A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offers detailed recommendations to guide federal statistical agencies in creating a new entity that would enable them to combine data from multiple sources in order to provide more relevant, timely, and detailed statistics – for example, on the unemployment rate or the rate of violent crime.

An op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal questions the conclusions of a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine analysis, issued earlier this year, of a draft of the federal government’s U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Climate Science Special Report (CSSR).

The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to review the draft Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) – a congressionally mandated report that evaluates the state of climate science and the broad range of impacts of climate change in the United States every four years – and the draft Second State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR2) – a report that feeds into the overall assessment process developed by the USGCRP.

The National Academy of Engineering has re-elected Gordon R. England, chairman of PFP Cybersecurity, to serve a two-year term as the NAEs chair.

To enable public transit agencies to engage in more rigorous and effective safety planning, their safety planning records should not be admissible as evidence in civil litigation, says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

As new evidence about climate change and sea-level rise in South Florida continues to emerge, agencies responsible for the restoration of the Everglades should conduct a mid course assessment that rigorously analyzes scenarios of future change to the region’s ecosystem in its planning, says a new congressionally mandated report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

Higher education leaders, policymakers, and the private sector should take a range of actions to strengthen STEM programs and degree attainment in the nation’s Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), says a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The U.S. National Academies recognize the significance of the opioid crisis and have been at the forefront of efforts to advise our nation on how to combat it.

The Gulf Research Program of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine today announced $10.7 million in grant awards for four new projects focused on enhancing community resilience in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico region.

As the COVID-19 pandemic grips the nation and the world, policymakers and the public are counting on science, engineering, and medicine to discover how the virus infects humans, slow its spread, treat those infected, and provide solutions that lay the groundwork for recovery.

California cherries. ; Credit: Flickr Creative Commons/ babi_santander

Food for thought:

• As food production in the California Salad Bowl withers, growers in Oregon are seeing more business come their way. Many are jumping at the chance:

That means there is a great opportunity to supply a need to grocery markets. “Growers can take advantage of the crops that can be grown here that they won’t grow there,” Penhallegon said. “This would be the year to increase production. (Farmers) just need to find out what is lacking. Lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers; there is an open door there.” (Corvallis Gazette-Times)

• Are you enjoying cherry season? Have you noticed how expensive they are? That may be because the harvest is down 75 percent this year. It's because of warm days in the winter. (Capital Public Radio)

Water fight:

• The Wall Street Journal looks at the fines and citations that more California cities are using to get people to save water. Sacramento is one of the most aggressive when it comes to policing, but it kind of has to be:

This year, the city cut outdoor watering to three days a week from two. Because only about half its homes have water meters to measure use, Sacramento must rely on inspectors to help enforce the rules. (Wall Street Journal)

• Today's other fight is over those well-drilling men. Everyone wants a piece of these guys. All these new wells and shrinking aquifers puts me in mind of "There Will Be Blood." Perhaps a effective ad campaign would feature Daniel Day-Lewis yelling, "I ... drink ... your ... MILKSHAKE!"

We're on a one-way trajectory toward depletion, toward running out of groundwater, says Jay Famiglietti, a University of California hydrologist and a leading expert on groundwater. He points out that California is the only Western state that doesn't really monitor or regulate how much groundwater is pumped.

So it's not unlike having several straws in a glass, and everyone drinking at the same time, and no one really watching the level, Famiglietti says. (NPR)

Evaporation:

• Here and Now has an interesting story (also interesting sounding - think Radiolab) on the science of stopping water loss from evaporation. Apparently, reservoirs can lose just as much water to evaporation as it does to use. (Here & Now)

How has your community been affected by the drought? Share your story with a photo on Twitter or Instagram. Tag it #mydrought. For more details on our photo project, click here.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A 1962 Thousand Oaks survey picture of H.L. Hall Water Well and Test Hole Drilling, and Aitken and Kidder Water Development, by Pat Allen. Water well drilling goes back a century in California, but records are scarce for public viewing.

Monday's news is nosy about your neighbor — and your neighbors' groundwater drilling.

