WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday that state abortion bans after their sweeping ruling overturning&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;violate federal healthcare law, though some also questioned the effects on emergency care for pregnant patients.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-726">Click here to listen to a replay</a> of the oral argument

The case marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the implications of a state ban since overturning the nationwide right to abortion. It comes from Idaho, which is among 14 states that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/video/courts-abortion-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-district-of-columbia-kansas-city-fdd18338724547c9a9f069107ced4347">now ban abortion</a>&nbsp;at all stages of pregnancy&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care-000a2482fdd1f1299599c91a6cc7635a">with very limited exceptions</a>.

The high court has already allowed the state ban to go into effect, even in medical emergencies, and it was unclear whether members of the conservative majority were swayed by the Biden administration's argument that federal law overrides the state in rare emergency cases where a pregnant patient's health is at serious risk.

The closely watched case tests how open the six-justice conservative majority is to carving out limited exceptions to state abortion bans. Their ruling, expected by late June, could have wide implications&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c">amid a spike</a>&nbsp;in complaints that pregnant women have been turned away from emergency rooms care since Roe was overturned.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/video/biden-vows-to-restore-roe-v-wade-0000018e1bf9dae6afdf9bf98ace0000">Biden administration says</a>&nbsp;abortion care must be allowed in those cases under a law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide emergency care regardless of patients' ability to pay.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, was doubtful. “How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize, simply because hospitals in Idaho have chosen to participate in Medicare?” he said.

Idaho contends its ban does have exceptions for life-saving abortions, and the administration wants to wrongly expand the times when it's allowed to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-abortion-arizona-law-florida-ban-7cdd6d2e3c320a89ec7a7c037824e7cd">turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves</a>."

But liberal justices detailed cases of pregnant women hemorrhaging or having to undergo hysterectomies after abortion care was denied or delayed in states with bans.

“Within these rare cases, there’s a significant number where the woman’s life is not in peril, but she’s going to lose her reproductive organs. She’s going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place,” said Justice Elena Kagan.

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, said she was “kind of shocked” that an attorney for Idaho appeared to hedge when asked whether the state would allow abortions in cases like those. Attorney Joshua N. Turner responded that doctors can use their “good faith” medical judgment under Idaho's life-saving exception, but Barrett continued to press: “What if the prosecutor thinks differently?”

Turner acknowledged that a doctor could face a criminal case in that situation. Performing an abortion outside of limited exceptions in Idaho is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide terminations within the bounds of state law.

Abortion opponents say doctors have mishandled maternal emergency cases, and argue the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.

The justices also heard another abortion case this term seeking to restrict access to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-mifepristone-telemedicine-4406d53e8af90f6a523264f535f5adf8">abortion medication</a>. It remains pending, though the justices overall seemed skeptical of the push.

The Justice Department originally brought the case against Idaho, arguing the state’s abortion law conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care-000a2482fdd1f1299599c91a6cc7635a">known as EMTALA</a>. It requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide emergency care to any patient regardless of their ability to pay. Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare.

A federal judge initially sided with the administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.

Outside the court, dueling protesters gathered with signs like “Abortion saves lives,” from one side of the crowd and “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics” from abortion opponents.

Inside, the audience was sparse, though, with several benches empty or sparingly used.

___ Associated Press writers Gary Fields and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday when doctors can provide&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/abortion">abortions</a>&nbsp;during medical emergencies in states with bans enacted after the high court’s sweeping decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The case comes from Idaho, which is among 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a state ban since Roe was reversed.

The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, federal health care law says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.

Idaho contends its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions but allowing it in more medical emergencies would turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves.” The state argues the Biden administration is misusing a health care law that is meant to ensure patients aren't turned away based on their ability to pay.

The Supreme Court has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-medical-emergencies-idaho-8ca89d7de0c1fa9256dcd27d1847e144">allowed the Idaho law</a>&nbsp;to go into effect, even during emergencies, as the case played out.

Dueling protests were taking shape outside the court before the start of arguments on Wednesday. “Abortion saves lives,” read signs displayed by abortion rights supporters. Opponents displayed a sign that read, “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.”

Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide abortions within the bounds of state law.

Meanwhile, complaints of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c">spiked</a>&nbsp;after the Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">overturned Roe v. Wade</a>, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Anti-abortion groups blame doctors for mishandling maternal emergency cases. Idaho argues the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713986233216.png" alt="Photo courtesy Physicians for Human Rights" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy Physicians for Human Rights</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Conservative Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical Wednesday that state abortion bans after their sweeping ruling overturning&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;violate federal healthcare law, though some also questioned the effects on emergency care for pregnant patients.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-726">Click here to listen to a replay</a> of the oral argumentThe case marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the implications of a state ban since overturning the nationwide right to abortion. It comes from Idaho, which is among 14 states that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/video/courts-abortion-supreme-court-of-the-united-states-district-of-columbia-kansas-city-fdd18338724547c9a9f069107ced4347">now ban abortion</a>&nbsp;at all stages of pregnancy&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care-000a2482fdd1f1299599c91a6cc7635a">with very limited exceptions</a>.The high court has already allowed the state ban to go into effect, even in medical emergencies, and it was unclear whether members of the conservative majority were swayed by the Biden administration's argument that federal law overrides the state in rare emergency cases where a pregnant patient's health is at serious risk.The closely watched case tests how open the six-justice conservative majority is to carving out limited exceptions to state abortion bans. Their ruling, expected by late June, could have wide implications&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c">amid a spike</a>&nbsp;in complaints that pregnant women have been turned away from emergency rooms care since Roe was overturned.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/video/biden-vows-to-restore-roe-v-wade-0000018e1bf9dae6afdf9bf98ace0000">Biden administration says</a>&nbsp;abortion care must be allowed in those cases under a law that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide emergency care regardless of patients' ability to pay.Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, was doubtful. “How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize, simply because hospitals in Idaho have chosen to participate in Medicare?” he said.Idaho contends its ban does have exceptions for life-saving abortions, and the administration wants to wrongly expand the times when it's allowed to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-abortion-arizona-law-florida-ban-7cdd6d2e3c320a89ec7a7c037824e7cd">turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves</a>."But liberal justices detailed cases of pregnant women hemorrhaging or having to undergo hysterectomies after abortion care was denied or delayed in states with bans.“Within these rare cases, there’s a significant number where the woman’s life is not in peril, but she’s going to lose her reproductive organs. She’s going to lose the ability to have children in the future unless an abortion takes place,” said Justice Elena Kagan.Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, meanwhile, said she was “kind of shocked” that an attorney for Idaho appeared to hedge when asked whether the state would allow abortions in cases like those. Attorney Joshua N. Turner responded that doctors can use their “good faith” medical judgment under Idaho's life-saving exception, but Barrett continued to press: “What if the prosecutor thinks differently?”Turner acknowledged that a doctor could face a criminal case in that situation. Performing an abortion outside of limited exceptions in Idaho is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide terminations within the bounds of state law.Abortion opponents say doctors have mishandled maternal emergency cases, and argue the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.The justices also heard another abortion case this term seeking to restrict access to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-mifepristone-telemedicine-4406d53e8af90f6a523264f535f5adf8">abortion medication</a>. It remains pending, though the justices overall seemed skeptical of the push.The Justice Department originally brought the case against Idaho, arguing the state’s abortion law conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care-000a2482fdd1f1299599c91a6cc7635a">known as EMTALA</a>. It requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide emergency care to any patient regardless of their ability to pay. Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare.A federal judge initially sided with the administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.Outside the court, dueling protesters gathered with signs like “Abortion saves lives,” from one side of the crowd and “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics” from abortion opponents.Inside, the audience was sparse, though, with several benches empty or sparingly used.___ Associated Press writers Gary Fields and Mark Sherman contributed to this report.--------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday when doctors can provide&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/abortion">abortions</a>&nbsp;during medical emergencies in states with bans enacted after the high court’s sweeping decision overturning Roe v. Wade.The case comes from Idaho, which is among 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a state ban since Roe was reversed.The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, federal health care law says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.Idaho contends its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions but allowing it in more medical emergencies would turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves.” The state argues the Biden administration is misusing a health care law that is meant to ensure patients aren't turned away based on their ability to pay.The Supreme Court has&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-medical-emergencies-idaho-8ca89d7de0c1fa9256dcd27d1847e144">allowed the Idaho law</a>&nbsp;to go into effect, even during emergencies, as the case played out.Dueling protests were taking shape outside the court before the start of arguments on Wednesday. “Abortion saves lives,” read signs displayed by abortion rights supporters. Opponents displayed a sign that read, “Emergency rooms are not abortion clinics.”Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide abortions within the bounds of state law.Meanwhile, complaints of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/pregnancy-emergency-care-abortion-supreme-court-roe-9ce6c87c8fc653c840654de1ae5f7a1c">spiked</a>&nbsp;after the Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0">overturned Roe v. Wade</a>, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.Anti-abortion groups blame doctors for mishandling maternal emergency cases. Idaho argues the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.The justices also heard another abortion case this term seeking to restrict access to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-mifepristone-telemedicine-4406d53e8af90f6a523264f535f5adf8">abortion medication</a>. It remains pending, though the justices overall seemed skeptical of the push.The Justice Department originally brought the case against Idaho, arguing the state’s abortion law conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-idaho-emergency-care-000a2482fdd1f1299599c91a6cc7635a">known as EMTALA</a>. It requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide emergency care to any patient regardless of their ability to pay. Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare.A federal judge initially sided with the administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.

🎧Supreme Court divided over access to emergency abortions

WASHINGTON (AP) — On the left and right,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;justices seem to agree on a basic truth about the American system of government: No one is above the law, not even the president.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf">Click here to read a</a> transcript of the oral argument

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-939">Click here to listen to a replay </a>of the oral argument&nbsp;

“The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in 2020.

