Unprecedented wildfires consume 6.9 million acres in Western US
Wildfires are wreaking havoc across the Western United States, with 70 major fires scorching the landscape from the Pacific Coast to the Rocky Mountains amid an intense heat wave and gusting winds, prompting tens of thousands to flee their homes. So far this year, wildfires have consumed more than 6.9 million acres nationwide.
Oregon, currently battling 24 major fires, and Idaho, facing 22, are among the hardest hit states. Firefighters are hopeful that cooler, wetter weather forecasted for this week will aid their efforts, although windy conditions continue to challenge containment.
In California, three massive wildfires near Los Angeles are causing widespread devastation. The Line Fire, started by arson, has engulfed over 34,000 acres in the San Bernardino Mountains, threatening thousands of homes and prompting extensive evacuations. Authorities have arrested 34-year-old Justin Wayne Halstenberg, accusing him of igniting the Line Fire.
Firefighting efforts have intensified across the West, with teams deploying both ground and aerial resources.
Colorado firefighting crews have been active outside their state. Members from South Metro Fire Rescue are currently assisting with Idaho’s expansive Snag Fire, which has consumed over 33,000 acres. Meanwhile, personnel from Poudre Fire Authority are en route to California to help combat the Bridge Fire in Angeles National Forest.
Back in Colorado, Xcel Energy is considering preemptive power shutoffs in western parts of the state as early as Thursday, Sept. 12, to prevent electrical equipment from sparking new fires.
Residents are advised to prepare for potential outages by charging essential devices and assembling emergency kits.
Treasury warns ‘anti-woke’ laws endanger national security
The U.S. Treasury Department is warning certain “anti-woke” state laws are a national security risk. The Treasury Department said state laws restricting banks from considering environmental, social and governance factors could negatively impact efforts to stop money laundering and terrorism financing.
According to The Associated Press, in a letter sent to lawmakers Thursday, July 18, the Treasury specifically pointed to a new Florida law signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in May. The law went into effect July 1, and it addresses climate change, dropping it down on Florida’s list of priorities.
The law also states it would be considered “unsafe and unsound practices” for businesses like banks to consider non-financial factors. In its letter, the Treasury Department said “such laws create uncertainty and may inhibit” national security efforts.
While Florida was singled out, it’s not the only state to make a move like this. Tennessee recently enacted a similar law and state legislatures in Georgia, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana and South Dakota are currently considering measure along these same lines.
The Treasury’s letter was a response to a request earlier this month from Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Brad Sherman of California, and Republican Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer.
After getting the letter, Rep. Gottheimer issued a statement saying, “To any states that are considering similar laws, I urge them to think twice before putting America’s national security at risk.”
Supreme Court clears path for homeless bans in western states
The Supreme Court gave Western states the green light Friday, June 28, to ban homeless encampments on sidewalks and public spaces. It’s one of the most significant homelessness decisions in decades. The ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson overturns a Ninth Circuit decision that blocked cities from enforcing penalties on the homeless.
These penalties include fines for first-time offenders, bans on repeat offenders from public parks, and jailing persistent violators for up to 30 days.
The appeals court had called the laws a form of cruel and unusual punishment.
The high court overturned that ruling, saying enforcing anti-camping laws doesn’t violate the Eighth Amendment. This decision comes at a time when many U.S. cities are facing increased homelessness due to high housing costs and the end of COVID-19 aid programs.
Many state and local leaders see these bans as essential for public health and safety, but critics argue they criminalize homelessness.
Leading California Democrats, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and San Francisco Mayor London Breed, have been vocal in urging the Supreme Court to take this action.
“Today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court provides state and local officials the definitive authority to implement and enforce policies to clear unsafe encampments from our streets,” Newsom said in a statement. “This decision removes the legal ambiguities that have tied the hands of local officials for years and limited their ability to deliver on common-sense measures to protect the safety and well-being of our communities.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the conservative majority, argued that the Eighth Amendment focuses on the type of punishment after a criminal conviction, not on criminalizing certain behaviors. He emphasized that enforcing public camping bans is a matter for local governments, not federal courts.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the ruling undermines protections for homeless individuals. She stressed that the decision disregards the realities of homelessness and the complex reasons people refuse shelter.