• More great reporting from the Sacramento Bee on anachronistic problems of transparency in how we manage water in California. Even some well drillers now favor more transparency for groundwater "well logs":

In all other Western states, such records are accessible to whomever wants to see them – from university professors to civil engineers, real estate agents to the media. But in California, well logs are barred from public inspection by a 63-year-old law written to keep data gathered by well-drilling companies from falling into the hands of competitors. “The lack of information about well logs makes no sense, particularly as we are trying hard to manage a diminishing public trust resource,” said Jeffrey Mount, senior fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, a nonpartisan think tank in San Francisco. “This is another one of those anachronistic statutes that does not belong in a modern water management system,” Mount said. (Sacramento Bee)

• Nearly 90 percent of the $700 million in "emergency drought relief" money authorized by the governor a few months ago is yet to be spent. But, as our public radio colleague Ben Adler reports, that's not necessarily as bad as it sounds. Grants take time. (Capital Public Radio)
• The secret new trend in water district conservation isn't cops, it's guys who make "water-wise house calls":

One out of every four households has a leak of some sort, usually something as simple as a loose toilet flapper, [water district spokeswoman] Figueroa said. "Leaks are common," she added. "Don't be embarrassed." (SJ Mercury News)

• The New York Times reports on how Californians are tracking their neighbors' usage deep into the drought. Ian Lovett explores Twitter-based shower-shaming (a phenomenon this blog noticed some months ago), ratting your neighbor out for violating restrictions and other guilt-based behavioral nudges. About our region, he writes:

Most homes in Southern California have already been outfitted with efficient shower heads, toilets and garden hoses, making it harder for residents to significantly reduce their water consumption than it was during the last severe drought a quarter-century ago. (NYT)

And how has your community been affected by the drought? Share your story with a photo on Twitter or Instagram. Tag it #mydrought. For more details on our photo project, click here.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

On Broad Beach in Malibu, high tide not only wets sand but also retaining walls and broken down rock revetments. What happens next in homeowners' efforts to get sand trucked in here will go to the State Lands Commission - and the next Controller likely will weigh in on the problem. ; Credit: Molly Peterson/KPCC

The most common question I’ve been asked about the statewide Controller race this election year is the same question I get every four years. “Wait, we have one?”

The inevitable follow-up question: “What does this person do?” Down-ballot races in California’s state election can seem like a tedious part of a the voting process. Most of us just don't take the time to research them. In 2010, the last time we elected statewide executives, 435,308 of those people who voted for Governor just didn’t bother to vote for anybody in the Controller race. 

But in addition to being the chief fiscal officer of the 8th-largest economy in the world, the Controller sits on something like 80 state commissions and boards. And if you’re interested in California’s environment, a biggie there is the State Lands Commission.

The State Lands Commission oversees roughly 4 million acres of submerged land and tidelands, holding them in trust for the public. Right now it's looking at policy alternatives to respond to sea level rise. It manage the state's offshore oil-drilling leases. It even gets authority over historical shipwrecks! 

Three issues coming before to the Lands Commission mean the Controller matters:  

• Coastal Access and Martin’s Beach: At the end of September, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law requiring the State Lands Commission to negotiate with Vinod Khlosa, a private property owner who famously shut down coastal access over his land this year. The commission has all of next year to negotiate with Khlosa. If no deal is reached, it can use eminent domain authority to force public access – something that would represent a big break in historical practice, because that authority hasn’t ever been used in the 76 years that the commission has existed.
• Malibu’s Broad Beach has been rapidly eroding under pressure of waves and storms worsened by climate change, and very rich homeowners there have been seeking to add sand in front of their houses to combat the risk of damage to very expensive properties. Earlier this year, those homeowners successfully completed an application to the State Lands Commission, and the commission was expected to decide on it in October. The decision’s been put over till after the election.
• Fracking: Offshore oil made news late last year and earlier this year when some operators didn’t report that they were using drilling and production techniques collectively referred to as hydraulic fracturing. The news prompted the EPA to require chemical disclosures for drilling operations it oversees.  The state agencies that should be overseeing these issues – the Coastal Commission and the Lands Commission – are considering their next moves too.

Positions on these issues don’t really come up when it comes to the Controller race, though both Betty Yee and Ashley Swearengin have gone on the record to say they’re against fracking. 

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, seen in February, has been released from the hospital after treatment for a gallbladder condition.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

After being treated on Tuesday for a gallbladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was discharged on Wednesday.

"She is doing well and glad to be home," according to a Supreme Court press release.

The court said over the next few weeks Ginsburg will return to Johns Hopkins Hospital for follow-up outpatient visits, and for a nonsurgical procedure to remove the gallstone.

Ginsburg, 87, participated in a virtual Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday from her hospital room. The justices and lawyers held unique oral argument sessions by phone all week because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Last year Ginsburg underwent three weeks of radiation for a cancerous tumor on her pancreas, and in December she was operated on for lung cancer.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Congress from seeking the materials, saying, "The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay."; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The Supreme Court has temporarily put on hold the release of redacted grand jury material from the Russia investigation to a House panel.