Less than a year earlier, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, then a federal trial judge, wrote, “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”

But former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;and his legal team are&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-jan-6-immunity-38fd48f47324bf812e2194831ef75471">putting that foundational belief to the test</a>&nbsp;on Thursday when the high court takes up the Republican’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immunity-prosecution-capitol-riot-9fd5dc5947dab82bbd18d3efcb4267d8">absolute immunity</a>&nbsp;for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn't function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.

Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C. And even if the high court resoundingly follows suit, the timing of its decision may be as important as the outcome. That’s because Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.

The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, which is roughly four months before the election.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictments-election-january-6-classified-documents-5cb04868bb1cdf91c19eafdb882af8c0">election interference conspiracy case</a>&nbsp;brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump, the first former president to face prosecution. He already is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-trial-national-enquirer-1dd3c3111febf219bdf1d8627504a3c5">standing trial in New York</a>&nbsp;on charges that he falsified business records to keep damaging information from voters when he directed hush money payments to a former porn star to keep quiet her claims that they had a sexual encounter.

Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-jan-6-investigation-fake-electors-608932d4771f6e2e3c5efb3fdcd8fcce">fake electors in battleground states</a>&nbsp;won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.

Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.

“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.

The lack of apparent support on the court for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has caused commentators to speculate about why the court has taken up the case in the first place.

Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University’s law school, said he worries about the delay, but sees value in a decision that amounts to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men.”

The court also may be more concerned with how its decision could affect future presidencies, Harvard law school professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog.

But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court never should have taken the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington adequately addressed the issues.

"If it was going to take the case, it should have proceeded faster, because now, it will most likely prevent the trial from being completed before the election. Even Richard Nixon said that the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook. The Supreme Court seems to disagree,” Roosevelt said.

The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Trump's arguments and unfreeze the case so that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which she has indicated may last up to three months.

The court could end Smith's prosecution by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for official acts they took while in office.

It also might spell out when former presidents are shielded for prosecution and either declare that Trump's alleged conduct easily crossed the line or return the case to Chutkan so that she can decide whether Trump should have to stand trial.

WASHINGTON (AP) — On the left and right,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;justices seem to agree on a basic truth about the American system of government: No one is above the law, not even the president.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_l5gm.pdf">Click here to read a</a> transcript of the oral argument<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-939">Click here to listen to a replay </a>of the oral argument&nbsp;<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Former President Trump: &quot;We have a big case today this judge isn&#39;t allowing me to go. We have a big case today at the Supreme Court on presidential immunity. A president has to have immunity if you don&#39;t have immunity you just have a ceremonial president.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/oJB9O7eaud">pic.twitter.com/oJB9O7eaud</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1783481860468724184?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 25, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>“The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in 2020.Less than a year earlier, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, then a federal trial judge, wrote, “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings.”But former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;and his legal team are&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-supreme-court-jan-6-immunity-38fd48f47324bf812e2194831ef75471">putting that foundational belief to the test</a>&nbsp;on Thursday when the high court takes up the Republican’s bid to avoid prosecution over his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-immunity-prosecution-capitol-riot-9fd5dc5947dab82bbd18d3efcb4267d8">absolute immunity</a>&nbsp;for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn't function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C. And even if the high court resoundingly follows suit, the timing of its decision may be as important as the outcome. That’s because Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, which is roughly four months before the election.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictments-election-january-6-classified-documents-5cb04868bb1cdf91c19eafdb882af8c0">election interference conspiracy case</a>&nbsp;brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump, the first former president to face prosecution. He already is&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-hush-money-trial-national-enquirer-1dd3c3111febf219bdf1d8627504a3c5">standing trial in New York</a>&nbsp;on charges that he falsified business records to keep damaging information from voters when he directed hush money payments to a former porn star to keep quiet her claims that they had a sexual encounter.Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-jan-6-investigation-fake-electors-608932d4771f6e2e3c5efb3fdcd8fcce">fake electors in battleground states</a>&nbsp;won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.The lack of apparent support on the court for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has caused commentators to speculate about why the court has taken up the case in the first place.Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University’s law school, said he worries about the delay, but sees value in a decision that amounts to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men.”The court also may be more concerned with how its decision could affect future presidencies, Harvard law school professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog.But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court never should have taken the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington adequately addressed the issues."If it was going to take the case, it should have proceeded faster, because now, it will most likely prevent the trial from being completed before the election. Even Richard Nixon said that the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook. The Supreme Court seems to disagree,” Roosevelt said.The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Trump's arguments and unfreeze the case so that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which she has indicated may last up to three months.The court could end Smith's prosecution by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for official acts they took while in office.It also might spell out when former presidents are shielded for prosecution and either declare that Trump's alleged conduct easily crossed the line or return the case to Chutkan so that she can decide whether Trump should have to stand trial.

🎥Supreme Court hears Trump’s claim to ‘absolute immunity’

NEW YORK (AP) — A veteran tabloid publisher testified Tuesday that he pledged to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;'s “eyes and ears" during his 2016 presidential campaign, recounting how he promised the then-candidate that he would help suppress harmful stories and even arranged to purchase the silence of a doorman.

<a href="https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/">Click here to read the </a>transcript from Day 2 of the historic trial (-The court system is posting the daily transcripts of the trial proceedings. The transcript for each day is available before the end of the following business day.)

The testimony Tuesday from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/david-pecker">David Pecker</a>&nbsp;was designed to bolster the prosecution's premise of a decades-long friendship between Trump and the former publisher of the National Enquirer that culminated in an agreement to give the candidate's lawyer a heads-up on negative tips and stories so they could be quashed.

The effort was a way to illegally influence the election, prosecutors have alleged in striving to elevate the gravity of the history-making first trial of a former American president and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/projects/trump-investigations-civil-criminal-tracker/">first of four criminal cases</a>&nbsp;against Trump to reach a jury. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee in this year's race&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arraignment-hush-money-81225510ef7638494852816878f612f0">faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records</a>&nbsp;in connection with hush money payments meant to stifle embarrassing stories from surfacing in the final days of the 2016 campaign.

With Trump sitting just feet away in the courtroom, Pecker, the first witness, detailed his behind-the-scenes role in Trump's rise from political novice to the Republican nomination and the White House. He explained how he and the National Enquirer parlayed rumor-mongering into splashy tabloid stories that smeared Trump's opponents and, just as crucially, leveraged his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a porn actor's claim of an extramarital sexual encounter years earlier.

Pecker traced the origins of their relationship to a 1980s meeting at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and said the friendship bloomed alongside the success of the real estate developer's TV show “The Apprentice" and the program's subsequent celebrity version.

Their ties were solidified during a pivotal August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower involving Trump, his lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen, and another aide, Hope Hicks, in which Pecker was asked what he and the publications he led could do for the campaign.

Pecker said he volunteered to publish positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents. But that wasn't all, he said, telling jurors how he told Trump: “I will be your eyes and ears.”

“I said that anything I hear in the marketplace, if I hear anything negative about yourself, or if I hear anything about women selling stories, I would notify Michael Cohen," so that the rights could be purchased and the stories could be killed.

“So that they would not get published, you mean?” asked prosecutor Joshua Steinglass.

“So that they would not get published, yes” Pecker replied.

To illustrate their point, prosecutors displayed a screenshot of various flattering headlines the National Enquirer published about Trump, including “Donald Dominates!’ and “World Exclusive: The Donald Trump Nobody Knows.” The jury was also shown disparaging and outlandish stories about Trump's opponents, including surgeon Ben Carson and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.

Pecker painted Cohen as a shadow editor of the National Enquirer’s pro-Trump coverage, directing the tabloid to go after whichever Republican candidate was gaining momentum.

“I would receive a call from Michael Cohen, and he would direct me and direct Dylan Howard on which candidate and which direction we should go,” Pecker said, referring to the tabloid's then-editor.

Pecker said he underscored to Howard that the agreement with the Trump operation was “highly, highly confidential.” He said he wanted the tabloid’s bureau chiefs to be on the lookout for any stories involving Trump and said he wanted them to verify the stories before alerting Cohen.

“I did not want anyone else to know about this agreement I had and what I wanted to do,” the ex-publisher added.

Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges related to his role in the hush money payments. He was once a confidant of Trump's, but their relationship deteriorated in spectacular fashion. Cohen is expected to be a star government witness, and he routinely posts profane broadsides against Trump on social media.

Trump's lawyers are expected to make attacks on Cohen's credibility a foundation of their defense, but in opening with Pecker, prosecutors hoped to focus attention on a witness with a less volatile backstory. Besides maintaining that Trump is innocent, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors that Cohen cannot be trusted and has “an obsession with getting Trump.”

Pecker's testimony Tuesday followed a hearing earlier in the day in which prosecutors urged Judge Juan M. Merchan to hold Trump in contempt and fine him $1,000 for each of 10 social media posts that they say violated an earlier gag order barring attacks on witnesses, jurors and others involved in the case.

Merchan did not immediately rule, but he seemed skeptical of defense arguments that Trump was merely responding in his posts to others' attacks and had been trying to comply with the order.

Prosecutors allege that Trump sought to illegally influence the 2016 race through a practice known in the tabloid industry as “catch-and-kill” — catching a potentially damaging story by buying the rights to it and then killing it through agreements that prevent the paid person from telling the story to anyone else.

In this case, that included a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an extramarital sexual encounter that Trump denies. Prosecutors also described other arrangements, including one that paid a former Playboy model $150,000 to suppress claims of a nearly yearlong affair with the married Trump, which Trump also denies.

In another instance, Pecker recounted a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-f37ecfc4710b468db6a103a245146172">$30,000</a>&nbsp;payment from the National Enquirer to a Trump Tower doorman for the rights to a rumor that Trump had fathered a child with an employee at Trump World Tower. The tabloid concluded the story was not true, and the woman and Trump have denied the allegations.

As Pecker described receiving the tip in court, Trump shook his head.

Pecker said upon hearing the rumor, he immediately called Cohen, who said it was “absolutely not true” but that he would look into whether the people involved had indeed worked for Trump’s company.