Prematurely posted SCOTUS ruling will allow emergency abortions in Idaho
The Supreme Court appears ready to allow abortions during medical emergencies in Idaho, according to a decision obtained by Bloomberg. The decision was briefly posted on the court’s website and removed. The press office said it was inadvertent and will be officially released in due course.
According to the posted decision, which could change, the justices will rule 6-3 that doctors at Idaho hospitals can perform abortions to protect the health of the mother. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch will dissent, according to the decision.
As Bloomberg pointed out, the court did not address broader questions, like whether state laws that create an outright ban on abortions. Those bans conflict with a federal law that requires hospitals provide stabilizing care to patients experiencing an emergency.
“Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is a delay,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote in a concurring opinion. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his dissent that the court “has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents.”
The court’s decision in this case will lift a stay on a district court’s ruling. Now a San Francisco appeals court will consider the case on the merits.
Supreme Court justices split over Idaho’s abortion law
Pro-choice and pro-life protestors gathered outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 24, as the justices heard another contentious abortion case in the wake of the Dobbs decision. The justices are going to decide whether the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts state laws that “protect human life and prohibit abortions,” like Idaho’s Defense of Life Act.
EMTALA requires hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide treatment, including abortions, for emergency conditions regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. Idaho outlawed abortion with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother, but not the health of the mother.
“EMTALA works precisely because states regulate the practice of medicine,” Joshua Turner, who argued the case for the Idaho Attorney General’s Office, said in his opening statement. “And nothing in EMTALA requires doctors to ignore the scope of their license and offer medical treatments that violate state law.”
The crux of this case is: What happens if a woman’s health is at risk, but not her life?
“If a woman comes to an emergency room facing a grave threat to her health, but she isn’t yet facing death, doctors either have to delay treatment and allow her condition to materially deteriorate, or they’re airlifting her out of the state so she can get the emergency care that she needs,” U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices. “That’s untenable and EMTALA does not countenance it.”
Justice Elena Kagan and other female justices seemed to side with Prelogar based on their questions and statements.
Kagan gave an example of an emergency in which a woman’s life is not at risk.
“She’s going to lose her reproductive organs,” Kagan said. “She’s going to lose the ability to have children in the future, unless an abortion takes place. Now that’s the category of cases in which EMTALA says, ‘My gosh, of course, the abortion is necessary to assure that no material deterioration occurs.’ And yet Idaho says, ‘Sorry, no abortion here.”
The justices are taking into account multiple constitutional provisions.
First is preemption and the supremacy clause, which according Cornell Law School, mean federal law displaces or preempts state law when the two conflict.
There’s also the spending clause that allows Congress to give states money for programs, like Medicare, but requires or prohibits certain actions by the recipient as a condition of receiving that money.
“How can you impose restrictions on what Idaho can criminalize, simply because hospitals in Idaho have chosen to participate in Medicare?” Justice Samuel Alito asked Prelogar.
“In a situation where Congress has enacted law it has full force and effect under the supremacy clause, and what a state can’t do is interpose its own law as a direct obstacle to being able to fulfill the federal funding conditions,” Prelogar responded.
A decision in this case should be released by June.
White House unveils $7B in solar grants as some states deal with a solar surplus
In a bid to bolster renewable energy infrastructure across the nation, the Biden administration recently announced $7 billion in federal solar power grants. This move, unveiled on Earth Day, came as parts of the nation experience a surplus of solar energy. That surplus raised power bills for solar panel owners.
The White House said its solar initiative can power nearly a million homes and substantially reduce emissions. The reduction would be equivalent to the impact of burning over 3 billion fewer gallons of gasoline. Federal officials touted the plan as a means to collectively save its recipients $350 million annually. The program is directed at low- and middle-income communities.
However, amidst this federal push for solar energy expansion, some states find themselves with an oversupply of solar power. California, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Hawaii and North Carolina rolled back their financial incentives for solar power projects as a result.
California, in particular, faces the prospect of a potential 40% decline in solar installations this year. The state’s surplus of solar panels led to the wastage of millions of megawatts of energy every year. That ultimately resulted in higher electricity prices.
This occurs when residential solar panels feed excess energy back into the grid, only for it to be discarded. Consequently, homeowners miss out on potential reductions in their power bills from incentives they would normally receive for delivering solar power to the grid.