The Trump administration is trying to block the release.

Last October, a district court judge ruled the Justice Department had to turn over the materials, which were blacked out, from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

An appeals court upheld the decision, but the Trump administration, hoping to keep the evidence secret, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts' order temporarily stops the process. Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee have until May 18 to file their response to the Justice Department's attempts to keep the materials from the House panel.

The Justice Department had until Monday to turn over the material following the appeals court order. But on Thursday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Congress from seeking it, saying, "The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

David Biello; Credit: /Elizabeth Zeeuw / TED

About The Episode

There's so much we've yet to explore—from outer space to the deep ocean to our own brains. This hour, Manoush goes on a journey through those uncharted places, led by TED Science Curator David Biello.

About David Biello

As TED's Science Curator, David Biello finds scientists with spectacular stories of discovery and helps them bring those stories to life on the TED stage.

A science journalist by trade, he is also a contributing editor at Scientific American, where he's been since 2005. He has also written for Yale E360, Aeon, Foreign Policy, The New York Times and New Republic. David has been a guest on numerous television and radio shows, and he hosts the ongoing duPont-Columbia award-wining documentary "Beyond the Light Switch" as well as "The Ethanol Effect" for PBS.

Biello is the author of The Unnatural World: The Race to Remake Civilization in Earth's Newest Age. He received a BA in English from Wesleyan University and a MS in Journalism from Columbia University.

Featured Speakers

Juna Kollmeier: The Most Detailed Map Of Galaxies, Black Holes And Stars Ever Made

Humans have charted stars for thousands of years, but Juna Kollmeier wants to make the most complete map of the universe ever concieved — by 3D imaging millions of stars, black holes, and galaxies.

Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz: Your Body Was Forged In The Spectacular Death Of Stars

Astrophysicist and self-proclaimed "stellar mortician" Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz takes us through the spectacular life and death of supernovas that make all living things the stuff of stars.

Karen Lloyd: The Mysterious Microbes Living Deep Inside The Earth — And How They Could Help Humanity

Deep beneath our feet and beyond the ocean floor, there is a world teeming with microbes that get their energy not from the sun but from rocks. Karen Lloyd leads us into the alien world below.

Victor Vescovo: What's At The Bottom Of The Ocean — And How We're Getting There

Victor Vescovo has a submarine that takes him further down into the ocean than the height of Mt. Everest. He's been to the deepest parts of our five oceans, revealing lifeforms that defy imagination.

Kay M. Tye: What Investigating Neural Pathways Can Reveal About Mental Health

Behavior, emotion ... it's all in our heads. Kay M. Tye has found neural pathways that create specific emotional or behavioral states — and she's made a switch to turn them on and off.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Faced with financial issues, the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater closed its Chelsea location in 2017.; Credit: Andrew Toth/Getty Images

When the Upright Citizens Brigade announced plans to permanently close its New York bases last week, comedy lost a beloved home. The scrappy, alternative comedy troupe that grew into a school and theater revolutionized improv in New York and beyond with its embrace of "Yes, and ..."

The New York institution incubated the talents of stars such as Kate McKinnon, Aziz Ansari, Chris Gethard, Donald Glover, Aubrey Plaza and many others in the comedy world. A pillar of longform improv, UCB teachings have been brought into countless comedy writers' rooms and are etched into many successful TV shows.

Four of the company's founding members, known as the "UCB4" — Amy Poehler, Matt Besser, Matt Walsh and Ian Roberts — told staff in an email on April 21 that the organization couldn't afford to renew its leases on the group's two Manhattan locations: the UCB theater in Hell's Kitchen and a training center in the Garment District.

UCB also has two locations in Los Angeles where operations have been temporarily halted during the coronavirus outbreak, but there are currently no plans to close them.

Obits followed, marking the exit of UCB's physical presence in the city where it took off in the '90s, when the group turned a former strip club into its first theater.

"The guys that I came up with in New York at the UCB Theater — we made our bones there basically," said Rob Corddry, who went on to be a Daily Show correspondent and star in comedy films including Hot Tub Time Machine. "It's really sad. Sort of the end of an era."

The news comes a month after layoffs were announced at the group's New York and Los Angeles facilities in response to the coronavirus. A small number of staff were kept at training centers on both coasts.

