LINCOLN, NEB. – Nebraska Farm Bureau is excited to announce the establishment of the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group, a dedicated&nbsp;<a>initiative aimed at assisting farmers and ranchers in estate and succession planning</a>. This innovative group will focus on providing specialized legal counsel to farm and ranch families, ensuring a smooth transition of assets and securing a sustainable future for agricultural legacies.

“One of the most discussed topics of conversation with our members has been about farm/ranch estate and succession planning. We are providing a list of attorneys that Nebraska Farm Bureau recommends, that have experience in estate and succession planning, and that is agriculture focused and agriculture friendly in the legal profession,” said Nebraska Farm Bureau President Mark McHargue. “This list recognizes attorneys who specialize in the unique legal needs of the agricultural industry.”

With a commitment to the unique challenges faced by the farming community, the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group will bring together legal experts well-versed in the complexities of estate/succession planning. The group is committed to the unique challenges faced by farm and ranch communities across Nebraska. These selected attorneys will provide guidance that will empower local farmers and ranchers to make informed decisions for the continuity of their operations.

"We recognize the significance of effective estate and succession planning for farm and ranch families. The Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group is a testament to our dedication to supporting agricultural communities, ensuring they have the resources and expertise needed for long-term success," McHargue said.

The group's services will encompass a range of legal aspects: wills, trusts, tax planning, and business structure and is categorized by region to easily connect farmers and ranchers with legal professionals in their communities. By addressing these crucial elements, the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group aims to contribute to the resilience and prosperity of Nebraska's farm and ranch families.

You must be a member of Nebraska Farm Bureau to access the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group. To join and learn more go to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nefb.org/" target="_blank">www.nefb.org</a>.

The Nebraska Farm Bureau is a grassroots, state-wide organization dedicated to supporting farm and ranch families and working for the benefit of all Nebraskans through a wide variety of educational, service, and advocacy efforts. More than 55,000 families across Nebraska are Farm Bureau members, working together to achieve rural and urban prosperity as agriculture is a key fuel to Nebraska’s economy. For more information about Nebraska Farm Bureau and agriculture, visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nefb.org/" target="_blank">www.nefb.org</a>.

Nebraska Farm BureauLINCOLN, NEB. – Nebraska Farm Bureau is excited to announce the establishment of the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group, a dedicated&nbsp;<a>initiative aimed at assisting farmers and ranchers in estate and succession planning</a>. This innovative group will focus on providing specialized legal counsel to farm and ranch families, ensuring a smooth transition of assets and securing a sustainable future for agricultural legacies.“One of the most discussed topics of conversation with our members has been about farm/ranch estate and succession planning. We are providing a list of attorneys that Nebraska Farm Bureau recommends, that have experience in estate and succession planning, and that is agriculture focused and agriculture friendly in the legal profession,” said Nebraska Farm Bureau President Mark McHargue. “This list recognizes attorneys who specialize in the unique legal needs of the agricultural industry.”With a commitment to the unique challenges faced by the farming community, the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group will bring together legal experts well-versed in the complexities of estate/succession planning. The group is committed to the unique challenges faced by farm and ranch communities across Nebraska. These selected attorneys will provide guidance that will empower local farmers and ranchers to make informed decisions for the continuity of their operations."We recognize the significance of effective estate and succession planning for farm and ranch families. The Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group is a testament to our dedication to supporting agricultural communities, ensuring they have the resources and expertise needed for long-term success," McHargue said.The group's services will encompass a range of legal aspects: wills, trusts, tax planning, and business structure and is categorized by region to easily connect farmers and ranchers with legal professionals in their communities. By addressing these crucial elements, the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group aims to contribute to the resilience and prosperity of Nebraska's farm and ranch families.You must be a member of Nebraska Farm Bureau to access the Nebraska Ag Legal Professionals Group. To join and learn more go to&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nefb.org/" target="_blank">www.nefb.org</a>.The Nebraska Farm Bureau is a grassroots, state-wide organization dedicated to supporting farm and ranch families and working for the benefit of all Nebraskans through a wide variety of educational, service, and advocacy efforts. More than 55,000 families across Nebraska are Farm Bureau members, working together to achieve rural and urban prosperity as agriculture is a key fuel to Nebraska’s economy. For more information about Nebraska Farm Bureau and agriculture, visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nefb.org/" target="_blank">www.nefb.org</a>.

Nebraska Farm Bureau Launches Initiative Aimed at Assisting Farmers and Ranchers in Estate and Succession Planning

Washington, D.C.&nbsp;– Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE-03) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) introduced legislation to designate the Postal Service building in Lexington, NE as the “Bill Barrett Post Office Building” in honor of the former Third District Congressman who passed away in 2016. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE-02) and Mike Flood (R-NE-01) are original cosponsors of the legislation.

The members released the following statements:

“Known for his ability to cultivate consensus and connect with anyone, Bill Barrett’s legacy is put best in his own words ‘Service to others is the best work of life,’”&nbsp;said Rep. Smith. “Today, the Third District leads the nation in agriculture production, owing no small thanks to his work on issues important to Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers. He set a lasting standard of statesmanship for all who look to his example, and I thank my fellow delegation members for joining me in this effort to memorialize his impact on our state.”

“During his service in the Legislature and later in Congress, Bill Barrett always put Nebraskans first,”&nbsp;said Sen. Ricketts. “He was also a friend and advisor to me and so many other leaders. His legacy should be honored. Through this legislation, I hope to see the Lexington Post Office renamed in commemoration of his years of public service to Nebraska and our country.”

“Whether serving as a member of the U.S. Navy, Speaker of the Unicameral, or a U.S. Congressman, Representative Barrett dedicated his life to helping others — a relentless fighter for his district and for Nebraska. I’m proud to co-lead this legislation to honor his legacy of public service,”&nbsp;said Sen. Fischer.

“Bill Barrett faithfully served the Great State of Nebraska first in the Unicameral where he rose to be Speaker of the Legislature and then as a Member of Congress,”&nbsp;said Rep. Bacon. “As a Member of the Agriculture Committee, he helped to write the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which revised and simplified direct payment programs for crops and eliminated milk price supports through direct government purchases. He also served our great nation in the Navy. I am honored to support the naming of a post office in his honor.”

“From the Navy to the Unicameral to the halls of Congress, Bill Barrett’s life was devoted to public service. As former Speakers of the Nebraska Unicameral, he and I shared a special bond,”&nbsp;said Rep. Flood. “During Barrett’s decade in the House, he was an advocate for Nebraska agriculture who helped author the Farm Bill. Naming the Lexington post office after him is one small way we can honor his legacy, and I’m grateful to Congressman Smith for leading the charge to get this done.”

William E. Barrett, born in Lexington, NE, represented Nebraska’s Third Congressional District for 10 years from 1991-2001. He graduated from Hastings College in 1951 with a degree in Business Administration and served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War. Following his service in the Navy, Barrett returned to Hastings College where he recruited students and was vice president for student admissions and was involved in public relations. He later served on the College Board of Trustees for 32 years. He was also a member of his family’s general insurance, real estate brokerage, and appraising firm, Barrett-Housel &amp; Associates. 

In 1978, Barrett was elected to the Nebraska Legislature, serving for 12 years with his last four as Speaker, until he was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1990. He was elected president of his freshman congressional class, a group that included future Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). During his time in Congress, he served on the House Agriculture Committee, where he coauthored the Freedom to Farm Act and fought against federal overreach into local water rights issues. He also presided over a weekly bipartisan prayer breakfast, and in 1997, he was appointed chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast.

Office of Adrian SmithWashington, D.C.&nbsp;– Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE-03) and Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) introduced legislation to designate the Postal Service building in Lexington, NE as the “Bill Barrett Post Office Building” in honor of the former Third District Congressman who passed away in 2016. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Reps. Don Bacon (R-NE-02) and Mike Flood (R-NE-01) are original cosponsors of the legislation.The members released the following statements:“Known for his ability to cultivate consensus and connect with anyone, Bill Barrett’s legacy is put best in his own words ‘Service to others is the best work of life,’”&nbsp;said Rep. Smith. “Today, the Third District leads the nation in agriculture production, owing no small thanks to his work on issues important to Nebraska’s farmers and ranchers. He set a lasting standard of statesmanship for all who look to his example, and I thank my fellow delegation members for joining me in this effort to memorialize his impact on our state.”“During his service in the Legislature and later in Congress, Bill Barrett always put Nebraskans first,”&nbsp;said Sen. Ricketts. “He was also a friend and advisor to me and so many other leaders. His legacy should be honored. Through this legislation, I hope to see the Lexington Post Office renamed in commemoration of his years of public service to Nebraska and our country.”“Whether serving as a member of the U.S. Navy, Speaker of the Unicameral, or a U.S. Congressman, Representative Barrett dedicated his life to helping others — a relentless fighter for his district and for Nebraska. I’m proud to co-lead this legislation to honor his legacy of public service,”&nbsp;said Sen. Fischer.“Bill Barrett faithfully served the Great State of Nebraska first in the Unicameral where he rose to be Speaker of the Legislature and then as a Member of Congress,”&nbsp;said Rep. Bacon. “As a Member of the Agriculture Committee, he helped to write the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which revised and simplified direct payment programs for crops and eliminated milk price supports through direct government purchases. He also served our great nation in the Navy. I am honored to support the naming of a post office in his honor.”“From the Navy to the Unicameral to the halls of Congress, Bill Barrett’s life was devoted to public service. As former Speakers of the Nebraska Unicameral, he and I shared a special bond,”&nbsp;said Rep. Flood. “During Barrett’s decade in the House, he was an advocate for Nebraska agriculture who helped author the Farm Bill. Naming the Lexington post office after him is one small way we can honor his legacy, and I’m grateful to Congressman Smith for leading the charge to get this done.”William E. Barrett, born in Lexington, NE, represented Nebraska’s Third Congressional District for 10 years from 1991-2001. He graduated from Hastings College in 1951 with a degree in Business Administration and served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War. Following his service in the Navy, Barrett returned to Hastings College where he recruited students and was vice president for student admissions and was involved in public relations. He later served on the College Board of Trustees for 32 years. He was also a member of his family’s general insurance, real estate brokerage, and appraising firm, Barrett-Housel &amp; Associates. In 1978, Barrett was elected to the Nebraska Legislature, serving for 12 years with his last four as Speaker, until he was elected to the U.S. Congress in 1990. He was elected president of his freshman congressional class, a group that included future Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH). During his time in Congress, he served on the House Agriculture Committee, where he coauthored the Freedom to Farm Act and fought against federal overreach into local water rights issues. He also presided over a weekly bipartisan prayer breakfast, and in 1997, he was appointed chairman of the National Prayer Breakfast.