“I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment it had to the campaign and Mr. Trump,” Pecker said.

When he told Cohen, Pecker said he thanked him, "And he said that the boss would be very pleased.”

Asked by the prosecutor who he understood the boss to be, Pecker replied: “Donald Trump.”

Explaining why he decided to have the National Enquirer foot the bill, Pecker recalled telling Cohen: “This can be a very big story. I believe it's important that it be removed from the marketplace.”

If he published the story, Pecker said it would be “probably the biggest sale of the National Enquirer since the death of Elvis Presley.”

Jurors viewed an internal Enquirer email and invoice describing the payments to the doorman to kill his story. One document describes the funds coming from the publication’s “corporate” account. An invoice references an “immediate” $30,000 bank transfer payment for “‘Trump’ non-published story.”

Trump's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arraignment-hush-money-81225510ef7638494852816878f612f0">34 felony counts</a>&nbsp;arise from reimbursements that prosecutors say Trump's company made to Cohen for hush money payments and that were falsely recorded as legal expenses.

The charges are punishable by up to four years in prison, though it’s unclear whether Merchan would seek to put him behind bars. A conviction would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713974662413.png" alt="One piece of evidence from Trump's civil trial on Tuesday -provided by New York State Court System" />
 <figcaption>One piece of evidence from Trump's civil trial on Tuesday -provided by New York State Court System</figcaption>
 </figure>NEW YORK (AP) — A veteran tabloid publisher testified Tuesday that he pledged to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;'s “eyes and ears" during his 2016 presidential campaign, recounting how he promised the then-candidate that he would help suppress harmful stories and even arranged to purchase the silence of a doorman.<a href="https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/">Click here to read the </a>transcript from Day 2 of the historic trial (-The court system is posting the daily transcripts of the trial proceedings. The transcript for each day is available before the end of the following business day.)The testimony Tuesday from&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/david-pecker">David Pecker</a>&nbsp;was designed to bolster the prosecution's premise of a decades-long friendship between Trump and the former publisher of the National Enquirer that culminated in an agreement to give the candidate's lawyer a heads-up on negative tips and stories so they could be quashed.The effort was a way to illegally influence the election, prosecutors have alleged in striving to elevate the gravity of the history-making first trial of a former American president and the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/projects/trump-investigations-civil-criminal-tracker/">first of four criminal cases</a>&nbsp;against Trump to reach a jury. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee in this year's race&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arraignment-hush-money-81225510ef7638494852816878f612f0">faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records</a>&nbsp;in connection with hush money payments meant to stifle embarrassing stories from surfacing in the final days of the 2016 campaign.With Trump sitting just feet away in the courtroom, Pecker, the first witness, detailed his behind-the-scenes role in Trump's rise from political novice to the Republican nomination and the White House. He explained how he and the National Enquirer parlayed rumor-mongering into splashy tabloid stories that smeared Trump's opponents and, just as crucially, leveraged his connections to suppress seamy stories about Trump, including a porn actor's claim of an extramarital sexual encounter years earlier.Pecker traced the origins of their relationship to a 1980s meeting at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, and said the friendship bloomed alongside the success of the real estate developer's TV show “The Apprentice" and the program's subsequent celebrity version.Their ties were solidified during a pivotal August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower involving Trump, his lawyer and personal fixer Michael Cohen, and another aide, Hope Hicks, in which Pecker was asked what he and the publications he led could do for the campaign.Pecker said he volunteered to publish positive stories about Trump and negative stories about his opponents. But that wasn't all, he said, telling jurors how he told Trump: “I will be your eyes and ears.”“I said that anything I hear in the marketplace, if I hear anything negative about yourself, or if I hear anything about women selling stories, I would notify Michael Cohen," so that the rights could be purchased and the stories could be killed.“So that they would not get published, you mean?” asked prosecutor Joshua Steinglass.“So that they would not get published, yes” Pecker replied.To illustrate their point, prosecutors displayed a screenshot of various flattering headlines the National Enquirer published about Trump, including “Donald Dominates!’ and “World Exclusive: The Donald Trump Nobody Knows.” The jury was also shown disparaging and outlandish stories about Trump's opponents, including surgeon Ben Carson and Republican Sen. Marco Rubio.Pecker painted Cohen as a shadow editor of the National Enquirer’s pro-Trump coverage, directing the tabloid to go after whichever Republican candidate was gaining momentum.“I would receive a call from Michael Cohen, and he would direct me and direct Dylan Howard on which candidate and which direction we should go,” Pecker said, referring to the tabloid's then-editor.Pecker said he underscored to Howard that the agreement with the Trump operation was “highly, highly confidential.” He said he wanted the tabloid’s bureau chiefs to be on the lookout for any stories involving Trump and said he wanted them to verify the stories before alerting Cohen.“I did not want anyone else to know about this agreement I had and what I wanted to do,” the ex-publisher added.Cohen pleaded guilty in 2018 to federal charges related to his role in the hush money payments. He was once a confidant of Trump's, but their relationship deteriorated in spectacular fashion. Cohen is expected to be a star government witness, and he routinely posts profane broadsides against Trump on social media.Trump's lawyers are expected to make attacks on Cohen's credibility a foundation of their defense, but in opening with Pecker, prosecutors hoped to focus attention on a witness with a less volatile backstory. Besides maintaining that Trump is innocent, Trump lawyer Todd Blanche told jurors that Cohen cannot be trusted and has “an obsession with getting Trump.”Pecker's testimony Tuesday followed a hearing earlier in the day in which prosecutors urged Judge Juan M. Merchan to hold Trump in contempt and fine him $1,000 for each of 10 social media posts that they say violated an earlier gag order barring attacks on witnesses, jurors and others involved in the case.Merchan did not immediately rule, but he seemed skeptical of defense arguments that Trump was merely responding in his posts to others' attacks and had been trying to comply with the order.Prosecutors allege that Trump sought to illegally influence the 2016 race through a practice known in the tabloid industry as “catch-and-kill” — catching a potentially damaging story by buying the rights to it and then killing it through agreements that prevent the paid person from telling the story to anyone else.In this case, that included a $130,000 payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an extramarital sexual encounter that Trump denies. Prosecutors also described other arrangements, including one that paid a former Playboy model $150,000 to suppress claims of a nearly yearlong affair with the married Trump, which Trump also denies.In another instance, Pecker recounted a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/general-news-united-states-government-f37ecfc4710b468db6a103a245146172">$30,000</a>&nbsp;payment from the National Enquirer to a Trump Tower doorman for the rights to a rumor that Trump had fathered a child with an employee at Trump World Tower. The tabloid concluded the story was not true, and the woman and Trump have denied the allegations.As Pecker described receiving the tip in court, Trump shook his head.Pecker said upon hearing the rumor, he immediately called Cohen, who said it was “absolutely not true” but that he would look into whether the people involved had indeed worked for Trump’s company.“I made the decision to buy the story because of the potential embarrassment it had to the campaign and Mr. Trump,” Pecker said.When he told Cohen, Pecker said he thanked him, "And he said that the boss would be very pleased.”Asked by the prosecutor who he understood the boss to be, Pecker replied: “Donald Trump.”Explaining why he decided to have the National Enquirer foot the bill, Pecker recalled telling Cohen: “This can be a very big story. I believe it's important that it be removed from the marketplace.”If he published the story, Pecker said it would be “probably the biggest sale of the National Enquirer since the death of Elvis Presley.”Jurors viewed an internal Enquirer email and invoice describing the payments to the doorman to kill his story. One document describes the funds coming from the publication’s “corporate” account. An invoice references an “immediate” $30,000 bank transfer payment for “‘Trump’ non-published story.”Trump's&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-arraignment-hush-money-81225510ef7638494852816878f612f0">34 felony counts</a>&nbsp;arise from reimbursements that prosecutors say Trump's company made to Cohen for hush money payments and that were falsely recorded as legal expenses.The charges are punishable by up to four years in prison, though it’s unclear whether Merchan would seek to put him behind bars. A conviction would not preclude Trump from becoming president again, but because it is a state case, he would not be able to pardon himself if found guilty. He has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing.Testimony resumes on Thursday.

Read transcript: Day 2 of historic Trump civil trial

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/nebraska-pharmacist-lost-her-license-this-month-following-federal-sentence-linked-to-fraud/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN —&nbsp;A Nebraska pharmacist sentenced last fall for dispensing generic medications for name-brand drugs or processing claims despite not filling prescriptions lost her pharmacist license this month.

Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced Tuesday that Danelle Charf, 49,&nbsp;who was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/sentence-charf.pdf">sentenced Nov. 20 in federal court</a>&nbsp;for one felony count of making a false, fictitious and fraudulent statement in connection with health care services, lost her pharmacist license following an April 2 hearing.&nbsp;

She is barred from seeking reinstatement of her license for at least two years.

“The chief medical officer for the State of Nebraska found Ms. Charf, while operating pharmacies in Neligh and Tilden, fraudulently billed patients for name-brand prescriptions but filled those orders with generic medications,” a news release states.

According to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/guilty-plea-charf.pdf">guilty plea</a>&nbsp;Charf agreed to make last June, Charf owned and operated Wanek Pharmacy in Neligh, Nebraska, from at least January 2016 to January 2021, and Tilden Pharmacy in Tilden, Nebraska, from at least August 2018 to January 2021. The pharmacies regularly submitted documents for reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.

A pharmacy intern filed a complaint in September 2020 that led federal and state investigators to interview current and former employees as well as some beneficiaries at random.

Multiple employees reported that&nbsp;the pharmacies would submit false claims for name brand medications despite dispensing generic medications or processing claims despite not filling a customer’s prescriptions, according to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ne/pr/neligh-woman-sentenced-health-care-fraud#:~:text=Acting%20United%20States%20Attorney%20Susan,connection%20with%20health%20care%20services.">Nebraska U.S. Attorney’s Office</a>.