But UCB was under financial strain long before the pandemic. Many UCBers cast the move as an example of an opaque, top-down decision-making that, over the years, they say has sowed distrust in UCB leadership among its members.

"The biggest issue with UCB was the lack of communication of the company and the owners to their employees," said Paris Adkins, a New York performer who was laid off from her administrative job with the company last month.

A previous round of layoffs took place at the end of 2018, mostly of New York employees. Adkins said the pandemic "is just the extenuating circumstance that put things over the edge."

As for the most recent closures, UCB's founders admitted to falling short of expectations.

"Look, we heard the community when they said, 'We're scared, too, and we want better communication,' " Amy Poehler told The Hollywood Reporter in an interview with the UCB4 after the announcement. "I think we did make mistakes, and we're trying to do better."

UCB has not responded to NPR's attempts to contact the organization.

Chris Renfro, an LA-based performer and show producer who relied on UCB as his main source of income, said that learning in March via a mass email that his 3-year career there had come to an end struck him as a betrayal of the values the UCB4 claimed to live by.

"UCB is about a community, it's about having each other's backs," he said, referencing the improv tradition UCB students learn of literally patting each other's backs and saying "Got your back."

"It felt like they had turned their backs on this massive community they had built up around them," he said. "So now there's a weird taste in a lot of peoples' mouths because of that."

According to a letter sent to staff addressing the layoffs, Poehler said she would pay for an additional month of health care for former full-time staff.

Much of the company's operations run on part-time staff, according to Adkins. She estimated that UCB cut a total of 45 New York-based employees across the city since last month.

Despite the community's frustrations, when the indefinite shutdown of the New York outposts turned definite, the tributes rolled in online.

Stephen Colbert, who studied at the peer improv hub Second City in Chicago before moving to New York, tweeted "I'll always be grateful" for the times he was roped in to perform with UCB during the '90s in the acclaimed sketch show mainstay Asssscat.

Daily Show correspondent Jordan Klepper added, "When I left Chicago, the people at UCB NY welcomed me, challenged me, and embodied the NY spirit of full commitment today because tomorrow you could run out of cash and life ships you back home."

Other dispatches on social media were less endearing.

Former students, many of whom shelled out several hundred dollars for improv classes, wrote about negative experiences and wasted money. Some revived longstanding criticism of the theater's policy to not pay its performers, unlike many of its improv peers.

Despite its problems, many felt a sense of community at UCB, Adkins said.

"I think people are grieving," she said. "It's pretty much my only community in New York and I think a lot of people feel that way. You don't get the support of a community like you do at UCB."

In an effort to financially support herself and her peers following the layoffs, Adkins started a GoFundMe page to raise money for New York staff. To date, the account has raised nearly $60,000. She's splitting the funds between staff members, who will receive a month's worth of pay. The rest will be divided among teachers who are in need, Adkins said.

In the THR interview, Amy Poehler assured the UCB community, "We're not leaving New York."

At least for the short-term, the company has moved both LA and New York classes online. For the long-term in New York, leadership has floated plans to return to the old days of renting other independent spaces to hold classes and performances.

Still, even some of its youngest members see the now-shuttered hubs as a piece of history.

"But that's replaceable and people are not," said former training center staff member Maicy Jo Schwartz, who began her UCB NY career in 2014.

Schwartz sees a silver lining.

"I wouldn't be surprised if in the future some people branch off and start their own theaters or their own training centers or their own underground improv and sketch, because New York is a perfect place to do that," she said. "And I do hope that the UCB4 — Amy, Matt, Matt and Ian — can be part of that and support that when there are future endeavors that their alumni take on."

NPR's Elizabeth Blair contributed to this story.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A little girl licking a spoon after stirring the cake mixture in 1935. ; Credit: Fox Photos/Getty Images

“How in the world am I going to come up with something to make dinner tonight?”

If you’ve found yourself asking this question repeatedly during the pandemic, you’re not alone. Grocery shopping complicated by COVID-19 and shortages of certain staples has meant that many who might not usually consider themselves home chefs have had no choice but to throw an apron on and do some culinary experimentation with whatever they already have in their kitchen and pantry. 

Last month on AirTalk, we tackled this issue by calling up pro chef Noelle Carter and food writer Russ Parson, both of whom are former members of the L.A. Times’ Food team, to answer your questions about how to cook with what you already have, recycle  certain foods, and even make staples that you might not be able to find in abundance right now. If you tuned in last time, you learned how to make your own pasta, how to regrow vegetables like green onions and romaine lettuce, and even what you can use as a substitute for all-purpose flour if you can’t find any at the store.