Smith, Nebraska Delegation Members Introduce Bill to Honor Late Congressman Bill Barrett

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Monday restored&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to a replay of the Feb. 8, oral argument

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the full Supreme Court decision

The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.

The outcome ends efforts in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-illinois-primary-ballot-ruling-a9a4f343ee7cafef312d68e2633ddec4">Illinois</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the Capitol.

Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">a provision of the 14th Amendment</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.

Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause.

The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">heard arguments</a>&nbsp;less than a month ago, on Feb. 8. The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump's favor.

Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html">The case</a>&nbsp;is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949">Bush v. Gore</a>, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively handed the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. And it’s just one of several cases involving Trump directly or that could affect his chances of becoming president again, including a case scheduled for arguments in late April about whether he can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6 Capitol attack</a>. The timing of the high court's intervention has raised questions about whether Trump will be tried before the November election.

The arguments in February were the first time the high court had heard a case involving Section 3. The two-sentence provision, intended to keep some Confederates from holding office again, says that those who violate oaths to support the Constitution are barred from various positions including congressional offices or serving as presidential electors. But it does not specifically mention the presidency.

Conservative and liberal justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot had argued that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that it was incited by Trump, who had exhorted a crowd of his supporters at a rally outside the White House to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27">“fight like hell.”</a>&nbsp;They said it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argued.

Trump’s lawyers mounted several arguments for why the amendment can’t be used to keep him off the ballot. They contended the Jan. 6 riot wasn’t an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not go to the Capitol or join the rioters. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they said. Even if all those arguments failed, they said, Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The case was decided by a court that includes&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three justices appointed by Trump</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

The 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore case more than 23 years ago was the last time the court was so deeply involved in presidential politics. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who was on the bench then. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the Trump case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/6/1686700913232.png" alt="Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois,&nbsp;but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. File photo&nbsp; Associated Press" />
 <figcaption>Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois,&nbsp;but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. File photo&nbsp; Associated Press</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Monday restored&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;to 2024 presidential primary ballots, rejecting state attempts to hold the Republican former president accountable for the Capitol riot.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to a replay of the Feb. 8, oral argument<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the full Supreme Court decision<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Former President Trump: &quot;I want to start by thanking the Supreme Court for its unanimous decision today. It was a very important decision, very well crafted. I think it will go a long way toward bringing our country together, which our country needs.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/6cKLKALsWH">pic.twitter.com/6cKLKALsWH</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1764710433548632240?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1709565854355.png" alt="Trump posted his reaction on his social media platform" />
 <figcaption>Trump posted his reaction on his social media platform</figcaption>
 </figure>The justices ruled a day before the Super Tuesday primaries that states cannot invoke a post-Civil War constitutional provision to keep presidential candidates from appearing on ballots. That power resides with Congress, the court wrote in an unsigned opinion.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1709565729614.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>The outcome ends efforts in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-illinois-primary-ballot-ruling-a9a4f343ee7cafef312d68e2633ddec4">Illinois</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to kick Trump, the front-runner for his party’s nomination, off the ballot because of his attempts to undo his loss in the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden, culminating in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the Capitol.Trump’s case was the first at the Supreme Court dealing with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">a provision of the 14th Amendment</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.Colorado’s Supreme Court, in a first-of-its-kind ruling, had decided that the provision, Section 3, could be applied to Trump, who that court found incited the Capitol attack. No court before had applied Section 3 to a presidential candidate.Some election observers have warned that a ruling requiring congressional action to implement Section 3 could leave the door open to a renewed fight over trying to use the provision to disqualify Trump in the event he wins the election. In one scenario, a Democratic-controlled Congress could try to reject certifying Trump’s election on Jan. 6, 2025, under the clause.The issue then could return to the court, possibly in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Both sides had requested fast work by the court, which&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">heard arguments</a>&nbsp;less than a month ago, on Feb. 8. The justices seemed poised then to rule in Trump's favor.Trump had been kicked off the ballots in Colorado, Maine and Illinois, but all three rulings were on hold awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-719.html">The case</a>&nbsp;is the court’s most direct involvement in a presidential election since&nbsp;<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949">Bush v. Gore</a>, a decision delivered a quarter-century ago that effectively handed the 2000 election to Republican George W. Bush. And it’s just one of several cases involving Trump directly or that could affect his chances of becoming president again, including a case scheduled for arguments in late April about whether he can be criminally prosecuted on election interference charges, including his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6 Capitol attack</a>. The timing of the high court's intervention has raised questions about whether Trump will be tried before the November election.The arguments in February were the first time the high court had heard a case involving Section 3. The two-sentence provision, intended to keep some Confederates from holding office again, says that those who violate oaths to support the Constitution are barred from various positions including congressional offices or serving as presidential electors. But it does not specifically mention the presidency.Conservative and liberal justices questioned the case against Trump. Their main concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke the 14th Amendment. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump’s name from the Colorado ballot had argued that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that it was incited by Trump, who had exhorted a crowd of his supporters at a rally outside the White House to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-capitol-siege-media-e79eb5164613d6718e9f4502eb471f27">“fight like hell.”</a>&nbsp;They said it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argued.Trump’s lawyers mounted several arguments for why the amendment can’t be used to keep him off the ballot. They contended the Jan. 6 riot wasn’t an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not go to the Capitol or join the rioters. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they said. Even if all those arguments failed, they said, Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The case was decided by a court that includes&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three justices appointed by Trump</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his bogus claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.The 5-4 decision in Bush v. Gore case more than 23 years ago was the last time the court was so deeply involved in presidential politics. Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who was on the bench then. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the Trump case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.___

🎧Unanimous decision: Supreme Court overturns Trump ballot ban

WOOD RIVER, NEB. - At approximately 9:16 AM CST, Saturday, March 2, 2024, Wood River Fire Department responded to the report of a residential house explosion at 107 E. Eleventh Street, Wood River with one occupant unaccounted for. Upon arrival, firefighters determined the explosion/fire has also caused significant damage to surrounding structures. Nebraska State Fire Marshal Investigators were requested to aid in the incident investigation.

State Fire Marshal investigators discovered evidence of tampering with the natural gas system in the residence. Investigators have determined the cause of the explosion/fire at 107 E. Eleventh Street, Wood River, to be an act of arson. The deceased suspect was recovered from the basement of the residence late Saturday evening. Identification of the deceased and notification to the next of kin is pending by the Hall County Attorney's Office.

Responding agencies included Wood River Fire Department, Alda Fire Department, Cairo Fire Department, Shelton Fire Department, Grand Island Rural Fire Department, Hall County Emergency Management Agency, Hall County Attorney's Office, Hall County Sheriff's Office and the Nebraska State Fire Marshal.

We would like to reiterate that this incident was not related to the natural gas utility operator and their is no ongoing threat to the public. The State Fire Marshal has completed their on-site investigation.

Adam MatznerState Fire Marshal AgencyWOOD RIVER, NEB. - At approximately 9:16 AM CST, Saturday, March 2, 2024, Wood River Fire Department responded to the report of a residential house explosion at 107 E. Eleventh Street, Wood River with one occupant unaccounted for. Upon arrival, firefighters determined the explosion/fire has also caused significant damage to surrounding structures. Nebraska State Fire Marshal Investigators were requested to aid in the incident investigation.State Fire Marshal investigators discovered evidence of tampering with the natural gas system in the residence. Investigators have determined the cause of the explosion/fire at 107 E. Eleventh Street, Wood River, to be an act of arson. The deceased suspect was recovered from the basement of the residence late Saturday evening. Identification of the deceased and notification to the next of kin is pending by the Hall County Attorney's Office.Responding agencies included Wood River Fire Department, Alda Fire Department, Cairo Fire Department, Shelton Fire Department, Grand Island Rural Fire Department, Hall County Emergency Management Agency, Hall County Attorney's Office, Hall County Sheriff's Office and the Nebraska State Fire Marshal.We would like to reiterate that this incident was not related to the natural gas utility operator and their is no ongoing threat to the public. The State Fire Marshal has completed their on-site investigation.

Officials say one dead after Saturday morning house explosion in Central Nebraska

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nikki Haley has won the Republican primary in the District of Columbia, notching her first victory of the 2024 campaign.

Her victory Sunday at least temporarily halts Donald Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-election-michigan-2024-6e0b9fc18773e975fdfd23f7287ed615">sweep of the GOP voting contests</a>, although the former president is likely to pick up several hundred more delegates in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/super-tuesday-what-to-watch-d97942c329ece50c3205c883fdc4ac52">this week’s Super Tuesday races</a>.

Despite her early losses, Haley has said she would&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-donald-trump-election-2024-b1582a35c3617eee49b36288523a1ea6">remain in the race at least through those contests</a>, although she has declined to name any primary she felt confident she would win. Following&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-south-carolina-primary-republicans-13237d287ce770e0a45e9bccee78e8ee">her loss in her home state of South Carolina</a>, Haley remained adamant that voters in the places that followed deserved an alternative to Trump despite his dominance thus far in the campaign.

The Associated Press declared Haley the winner Sunday night after D.C. Republican Party officials released the results. She won all 19 delegates at stake.

“It’s not surprising that Republicans closest to Washington dysfunction are rejecting Donald Trump and all his chaos,” Haley spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said in a statement, noting that Haley became the first woman to win a Republican primary in history.

Washington is one of the most heavily Democratic jurisdictions in the nation, with only about 23,000 registered Republicans in the city. Democrat Joe Biden won the district in the 2020 general election with 92% of the vote.

Trump's campaign issued a statement shortly after Haley’s victory sarcastically congratulating her on being named “Queen of the Swamp by the lobbyists and DC insiders that want to protect the failed status quo.”

Haley held a rally in the nation’s capital on Friday before heading back to North Carolina and a series of states holding Super Tuesday primaries. She joked with more than 100 supporters inside a hotel ballroom, “Who says there’s no Republicans in D.C., come on.”

“We’re trying to make sure that we touch every hand that we can and speak to every person,” Haley said.

