urban and non-urban areas, to 
increase the capacity of targeted taxpayers to file returns 
electronically, to enhance training of volunteers and to improve the 
accuracy rate of returns prepared at VITA sites. For more information 
visit the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/irs-vita-grant-program">VITA</a> webpage on IRS.gov.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2020/9/1599869632873.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>IRSWASHINGTON — Eligible organizations can now submit applications for 
the Internal Revenue Service's Tax Counseling for the Elderly and 
Volunteer Income Tax Assistance grant programs, allowing some 
organizations to apply for up to three years of annual funding.Organizations can apply on <a href="http://www.grants.gov/">Grants.gov</a>
 through June 4, 2021, and can find application packages and guidelines 
on IRS.gov. In 2021, the IRS awarded 31 TCE grantees $11 million and 297
 VITA grantees $25 million. The two programs prepare millions of tax 
returns each year.The IRS established the TCE program in 1978 to provide tax counseling
 and return preparation to persons age 60 or older and to give training 
and technical assistance to the volunteers who provide free federal 
income tax assistance within elderly communities across the nation. For 
more information visit the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/tax-counseling-for-the-elderly">TCE</a> webpage on IRS.gov.The IRS created the VITA program in 1969. In 2007, the IRS 
established the VITA Grant program to supplement VITA partners' efforts.
 VITA provides free tax filing assistance to underserved communities. 
The grant program enables VITA to extend services to underserved 
populations in the hardest-to-reach urban and non-urban areas, to 
increase the capacity of targeted taxpayers to file returns 
electronically, to enhance training of volunteers and to improve the 
accuracy rate of returns prepared at VITA sites. For more information 
visit the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/irs-vita-grant-program">VITA</a> webpage on IRS.gov.<h2>More Information:</h2><ul>
 <li><a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/applying-for-a-tce-grant">Applying for a TCE grant</a></li><li><a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1101.pdf">Publication 1101, Application Package and Guidelines for Managing a TCE Program&nbsp;&nbsp;PDF</a></li><li><a href="https://www.irs.gov/individuals/applying-for-a-vita-grant">Applying for a VITA grant</a></li><li><a href="https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4671.pdf">Publication 4671, VITA Grant Program Overview and Application Instructions&nbsp;&nbsp;PDF</a></li>
 </ul>

IRS: Organizations can get three years of funding for tax assistance programs

By DAREN DUNN <a href="https://hutchpost.com">Hutch Post</a>

HUTCHINSON, Kan. — A quiet noon hour at the 14th and Main Dillons was disrupted by PETA protesters Thursday.

Three
 protesters arrived in a white rental van just before noon. Marley 
Delgado, Luis Correal and a member who wished to remain anonymous 
unloaded two wheelbarrows filled with coconuts.

Correal and the 
anonymous supporter were dressed in monkey outfits to protest Chaokoh, a
 brand that PETA says uses monkeys to inhumanely pick coconuts in 
Thailand.

PETA supporter Marley Delgado said the trio was there "urging the company to stop profiting off forced monkey labor." Delgado says a PETA Asia investigation found the coconut industry is using monkey labor to pick the coconuts and traced it back to Chaokoh. The group is asking Kroger to remove the brand from all of its stores.

The Dillons location was blindsided. The manager on duty was simply 
covering for a store that currently does not have a manager. The manager
 on duty called the local media contact, Sheila Regehr, and she began 
her journey to the store.

"Dillons supports cruel monkey labor," the trio chanted. "There's no excuse for animal abuse," they added.

Shoppers were surprised to see the disruption. One shopper who wishes
 to remain anonymous called it a waste of time. "I don't want to lose my
 fuel points!" the shopper said when asked for a name. He questioned why
 the demonstration was not at the courthouse or a distribution center.

Supporters chose the Main Street location because it faced a busy street and had a public sidewalk that entered the store.

PETA
 plans to visit more Kroger-owned stores until it joins the likes of 
28,000 other stores that have stopped profiting off cruel, forced monkey
 labor.