Today on AirTalk, we’re bringing Noelle and Russ back to help you out in the kitchen! If you’ve got questions about things like making or substituting ingredients, or need some ideas for what to make out of random ingredients in your fridge, join our live conversation by calling 866-893-5722.

Guests:

Noelle Carter, chef, food writer and culinary consultant for Noelle Carter Food, a website sharing recipes, cooking techniques and helpful kitchen tips for the home cook; she is the former director of the Los Angeles Times Test Kitchen; she tweets @noellecarter

Russ Parsons, former food editor and columnist for The Los Angeles Times for more than 20 years; he is the author of two cookbooks: “How To Pick A Peach” and “How To Read A French Fry”; he tweets @Russ_Parsons1

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The engineered Dominguez Gap Wetlands in Long Beach filters stormwater and runoff from the Los Angeles River, then the water is siphoned under the river to a spreading ground to the west.; Credit: Sharon McNary/KPCC

Angelenos are used to looking up Heal the Bay's annual beach water quality report card each May as we search out the cleanest places to swim and surf.

Now, the environmental advocacy group is focusing on a new target — the often polluted water that flows into the ocean from the mountains and across the L.A. Basin.

In a first-ever report, it concludes the managers of 12 watersheds from Malibu to Long Beach are making too little progress toward cleaning up this major source of pollution in the Pacific.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Levi Draheim, 11, wears a dust mask as he participates in a demonstration in Miami in July 2019. A lawsuit file by him and other young people urging action against climate change was thrown out by a federal appeals court Friday.; Credit: Wilfredo Lee/AP

A federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit brought by nearly two dozen young people aimed at forcing the federal government to take bolder action on climate change, saying the courts were not the appropriate place to address the issue.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Friday the young plaintiffs had "made a compelling case that action is needed," but they did not have legal standing to bring the case.

The lawsuit, Juliana v. United States, was filed in 2015 on behalf of a group of children and teenagers who said the U.S. government continued to use and promote the use of fossil fuels, knowing that such consumption would destabilize the climate, putting future generations at risk.

By doing so, the plaintiffs argued, the U.S. government had violated their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property.

Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz agreed with some of that assertion, writing in a 32-page opinion that "the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change."

But, he continued, it was unclear if the court could compel the federal government to phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess greenhouse gas emissions as the plaintiffs requested.

"Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power," Hurwitz wrote, "Rather, the plaintiffs' impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government."

The decision reversed an earlier ruling by a district court judge that would have allowed the case to move forward.

Philip Gregory, who served as co-counsel for the plaintiffs, strongly disagreed with the 2-1 ruling, saying in an interview with NPR that they would seek an "en banc petition," which would put the issue before the full 9th Circuit for review.

Gregory, who spoke to some of the young plaintiffs following the decisions, says they were hopeful that their pending petition will be considered, "because as we all know, this Congress and this President will do nothing to ameliorate the climate crisis."

Both the Trump and Obama administrations opposed the lawsuit. All three of the judges involved in Friday's ruling were appointed under Obama.

Hurwitz and Judge Mary Murguia made up the majority but the third, Judge Josephine L. Staton, wrote a blistering dissent.

"In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response — yet presses ahead toward calamity," she wrote. "It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Updated at 10 p.m. ET

Australia's High Court has found reasonable doubt that Cardinal George Pell sexually assaulted two boys in the 1990s and has overturned his conviction.

The court acquitted the former Vatican treasurer of the charges, and no retrial will be possible.

Pell, 78, had been serving a six-year prison sentence in the case. The High Court ordered that he be released.

He was convicted of sexually abusing two 13-year-old choirboys at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Melbourne.

As an adult, one of them went to the police in 2015 and accused the cardinal of abusing him and the other boy in 1996. The other individual died of a heroin overdose the previous year without reporting abuse.

In a statement after the acquittal, as reported by Reuters, Pell said, "I hold no ill will toward my accuser, I do not want my acquittal to add to the hurt and bitterness so many feel; there is certainly hurt and bitterness enough."

Pell was convicted in 2018 and an appellate court upheld those convictions last year.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference's comments on the acquittal recognize that the outcome will be good news for some people and "devastating for others."

"The result today does not change the Church's unwavering commitment to child safety and to a just and compassionate response to survivors and victims of child sexual abuse. The safety of children remains supremely important not only for the bishops, but for the entire Catholic community. Any person with allegations of sexual abuse by Church personnel should go to the police."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Two judges appointed by President Trump to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals prevailed Tuesday in a ruling that clears the way for the executions of four inmates.