As she gave her standard campaign speech, criticizing Trump for running up federal deficit, one rallygoer bellowed, “He cannot win a general election. It’s madness.” That prompted agreement from Haley, who argues that she can deny Biden a second term but Trump can't.

While campaigning as an avowed conservative, Haley has tended to perform better among more moderate and independent-leaning voters.

Four in 10 Haley supporters in South Carolina’s GOP primary were self-described moderates, compared with 15% for Trump, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/ap-votecast-faq">AP VoteCast</a>, a survey of more than 2,400 voters taking part in the Republican primary in South Carolina, conducted for AP by NORC at the University of Chicago. On the other hand, 8 in 10 Trump supporters identified as conservatives, compared to about half of Haley’s backers.

Trump won an uncontested D.C. primary during his 2020 reelection bid but placed a distant third four years earlier behind Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Rubio’s win was one of only three in his unsuccessful 2016 bid. Other more centrist Republicans, including Mitt Romney and John McCain, won the city’s primaries in 2012 and 2008 on their way to winning the GOP nomination.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1709521768315.png" alt="Photo Team Nikki Haley" />
 <figcaption>Photo Team Nikki Haley</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — Nikki Haley has won the Republican primary in the District of Columbia, notching her first victory of the 2024 campaign.Her victory Sunday at least temporarily halts Donald Trump’s&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-donald-trump-election-michigan-2024-6e0b9fc18773e975fdfd23f7287ed615">sweep of the GOP voting contests</a>, although the former president is likely to pick up several hundred more delegates in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/super-tuesday-what-to-watch-d97942c329ece50c3205c883fdc4ac52">this week’s Super Tuesday races</a>.Despite her early losses, Haley has said she would&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nikki-haley-donald-trump-election-2024-b1582a35c3617eee49b36288523a1ea6">remain in the race at least through those contests</a>, although she has declined to name any primary she felt confident she would win. Following&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-nikki-haley-south-carolina-primary-republicans-13237d287ce770e0a45e9bccee78e8ee">her loss in her home state of South Carolina</a>, Haley remained adamant that voters in the places that followed deserved an alternative to Trump despite his dominance thus far in the campaign.The Associated Press declared Haley the winner Sunday night after D.C. Republican Party officials released the results. She won all 19 delegates at stake.“It’s not surprising that Republicans closest to Washington dysfunction are rejecting Donald Trump and all his chaos,” Haley spokesperson Olivia Perez-Cubas said in a statement, noting that Haley became the first woman to win a Republican primary in history.Washington is one of the most heavily Democratic jurisdictions in the nation, with only about 23,000 registered Republicans in the city. Democrat Joe Biden won the district in the 2020 general election with 92% of the vote.Trump's campaign issued a statement shortly after Haley’s victory sarcastically congratulating her on being named “Queen of the Swamp by the lobbyists and DC insiders that want to protect the failed status quo.”Haley held a rally in the nation’s capital on Friday before heading back to North Carolina and a series of states holding Super Tuesday primaries. She joked with more than 100 supporters inside a hotel ballroom, “Who says there’s no Republicans in D.C., come on.”“We’re trying to make sure that we touch every hand that we can and speak to every person,” Haley said.As she gave her standard campaign speech, criticizing Trump for running up federal deficit, one rallygoer bellowed, “He cannot win a general election. It’s madness.” That prompted agreement from Haley, who argues that she can deny Biden a second term but Trump can't.While campaigning as an avowed conservative, Haley has tended to perform better among more moderate and independent-leaning voters.Four in 10 Haley supporters in South Carolina’s GOP primary were self-described moderates, compared with 15% for Trump, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/ap-votecast-faq">AP VoteCast</a>, a survey of more than 2,400 voters taking part in the Republican primary in South Carolina, conducted for AP by NORC at the University of Chicago. On the other hand, 8 in 10 Trump supporters identified as conservatives, compared to about half of Haley’s backers.Trump won an uncontested D.C. primary during his 2020 reelection bid but placed a distant third four years earlier behind Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and former Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Rubio’s win was one of only three in his unsuccessful 2016 bid. Other more centrist Republicans, including Mitt Romney and John McCain, won the city’s primaries in 2012 and 2008 on their way to winning the GOP nomination.

History: Nikki Haley wins the District of Columbia’s GOP primary

CHICAGO (AP) —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ivf-frozen-embryo-alabama-court-7c968cc00201731d7baba5a284655b0d">The recent ruling in Alabama</a>&nbsp;that frozen embryos are legally considered children created a political firestorm after&nbsp;<a href="https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D">the decision</a>&nbsp;halted treatment for many couples seeking to have families through fertility treatments. It also has turned the spotlight on the importance of institutions that are poised to play a central in this year's elections: state supreme courts.

<a href="https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343d203a-b13d-463a-8176-c46e3ae4f695/docketentrydocuments/e3d95592-3cbe-4384-afa6-063d4595aa1d">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the ruling

Decisions by states' highest courts have become especially critical in the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to abortion. This year, campaigns for state supreme court seats are expected to be among the most expensive and bitterly contested races on the ballot. At stake are future decisions over abortion, other reproductive rights, gerrymandering, voting rights and other crucial issues.

“This is where the action is,” said Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.

<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-pause-4cf5d3139e1a6cbc62bc5ad9946cc1b8">The ruling</a>&nbsp;on Feb. 16 by the Republican-majority Alabama Supreme Court to consider frozen embryos created through IVF to be children under state law has unexpectedly made&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-ivf-embryos-ruling-republicans-campaign-democrats-5fa61803333ab1ec1062835397c15570">in vitro fertilization, or IVF,</a>&nbsp;an emerging&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-ivf-legislation-0506c070085407b8983bf55409b1465c">issue</a>&nbsp;in campaigns up and down the ballot. With multiple providers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-ivf-legislation-0506c070085407b8983bf55409b1465c">pausing fertility treatments</a>&nbsp;in the state, fearing criminal charges or punitive damages, the GOP-controlled Legislature is under pressure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/alabama-lawmakers-look-for-ivf-solution-as-patients-remain-in-limbo/ar-BB1iYLgW">to come up with a fix</a>.

After the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Supreme,Wade.">overturned Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;in 2022, eliminating federal protections for abortion rights, the decision unleashed a flurry of activity in the states, from legislation to lawsuits that often have ended up before state supreme courts. Those cases have magnified the stakes of having liberals or conservatives controlling a majority on those courts.

“Many people may not have realized that state supreme courts can decide on these kinds of issues that have such a direct impact on their everyday lives," Hill said. "But this Alabama ruling is a reminder that these courts hold so much power, especially now, over people’s rights.”

This year's elections bring&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/state-supreme-courts-abortion-redistricting-2024-931a453131fac282815ae31b4f0ea271">80 races</a>&nbsp;for supreme court seats in 33 states, including a few such as Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia where partisan control is on the line. At least four states will have state supreme court races on Super Tuesday, including Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas. Others, including Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon and West Virginia will have contests through the spring.

In Alabama, five of the nine seats on the all-Republican Supreme Court are on the ballot.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-conservative-christian-views-ruling-d9b7f720b5ef865ab35205ad36061f2d?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&amp;utm_medium=AP&amp;utm_source=Twitter">Chief Justice Tom Parker</a>, 72, who cited verses from the Bible and Christian theologians in his concurring opinion in the IVF case, is unable to seek another term because the Mississippi Constitution does not allow judges older than 70 to be elected.

Since Roe fell in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-court-abortion-litigation-tracker#arizona">about 40 lawsuits</a>&nbsp;challenging abortion bans have been filed in 23 states, and many have worked their up to to states' highest courts as advocates search state constitutions for protections to abortion rights.

According to the&nbsp;<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state-constitutions-and-abortion-rights/">Center for Reproductive Rights</a>, 30 state supreme courts have decided cases challenging abortion restrictions under their state constitutions. Of these, 12 have recognized protections for abortion rights in state constitutions, while four have denied their state constitutions protect abortion rights. Other state high courts have either upheld or blocked abortion restrictions without explicitly deciding on whether their state constitutions protect abortion rights.

These rulings have had direct consequences for those trying to access abortion care. In December, the Texas Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-decision-10767891a475e7ce2c82b1404450908a">overturned a court order</a>&nbsp;that would have allowed a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-kate-cox-texas-exceptions-e85664b2ab76bcb689b1b91913d3e33e">Dallas woman</a>&nbsp;to get an abortion after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-texas-court-kate-cox-complications-3e24f473b0eab907993ddcad189e8115">her story</a>&nbsp;of being forced to leave the state to terminate her nonviable pregnancy sparked a national outcry.

Abortion rights are just one recent example of the U.S. Supreme Court deferring to states on major issues, said Douglas Keith, senior counsel in the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending in judicial races. The U.S. Supreme Court also stepped back from ruling on issues such as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/54daa625511445969fee66696f7979c2">partisan gerrymandering</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-black-voters-6f840911e360c44fd2e4947cc743baa2">voting rights</a>, often making state supreme courts the final word on those issues.

“The Dobbs decision and others made clear that these courts would be the ones to decide these fundamental issues during a time where the U.S. Supreme Court was taking a step back from protecting certain rights,” Keith said.

State courts also are involved in the process of getting statewide citizen initiatives to the ballot, often deciding disputes over the technical requirements of petitions and the signature-gathering process. They will be play a pivotal role this year, as reproductive rights groups seek to place measures protecting abortion before voters in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-amendment-ban-protection-states-2024-052ff9846f8416efb725240af22b92ec">a number of states</a>.

State supreme courts are expected to rule on such measures planned in Florida, Missouri and Nevada.

Florida’s Republican attorney general in January&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-abortion-ballot-elections-931be34f9ffdd6d74f6beade05eeee47">asked</a>&nbsp;the state Supreme Court to keep a proposed abortion rights amendment off the ballot.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-missouri-ballot-constitution-ruling-edb5f44fc0f9799d01cda22cd1f70b40">In Missouri</a>, an appeals court ruled in October that summaries written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an abortion opponent who is running for governor, were politically partisan and misleading. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear Ashcroft's appeal of the ruling.

A Nevada district court judge in January&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nevada-abortion-access-ballot-471e9036864c030cc5296e7c78da8dad">approved</a>&nbsp;an abortion-rights ballot measure petition as eligible for signature-gathering, despite a legal challenge by anti-abortion groups. In November, the judge rejected an earlier petition that was much broader, including protections for prenatal care, postpartum care, vasectomies, tubal ligations, miscarriages and infertility. Nevadans for Reproductive Freedoms, the group behind the petition, appealed that rejection to the Nevada Supreme Court and is awaiting a ruling.