In one case, a Medicare recipient was supposed to receive 120 blisters of Advair, for asthma and COPD, but received 60 blisters of a different medication —&nbsp;fluticasone propionate.

Investigators compared reimbursement claims and estimated a total loss of $573,337.53 — $369,837.38 in Neligh and $203,500.15 in Tilden.

In November, Charf was sentenced to two months in prison with three years of supervised release. She is required to pay back the defrauded money —&nbsp;$546,142.04 to U.S. Medicare and $27,195.49 to Nebraska Medicaid. She also was ordered to pay a $5,000 civil penalty.

Charf must pay at least $100 a month, or 5% of her gross income, whichever is greater, until her restitution is paid, according to the plea agreement.

Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/nebraska-pharmacist-lost-her-license-this-month-following-federal-sentence-linked-to-fraud/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN —&nbsp;A Nebraska pharmacist sentenced last fall for dispensing generic medications for name-brand drugs or processing claims despite not filling prescriptions lost her pharmacist license this month.Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers announced Tuesday that Danelle Charf, 49,&nbsp;who was&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/sentence-charf.pdf">sentenced Nov. 20 in federal court</a>&nbsp;for one felony count of making a false, fictitious and fraudulent statement in connection with health care services, lost her pharmacist license following an April 2 hearing.&nbsp;She is barred from seeking reinstatement of her license for at least two years.“The chief medical officer for the State of Nebraska found Ms. Charf, while operating pharmacies in Neligh and Tilden, fraudulently billed patients for name-brand prescriptions but filled those orders with generic medications,” a news release states.According to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/guilty-plea-charf.pdf">guilty plea</a>&nbsp;Charf agreed to make last June, Charf owned and operated Wanek Pharmacy in Neligh, Nebraska, from at least January 2016 to January 2021, and Tilden Pharmacy in Tilden, Nebraska, from at least August 2018 to January 2021. The pharmacies regularly submitted documents for reimbursements for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.A pharmacy intern filed a complaint in September 2020 that led federal and state investigators to interview current and former employees as well as some beneficiaries at random.Multiple employees reported that&nbsp;the pharmacies would submit false claims for name brand medications despite dispensing generic medications or processing claims despite not filling a customer’s prescriptions, according to the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-ne/pr/neligh-woman-sentenced-health-care-fraud#:~:text=Acting%20United%20States%20Attorney%20Susan,connection%20with%20health%20care%20services.">Nebraska U.S. Attorney’s Office</a>.In one case, a Medicare recipient was supposed to receive 120 blisters of Advair, for asthma and COPD, but received 60 blisters of a different medication —&nbsp;fluticasone propionate.Investigators compared reimbursement claims and estimated a total loss of $573,337.53 — $369,837.38 in Neligh and $203,500.15 in Tilden.In November, Charf was sentenced to two months in prison with three years of supervised release. She is required to pay back the defrauded money —&nbsp;$546,142.04 to U.S. Medicare and $27,195.49 to Nebraska Medicaid. She also was ordered to pay a $5,000 civil penalty.Charf must pay at least $100 a month, or 5% of her gross income, whichever is greater, until her restitution is paid, according to the plea agreement.

Nebraska pharmacist lost her license this month following federal sentence linked to fraud

APRIL 24, 2024 (LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol removed 18 impaired drivers from the road during a weekend campaign focused on drunk and drugged driving. One of the arrests was for driving under the influence of drugs.

“Impaired driving can take multiple forms,” said Colonel John Bolduc, Superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol. “Every time you get behind the wheel, you should be sober. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs endangers yourself and everyone else on the road.”

The effort, which ran from Friday, April 19, through Sunday, April 21, coincided with a national campaign organized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

In addition to the 18 arrests for driving under the influence, troopers also cited drivers for speeding (286), driving under suspension (26), minor in possession (5), open alcohol container (14), no seat belt (9), and improper child restraint (7). Troopers also assisted 78 motorists in need of help over the weekend.

“As the summer travel season approaches, now is the time to get into the safe driving mindset,” said Colonel Bolduc. “Make your mind up now that you’ll always have a plan for a sober driver after summer parties, community events, and family gatherings.”

This effort was made possible thanks in part to a grant from the Nebraska Department of Transportation – Highway Safety Office.

Cody ThomasNebraska State PatrolAPRIL 24, 2024 (LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol removed 18 impaired drivers from the road during a weekend campaign focused on drunk and drugged driving. One of the arrests was for driving under the influence of drugs.“Impaired driving can take multiple forms,” said Colonel John Bolduc, Superintendent of the Nebraska State Patrol. “Every time you get behind the wheel, you should be sober. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs endangers yourself and everyone else on the road.”The effort, which ran from Friday, April 19, through Sunday, April 21, coincided with a national campaign organized by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.In addition to the 18 arrests for driving under the influence, troopers also cited drivers for speeding (286), driving under suspension (26), minor in possession (5), open alcohol container (14), no seat belt (9), and improper child restraint (7). Troopers also assisted 78 motorists in need of help over the weekend.“As the summer travel season approaches, now is the time to get into the safe driving mindset,” said Colonel Bolduc. “Make your mind up now that you’ll always have a plan for a sober driver after summer parties, community events, and family gatherings.”This effort was made possible thanks in part to a grant from the Nebraska Department of Transportation – Highway Safety Office.

Troopers Arrest 18 Impaired Drivers During Weekend Campaign

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/04/22/aarp-nebraska-celebrates-new-family-caregiver-tax-credits-for-unsung-heroes/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN —&nbsp;AARP Nebraska is celebrating a newly passed proposal that would help cover family caregivers’ costs as they care for and support eligible family members.

Lawmakers approved&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=54875">Legislative Bill 937</a>, which includes Lincoln State Sen. Eliot Bostar’s Caregiver Tax Credit Act, on a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11143">45-0 vote</a>&nbsp;during the final legislative day on April 18. Bostar designated the bill as his personal priority this year; it awaits Gov. Jim Pillen’s approval.

The nonrefundable credits, which would begin Jan. 1, would be equal to 50% of eligible expenditures related to a family member’s care or support of their loved one during the tax year.

​​“Caregiving is a critically important public health issue that affects the quality of life for millions of individuals nationally and thousands across Nebraska,” Bostar said in a statement.

To qualify, a caregiver must have a federal adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 (or $100,000 if filing as a married couple jointly). They must care for a relative who requires assistance with at least two activities of daily living, as certified by a health care provider, and who lives in a private residence — not an assisted living, nursing or residential care facility.

LB 937 lists six activities of daily living that could qualify under the act for a family member:

Costs must be directly related to care and cannot include general household maintenance, such as painting, plumbing, electrical repairs or exterior maintenance.

Individual caregivers can claim up to $2,000 in credits per fiscal year, or $3,000 if the individual is caring for a family member who is a veteran or has a diagnosis of dementia. If two or more caregivers claim an available credit for the same family member, the maximum credit would be divided between each caregiver.

Up to $1.5 million in credits could be claimed each fiscal year through June 30, 2027. The limit increases to $2.5 million in consecutive years.

AARP Nebraska said Nebraska has approximately 179,000 family caregivers, and while each serves in a “labor of love,” the experience is “stressful, isolating and has a real financial cost” —&nbsp;on average more than $7,200 per household per year.&nbsp;

In total, this is more than 168 million hours in care, valued at $2.8 billion, which AARP Nebraska said mitigates more costly, taxpayer-funded long-term care and nursing home stays.

“When lawmakers agree on an issue regardless of political affiliation, the message is clear,” Todd Stubbendieck, state director of AARP Nebraska, said in a statement. “AARP is proud of the Nebraska Legislature for recognizing this critical need to help our state’s unsung heroes.”

The deadline is end of day Wednesday for Pillen to sign the bill or submit his objections to the Nebraska Secretary of State’s Office. As of Monday, the bill had not been signed, according to the Clerk of the Legislature’s Office.&nbsp;

A spokesperson for the governor said Pillen will be presented with LB 937 on Tuesday for his consideration.&nbsp;

LB 937 also contained&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="http://update.legislature.ne.gov/?p=36526">various other proposals for tax credits and exemptions</a>, including these:

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713958541406.jpeg" alt=" State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, center, is flanked by State Sens. Carolyn Bosn and Beau Ballard, from left to right, both of Lincoln. April 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Eliot Bostar of Lincoln, center, is flanked by State Sens. Carolyn Bosn and Beau Ballard, from left to right, both of Lincoln. April 10, 2024. (Zach Wendling/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Zach Wendling<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/04/22/aarp-nebraska-celebrates-new-family-caregiver-tax-credits-for-unsung-heroes/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN —&nbsp;AARP Nebraska is celebrating a newly passed proposal that would help cover family caregivers’ costs as they care for and support eligible family members.Lawmakers approved&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=54875">Legislative Bill 937</a>, which includes Lincoln State Sen. Eliot Bostar’s Caregiver Tax Credit Act, on a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=11143">45-0 vote</a>&nbsp;during the final legislative day on April 18. Bostar designated the bill as his personal priority this year; it awaits Gov. Jim Pillen’s approval.The nonrefundable credits, which would begin Jan. 1, would be equal to 50% of eligible expenditures related to a family member’s care or support of their loved one during the tax year.​​“Caregiving is a critically important public health issue that affects the quality of life for millions of individuals nationally and thousands across Nebraska,” Bostar said in a statement.<h2>How to qualify</h2>To qualify, a caregiver must have a federal adjusted gross income of less than $50,000 (or $100,000 if filing as a married couple jointly). They must care for a relative who requires assistance with at least two activities of daily living, as certified by a health care provider, and who lives in a private residence — not an assisted living, nursing or residential care facility.<h2>Activities of daily living</h2>LB 937 lists six activities of daily living that could qualify under the act for a family member:<ul>
 <li>Movement from one position to another or the ability to walk independently.</li><li>Feeding oneself.</li><li>Dressing, including the selection of appropriate clothing and putting on clothes without help.</li><li>Personal hygiene, including bathing and grooming oneself, dental hygiene and nail and hair care.</li><li>Continence, or&nbsp;controlling bladder and bowel movements.</li><li>Toileting, or getting to and from the toilet without aid, using it appropriately and cleaning oneself.</li>
 </ul>Eligible expenses include:<ul>
 <li>Home improvements or alterations for the caregiver or eligible family member to permit mobility, safety and independence.</li><li>Purchases or leasing of equipment necessary for the family member to carry out one or more activities of daily living.</li><li>Costs related to hiring a home care aide, respite care, adult day care, personal care attendants, health care equipment or technology.</li>
 </ul>Costs must be directly related to care and cannot include general household maintenance, such as painting, plumbing, electrical repairs or exterior maintenance.Individual caregivers can claim up to $2,000 in credits per fiscal year, or $3,000 if the individual is caring for a family member who is a veteran or has a diagnosis of dementia. If two or more caregivers claim an available credit for the same family member, the maximum credit would be divided between each caregiver.Up to $1.5 million in credits could be claimed each fiscal year through June 30, 2027. The limit increases to $2.5 million in consecutive years.<h2>Supporting ‘unsung heroes’</h2>AARP Nebraska said Nebraska has approximately 179,000 family caregivers, and while each serves in a “labor of love,” the experience is “stressful, isolating and has a real financial cost” —&nbsp;on average more than $7,200 per household per year.&nbsp;In total, this is more than 168 million hours in care, valued at $2.8 billion, which AARP Nebraska said mitigates more costly, taxpayer-funded long-term care and nursing home stays.“When lawmakers agree on an issue regardless of political affiliation, the message is clear,” Todd Stubbendieck, state director of AARP Nebraska, said in a statement. “AARP is proud of the Nebraska Legislature for recognizing this critical need to help our state’s unsung heroes.”The deadline is end of day Wednesday for Pillen to sign the bill or submit his objections to the Nebraska Secretary of State’s Office. As of Monday, the bill had not been signed, according to the Clerk of the Legislature’s Office.&nbsp;A spokesperson for the governor said Pillen will be presented with LB 937 on Tuesday for his consideration.&nbsp;<h2>More tax credits and exemptions</h2>LB 937 also contained&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="http://update.legislature.ne.gov/?p=36526">various other proposals for tax credits and exemptions</a>, including these:<ul>
 <li><a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=55153">LB 1002</a>, from State Sen. Tom Brandt of Plymouth, sets the maximum amount of tax credits under the Nebraska Biodiesel Tax Credit Act for $1 million in the next fiscal year and $1.5 million the following years.</li><li><a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=55071">LB 1022</a>, from State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, establishes the Cast and Crew Nebraska Act, with up to $500,000 available beginning July 1, 2025. It will provide a refundable tax credit equal to at least 20% of a&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/11/09/nebraska-lawmakers-eye-film-industry-for-youth-retention-economic-development/">film and TV production</a>&nbsp;company’s qualifying expenditures for projects produced in Nebraska.</li><li><a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=50642">LB 606</a>, from State Sen. Joni Albrecht of Thurston, establishes the&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/04/01/we-know-how-to-do-the-math-time-funds-running-out-for-nebraska-lawmakers-priorities/">Nebraska Pregnancy Help Ac</a>t, allowing Nebraskans to claim a nonrefundable credit of up to 50% off their state income tax liability on contributions made to qualifying pregnancy help organizations. Total credits are limited to $500,000 in the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2025.</li><li><a target="_blank" href="https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=50081">LB 58</a>, from State Sen. John Cavanuagh of Omaha, exempts diapers from state sales and use tax. The proposal is estimated to reduce state revenue by $1.2 million in the next fiscal year, then $6.7 million and $8.8 million in subsequent years.</li>
 </ul>

AARP Nebraska celebrates new family caregiver tax credits for ‘unsung heroes’

WASHINGTON – The Biden-Harris Administration Wednesday announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a final rule that requires airlines to promptly provide passengers with automatic cash refunds when owed, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

 The new rule makes it easy for passengers to obtain refunds when airlines cancel or significantly change their flights, significantly delay their checked bags, or fail to provide the extra services they purchased.

“Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them - without headaches or haggling,” said&nbsp;U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Our new rule sets a new standard to require airlines to promptly provide cash refunds to their passengers.” &nbsp;

The final rule creates certainty for consumers by defining the specific circumstances in which airlines must provide refunds. Prior to this rule, airlines were permitted to set their own standards for what kind of flight changes warranted a refund. As a result, refund policies differed from airline to airline, which made it difficult for passengers to know or assert their refund rights. DOT also received complaints of some airlines revising and applying less consumer-friendly refund policies during spikes in flight cancellations and changes.&nbsp;

Under the rule, passengers are entitled to a refund for:

DOT’s final rule also makes it simple and straightforward for passengers to receive the money they are owed. Without this rule, consumers have to navigate a patchwork of cumbersome processes to request and receive a refund — searching through airline websites to figure out how make the request, filling out extra “digital paperwork,” or at times waiting for hours on the phone. In addition, passengers would receive a travel credit or voucher by default from some airlines instead of getting their money back, so they could not use their refund to rebook on another airline when their flight was changed or cancelled without navigating a cumbersome request process. &nbsp;

The final rule improves the passenger experience by requiring refunds to be:

The final rule also requires airlines to provide prompt notifications to consumers affected by a cancelled or significantly changed flight of their right to a refund of the ticket and extra service fees, as well as any related policies.

In addition, in instances where consumers are restricted by a government or advised by a medical professional not to travel to, from, or within the United States due to a serious communicable disease, the final rule requires that airlines must provide travel credits or vouchers. Consumers may be required to provide documentary evidence to support their request. Travel vouchers or credits provided by airlines must be transferrable and valid for at least five years from the date of issuance.

The Department received a significant number of complaints against airlines and ticket agents for refusing to provide a refund or for delaying processing of refunds during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the pandemic in 2020, refund complaints peaked at 87 percent of all air travel service complaints received by DOT. Refund problems continue to make up a substantial share of the complaints that DOT receives.

DOT’s Historic Record of Consumer Protection Under the Biden-Harris Administration

Under the Biden-Harris Administration and Secretary Buttigieg, DOT has advanced the largest expansion of airline passenger rights, issued the biggest fines against airlines for failing consumers, and returned more money to passengers in refunds and reimbursements than ever before in the Department’s history.

In addition to finalizing the rules to require automatic refunds and protect against surprise fees, DOT is also pursuing rulemakings that would:

The final rule on refunds can be found at<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news">&nbsp;https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news</a>&nbsp;and at&nbsp;<a href="http://regulations.gov/">regulations.gov</a>, docket number DOT-OST-2022-0089. There are different implementation periods in this final rule ranging from six months for airlines to provide automatic refunds when owed to 12 months for airlines to provide transferable travel vouchers or credits when consumers are unable to travel for reasons related to a serious communicable disease.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer">Click here for</a> more information about airline passenger rights, as well as DOT’s rules, guidance and orders