One solution to mitigate this issue involves the adoption of solar battery storage systems, which enable homeowners to store excess energy for later use. However, the cost of installing such systems ranges from $12,000-$20,000. That range poses a significant financial barrier for many.
While solar panels undoubtedly offer environmental benefits and are often cheaper than carbon-intensive energy sources, policymakers are beginning to see some downsides to their increased proliferation.
FBI: Idaho teen inspired by ISIS arrested, planned to target local churches
The Federal Bureau of Investigation arrested an Idaho teen on Saturday, April 6, who the agency said had been planning an ISIS-inspired terror attack on churches in his hometown in northern Idaho. Prosecutors said 18-year-old Alexander Mercurio detailed how he would kill churchgoers on Sunday, April 14.
The FBI said Mercurio told a confidential informant that he wanted to hit all 21 churches in the area using knives, guns and fire. Mercurio reportedly told the source that he pledged allegiance to ISIS and had provided material support to the terrorist organization.
To carry out his plot, investigators said Mercurio planned to first immobilize his father with a metal pipe then take his firearms and head to local church. Mercurio’s target date for the attack was reportedly on Sunday, April 7. According to investigators, Mercurio was timing the attack to coincide with the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Officers said they found an ISIS flag, butane canisters, handcuffs, a knife, a pipe, a machete and several guns belonging to Mercurio’s father at his house.
The FBI reports it first learned of Mercurio during an investigation into a fundraising network using cryptocurrency and other platforms to support ISIS in Syria and its Afghan affiliate, ISIS-K.
In addition, the FBI said that Mercurio along with three others, who were not identified, financially supported someone only known as “Individual 2” in Gaza.
FBI Director Christopher Wray called Mercurio’s plot “a truly horrific plan.” If convicted, Mercurio faces up to 20 years in prison.
The latest arrest comes after a joint intelligence bulletin warning of possible threats to public gatherings in the United States. It specifically mentioned “lone wolf extremists” inspired by ISIS-K’s attack at a Moscow concert hall, which killed at least 144 people.
An official statement from ISIS-K said that the group planned attacks similar to those in Moscow in the U.S. In March, Wray said that since the start of Israel’s war in Gaza on Oct. 7, the terrorism threat has reached a “whole other level” in the United States.
Idaho moves to expand cannibalism ban over human composting concerns
Natural organic reduction, or human composting, a practice meant to turn bodies into fertile soil, is sparking talks of further cannibalism bans in the Idaho Legislature. Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, moved to expand cannibalism laws in the state over her human composting concerns.
Scott said her campaign to expand the law came after seeing an episode of David Spade’s prank show “Fameless” where a chef pretended to use human flesh as an ingredient in the sausage he fed to contestants.
Scott added that her other concern is human composting, a practice legal in several states, including Idaho’s neighbor Washington, which was the first state to legalize the practice in 2019.
“I wanted to address this because what I didn’t want to see is bags of compost with human bone fragments,” Scott said.
Human composting is a natural process that turns human bodies into nutrient-rich soil.
Similar to composting food scraps, advocates said, human composting provides a more sustainable alternative to death care than traditional burials and cremations and reduces a person’s carbon footprint.
According to the Green Burial Council Inc., in the United States, 1.74 billion pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air every year due to cremations. Still, critics like Scott said they don’t want human remains in their food supply.
YouTube facing questions after beheading video remained online for hours: The Morning Rundown, Feb. 1, 2024
Questions about YouTube’s policies are being raised after a graphic video related to a murder case in Pennsylvania is left up for hours. And three people are killed and several more injured when a building collapses near an airport in Idaho. These stories and more highlight The Morning Rundown for Thursday, Feb. 1, 2024.
Get up to speed on the stories leading the day every weekday morning. Get The Morning RundownTM newsletter straight to your inbox!
YouTube video connected to PA murder remained online for hours
YouTube’s policies are being questioned after it was discovered that a graphic video involving a case of a son accused of beheading his father was left on the video-sharing site for hours. Police in Pennsylvania charged 32-year-old Justin Mohn on Wednesday, Jan. 31, with first-degree murder and abusing a corpse.
Authorities said Mohn killed his father and then posted a graphic 14-minute video about the murder on YouTube, showing the severed head. Police said the video was uploaded about 10 p.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 30, and remained online for anyone to see for about five hours.
The graphic video was viewed more than 5,000 times before it was eventually taken down. A social media advocacy group told the Associated Press this is “another example of the blatant failure of these companies to protect us.”