Activists also aim to place abortion rights on the ballot in Arizona, where Republican governors have appointed all seven of the Supreme Court justices.

“In many cases, state supreme courts have a lot of power to shut down direct democracy by preventing a question from getting on the ballot,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

Strategies that attempt to derail ballot initiatives are part of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-initiatives-voters-democracy-2024-602ebb8a74d7ae45163d79c065a23ef0">blueprint</a>&nbsp;created by anti-abortion groups in other states, including Ohio, where voters last year overwhelmingly decided to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-amendment-election-2023-fe3e06747b616507d8ca21ea26485270">enshrine abortion rights</a>&nbsp;in the state constitution.

Even with voter approval, the Ohio Supreme Court will be the “ultimate arbiter” of how to interpret the constitutional amendment and how it will affect existing abortion laws, said Hill, the Case Western law professor who served as a consultant to the Ohio campaign to enshrine abortion rights. This means the state's Supreme Court races this year, starting with a March 19 primary, will be vital to abortion rights in the state, as well as other topics including gerrymandering, environmental protections and criminal justice, she said.

With three seats up for a vote and a current 4-3 Republican majority, Democrats have an opportunity to flip the majority of the court for the first time since 1986 while Republicans will try to expand their control.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-abortion-0d188b5c6f841546f98436c1ab8180fa">result</a>&nbsp;of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-abortion-spending-82a3481a75665110e6d4b3d503ee2a24">heated race</a>&nbsp;in Wisconsin last year already has had an impact, after that state's Supreme Court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years.

In December, the new Wisconsin Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-redistricting-eccbcfee414d1943073a9fb949743860">overturned</a>&nbsp;Republican-drawn&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-redistricting-legislature-5bc5c0347b26a40fd615f4faf7583b46">legislative maps</a>&nbsp;and ordered new district boundary lines to be drawn. Wisconsin is a swing state but also is one of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-impeachment-republicans-gerrymandering-legislature-21fc8c3cf99623a379cbf4dd01ed0b8c">most heavily gerrymandered</a>&nbsp;in the country, allowing Republicans to have outsized majorities in the Legislature. A&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-abortion-ban-lawsuit-planned-parenthood-1518465359ed39a39d38e14a8d97a94e">lawsuit</a>&nbsp;challenging Wisconsin’s abortion ban might also be headed to the state supreme court.

“There have been immediate consequences for redistricting that have fundamentally reshaped politics in Wisconsin,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of an elections and campaign newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “It goes to show just how important these races are.”

CHICAGO (AP) —&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ivf-frozen-embryo-alabama-court-7c968cc00201731d7baba5a284655b0d">The recent ruling in Alabama</a>&nbsp;that frozen embryos are legally considered children created a political firestorm after&nbsp;<a href="https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343D203A-B13D-463A-8176-C46E3AE4F695/docketentrydocuments/E3D95592-3CBE-4384-AFA6-063D4595AA1D">the decision</a>&nbsp;halted treatment for many couples seeking to have families through fertility treatments. It also has turned the spotlight on the importance of institutions that are poised to play a central in this year's elections: state supreme courts.<a href="https://publicportal-api.alappeals.gov/courts/68f021c4-6a44-4735-9a76-5360b2e8af13/cms/case/343d203a-b13d-463a-8176-c46e3ae4f695/docketentrydocuments/e3d95592-3cbe-4384-afa6-063d4595aa1d">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the rulingDecisions by states' highest courts have become especially critical in the nearly two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to abortion. This year, campaigns for state supreme court seats are expected to be among the most expensive and bitterly contested races on the ballot. At stake are future decisions over abortion, other reproductive rights, gerrymandering, voting rights and other crucial issues.“This is where the action is,” said Jessie Hill, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland.<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-pause-4cf5d3139e1a6cbc62bc5ad9946cc1b8">The ruling</a>&nbsp;on Feb. 16 by the Republican-majority Alabama Supreme Court to consider frozen embryos created through IVF to be children under state law has unexpectedly made&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/election-ivf-embryos-ruling-republicans-campaign-democrats-5fa61803333ab1ec1062835397c15570">in vitro fertilization, or IVF,</a>&nbsp;an emerging&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-ivf-legislation-0506c070085407b8983bf55409b1465c">issue</a>&nbsp;in campaigns up and down the ballot. With multiple providers&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-ivf-legislation-0506c070085407b8983bf55409b1465c">pausing fertility treatments</a>&nbsp;in the state, fearing criminal charges or punitive damages, the GOP-controlled Legislature is under pressure&nbsp;<a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/alabama-lawmakers-look-for-ivf-solution-as-patients-remain-in-limbo/ar-BB1iYLgW">to come up with a fix</a>.After the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20(AP)%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Supreme,Wade.">overturned Roe v. Wade</a>&nbsp;in 2022, eliminating federal protections for abortion rights, the decision unleashed a flurry of activity in the states, from legislation to lawsuits that often have ended up before state supreme courts. Those cases have magnified the stakes of having liberals or conservatives controlling a majority on those courts.“Many people may not have realized that state supreme courts can decide on these kinds of issues that have such a direct impact on their everyday lives," Hill said. "But this Alabama ruling is a reminder that these courts hold so much power, especially now, over people’s rights.”This year's elections bring&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/state-supreme-courts-abortion-redistricting-2024-931a453131fac282815ae31b4f0ea271">80 races</a>&nbsp;for supreme court seats in 33 states, including a few such as Michigan, Ohio and West Virginia where partisan control is on the line. At least four states will have state supreme court races on Super Tuesday, including Alabama, Arkansas, North Carolina and Texas. Others, including Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Ohio, Oregon and West Virginia will have contests through the spring.In Alabama, five of the nine seats on the all-Republican Supreme Court are on the ballot.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/alabama-frozen-embryos-conservative-christian-views-ruling-d9b7f720b5ef865ab35205ad36061f2d?utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&amp;utm_medium=AP&amp;utm_source=Twitter">Chief Justice Tom Parker</a>, 72, who cited verses from the Bible and Christian theologians in his concurring opinion in the IVF case, is unable to seek another term because the Mississippi Constitution does not allow judges older than 70 to be elected.Since Roe fell in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/state-court-abortion-litigation-tracker#arizona">about 40 lawsuits</a>&nbsp;challenging abortion bans have been filed in 23 states, and many have worked their up to to states' highest courts as advocates search state constitutions for protections to abortion rights.According to the&nbsp;<a href="https://reproductiverights.org/maps/state-constitutions-and-abortion-rights/">Center for Reproductive Rights</a>, 30 state supreme courts have decided cases challenging abortion restrictions under their state constitutions. Of these, 12 have recognized protections for abortion rights in state constitutions, while four have denied their state constitutions protect abortion rights. Other state high courts have either upheld or blocked abortion restrictions without explicitly deciding on whether their state constitutions protect abortion rights.These rulings have had direct consequences for those trying to access abortion care. In December, the Texas Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/texas-abortion-ban-supreme-court-decision-10767891a475e7ce2c82b1404450908a">overturned a court order</a>&nbsp;that would have allowed a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-kate-cox-texas-exceptions-e85664b2ab76bcb689b1b91913d3e33e">Dallas woman</a>&nbsp;to get an abortion after&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-texas-court-kate-cox-complications-3e24f473b0eab907993ddcad189e8115">her story</a>&nbsp;of being forced to leave the state to terminate her nonviable pregnancy sparked a national outcry.Abortion rights are just one recent example of the U.S. Supreme Court deferring to states on major issues, said Douglas Keith, senior counsel in the judiciary program at the Brennan Center for Justice, which tracks spending in judicial races. The U.S. Supreme Court also stepped back from ruling on issues such as&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/54daa625511445969fee66696f7979c2">partisan gerrymandering</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/voting-rights-act-supreme-court-black-voters-6f840911e360c44fd2e4947cc743baa2">voting rights</a>, often making state supreme courts the final word on those issues.“The Dobbs decision and others made clear that these courts would be the ones to decide these fundamental issues during a time where the U.S. Supreme Court was taking a step back from protecting certain rights,” Keith said.State courts also are involved in the process of getting statewide citizen initiatives to the ballot, often deciding disputes over the technical requirements of petitions and the signature-gathering process. They will be play a pivotal role this year, as reproductive rights groups seek to place measures protecting abortion before voters in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-amendment-ban-protection-states-2024-052ff9846f8416efb725240af22b92ec">a number of states</a>.State supreme courts are expected to rule on such measures planned in Florida, Missouri and Nevada.Florida’s Republican attorney general in January&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/florida-abortion-ballot-elections-931be34f9ffdd6d74f6beade05eeee47">asked</a>&nbsp;the state Supreme Court to keep a proposed abortion rights amendment off the ballot.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-missouri-ballot-constitution-ruling-edb5f44fc0f9799d01cda22cd1f70b40">In Missouri</a>, an appeals court ruled in October that summaries written by Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an abortion opponent who is running for governor, were politically partisan and misleading. The Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear Ashcroft's appeal of the ruling.A Nevada district court judge in January&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nevada-abortion-access-ballot-471e9036864c030cc5296e7c78da8dad">approved</a>&nbsp;an abortion-rights ballot measure petition as eligible for signature-gathering, despite a legal challenge by anti-abortion groups. In November, the judge rejected an earlier petition that was much broader, including protections for prenatal care, postpartum care, vasectomies, tubal ligations, miscarriages and infertility. Nevadans for Reproductive Freedoms, the group behind the petition, appealed that rejection to the Nevada Supreme Court and is awaiting a ruling.Activists also aim to place abortion rights on the ballot in Arizona, where Republican governors have appointed all seven of the Supreme Court justices.“In many cases, state supreme courts have a lot of power to shut down direct democracy by preventing a question from getting on the ballot,” said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt Law School.Strategies that attempt to derail ballot initiatives are part of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-ballot-initiatives-voters-democracy-2024-602ebb8a74d7ae45163d79c065a23ef0">blueprint</a>&nbsp;created by anti-abortion groups in other states, including Ohio, where voters last year overwhelmingly decided to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/ohio-abortion-amendment-election-2023-fe3e06747b616507d8ca21ea26485270">enshrine abortion rights</a>&nbsp;in the state constitution.Even with voter approval, the Ohio Supreme Court will be the “ultimate arbiter” of how to interpret the constitutional amendment and how it will affect existing abortion laws, said Hill, the Case Western law professor who served as a consultant to the Ohio campaign to enshrine abortion rights. This means the state's Supreme Court races this year, starting with a March 19 primary, will be vital to abortion rights in the state, as well as other topics including gerrymandering, environmental protections and criminal justice, she said.With three seats up for a vote and a current 4-3 Republican majority, Democrats have an opportunity to flip the majority of the court for the first time since 1986 while Republicans will try to expand their control.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-election-abortion-0d188b5c6f841546f98436c1ab8180fa">result</a>&nbsp;of a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-abortion-spending-82a3481a75665110e6d4b3d503ee2a24">heated race</a>&nbsp;in Wisconsin last year already has had an impact, after that state's Supreme Court flipped to a liberal majority for the first time in 15 years.In December, the new Wisconsin Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-redistricting-eccbcfee414d1943073a9fb949743860">overturned</a>&nbsp;Republican-drawn&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-redistricting-legislature-5bc5c0347b26a40fd615f4faf7583b46">legislative maps</a>&nbsp;and ordered new district boundary lines to be drawn. Wisconsin is a swing state but also is one of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-supreme-court-impeachment-republicans-gerrymandering-legislature-21fc8c3cf99623a379cbf4dd01ed0b8c">most heavily gerrymandered</a>&nbsp;in the country, allowing Republicans to have outsized majorities in the Legislature. A&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-abortion-ban-lawsuit-planned-parenthood-1518465359ed39a39d38e14a8d97a94e">lawsuit</a>&nbsp;challenging Wisconsin’s abortion ban might also be headed to the state supreme court.“There have been immediate consequences for redistricting that have fundamentally reshaped politics in Wisconsin,” said Kyle Kondik, managing editor of an elections and campaign newsletter published by the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “It goes to show just how important these races are.”___