"The coconuts that are in Chaokoh are picked by monkeys who are stolen from their families just as babies. They're kept caged and chained their whole lives. They can sometimes have their canine teeth removed so they're unable to defend themselves. And they are forced to pick coconuts all during the harvest season," Delgado said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619718610651.jpeg" alt="PETA supporters showed up at the 14th and Main Dillons location Thursday to protest monkey abuse. Supporters chanted against monkey abuse carried out in Thailand by a coconut milk brand." />
 <figcaption>PETA supporters showed up at the 14th and Main Dillons location Thursday to protest monkey abuse. Supporters chanted against monkey abuse carried out in Thailand by a coconut milk brand.</figcaption>
 </figure>By DAREN DUNN <a href="https://hutchpost.com">Hutch Post</a>HUTCHINSON, Kan. — A quiet noon hour at the 14th and Main Dillons was disrupted by PETA protesters Thursday.Three
 protesters arrived in a white rental van just before noon. Marley 
Delgado, Luis Correal and a member who wished to remain anonymous 
unloaded two wheelbarrows filled with coconuts.Correal and the 
anonymous supporter were dressed in monkey outfits to protest Chaokoh, a
 brand that PETA says uses monkeys to inhumanely pick coconuts in 
Thailand.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619719018508.jpeg" alt="The coconut milk from Chaokoh is sold at Dillons on 14th and Main. This is the only product PETA organizers were protesting against." />
 <figcaption>The coconut milk from Chaokoh is sold at Dillons on 14th and Main. This is the only product PETA organizers were protesting against.</figcaption>
 </figure>PETA supporter Marley Delgado said the trio was there "urging the company to stop profiting off forced monkey labor." Delgado says a PETA Asia investigation found the coconut industry is using monkey labor to pick the coconuts and traced it back to Chaokoh. The group is asking Kroger to remove the brand from all of its stores.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619719964870.jpeg" alt="PETA members arrive at Dillons Thursday. The members arrived just before the noon hour in a white rental van." />
 <figcaption>PETA members arrive at Dillons Thursday. The members arrived just before the noon hour in a white rental van.</figcaption>
 </figure>The Dillons location was blindsided. The manager on duty was simply 
covering for a store that currently does not have a manager. The manager
 on duty called the local media contact, Sheila Regehr, and she began 
her journey to the store."Dillons supports cruel monkey labor," the trio chanted. "There's no excuse for animal abuse," they added.Shoppers were surprised to see the disruption. One shopper who wishes
 to remain anonymous called it a waste of time. "I don't want to lose my
 fuel points!" the shopper said when asked for a name. He questioned why
 the demonstration was not at the courthouse or a distribution center.Supporters chose the Main Street location because it faced a busy street and had a public sidewalk that entered the store.PETA
 plans to visit more Kroger-owned stores until it joins the likes of 
28,000 other stores that have stopped profiting off cruel, forced monkey
 labor.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619720908511.jpeg" alt="PETA protesters chant different phrases against monkey labor Thursday in front of Dillons on Main Street. Organizers said monkeys used by Chaokoh are caged and chained their whole lives." />
 <figcaption>PETA protesters chant different phrases against monkey labor Thursday in front of Dillons on Main Street. Organizers said monkeys used by Chaokoh are caged and chained their whole lives.</figcaption>
 </figure>"The coconuts that are in Chaokoh are picked by monkeys who are stolen from their families just as babies. They're kept caged and chained their whole lives. They can sometimes have their canine teeth removed so they're unable to defend themselves. And they are forced to pick coconuts all during the harvest season," Delgado said.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/4/1619719935320.jpeg" alt="Luis Correal holds a sign condemning the use of monkey labor. Protesters chanted, "Dillons supports cruel monkey labor," and "There's no excuse for animal abuse," while in front of the store." />
 <figcaption>Luis Correal holds a sign condemning the use of monkey labor. Protesters chanted, "Dillons supports cruel monkey labor," and "There's no excuse for animal abuse," while in front of the store.</figcaption>
 </figure>None of the protesters are from Hutchinson. In fact, none of them are
 from Kansas. Delgado is from Denver, Colorado, while Correal is from 
Atlanta, Georgia. The unnamed member hails from Portland, Oregon. The 
trio arrived in Hutchinson Wednesday and purchased the ethically-sourced
 coconuts that were picked humanely, then scattered in front of the 
Dillons entrance.Delgado confirmed the group would pick up the coconuts after the demonstration. She said the coconuts would then be donated.About
 30 minutes into the planned one-hour demonstration, Sheila Regehr of 
Dillons showed up on the scene. She kindly asked the protesters to move 
the demonstration to a public place.Regehr declined to comment on the situation until a proper statement could be released to the media.Around 1:30 p.m. Thursday, Regehr released the following statement:“Kroger
 has a longstanding commitment to responsible business practices, 
including the humane treatment of animals. We have re-engaged our 
suppliers, as well as other stakeholders, on this issue to re-confirm 
they are also protecting animal welfare.”