Critics have accused YouTube and other social media platforms of not investing in their trust and safety teams. YouTube’s policies were put under the microscope while five social media CEOs were questioned during a Congressional hearing about child safety online.
Representatives for YouTube and its parent company, Google, were not in attendance. YouTube responded to the criticism.
“YouTube has strict policies prohibiting graphic violence and violent extremism. The video was removed for violating our graphic violence policy, and Justin Mohn’s channel was terminated in line with our violent extremism policies,” the company said in a statement. “Our teams are closely tracking to remove any re-uploads of the video.”
YouTube said it uses a combination of artificial intelligence and human moderators to monitor its platform.
Zuckerberg apologizes to families at online child safety hearing
CEOs from five social media companies testified at a Congressional hearing concerning online child safety measures on Wednesday, Jan. 31. CEOs from Meta, TikTok, X, Snapchat, and Discord answered questions from lawmakers about the role their platforms play in the lives of young users, and how social media has led to children suicides and exploitation.
In one key moment in the hearing, Sen. Josh Hawley asked Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg if he apologized to the victims and their families.
“Let me ask you this. There are families of victims here today. Have you apologized to the victims? Would you like to do so now? They’re here, you’re on national television,” Hawley said. “Would you like now to apologize to the victims who’ve been harmed by your product? Show him the pictures. Would you like to apologize for what you’ve done to these good people?”
“No one should have to go through the things that your families have suffered. And this is why we’ve invested so much and are going to continue doing industry-leading efforts to make sure no one has to go through the types of things that your families have had to suffer,” Zuckerberg said.
If you’re waiting on the social media industry to regulate itself, you’ll die waiting.
It is unclear if the hearing will lead to any type of legislation, though lawmakers are working on bipartisan bills. You can find Lauren Taylor’s full report on the hearing here.
House passes $78 billion bipartisan tax bill increasing child tax credit
In a bipartisan vote on Wednesday evening, Jan. 31, the House overwhelmingly approved a $78 billion tax cut package, increasing the child tax credit for millions of lower-income families. The bill passed 357-70 and now moves on to the Senate.
Along with expanding the child tax credit, the package also restores business tax breaks related to research and development. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., called the bill “important” legislation and added that this was “a good example of how Congress is supposed to make law.”
I voted against tonight’s tax bill that balloons our already out-of-control welfare system.
While Republicans and Democrats came together on the bill, not everyone got what they hoped for. Several New York Republicans were looking for it to include state and local tax deduction limits. And while some Republicans said the bill expanded the child tax credit too much, some Democrats said it did not.
Five of the injured were taken to the hospital in critical condition. Officials said the building’s collapse caused a crane to fall but did not impact the airport. The cause of the collapse is under investigation.
Judge throws out Disney’s lawsuit against DeSantis and Florida’s Commerce Dept.
A federal judge threw out Walt Disney Company’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the secretary of Florida’s Commerce Department. Disney sued DeSantis, alleging that he retaliated against the company after it criticized the Parental Rights in Education Act, known to critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law backed by DeSantis.
Last year, Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature changed the district, renaming it the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, with its board members now selected by Gov. DeSantis and then must be confirmed by the state Senate.
We have consistently fought — and won — the big fights on behalf of the people.
When Disney went after our kids, I stood strong in defense of the rights of parents.
Donald Trump and Nikki Haley sided with Disney. Haley even invited them to her state.
Shortly after its creation, the district voted to throw out a development agreement between Disney and the previous board known as the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Disney also canceled its plans to build a $1 billion campus in Orlando.
In its lawsuit, Disney alleged DeSantis is punishing the company for exercising its First Amendment rights. Disney said it would appeal Judge Winsor’s ruling.
— The Walt Disney Company (@WaltDisneyCo) March 28, 2022
A spokesperson for DeSantis said the ruling said, “The federal court’s decision made it clear that Governor DeSantis was correct: Disney is still just one of many corporations in the state, and they do not have a right to their own special government.”
The federal lawsuit is separate from Disney’s state lawsuit against the new tourism district for terminating its previous agreement with the Reedy Creek Improvement District.
Donations pour in to replace stolen Jackie Robinson statue
There has been an outpouring of support to replace a symbol honoring one of baseball’s greats. On what would have been Jackie Robinson’s 105th birthday, donations poured in Wednesday, Jan. 31, to replace a statue of the baseball hall of famer who broke the major league’s color barrier in 1947.