IVF ruling highlights importance of state court races in US elections

WASHINGTON (AP) — The transcript of the congressional deposition of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/hunter-biden">Hunter Biden</a>&nbsp;was released late Thursday, providing a full view of the contentious testimony that took place behind closed doors Wednesday as Republicans aggressively questioned the central figure in their impeachment inquiry.

<a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Hunter-Biden-Transcript_Redacted.pdf">Click here to read the</a> transcript

The nearly 230 pages of questioning laid bare the deep-seated hostility between President Joe Biden's son and the GOP lawmakers who have been investigating his family for the past several years. Arguments were frequent and tempers short, providing a preview of what is sure to come when Republicans hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden in the next several weeks.

He was defiant through the deposition as Republicans flooded him with questions about his former business affairs and his life, his answers veering from heated to emotional as he talked of his long battle with addiction and turmoil in his personal life.

Throughout the nearly seven-hour deposition, Hunter Biden remained adamant on one point, vehemently and repeatedly denying under oath that his father ever financially benefited or participated in any of his business work.

The 14-month Republican investigation into the Biden family has centered on Hunter Biden and his overseas work for clients in Ukraine, China, Romania and other countries. Republicans have long questioned whether those business dealings involved corruption and influence peddling by President Biden, particularly in the years when he was vice president.

Republican investigators zeroed in on a series of dinners and meetings that took place after Joe Biden left the vice presidency in which the younger Biden put his father on speakerphone while in the company of business partners.

“And why would you place your dad on speakerphone?” an unidentified Republican staffer asked.

“I’m surprised my dad hasn’t called me right now, and if he did, I would put him on speakerphone to say hi to you and to Congressman Raskin and everybody else in the room,” Hunter Biden replied. “It is nothing nefarious literally.”

He said that after the tragedies his family has suffered — including the death of his mother and two siblings — calls in his family are always answered, no matter what.

“You always pick up the phone. It’s something that we always do. And you can ask anybody that I know,” Hunter Biden added.

Large portions of the testimony Wednesday diverged into Hunter Biden's well-documented battle with drug and alcohol addiction.

In one particularly harsh exchange, Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, questioned whether the president’s son’s business dealings, particularly with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, were legitimate. Gaetz asked, “Were you on drugs when you were on the Burisma board?”

Hunter responded: “Mr. Gaetz, look me in the eye. You really think that’s appropriate to ask me?”

Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, intervened, telling his client he didn't need to respond.

“I will answer it this way: I have been absolutely transparent about my drug use,” Hunter Biden said. “I’m sorry; I’m an addict. I was an addict.”

He told the panel he has been in recovery for more than four years and works “really, really hard at it” under what he called an enormous amount of pressure.

“Was I an addict? Yes, I was an addict,” he said. “What does that have to do with whether or not you’re going to go forward with an impeachment of my father other than to simply try to embarrass me?”

Gaetz tried to interrupt, but Hunter Biden kept talking: “Why? Why?"

Another point of interest for House Republicans' investigation is what they describe as Hunter Biden and associates selling the Biden “brand” to clients overseas.

One of their purported key witnesses, Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, testified to the House Oversight Committee last year that the president's family sold “the illusion of access” to the corridors of power in Washington. Republicans questioned whether Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm, wanted Hunter Biden on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-europe-business-c49555d51eb243e09a42f7577fc5937f">its board in 2014</a>&nbsp;"because your dad was the Vice President?”

“No, I don’t think that it’s fair,” Hunter Biden responded.

When asked about what value he brought to Burisma, Hunter Biden talked about the breadth of his resume and defended his family.

“Primarily, the name ‘Biden’ is my dad’s legacy. And he passed it down to me and, when my brother was alive, my brother, my sister, now to my children. It’s our responsibility to not screw that up."

He added, "If other people saw the brand as something that they could market, it’s not -- it was not with my -- without going through me first. And if they did so, they didn’t go through me first."

Rather than probe the Bidens, Democrats turn to the Trumps

Democrats at one point tried to turn the deposition back toward Donald Trump, contrasting the Bidens' business dealings with the former Republican president’s family and its business operations.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, the Democrat from California, led one particularly pointed exchange intended to draw out the differences between President Biden and Trump, the Republican front-runner to challenge him for the White House.

“Did your father ever employ in the Oval Office any direct family member to also work in the Oval Office?” Swalwell asked.

“My father has never employed any direct family members, to my knowledge,” Hunter Biden testified.

Swalwell went on to ask questions referring to the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., Trump’s legal case in New York City, his daughter-in-law’s recent bid to lead the Republican National Committee and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business dealings with Saudi Arabia.

“As President and the leader of the party, has your father ever tried to install as the chairperson of the party a daughter-in-law or anyone else in the family?” Swalwell probed.

“No. And I don’t think that anyone in my family would be crazy enough to want to be the chairperson of the DNC” — the Democratic National Committee.

Had his father ever been fined $355 million? “No, he has not, thank God,” Hunter Biden testified.

The impeachment inquiry has focused on several pieces of evidence as Republicans try to build their case, including emails, text messages and a now-in-dispute laptop.

One email from a Hunter Biden business associate proposes a 10% equity stake in their firm to be held for “the big” guy, who Republicans say is Joe Biden. It's a message that has become central to the GOP claims of influence peddling, but one that another business associate Rob Walker has testified was all “bull-—-.”

Hunter Biden testified that he does not recall ever responding to the email. “I’m not even sure whether I ever fully read this.”

Further emails exhibited to the committee showed that any equity split would be made equally among the five partners, including Hunter Biden and his longtime business partner Jim Biden, who is the president’s brother and his uncle. The business deal with a Chinese energy company never happened, and no one was paid.

“There’s no secret big guy anywhere in this email?” asked a Democratic questioner.

“No, there’s not,” Hunter Biden replied.

“Joe Biden is not anywhere in this agreement?” he asked.

As for Hunter Biden’s laptop that was allegedly dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and the source for many allegations against the Biden family, he testified that he does not recall bringing it in.