WASHINGTON – The Biden-Harris Administration Wednesday announced that the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has issued a final rule that requires airlines to promptly provide passengers with automatic cash refunds when owed, according to a statement from the U.S. Department of Transportation.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Our department just issued rules to protect people from hidden airline fees and to require airlines to give passengers automatic cash refunds when owed. No more having to fend for yourself and jump through hoops to get your money back—airlines will have to automatically do this. <a href="https://t.co/Jv7dFmnNkI">pic.twitter.com/Jv7dFmnNkI</a>&mdash; Secretary Pete Buttigieg (@SecretaryPete) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecretaryPete/status/1783097342792438232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 24, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div> The new rule makes it easy for passengers to obtain refunds when airlines cancel or significantly change their flights, significantly delay their checked bags, or fail to provide the extra services they purchased.“Passengers deserve to get their money back when an airline owes them - without headaches or haggling,” said&nbsp;U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “Our new rule sets a new standard to require airlines to promptly provide cash refunds to their passengers.” &nbsp;The final rule creates certainty for consumers by defining the specific circumstances in which airlines must provide refunds. Prior to this rule, airlines were permitted to set their own standards for what kind of flight changes warranted a refund. As a result, refund policies differed from airline to airline, which made it difficult for passengers to know or assert their refund rights. DOT also received complaints of some airlines revising and applying less consumer-friendly refund policies during spikes in flight cancellations and changes.&nbsp;Under the rule, passengers are entitled to a refund for:<ul>
 <li>Canceled or significantly changed flights:&nbsp;Passengers will be entitled to a refund if their flight is canceled or significantly changed, and they do not accept alternative transportation or travel credits offered. For the first time, the rule defines “significant change.” Significant changes to a flight include departure or arrival times that are more than 3 hours domestically and 6 hours internationally; departures or arrivals from a different airport; increases in the number of connections; instances where passengers are downgraded to a lower class of service; or connections at different airports or flights on different planes that are less accessible or accommodating to a person with a disability.&nbsp;</li><li>Significantly delayed baggage return:&nbsp;Passengers who file a mishandled baggage report will be entitled to a refund of their checked bag fee if it is not delivered within 12 hours of their domestic flight arriving at the gate, or 15-30 hours of their international flight arriving at the gate, depending on the length of the flight.&nbsp;</li><li>Extra services not provided:&nbsp;Passengers will be entitled to a refund for the fee they paid for an extra service — such as Wi-Fi, seat selection, or inflight entertainment — if an airline fails to provide this service.</li>
 </ul>DOT’s final rule also makes it simple and straightforward for passengers to receive the money they are owed. Without this rule, consumers have to navigate a patchwork of cumbersome processes to request and receive a refund — searching through airline websites to figure out how make the request, filling out extra “digital paperwork,” or at times waiting for hours on the phone. In addition, passengers would receive a travel credit or voucher by default from some airlines instead of getting their money back, so they could not use their refund to rebook on another airline when their flight was changed or cancelled without navigating a cumbersome request process. &nbsp;The final rule improves the passenger experience by requiring refunds to be:<ul>
 <li>Automatic:&nbsp;Airlines must automatically issue refunds without passengers having to explicitly request them or jump through hoops.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Prompt:&nbsp;Airlines and ticket agents must issue refunds within seven business days of refunds becoming due for credit card purchases and 20 calendar days for other payment methods.&nbsp;</li><li>Cash or original form of payment:&nbsp;Airlines and ticket agents must provide refunds in cash or whatever original payment method the individual used to make the purchase, such as credit card or airline miles. Airlines may not substitute vouchers, travel credits, or other forms of compensation unless the passenger affirmatively chooses to accept alternative compensation. &nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Full amount:&nbsp;Airlines and ticket agents must provide full refunds of the ticket purchase price, minus the value of any portion of transportation already used. The refunds must include all government-imposed taxes and fees and airline-imposed fees, regardless of whether the taxes or fees are refundable to airlines.</li>
 </ul>The final rule also requires airlines to provide prompt notifications to consumers affected by a cancelled or significantly changed flight of their right to a refund of the ticket and extra service fees, as well as any related policies.In addition, in instances where consumers are restricted by a government or advised by a medical professional not to travel to, from, or within the United States due to a serious communicable disease, the final rule requires that airlines must provide travel credits or vouchers. Consumers may be required to provide documentary evidence to support their request. Travel vouchers or credits provided by airlines must be transferrable and valid for at least five years from the date of issuance.The Department received a significant number of complaints against airlines and ticket agents for refusing to provide a refund or for delaying processing of refunds during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. At the height of the pandemic in 2020, refund complaints peaked at 87 percent of all air travel service complaints received by DOT. Refund problems continue to make up a substantial share of the complaints that DOT receives.DOT’s Historic Record of Consumer Protection Under the Biden-Harris AdministrationUnder the Biden-Harris Administration and Secretary Buttigieg, DOT has advanced the largest expansion of airline passenger rights, issued the biggest fines against airlines for failing consumers, and returned more money to passengers in refunds and reimbursements than ever before in the Department’s history.<ul>
 <li>Thanks to pressure from Secretary Buttigieg and DOT’s&nbsp;<a href="http://flightrights.gov/">flightrights.gov</a>&nbsp;dashboard, all 10 major U.S. airlines guarantee free rebooking and meals, and nine guarantee hotel accommodations when an airline issue causes a significant delay or cancellation. These are new commitments the airlines added to their customer service plans that DOT can legally ensure they adhere to and are displayed on&nbsp;<a href="http://flightrights.gov/">flightrights.gov</a>.&nbsp;</li><li>Since President Biden took office, DOT has helped return more than $3 billion in refunds and reimbursements owed to airline passengers – including over $600 million to passengers affected by the Southwest Airlines holiday meltdown in 2022.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Under Secretary Buttigieg, DOT has issued over $164 million in penalties against airlines for consumer protection violations. Between 1996 and 2020, DOT collectively issued less than $71 million in penalties against airlines for consumer protection violations.&nbsp;</li><li>DOT recently launched a new&nbsp;<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretary-buttigieg-launches-bipartisan-partnership-state-attorneys-general-protect">partnership</a>&nbsp;with a bipartisan group of state attorneys general to fast-track the review of consumer complaints, hold airlines accountable, and protect the rights of the traveling public.&nbsp;</li><li>In 2023, the flight cancellation rate in the U.S. was a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/2023-numbers-more-flights-fewer-cancellations-more-consumer-protections#:~:text=In%202023%2C%20there%20were%2016.3,lowest%20rate%20in%20a%20decade.">record low</a>&nbsp;at under 1.2% — the lowest rate of flight cancellations in over 10 years despite a record amount of air travel.&nbsp;</li><li>DOT is undertaking its first ever industry-wide review of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretary-buttigieg-announces-first-industry-wide-privacy-review-us-airlines#:~:text=The%20review%20will%20examine%20airlines,that%20data%20with%20third%20parties.">airline privacy practices</a>&nbsp;and its first review of airline loyalty programs.</li>
 </ul>In addition to finalizing the rules to require automatic refunds and protect against surprise fees, DOT is also pursuing rulemakings that would:<ul>
 <li>Propose to ban family seating junk fees and guarantee that parents can sit with their children for no extra charge when they fly. Before President Biden and Secretary Buttigieg pressed airlines last year, no airline committed to guaranteeing fee-free family seating. Now, four airlines guarantee fee-free family seating, and the Department is working on its family seating junk fee ban proposal.&nbsp;</li><li>Propose to make passenger compensation and amenities mandatory so that travelers are taken care of when airlines cause flight delays or cancellations.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Expand the rights for passengers who use wheelchairs and ensure that they can travel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretary-buttigieg-announces-proposed-rule-ensure-passengers-who-use-wheelchairs-can">safely and with dignity</a>. The comment period on this proposed rule closes on May 13, 2024.</li>
 </ul>The final rule on refunds can be found at<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news">&nbsp;https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer/latest-news</a>&nbsp;and at&nbsp;<a href="http://regulations.gov/">regulations.gov</a>, docket number DOT-OST-2022-0089. There are different implementation periods in this final rule ranging from six months for airlines to provide automatic refunds when owed to 12 months for airlines to provide transferable travel vouchers or credits when consumers are unable to travel for reasons related to a serious communicable disease.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.transportation.gov/airconsumer">Click here for</a> more information about airline passenger rights, as well as DOT’s rules, guidance and orders

🎥Airlines now must offer you a cash refund under new rules

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/23-million-gift-from-suzanne-walter-scott-foundation-expands-scholarships-at-uno-unmc/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

OMAHA — A $23 million gift from the Suzanne &amp; Walter Scott Foundation aims to grow scholarship programs for Omaha students in the University of Nebraska system.

The bulk, $20 million, will allow more students into the competitive Scott Scholars Program based at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and launched by the philanthropists in 1997.&nbsp;

Class sizes in the UNO-based program will expand from 32 students to 42 in each of the next five years.&nbsp;

Participants, who must be Nebraska residents and carry a high school GPA of at least 3.5 and an ACT score of at least 30, receive the Regents Scholarship through UNO to cover tuition. The Scott Scholars program covers other costs including books and room and board. Students stay in a living-learning community.&nbsp;

Harnoor Dhaliwal, associate executive director of the program, said community connections that students build — through internships at local companies, professional development opportunities and research — are key to retaining them in Nebraska after graduation.&nbsp;

According to a media release, an estimated 600 Scott scholars have graduated and about 80% chose to stay in Nebraska. The reported average annual salary for 2023 graduates of the program was $78,000.

Half the students in the most recent class expressed interest in health sciences, a media release said, which was an impetus for the expansion of the Scott Scholars to UNMC.

The remaining $3 million in the Scott pledge is to allow for a second cohort of Scott Scholars at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, where an inaugural class of 12 began their first year of medical school in the fall of 2023.&nbsp;

UNMC provides in-state tuition, and the Scott scholarship covers room and board and a stipend to fund professional and research opportunities. Scholars come from around the country and stay in an apartment complex near the UNMC campus.

Walter Scott Jr., who died in 2021, was chair emeritus and former CEO of Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc. and former chair of the board of Level 3 Communications Inc. Suzanne died in 2013, and had served as a director of the Omaha Zoological Society, Joslyn Art Museum and the Salvation Army.

Calvin Sisson, president and CEO of the Suzanne &amp; Walter Scott Foundation, said the scholarship enhancements align with the Scotts’ interest in education and developing leaders and communities.

Said Sisson: “Walter cared deeply about investing in Nebraska’s best and brightest students, not because they deserve it, but because they have the greatest potential to give back.”

The gifts were made through the NU Foundation as part of Only in Nebraska: A Campaign for Our University’s Future. The campaign is an effort to engage at least 150,000 benefactors to give $3 billion to support NU students, faculty, programs and research that address needs of the state.&nbsp;

Scholarships are a priority, with a particular focus on areas including health care, engineering and information technology.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/4/1713958279402.jpeg" alt="Students in a mathematical and statistical sciences class at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. (Courtesy of the University of Nebraska)" />
 <figcaption>Students in a mathematical and statistical sciences class at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. (Courtesy of the University of Nebraska)</figcaption>
 </figure>Cindy Gonzalez<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/23-million-gift-from-suzanne-walter-scott-foundation-expands-scholarships-at-uno-unmc/">Nebraska Examiner</a>OMAHA — A $23 million gift from the Suzanne &amp; Walter Scott Foundation aims to grow scholarship programs for Omaha students in the University of Nebraska system.The bulk, $20 million, will allow more students into the competitive Scott Scholars Program based at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and launched by the philanthropists in 1997.&nbsp;Class sizes in the UNO-based program will expand from 32 students to 42 in each of the next five years.&nbsp;Participants, who must be Nebraska residents and carry a high school GPA of at least 3.5 and an ACT score of at least 30, receive the Regents Scholarship through UNO to cover tuition. The Scott Scholars program covers other costs including books and room and board. Students stay in a living-learning community.&nbsp;Harnoor Dhaliwal, associate executive director of the program, said community connections that students build — through internships at local companies, professional development opportunities and research — are key to retaining them in Nebraska after graduation.&nbsp;According to a media release, an estimated 600 Scott scholars have graduated and about 80% chose to stay in Nebraska. The reported average annual salary for 2023 graduates of the program was $78,000.Half the students in the most recent class expressed interest in health sciences, a media release said, which was an impetus for the expansion of the Scott Scholars to UNMC.The remaining $3 million in the Scott pledge is to allow for a second cohort of Scott Scholars at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, where an inaugural class of 12 began their first year of medical school in the fall of 2023.&nbsp;UNMC provides in-state tuition, and the Scott scholarship covers room and board and a stipend to fund professional and research opportunities. Scholars come from around the country and stay in an apartment complex near the UNMC campus.Walter Scott Jr., who died in 2021, was chair emeritus and former CEO of Peter Kiewit Sons’ Inc. and former chair of the board of Level 3 Communications Inc. Suzanne died in 2013, and had served as a director of the Omaha Zoological Society, Joslyn Art Museum and the Salvation Army.Calvin Sisson, president and CEO of the Suzanne &amp; Walter Scott Foundation, said the scholarship enhancements align with the Scotts’ interest in education and developing leaders and communities.Said Sisson: “Walter cared deeply about investing in Nebraska’s best and brightest students, not because they deserve it, but because they have the greatest potential to give back.”The gifts were made through the NU Foundation as part of Only in Nebraska: A Campaign for Our University’s Future. The campaign is an effort to engage at least 150,000 benefactors to give $3 billion to support NU students, faculty, programs and research that address needs of the state.&nbsp;Scholarships are a priority, with a particular focus on areas including health care, engineering and information technology.