One online fundraiser has raised over $156,000, surpassing the statue’s estimated value of $75,000. Major League Baseball has announced it will replace the statue and provide funding for a local youth baseball league called “League 42,” named after Robinson’s uniform number.
Prigozhin charges dropped as he arrives in Belarus: June 27 rundown
Wagner Group Chief Yevgeny Prigozhin arrived in Belarus after his Russian mutiny charges were dropped, and the United States is set to announcement more military aid for Ukraine. These stories and more highlight the rundown for Tuesday, June 27, 2023.
Mutiny charges against Prigozhin dropped
Russian authorities announced Tuesday they have closed a criminal investigation into Prigozhin. The investigation led to no charges against him nor any of the Wagner group mercenaries who staged a mutiny in Russia over the weekend.
A jet linked to Prigozhin arrived in Belarus Tuesday, where he was expected to go following the deal he struck with the Kremlin to have his charges dropped and end the group’s march on Moscow. Despite letting Prigozhin off the hook, Russian President Vladimir Putin blasted organizers of the rebellion as traitors who are playing into the hands of Ukraine and its allies.
U.S. to send $500m in weapons, military aid to Ukraine
Ukraine will receive another $500 million aid package from the U.S. The news is expected to be announced by the Biden administration Tuesday.
As Ukraine continues its counteroffensive, it will be receiving an array of assistance from the U.S. The package will include the shipment of more than 50 heavily armored military vehicles and missiles to replenish its air defense systems.
This will be the 41st time the U.S. has provided military weapons through presidential drawdown authority since the start of the war between Russia and Ukraine. The drawdown allows The Pentagon to quickly take items from its own stocks and deliver them to Ukraine.
“We continue to supply the Ukrainians with the equipment they need to conduct the counteroffensive and to defend themselves long term,” State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller said Monday, June 26. “We continue to have intelligence sharing channels with the Ukrainians. We continue to have military channels. We continue to have diplomatic channels that are open with Ukraine.”
The $500 million aid package will come in addition to $6.2 billion pledged to go to Ukraine following a Pentagon accounting error.
Judge to decide on moving Trump criminal case
A U.S. judge is set to hear arguments in former President Donald Trump’s attempt to move his criminal case in New York out of the state and into a federal court. Former president Trump’s lawyers sought to move the case to federal court soon after Trump pleaded not guilty in April to charges that he falsified business records in a hush-money scheme.
If the trial is moved, Trump could potentially try to get the case dismissed. Moving the case to federal court would also cast a wider net of potential jurors rather than only selecting from Manhattan.
If the case stays in state court, the trial will begin March 25, 2023, during the presidential primary season. The judge will hear arguments, but is not expected to immediately rule Tuesday.
Prosecutors seek death penalty against Idaho murder suspect
With Bryan Kohberger expected back in court Tuesday, prosecutors said they will seek the death penalty against him. Kohberger is suspected of murdering four University of Idaho students in 2022.
Prosecutors said Kohberger exhibited “utter disregard for human life” in committing such a heinous crime. Kohberger pleaded not guilty to the murders earlier in 2023.
Kohberger’s expected appearance Tuesday is for a preliminary hearing. The trial is set to begin Oct. 2.
First locally-acquired malaria cases in 20 years
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a warning over the return of locally-acquired cases of malaria. It’s the first time in 20 years cases have been acquired in the U.S. with no links to travel outside the country.
There are five total cases, four in Florida and one in Texas. The cases have no links to one another.
Malaria is transmitted when a person is bitten by an infected mosquito. A health advisory has been issued in both Texas and Florida.
New York traffic congestion pricing plan approved
A plan to reduce traffic and car pollution in New York City has cleared its final legal hurdle, paving the way for the nation’s first ever “congestion pricing plan.” It’s a fee for drivers who are entering Manhattan on one of the busiest roads in the nation.
The new toll for drivers who want to enter Manhattan could begin as early as 2024. New York received a key green light from Washington for its proposed plan. All that’s left is for officials to decide a price point.
One version of the plan had prices as high as $23 for a rush-hour trip into midtown and $17 during non-peak hours. The money raised through the traffic toll would go toward New York’s public transit system.