If his computer needed repairs, Hunter Biden testified, “I would have gone to the Apple store.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1704904282755.png" alt="File photo -Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at the Capitol on Jan. 10-photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>File photo -Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at the Capitol on Jan. 10-photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The transcript of the congressional deposition of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/hunter-biden">Hunter Biden</a>&nbsp;was released late Thursday, providing a full view of the contentious testimony that took place behind closed doors Wednesday as Republicans aggressively questioned the central figure in their impeachment inquiry.<a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Hunter-Biden-Transcript_Redacted.pdf">Click here to read the</a> transcriptThe nearly 230 pages of questioning laid bare the deep-seated hostility between President Joe Biden's son and the GOP lawmakers who have been investigating his family for the past several years. Arguments were frequent and tempers short, providing a preview of what is sure to come when Republicans hold a public hearing with Hunter Biden in the next several weeks.He was defiant through the deposition as Republicans flooded him with questions about his former business affairs and his life, his answers veering from heated to emotional as he talked of his long battle with addiction and turmoil in his personal life.Throughout the nearly seven-hour deposition, Hunter Biden remained adamant on one point, vehemently and repeatedly denying under oath that his father ever financially benefited or participated in any of his business work.Takeaways from the transcript:‘You always pick up the phone’The 14-month Republican investigation into the Biden family has centered on Hunter Biden and his overseas work for clients in Ukraine, China, Romania and other countries. Republicans have long questioned whether those business dealings involved corruption and influence peddling by President Biden, particularly in the years when he was vice president.Republican investigators zeroed in on a series of dinners and meetings that took place after Joe Biden left the vice presidency in which the younger Biden put his father on speakerphone while in the company of business partners.“And why would you place your dad on speakerphone?” an unidentified Republican staffer asked.“I’m surprised my dad hasn’t called me right now, and if he did, I would put him on speakerphone to say hi to you and to Congressman Raskin and everybody else in the room,” Hunter Biden replied. “It is nothing nefarious literally.”He said that after the tragedies his family has suffered — including the death of his mother and two siblings — calls in his family are always answered, no matter what.“You always pick up the phone. It’s something that we always do. And you can ask anybody that I know,” Hunter Biden added.Hunter Biden's ‘darkest days’Large portions of the testimony Wednesday diverged into Hunter Biden's well-documented battle with drug and alcohol addiction.In one particularly harsh exchange, Rep. Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida, questioned whether the president’s son’s business dealings, particularly with the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, were legitimate. Gaetz asked, “Were you on drugs when you were on the Burisma board?”Hunter responded: “Mr. Gaetz, look me in the eye. You really think that’s appropriate to ask me?”“Absolutely,” Gaetz said.Biden’s attorney, Abbe Lowell, intervened, telling his client he didn't need to respond.“I will answer it this way: I have been absolutely transparent about my drug use,” Hunter Biden said. “I’m sorry; I’m an addict. I was an addict.”He told the panel he has been in recovery for more than four years and works “really, really hard at it” under what he called an enormous amount of pressure.“Was I an addict? Yes, I was an addict,” he said. “What does that have to do with whether or not you’re going to go forward with an impeachment of my father other than to simply try to embarrass me?”Gaetz tried to interrupt, but Hunter Biden kept talking: “Why? Why?"What was the ‘Biden brand’?Another point of interest for House Republicans' investigation is what they describe as Hunter Biden and associates selling the Biden “brand” to clients overseas.One of their purported key witnesses, Devon Archer, a former business associate of Hunter Biden, testified to the House Oversight Committee last year that the president's family sold “the illusion of access” to the corridors of power in Washington. Republicans questioned whether Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm, wanted Hunter Biden on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-europe-business-c49555d51eb243e09a42f7577fc5937f">its board in 2014</a>&nbsp;"because your dad was the Vice President?”“No, I don’t think that it’s fair,” Hunter Biden responded.When asked about what value he brought to Burisma, Hunter Biden talked about the breadth of his resume and defended his family.“Primarily, the name ‘Biden’ is my dad’s legacy. And he passed it down to me and, when my brother was alive, my brother, my sister, now to my children. It’s our responsibility to not screw that up."He added, "If other people saw the brand as something that they could market, it’s not -- it was not with my -- without going through me first. And if they did so, they didn’t go through me first."Rather than probe the Bidens, Democrats turn to the TrumpsDemocrats at one point tried to turn the deposition back toward Donald Trump, contrasting the Bidens' business dealings with the former Republican president’s family and its business operations.Rep. Eric Swalwell, the Democrat from California, led one particularly pointed exchange intended to draw out the differences between President Biden and Trump, the Republican front-runner to challenge him for the White House.“Did your father ever employ in the Oval Office any direct family member to also work in the Oval Office?” Swalwell asked.“My father has never employed any direct family members, to my knowledge,” Hunter Biden testified.Swalwell went on to ask questions referring to the Trump hotel in Washington, D.C., Trump’s legal case in New York City, his daughter-in-law’s recent bid to lead the Republican National Committee and his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s business dealings with Saudi Arabia.“As President and the leader of the party, has your father ever tried to install as the chairperson of the party a daughter-in-law or anyone else in the family?” Swalwell probed.“No. And I don’t think that anyone in my family would be crazy enough to want to be the chairperson of the DNC” — the Democratic National Committee.Had his father ever been fined $355 million? “No, he has not, thank God,” Hunter Biden testified.Emails, text messages and the laptopThe impeachment inquiry has focused on several pieces of evidence as Republicans try to build their case, including emails, text messages and a now-in-dispute laptop.One email from a Hunter Biden business associate proposes a 10% equity stake in their firm to be held for “the big” guy, who Republicans say is Joe Biden. It's a message that has become central to the GOP claims of influence peddling, but one that another business associate Rob Walker has testified was all “bull-—-.”Hunter Biden testified that he does not recall ever responding to the email. “I’m not even sure whether I ever fully read this.”Further emails exhibited to the committee showed that any equity split would be made equally among the five partners, including Hunter Biden and his longtime business partner Jim Biden, who is the president’s brother and his uncle. The business deal with a Chinese energy company never happened, and no one was paid.“There’s no secret big guy anywhere in this email?” asked a Democratic questioner.“No, there’s not,” Hunter Biden replied.“Joe Biden is not anywhere in this agreement?” he asked.“No, he is not.”As for Hunter Biden’s laptop that was allegedly dropped off at a Delaware repair shop and the source for many allegations against the Biden family, he testified that he does not recall bringing it in.If his computer needed repairs, Hunter Biden testified, “I would have gone to the Apple store.”

Read transcript of Hunter Biden's deposition with GOP lawmakers

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;appeared torn Wednesday about a challenge to a Trump-era ban on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-bump-stocks-atf-weapons-9d881998cbf454f5707f46e52153398e">bump stocks</a>, a gun accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns and was used in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/las-vegas-mass-shooting">deadliest mass shooting</a>&nbsp;in modern U.S. history.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-976">Click here to listen</a> to the oral argument

The high court is weighing whether the Trump administration followed federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with assault-style rifles in 2017. Many of the weapons were equipped with bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. More than 1,000 rounds were fired into the crowd in 11 minutes, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds more.

The arguments largely focused on whether guns with a bump stock can be considered illegal machine guns under federal law. A Texas gun shop owner argues that bump stocks don't change the core function of a semi-automatic weapon enough to make it illegal. The Biden administration says bump stocks fall firmly under the legal definition of machine gun.

The latest gun case to come before the justices offers a fresh test for a court with a conservative supermajority to define the limits of gun restrictions in an era where mass shootings are prevalent.

Conservative justices raised questions about whether machine-gun laws dating to the 1930s apply to bump stocks and about the Justice Department's previous finding that the accessories were legal.

“Intuitively, I am entirely sympathetic to your argument,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “I think the question is, why didn't Congress pass that legislation to make this cover it more clearly?”

Justices from the court’s liberal wing suggested it was “common sense” that bump stocks would fall under laws aimed at Prohibition-era violence from gangsters such as Al Capone. “This is in the heartland of what they were concerned about, which is anything that takes just a little human action to produce more than one shot,” Justice Elena Kagan said.

Federal appeals courts have been divided over the bump stock rule.

A different case at the court challenges a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-restrictions-domestic-violence-f75dc9b59d8cd02acf17d220ecf6ebb9">domestic violence restraining orders</a>, stemming from a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-government-delaware-california-massachusetts-3983cecfd1107c263d5309ec0d80a966">landmark 2022 decision</a>&nbsp;in which the six-justice conservative majority expanded gun rights.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-us-news-ap-top-news-las-vegas-shootings-ff26110203da4a28bfd1d99022fb401c">bump stock</a>&nbsp;case is not directly about the Second Amendment. Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority in imposing the ban. The agency had previously decided bump stocks should not be classified as machine guns and therefore not be banned.

Marisa Marano, 42, survived the shooting at the show she attended with her sister, but struggles with the lasting effects on her life and and community. “I will never forget the sound of a machine gun firing into the crowd that night as Gina and I ran for our lives,” said Marano, who is now a volunteer for the group Moms Demand Action and hopes the Supreme Court upholds the ban.

Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. They harness the gun’s recoil energy so that the trigger bumps against the shooter's stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire rapidly.

They were invented in the early 2000s. Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF decided that bump stocks didn't transform semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. The agency revisited the issue&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/8e52e86face646999ed769c965840e63">at Trump's urging</a>&nbsp;after the Las Vegas shooting and reversed that decision.

The plaintiffs argue that rifles with bump stocks are different from machine guns because the shooter still must exert pressure on the weapon to keep the rapid fire going and the trigger keeps moving.

“It’s still one shot per function of the trigger, even though the shots are coming out of the barrel a lot faster than they were before,” said attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, who argued on behalf of Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill.

Government lawyers pointed out that traditional machine guns also require pressure from the shooter. They argue bump stocks fall under the legal definition of machine guns because the shooter's finger stays still while the gun fires hundreds of rounds per minute.

Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general, said that the ATF's previous findings were less in-depth than the review it undertook under Trump.

“After the Las Vegas shooting, the deadliest shooting in our nation’s history, I think it would have been irresponsible for the ATF not to take another look at this prior interpretation,” he said.

There were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation when the ban went into effect in 2019, requiring people to either surrender or destroy them, at a combined estimated loss of $100 million, the plaintiffs said in court documents.

A panel of three judges on the federal appeals court in Washington upheld the ban, finding that “a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows a shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger.” But the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-orleans-texas-state-government-b5990ed60ebb617055cc8d5c36a84050">invalidated the ban</a>, finding that the definition of machine guns under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks.

The Supreme Court took up an appeal of the 5th Circuit’s decision.