$23 million gift from Suzanne & Walter Scott Foundation expands scholarships at UNO, UNMC

KANSAS CITY (AP) —Thousands of United Methodists are gathering in Charlotte, North Carolina, for their big denominational meeting, known as General Conference.

It’s a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congregations-leaving-united-methodist-church-lgbtq-bans-70b8c89ea49174597f4548c249bab24f">much-anticipated gathering</a>. Typically it is held every four years, but church leaders delayed the 2020 gathering until now due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This year, the 11-day gathering runs from April 23 to May 3. Among those assembling are hundreds of voting delegates — the United Methodists from across the globe who were elected to represent their regional church body — though as many as one-quarter of international delegates are not confirmed as able to attend. The delegates, half clergy and half lay Methodists, are the decision makers at General Conference.

General Conference — the only entity that can speak for the entire denomination — is a business meeting where delegates set policy, pass budgets and address other church-wide matters. It’s the only body that can amend the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which includes church law. It also includes Social Principles, which are non-binding declarations on social and ethical issues. There’s worship and fellowship, too.

IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS YEAR’S MEETING?

Yes. This will be the first General Conference since more than&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/united-methodist-congregations-leaving-lgbtq-bans-dbd315f329e4cfec4ba78916668ab50b">7,600 mostly conservative congregations left</a>&nbsp;the United Methodist Church between 2019 and 2023 because the denomination essentially stopped enforcing its bans on same-sex marriage and having “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” serving as clergy and bishops.

WILL THE GENERAL CONFERENCE LIFT THOSE LGBTQ-RELATED BANS THIS YEAR?

It’s possible. The delegates in Charlotte are expected to vote on whether to eliminate them. Similar efforts have failed in years past, but with the election of more progressive delegates and the departure of many conservatives, supporters of removing the bans are optimistic.

WHAT OTHER KEY ISSUES ARE UP FOR CONSIDERATION?

—&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/united-methodists-schism-disaffiliation-lgbtq-44fd14d471124d23e1fd5677a8f2b1d9">Disaffiliations</a>: The rules that allowed U.S. congregations to leave between 2019 and 2023. It allowed them to leave with their properties, held in trust for the denomination, under friendlier-than-normal legal terms. Some want similar conditions for international churches and for U.S. churches that missed the 2023 deadline.

—Regionalization: A proposal to restructure the denomination into regional conferences around the world, rather than having distinct names for U.S. and other jurisdictions. It would define the role of regions more precisely and put American congregations into their own regional body. Under this proposal, all regions would be able to adapt church policies to their local contexts, including those on marriage and ordination.

—Budgets: Because of all the disaffiliations, the conference will vote on a much-reduced budget proposal for the coming years.

New York Area Bishop Thomas Bickerton, president of the denomination’s Council of Bishops, addressed the recent schism head-on in feisty remarks during Tuesday's opening worship, which included music and Communion.

Bickerton spoke of his recent visit to a Texas conference that had lost more than half its churches and said those remaining were committed to rebuilding the church. He said those at the General Conference should be doing the same – not continuing the controversy.

“Are you committed to the revitalization of the United Methodist Church?” Bickerton said to applause. “Are you here to work for a culture marked by compassion, courage, and companionship? … If you can’t agree to that, what are you doing here anyway? Maybe, just maybe, you’re in the wrong place.”

He alluded to criticism of the denomination during the disaffiliation debates and said it was holding on to its core beliefs.

“Don’t you tell us that we don’t believe in Scripture,” he said. “Don’t you tell us that we don’t believe in the doctrine of the church. And Lord have mercy, don’t tell us that we don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. … We have got to rebuild the church and we’ve got to do it together.”

Though thousands of Methodists with be attending the conference, there are only 862 official voting delegates, from the following regions of the church:

• 1.5% from concordant (affiliated) churches

No. As of last week, only about three-quarters of international delegates were confirmed as able to attend, the Commission on the General Conference reported Thursday. The other quarter includes 27 delegates unable to get visas or passports, others who couldn’t attend for various reasons, and 62 delegates still unconfirmed. African groups have strongly criticized denominational officials, faulting them for delays in providing necessary paperwork and information and raising questions about whether&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/methodists-lgbtq-samesex-marriage-conservatives-africa-1319aea6e1d2ad8755a905a8c4b1bf79">African conferences</a>&nbsp;will accept voting results from the conference.

That varies widely, but those long active in the movement to repeal LGBTQ bans are focused strongly on the conference. First United Methodist Church in Pittsburgh, for example, held a commissioning service on April 14 for three members attending the conference in varying capacities. “It will be deeply meaningful for me personally to vote for those changes,” said member Tracy Merrick, who will be a delegate.

They’re part of a larger worldwide family of Methodists and other groups in the tradition of 18th century British Protestant revivalist John Wesley, who emphasized evangelism, holy living and social service. They hold many beliefs in common with other Christians, with some distinct doctrines. United Methodists traditionally ranged from liberal to conservative. They were until recently the third largest and most widespread U.S. denomination. Methodist missionaries planted churches worldwide, which grew dramatically, especially in Africa. Some became independent, but churches on four continents remain part of the United Methodist Church.

5.4 million in the United States as of 2022, but that will decline significantly due to 2023 disaffiliations.

4.6 million in Africa, Asia and Europe. That’s lower than earlier estimates but reflects more recent denominational reports.

SOURCES: General Council on Finance and Administration and other United Methodist entities.

KANSAS CITY (AP) —Thousands of United Methodists are gathering in Charlotte, North Carolina, for their big denominational meeting, known as General Conference.It’s a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congregations-leaving-united-methodist-church-lgbtq-bans-70b8c89ea49174597f4548c249bab24f">much-anticipated gathering</a>. Typically it is held every four years, but church leaders delayed the 2020 gathering until now due to the COVID-19 pandemic.This year, the 11-day gathering runs from April 23 to May 3. Among those assembling are hundreds of voting delegates — the United Methodists from across the globe who were elected to represent their regional church body — though as many as one-quarter of international delegates are not confirmed as able to attend. The delegates, half clergy and half lay Methodists, are the decision makers at General Conference.WHAT HAPPENS AT GENERAL CONFERENCE?General Conference — the only entity that can speak for the entire denomination — is a business meeting where delegates set policy, pass budgets and address other church-wide matters. It’s the only body that can amend the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which includes church law. It also includes Social Principles, which are non-binding declarations on social and ethical issues. There’s worship and fellowship, too.IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUE ABOUT THIS YEAR’S MEETING?Yes. This will be the first General Conference since more than&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/united-methodist-congregations-leaving-lgbtq-bans-dbd315f329e4cfec4ba78916668ab50b">7,600 mostly conservative congregations left</a>&nbsp;the United Methodist Church between 2019 and 2023 because the denomination essentially stopped enforcing its bans on same-sex marriage and having “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” serving as clergy and bishops.WILL THE GENERAL CONFERENCE LIFT THOSE LGBTQ-RELATED BANS THIS YEAR?It’s possible. The delegates in Charlotte are expected to vote on whether to eliminate them. Similar efforts have failed in years past, but with the election of more progressive delegates and the departure of many conservatives, supporters of removing the bans are optimistic.WHAT OTHER KEY ISSUES ARE UP FOR CONSIDERATION?—&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/united-methodists-schism-disaffiliation-lgbtq-44fd14d471124d23e1fd5677a8f2b1d9">Disaffiliations</a>: The rules that allowed U.S. congregations to leave between 2019 and 2023. It allowed them to leave with their properties, held in trust for the denomination, under friendlier-than-normal legal terms. Some want similar conditions for international churches and for U.S. churches that missed the 2023 deadline.—Regionalization: A proposal to restructure the denomination into regional conferences around the world, rather than having distinct names for U.S. and other jurisdictions. It would define the role of regions more precisely and put American congregations into their own regional body. Under this proposal, all regions would be able to adapt church policies to their local contexts, including those on marriage and ordination.—Budgets: Because of all the disaffiliations, the conference will vote on a much-reduced budget proposal for the coming years.HOW IS THE CONFERENCE STARTING OFF?New York Area Bishop Thomas Bickerton, president of the denomination’s Council of Bishops, addressed the recent schism head-on in feisty remarks during Tuesday's opening worship, which included music and Communion.Bickerton spoke of his recent visit to a Texas conference that had lost more than half its churches and said those remaining were committed to rebuilding the church. He said those at the General Conference should be doing the same – not continuing the controversy.“Are you committed to the revitalization of the United Methodist Church?” Bickerton said to applause. “Are you here to work for a culture marked by compassion, courage, and companionship? … If you can’t agree to that, what are you doing here anyway? Maybe, just maybe, you’re in the wrong place.”He alluded to criticism of the denomination during the disaffiliation debates and said it was holding on to its core beliefs.“Don’t you tell us that we don’t believe in Scripture,” he said. “Don’t you tell us that we don’t believe in the doctrine of the church. And Lord have mercy, don’t tell us that we don’t believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. … We have got to rebuild the church and we’ve got to do it together.”WHERE ARE THE DELEGATES COMING FROM?Though thousands of Methodists with be attending the conference, there are only 862 official voting delegates, from the following regions of the church:• 55.9% from the U.S.• 32% from Africa• 6% from the Philippines• 4.6% from Europe• 1.5% from concordant (affiliated) churchesWILL THEY ALL BE THERE?No. As of last week, only about three-quarters of international delegates were confirmed as able to attend, the Commission on the General Conference reported Thursday. The other quarter includes 27 delegates unable to get visas or passports, others who couldn’t attend for various reasons, and 62 delegates still unconfirmed. African groups have strongly criticized denominational officials, faulting them for delays in providing necessary paperwork and information and raising questions about whether&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/methodists-lgbtq-samesex-marriage-conservatives-africa-1319aea6e1d2ad8755a905a8c4b1bf79">African conferences</a>&nbsp;will accept voting results from the conference.HOW ARE CONGREGATIONS PREPARING?That varies widely, but those long active in the movement to repeal LGBTQ bans are focused strongly on the conference. First United Methodist Church in Pittsburgh, for example, held a commissioning service on April 14 for three members attending the conference in varying capacities. “It will be deeply meaningful for me personally to vote for those changes,” said member Tracy Merrick, who will be a delegate.WHAT ARE UNITED METHODISTS, ANYWAY?They’re part of a larger worldwide family of Methodists and other groups in the tradition of 18th century British Protestant revivalist John Wesley, who emphasized evangelism, holy living and social service. They hold many beliefs in common with other Christians, with some distinct doctrines. United Methodists traditionally ranged from liberal to conservative. They were until recently the third largest and most widespread U.S. denomination. Methodist missionaries planted churches worldwide, which grew dramatically, especially in Africa. Some became independent, but churches on four continents remain part of the United Methodist Church.HOW MANY UNITED METHODISTS ARE THERE?5.4 million in the United States as of 2022, but that will decline significantly due to 2023 disaffiliations.4.6 million in Africa, Asia and Europe. That’s lower than earlier estimates but reflects more recent denominational reports.___SOURCES: General Council on Finance and Administration and other United Methodist entities.___