The case also comes at a time when the 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-fish-e0c83212c892887860f7800c1ae1e02b">powers of federal agencies.</a>&nbsp;This term, the justices also are weighing challenges to aspects of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;appeared torn Wednesday about a challenge to a Trump-era ban on&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-bump-stocks-atf-weapons-9d881998cbf454f5707f46e52153398e">bump stocks</a>, a gun accessory that allows semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like machine guns and was used in the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/las-vegas-mass-shooting">deadliest mass shooting</a>&nbsp;in modern U.S. history.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/22-976">Click here to listen</a> to the oral argumentThe high court is weighing whether the Trump administration followed federal law when it reversed course and banned bump stocks after a gunman in Las Vegas attacked a country music festival with assault-style rifles in 2017. Many of the weapons were equipped with bump stocks and high-capacity magazines. More than 1,000 rounds were fired into the crowd in 11 minutes, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds more.The arguments largely focused on whether guns with a bump stock can be considered illegal machine guns under federal law. A Texas gun shop owner argues that bump stocks don't change the core function of a semi-automatic weapon enough to make it illegal. The Biden administration says bump stocks fall firmly under the legal definition of machine gun.The latest gun case to come before the justices offers a fresh test for a court with a conservative supermajority to define the limits of gun restrictions in an era where mass shootings are prevalent.Conservative justices raised questions about whether machine-gun laws dating to the 1930s apply to bump stocks and about the Justice Department's previous finding that the accessories were legal.“Intuitively, I am entirely sympathetic to your argument,” said Justice Amy Coney Barrett, “I think the question is, why didn't Congress pass that legislation to make this cover it more clearly?”Justices from the court’s liberal wing suggested it was “common sense” that bump stocks would fall under laws aimed at Prohibition-era violence from gangsters such as Al Capone. “This is in the heartland of what they were concerned about, which is anything that takes just a little human action to produce more than one shot,” Justice Elena Kagan said.Federal appeals courts have been divided over the bump stock rule.A different case at the court challenges a federal law intended to keep guns away from people under&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-guns-restrictions-domestic-violence-f75dc9b59d8cd02acf17d220ecf6ebb9">domestic violence restraining orders</a>, stemming from a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-mississippi-state-government-delaware-california-massachusetts-3983cecfd1107c263d5309ec0d80a966">landmark 2022 decision</a>&nbsp;in which the six-justice conservative majority expanded gun rights.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/north-america-us-news-ap-top-news-las-vegas-shootings-ff26110203da4a28bfd1d99022fb401c">bump stock</a>&nbsp;case is not directly about the Second Amendment. Instead, the plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority in imposing the ban. The agency had previously decided bump stocks should not be classified as machine guns and therefore not be banned.That changed after Las Vegas.Marisa Marano, 42, survived the shooting at the show she attended with her sister, but struggles with the lasting effects on her life and and community. “I will never forget the sound of a machine gun firing into the crowd that night as Gina and I ran for our lives,” said Marano, who is now a volunteer for the group Moms Demand Action and hopes the Supreme Court upholds the ban.Bump stocks are accessories that replace a rifle’s stock, the part that rests against the shoulder. They harness the gun’s recoil energy so that the trigger bumps against the shooter's stationary finger, allowing the gun to fire rapidly.They were invented in the early 2000s. Under Republican President George W. Bush and Democrat Barack Obama, the ATF decided that bump stocks didn't transform semi-automatic weapons into machine guns. The agency revisited the issue&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/8e52e86face646999ed769c965840e63">at Trump's urging</a>&nbsp;after the Las Vegas shooting and reversed that decision.The plaintiffs argue that rifles with bump stocks are different from machine guns because the shooter still must exert pressure on the weapon to keep the rapid fire going and the trigger keeps moving.“It’s still one shot per function of the trigger, even though the shots are coming out of the barrel a lot faster than they were before,” said attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell, who argued on behalf of Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran Michael Cargill.Government lawyers pointed out that traditional machine guns also require pressure from the shooter. They argue bump stocks fall under the legal definition of machine guns because the shooter's finger stays still while the gun fires hundreds of rounds per minute.Brian Fletcher, principal deputy solicitor general, said that the ATF's previous findings were less in-depth than the review it undertook under Trump.“After the Las Vegas shooting, the deadliest shooting in our nation’s history, I think it would have been irresponsible for the ATF not to take another look at this prior interpretation,” he said.There were about 520,000 bump stocks in circulation when the ban went into effect in 2019, requiring people to either surrender or destroy them, at a combined estimated loss of $100 million, the plaintiffs said in court documents.A panel of three judges on the federal appeals court in Washington upheld the ban, finding that “a bump stock is a self-regulating mechanism that allows a shooter to shoot more than one shot through a single pull of the trigger.” But the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/politics-new-orleans-texas-state-government-b5990ed60ebb617055cc8d5c36a84050">invalidated the ban</a>, finding that the definition of machine guns under the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks.The Supreme Court took up an appeal of the 5th Circuit’s decision.The case also comes at a time when the 6-3 conservative majority has been increasingly skeptical of the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-fish-e0c83212c892887860f7800c1ae1e02b">powers of federal agencies.</a>&nbsp;This term, the justices also are weighing challenges to aspects of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission.A decision is expected by early summer.

🎧 Supreme Court appears torn over challenge to gun 'bump stocks'

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military C-130 cargo planes&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-meloni-white-house-ukraine-112dacd932a45f42621a25b304ae5d99">dropped food</a>&nbsp;in pallets over Gaza on Saturday in the opening stage of an emergency humanitarian assistance authorized by President Joe Biden after more than 100 Palestinians who had surged to pull goods off an aid convoy were&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-29-2024-f9b5a62a80d8b83eac4946d3c85af58b">killed during a chaotic encounter with Israeli troops</a>.

Three planes from Air Forces Central dropped 66 bundles containing about 38,000 meals into Gaza at 8:30 a.m. EST (3:30 p.m. local). The bundles were dropped in southwest Gaza, on the beach along the territory's Mediterranean coast. The airdrop was coordinated with the Royal Jordanian Air Force, which said it had two food airdrops Saturday in northern Gaza and has conducted several rounds in recent months.

“The combined operation included U.S. Air Force and RJAF C-130 aircraft and respective Army Soldiers specialized in aerial delivery of supplies, built bundles and ensured the safe drop of food aid,” U.S. Central Command said in a post on "X", formerly known as Twitter.

The U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/airdrops-israel-gaza-palestinians-biden-9e6cfb3a2c7d909ca2a8a2abd25793ca">airdrop</a>&nbsp;is expected to be the first of many.

Three Biden administration officials said the planes dropped the military Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) — shelf-stable meals that contain a day's worth of calories in each sealed package — in locations that were thought would provide civilians with the greatest level of safety to access aid. Afterward, the U.S. monitored the sites and was able to see civilians approach and distribute food among themselves, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide additional details that had not been made public.

President Joe Biden on Friday announced the U.S. would begin air dropping food to starving Gazans after at least 115 Palestinians were killed and hundreds more wounded in the Thursday attack as they scrambled for aid, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">Health Ministry in Hamas-ruled Gaza</a>&nbsp;said.

Hundreds of people had rushed about 30 trucks bringing a predawn delivery of aid to the north. Palestinians said nearby Israeli troops shot into the crowds. Israel said they fired warning shots toward the crowd and insisted many of the dead were trampled.

White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that the airdrops were being planned to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance in a safe way to people on the ground. The United States believes the airdrops will help address the dire situation in Gaza, but they are no replacement for trucks, which can transport far more aid more effectively, though Thursday’s events also showed the risks with ground transport.

Kirby said the airdrops have an advantage over trucks because planes can move aid to a particular location very quickly. But in terms of volume, the airdrops will be “a supplement to, not a replacement for moving things in by ground.”

<a href="https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/">The C-130 is widely used</a>&nbsp;to deliver aid to remote places because of its ability to land in austere environments.

A C-130 can airlift as much as 42,000 pounds of cargo and its crews know how to rig the cargo, which sometimes can include even vehicles, onto massive pallets that can be safely dropped out of the back of the aircraft.

Air Force loadmasters secure the bundles onto pallets with netting that is rigged for release in the back of a C-130, and then crews release it with a parachute when the aircraft reaches the intended delivery zone.

The Air Force's C-130 has been used in years past to air drop humanitarian into Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and other locations and the airframe is used in an annual multi-national “Operation Christmas Drop” that air drops pallets of toys, supplies, nonperishable food and fishing supplies to remote locations in the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau.

Since the war began on Oct. 7, Israel has barred entry of food, water, medicine and other supplies, except for a trickle of aid entering the south from Egypt at the Rafah crossing and Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing.

The United Nations says one-quarter of Gaza’s 2.3 million people&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-humanitarian-famine-gaza-malnutrition-cf622f843fe531fb6dbd5657a39d6b49">face starvation</a>. Aid officials have said that airdrops are not an efficient means of distributing aid and are a measure of last resort.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1709398639068.png" alt="Photos U.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Photos U.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military C-130 cargo planes&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-meloni-white-house-ukraine-112dacd932a45f42621a25b304ae5d99">dropped food</a>&nbsp;in pallets over Gaza on Saturday in the opening stage of an emergency humanitarian assistance authorized by President Joe Biden after more than 100 Palestinians who had surged to pull goods off an aid convoy were&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-29-2024-f9b5a62a80d8b83eac4946d3c85af58b">killed during a chaotic encounter with Israeli troops</a>.Three planes from Air Forces Central dropped 66 bundles containing about 38,000 meals into Gaza at 8:30 a.m. EST (3:30 p.m. local). The bundles were dropped in southwest Gaza, on the beach along the territory's Mediterranean coast. The airdrop was coordinated with the Royal Jordanian Air Force, which said it had two food airdrops Saturday in northern Gaza and has conducted several rounds in recent months.“The combined operation included U.S. Air Force and RJAF C-130 aircraft and respective Army Soldiers specialized in aerial delivery of supplies, built bundles and ensured the safe drop of food aid,” U.S. Central Command said in a post on "X", formerly known as Twitter.The U.S.&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/airdrops-israel-gaza-palestinians-biden-9e6cfb3a2c7d909ca2a8a2abd25793ca">airdrop</a>&nbsp;is expected to be the first of many.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/3/1709398596719.png" alt="" />
 <figcaption></figcaption>
 </figure>Three Biden administration officials said the planes dropped the military Meals Ready to Eat (MREs) — shelf-stable meals that contain a day's worth of calories in each sealed package — in locations that were thought would provide civilians with the greatest level of safety to access aid. Afterward, the U.S. monitored the sites and was able to see civilians approach and distribute food among themselves, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide additional details that had not been made public.President Joe Biden on Friday announced the U.S. would begin air dropping food to starving Gazans after at least 115 Palestinians were killed and hundreds more wounded in the Thursday attack as they scrambled for aid, the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">Health Ministry in Hamas-ruled Gaza</a>&nbsp;said.Hundreds of people had rushed about 30 trucks bringing a predawn delivery of aid to the north. Palestinians said nearby Israeli troops shot into the crowds. Israel said they fired warning shots toward the crowd and insisted many of the dead were trampled.White House national security spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that the airdrops were being planned to deliver emergency humanitarian assistance in a safe way to people on the ground. The United States believes the airdrops will help address the dire situation in Gaza, but they are no replacement for trucks, which can transport far more aid more effectively, though Thursday’s events also showed the risks with ground transport.Kirby said the airdrops have an advantage over trucks because planes can move aid to a particular location very quickly. But in terms of volume, the airdrops will be “a supplement to, not a replacement for moving things in by ground.”<a href="https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1555054/c-130-hercules/">The C-130 is widely used</a>&nbsp;to deliver aid to remote places because of its ability to land in austere environments.A C-130 can airlift as much as 42,000 pounds of cargo and its crews know how to rig the cargo, which sometimes can include even vehicles, onto massive pallets that can be safely dropped out of the back of the aircraft.Air Force loadmasters secure the bundles onto pallets with netting that is rigged for release in the back of a C-130, and then crews release it with a parachute when the aircraft reaches the intended delivery zone.The Air Force's C-130 has been used in years past to air drop humanitarian into Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and other locations and the airframe is used in an annual multi-national “Operation Christmas Drop” that air drops pallets of toys, supplies, nonperishable food and fishing supplies to remote locations in the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of Palau.Since the war began on Oct. 7, Israel has barred entry of food, water, medicine and other supplies, except for a trickle of aid entering the south from Egypt at the Rafah crossing and Israel’s Kerem Shalom crossing.The United Nations says one-quarter of Gaza’s 2.3 million people&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-un-humanitarian-famine-gaza-malnutrition-cf622f843fe531fb6dbd5657a39d6b49">face starvation</a>. Aid officials have said that airdrops are not an efficient means of distributing aid and are a measure of last resort.

US military aircraft airdrops meals, supplies into Gaza 

Lincoln – Nebraskans will get to vote on whether to divert public tax dollars to private schools. The Nebraska Secretary of State today rejected an attempt to overturn last summer’s successful referendum petition that put repeal of LB753’s voucher scheme on the November ballot.

“This decision reflects the will of Nebraskans and the work of our 1,900 volunteer petition circulators,” said Jenni Benson, Support Our Schools Nebraska Board member. “Nebraskans have been clear that they want to vote on the issue of diverting public tax dollars to fund private schools. State lawmakers also must respect voters on this issue and reject new legislative attempts to impose voucher schemes on Nebraska taxpayers.”

Last summer, 117,415 Nebraska voters signed a referendum petition to let voters decide whether to repeal LB753’s voucher scheme. That was nearly double the number of signatures needed to put the issue on this November’s ballot.

Last October, Evnen certified the petition as meeting all legal requirements to put the issue on the ballot. On January 9, 2024,&nbsp; State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan sent a letter to Evnen asking him to reverse the certification.

“It is abundantly clear that Sen. Linehan and the out-of-state forces pushing this tax scheme are afraid to let Nebraskans vote on whether they want tax dollars diverted to private schools,” said Jenni Benson, Support Our Schools Nebraska sponsor. “Now, Sen. Linehan has introduced another voucher bill that will take tax dollars directly out of the state general fund and use it to fund private schools. Linehan should be ashamed of her blatant attempts to deny Nebraskans their right to vote on the issue.”

“Nebraska is the only state in the nation with a one-house legislature. The people of Nebraska, through our initiative and referendum process, serve as the second house,” said Benson. “The referendum is a right and a power reserved for the voters. Sen. Linehan’s attempt to infringe on that right&nbsp;undermines our democracy, stifles public participation, and removes a check on elected officials that is a hallmark of Nebraska’s unicameral system.”

Karen KilgarinSupport Our SchoolsLincoln – Nebraskans will get to vote on whether to divert public tax dollars to private schools. The Nebraska Secretary of State today rejected an attempt to overturn last summer’s successful referendum petition that put repeal of LB753’s voucher scheme on the November ballot.“This decision reflects the will of Nebraskans and the work of our 1,900 volunteer petition circulators,” said Jenni Benson, Support Our Schools Nebraska Board member. “Nebraskans have been clear that they want to vote on the issue of diverting public tax dollars to fund private schools. State lawmakers also must respect voters on this issue and reject new legislative attempts to impose voucher schemes on Nebraska taxpayers.”Last summer, 117,415 Nebraska voters signed a referendum petition to let voters decide whether to repeal LB753’s voucher scheme. That was nearly double the number of signatures needed to put the issue on this November’s ballot.Last October, Evnen certified the petition as meeting all legal requirements to put the issue on the ballot. On January 9, 2024,&nbsp; State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan sent a letter to Evnen asking him to reverse the certification.“It is abundantly clear that Sen. Linehan and the out-of-state forces pushing this tax scheme are afraid to let Nebraskans vote on whether they want tax dollars diverted to private schools,” said Jenni Benson, Support Our Schools Nebraska sponsor. “Now, Sen. Linehan has introduced another voucher bill that will take tax dollars directly out of the state general fund and use it to fund private schools. Linehan should be ashamed of her blatant attempts to deny Nebraskans their right to vote on the issue.”“Nebraska is the only state in the nation with a one-house legislature. The people of Nebraska, through our initiative and referendum process, serve as the second house,” said Benson. “The referendum is a right and a power reserved for the voters. Sen. Linehan’s attempt to infringe on that right&nbsp;undermines our democracy, stifles public participation, and removes a check on elected officials that is a hallmark of Nebraska’s unicameral system.”

Voters to Decide Fate of Private School Voucher Bill  Public school supporters pleased LB753 to remain on Nov. ballot

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans who test positive for COVID-19 no longer need to stay in isolation for five days, U.S. health officials announced Friday.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/respiratory-virus-guidance.html">changed its longstanding guidance</a>, saying that people can return to work or regular activities if their symptoms are mild and improving and it's been a day since they've had a fever.

The change comes at a time when&nbsp;<a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographicsovertime">COVID-19 is no longer the public health menace</a>&nbsp;it once was. It dropped from being the nation's third leading cause of death early in the pandemic to 10th last year.

Most people have some degree of immunity to the coronavirus from past vaccinations or from infections. And many people are not following the five-day isolation guidance anyway, some experts say.

“Our goal here is to continue to protect those at risk for severe illness while also reassuring folks that these recommendation are simple, clear, easy to understand, and can be followed,” said Dr. Mandy Cohen, the CDC’s director,

However, some experts worry that the change may increase the risk of infection for older people and others who are more vulnerable to getting seriously ill.

COVID-19 is not causing as many hospitalizations and deaths as it did in the first years of the pandemic. The change is an effort to streamline recommendations so they are similar to longstanding recommendations for flu and other respiratory viruses. Many people with a runny nose, cough or other symptoms aren't testing to distinguish whether it's COVID-19, flu, or something else, officials say.

It may not be as stringent, but the guidance emphasizes that all people with respiratory symptoms should stay home while they are sick, said Dr. David Margolius, the head of Cleveland's health department.

People are likely still contagious when they test positive, and that hasn’t changed, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University’s School of Public Health.

“What has changed is how much COVID is harming us as a population,” Nuzzo said.

Officials noted that some other countries and California and Oregon have eased isolation guidance in a manner similar to CDC’s latest change — and did not see an increases in cases.

If you have symptoms, stay home until your symptoms are mild and improving and it’s been a day since you've had a fever. But then you can remain cautious by wearing a mask and keeping a distance from others.

However, the CDC guidance for workers at nursing homes and other health care facilities is staying the same. That includes a recommendation that medical personnel stay home at least seven days after symptoms first appear, and that they test negative within two days of returning to work.

The agency is emphasizing that everyone should still try to prevent infections in the first place, by getting vaccinated, washing their hands, and taking steps to bring in more outdoor fresh air.

Yes, and even some who understand the rationale for the change have concerns.

“My biggest worry in all of this is that employers will take this change in guidance to require employees to come back to work ... before they are ready to, before they feel well enough, and before they are not likely to pose harm to their co-workers,” Nuzzo said.

COVID-19 remains especially dangerous to older people and those with other medical conditions. There are still more than&nbsp;<a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00">20,000 hospitalizations</a>&nbsp;and more than&nbsp;<a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklydeaths_select_00">2,000 deaths</a>&nbsp;each week due to the coronavirus, according to the CDC. Those 65 and older have the highest hospitalization and death rates.

NEW YORK (AP) — Americans who test positive for COVID-19 no longer need to stay in isolation for five days, U.S. health officials announced Friday.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/guidance/respiratory-virus-guidance.html">changed its longstanding guidance</a>, saying that people can return to work or regular activities if their symptoms are mild and improving and it's been a day since they've had a fever.The change comes at a time when&nbsp;<a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#demographicsovertime">COVID-19 is no longer the public health menace</a>&nbsp;it once was. It dropped from being the nation's third leading cause of death early in the pandemic to 10th last year.Most people have some degree of immunity to the coronavirus from past vaccinations or from infections. And many people are not following the five-day isolation guidance anyway, some experts say.“Our goal here is to continue to protect those at risk for severe illness while also reassuring folks that these recommendation are simple, clear, easy to understand, and can be followed,” said Dr. Mandy Cohen, the CDC’s director,However, some experts worry that the change may increase the risk of infection for older people and others who are more vulnerable to getting seriously ill.WHY ARE THE GUIDELINES CHANGING?COVID-19 is not causing as many hospitalizations and deaths as it did in the first years of the pandemic. The change is an effort to streamline recommendations so they are similar to longstanding recommendations for flu and other respiratory viruses. Many people with a runny nose, cough or other symptoms aren't testing to distinguish whether it's COVID-19, flu, or something else, officials say.It may not be as stringent, but the guidance emphasizes that all people with respiratory symptoms should stay home while they are sick, said Dr. David Margolius, the head of Cleveland's health department.People are likely still contagious when they test positive, and that hasn’t changed, said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University’s School of Public Health.“What has changed is how much COVID is harming us as a population,” Nuzzo said.Officials noted that some other countries and California and Oregon have eased isolation guidance in a manner similar to CDC’s latest change — and did not see an increases in cases.WHAT ARE THE NEW GUIDELINES?If you have symptoms, stay home until your symptoms are mild and improving and it’s been a day since you've had a fever. But then you can remain cautious by wearing a mask and keeping a distance from others.However, the CDC guidance for workers at nursing homes and other health care facilities is staying the same. That includes a recommendation that medical personnel stay home at least seven days after symptoms first appear, and that they test negative within two days of returning to work.The agency is emphasizing that everyone should still try to prevent infections in the first place, by getting vaccinated, washing their hands, and taking steps to bring in more outdoor fresh air.IS THERE OPPOSITION TO THIS CHANGE?Yes, and even some who understand the rationale for the change have concerns.“My biggest worry in all of this is that employers will take this change in guidance to require employees to come back to work ... before they are ready to, before they feel well enough, and before they are not likely to pose harm to their co-workers,” Nuzzo said.COVID-19 remains especially dangerous to older people and those with other medical conditions. There are still more than&nbsp;<a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklyhospitaladmissions_select_00">20,000 hospitalizations</a>&nbsp;and more than&nbsp;<a href="https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#trends_weeklydeaths_select_00">2,000 deaths</a>&nbsp;each week due to the coronavirus, according to the CDC. Those 65 and older have the highest hospitalization and death rates.This week, the CDC said&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/covid-vaccines-shots-over-65-84bd91f6c51db7bbb334bd18a07e4f3b">seniors should get another dose</a>&nbsp;of the updated COVID-19 vaccine.IS THIS THE FIRST CHANGE FOR ISOLATION GUIDELINES?