United Methodists open 1st conference since breakup over LGBTQ inclusion

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers that’s expected to face legal challenges and disrupt the lives of content creators who rely on the short-form video app for income.

The TikTok legislation was included as part of a larger $95 billion package that provides foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel and was passed 79-18. It now goes to President Joe Biden, who said in a statement immediately after passage that he will sign it Wednesday.

A decision made by House Republicans last week to attach the TikTok bill to the high-priority package helped expedite its passage in Congress and came after negotiations with the Senate, where an earlier version of the bill had stalled. That version had given TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, six months to divest its stakes in the platform. But it drew skepticism from some key lawmakers concerned it was too short of a window for a complex deal that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.

The revised legislation extends the deadline, giving ByteDance nine months to sell TikTok, and a possible three-month extension if a sale is in progress. The bill would also bar the company from controlling TikTok’s secret sauce: the algorithm that feeds users videos based on their interests and has made the platform a trendsetting phenomenon.

TikTok did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday night.

The passage of the legislation is a culmination of long-held bipartisan fears in Washington over Chinese threats and the ownership of TikTok, which is used by 170 million Americans. For years, lawmakers and administration officials have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok.

“Congress is not acting to punish ByteDance, TikTok or any other individual company," Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell said. "Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.”

Opponents of the bill say the Chinese government could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that traffic in personal information. The foreign aid package includes a provision that makes it illegal for data brokers to sell or rent “personally identifiable sensitive data” to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran or entities in those countries. But it has encountered some pushback, including from the American Civil Liberties Union, which says the language is written too broadly and could sweep in journalists and others who publish personal information.

Many opponents of the TikTok measure argue the best way to protect U.S. consumers is through implementing a comprehensive federal data privacy law that targets all companies regardless of their origin. They also note the U.S. has not provided public evidence that shows TikTok sharing U.S. user information with Chinese authorities, or that Chinese officials have ever tinkered with its algorithm.

“Banning TikTok would be an extraordinary step that requires extraordinary justification,” said Becca Branum, a deputy director at the Washington-based Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, which advocates for digital rights. “Extending the divestiture deadline neither justifies the urgency of the threat to the public nor addresses the legislation’s fundamental constitutional flaws.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1708714541315.png" alt="Image from President Biden's TikTok account" />
 <figcaption>Image from President Biden's TikTok account</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate passed legislation Tuesday that would force TikTok’s China-based parent company to sell the social media platform under the threat of a ban, a contentious move by U.S. lawmakers that’s expected to face legal challenges and disrupt the lives of content creators who rely on the short-form video app for income.The TikTok legislation was included as part of a larger $95 billion package that provides foreign aid to Ukraine and Israel and was passed 79-18. It now goes to President Joe Biden, who said in a statement immediately after passage that he will sign it Wednesday.A decision made by House Republicans last week to attach the TikTok bill to the high-priority package helped expedite its passage in Congress and came after negotiations with the Senate, where an earlier version of the bill had stalled. That version had given TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, six months to divest its stakes in the platform. But it drew skepticism from some key lawmakers concerned it was too short of a window for a complex deal that could be worth tens of billions of dollars.The revised legislation extends the deadline, giving ByteDance nine months to sell TikTok, and a possible three-month extension if a sale is in progress. The bill would also bar the company from controlling TikTok’s secret sauce: the algorithm that feeds users videos based on their interests and has made the platform a trendsetting phenomenon.TikTok did not immediately return a request for comment Tuesday night.The passage of the legislation is a culmination of long-held bipartisan fears in Washington over Chinese threats and the ownership of TikTok, which is used by 170 million Americans. For years, lawmakers and administration officials have expressed concerns that Chinese authorities could force ByteDance to hand over U.S. user data, or influence Americans by suppressing or promoting certain content on TikTok.“Congress is not acting to punish ByteDance, TikTok or any other individual company," Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Maria Cantwell said. "Congress is acting to prevent foreign adversaries from conducting espionage, surveillance, maligned operations, harming vulnerable Americans, our servicemen and women, and our U.S. government personnel.”Opponents of the bill say the Chinese government could easily get information on Americans in other ways, including through commercial data brokers that traffic in personal information. The foreign aid package includes a provision that makes it illegal for data brokers to sell or rent “personally identifiable sensitive data” to North Korea, China, Russia, Iran or entities in those countries. But it has encountered some pushback, including from the American Civil Liberties Union, which says the language is written too broadly and could sweep in journalists and others who publish personal information.Many opponents of the TikTok measure argue the best way to protect U.S. consumers is through implementing a comprehensive federal data privacy law that targets all companies regardless of their origin. They also note the U.S. has not provided public evidence that shows TikTok sharing U.S. user information with Chinese authorities, or that Chinese officials have ever tinkered with its algorithm.“Banning TikTok would be an extraordinary step that requires extraordinary justification,” said Becca Branum, a deputy director at the Washington-based Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, which advocates for digital rights. “Extending the divestiture deadline neither justifies the urgency of the threat to the public nor addresses the legislation’s fundamental constitutional flaws.”Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat who voted for the legislation, said he has concerns about TikTok, but he's also worried the bill could have negative effects on free speech, doesn't do enough to protect consumer privacy and could potentially be abused by a future administration to violate First Amendment rights.“I plan to watchdog how this legislation is implemented,” Wyden said in a statement.China has previously said it would oppose a forced sale of TikTok, and has signaled its opposition this time around. TikTok, which has long denied it’s a security threat, is also preparing a lawsuit to block the legislation.“At the stage that the bill is signed, we will move to the courts for a legal challenge,” Michael Beckerman, TikTok’s head of public policy for the Americas, wrote in a memo sent to employees on Saturday and obtained by The Associated Press.“This is the beginning, not the end of this long process," Beckerman wrote.The company has seen some success with court challenges in the past, but it has never sought to prevent federal legislation from going into effect.In November,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/montana-tiktok-ban-25c561396e85fee8926309daf4ad4b4f">a federal judge blocked a Montana law</a>&nbsp;that would ban TikTok use across the state after the company and five content creators who use the platform sued. Three years before that, federal courts&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-courts-a526c144fad9f0ebc37bf2d49a97740a">blocked</a>&nbsp;an executive order issued by then-President Donald Trump to ban TikTok after the company sued on the grounds that the order violated free speech and due process rights.The Trump administration then brokered a deal that had U.S. corporations Oracle and Walmart take a large stake in TikTok. But the sale never went through.Trump, who is running for president again this year, now says he opposes the potential ban.Since then, TikTok has been in negotiations about its future with the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, a little-known government agency tasked with investigating corporate deals for national security concerns.On Sunday, Erich Andersen, a top attorney for ByteDance who led talks with the U.S. government for years, told his team that he was stepping down from his role.“As I started to reflect some months ago on the stresses of the last few years and the new generation of challenges that lie ahead, I decided that the time was right to pass the baton to a new leader,” Andersen wrote in an internal memo that was obtained by the AP. He said the decision to step down was entirely his and was decided months ago in a discussion with the company’s senior leaders.Meanwhile, TikTok content creators who rely on the app have been&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-ban-reaction-influencers-4ae88afbc344630b2c1091a4a1784078">trying to make their voices heard</a>. Earlier Tuesday, some creators congregated in front the Capitol building to speak out against the bill and carry signs that read “I’m 1 of the 170 million Americans on TikTok," among other things.Tiffany Cianci, a content creator who has more than 140,000 followers on the platform and had encouraged people to show up, said she spent Monday night picking up creators from airports in the D.C. area. Some came from as far as Nevada and California. Others drove overnight from South Carolina or took a bus from upstate New York.Cianci says she believes TikTok is the safest platform for users right now because of Project Texas, TikTok's $1.5 billion mitigation plan to store U.S. user data on servers owned and maintained by the tech giant Oracle.“If our data is not safe on TikTok," she said. “I would ask&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-campaign-tiktok-young-voters-security-concerns-4fbb665f37d830fe9d950d614cb3810c">why the president is on TikTok</a>.”