The only dissenter in the 3-2 ruling was Judge David Tatel, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton. The judges were reviewing a lower court's injunction that had blocked the scheduled executions.

The decision was seen as a win for Trump's Justice Department, which issued new guidelines last July that would have allowed the federal government to carry out its first executions in 16 years.

The fates of the four men remain unresolved because their death sentences were sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.

In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined the Justice Department's request to vacate the lower court's injunction that scuttled the planned executions.

At issue is the question of whether the condemned men should be put to death by the injection of only one barbiturate — pentobarbital — as called for in the Justice Department's July 2019 memo.

Many of the 28 states where the death penalty is still legal require a lethal injection cocktail containing not one but three barbiturates. Those states include Indiana, where the scheduled executions were to take place.

Pharmaceutical companies have stopped producing at least one of the three drugs used in that lethal mixture, and several botched executions have resulted from some states using untested formulas.

The 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act calls for executions to be carried out "in the manner prescribed by the law of the State in which the sentence is imposed."

Judge Gregory Katsas argues in his majority opinion that the "manner prescribed" simply refers to the method of execution rather than the protocols each state follows in carrying out each kind of execution.

"The government says that 'manner' here means 'method'," Katsas writes, "such that the FDPA regulates only the top-line choice among execution methods such as hanging, electrocution, or lethal injection. In my view, the government is correct."

Judge Neomi Rao, in a concurring opinion, argues that while the word "manner" refers not only to the method of execution, it cannot be interpreted in isolation. "It is a broad, flexible term," she says, "whose specificity depends on context."

In his dissent, Tatel says the best understanding of the 1994 statute is that it "requires federal executions to be carried out using the same procedures that states use to execute their own prisoners.

"Had Congress intended to authorize the Attorney General to adopt a uniform execution protocol," Tatel argues, "it knew exactly how to do so."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

What does the right to a unanimous jury verdict have to do with abortion, or school prayer, or federal environmental regulations? Stay tuned.

The U.S. Supreme Court Monday struck down state laws in Louisiana and Oregon that allowed people accused of serious crimes to be convicted by a non-unanimous jury vote. The 6-to-3 decision overturned a longstanding prior ruling from 1972, which had upheld such non-unanimous verdicts in state courts.

And these days, any decision to overturn a longstanding precedent rings the alarm bells in the Supreme Court.

In the short run, Monday's decision was a victory for Evangelisto Ramos, who in 2016 was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury vote of 10-to-2 in Louisiana.

Only two states--Louisiana and Oregon--had provisions allowing non-unanimous verdicts, and Louisiana just recently changed its law to be like those in 48 other states and the federal government.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, laid out the history behind the laws in both states. Gorsuch noted that the measure was first added to the Louisiana state constitution in 1898, after the Supreme Court ruled that racial minorities could not be barred from juries; that same year, Louisiana added the non-unanimous jury provision to its state constitution as part of a package of amendments that deliberately made it difficult for black citizens to vote or otherwise participate meaningfully in the state's governance. Specifically, Gorsuch said, the non-unanimous jury provision was a way to ensure that even if one or two African Americans made it on to a jury, their participation would be "meaningless."

The adoption of the non-unanimous jury rule in Oregon, Gorsuch wrote, "can similarly be traced to the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and efforts to dilute the influence of racial and ethnic and religious minorities on Oregon juries."

Despite these state provisions, there has never been any dispute that the unanimous jury requirement applies to the federal government. The question in this case was whether that aspect of the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial applied to the states as well.

Over the last 75 years or so, the court has applied just about every other provision of the Bill of Rights to the states, but in 1972 it deviated from that practice, declining to apply the unanimous jury requirement in a similar fashion.

On Monday, however, the 1972 decision came tumbling down. The six-justice court majority — composed of conservatives and liberals — said the earlier ruling was a mistake.

The decision, written by the conservative Gorsuch, was joined in whole or in part by liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Clarence Thomas, another conservative, agreed with the result, but on entirely different grounds.

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Samuel Alito — joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and for the most part, Justice Elena Kagan — maintained that the principle of adhering to precedent should be followed in this case because to do otherwise would require "a potentially crushing" number of new trials for people currently imprisoned under the old rule.

"Where is the justice in that?" replied Justice Gorsuch. "Not a single member of this court" is prepared to say that the 1972 decision was correct, he noted. "Every judge must learn to live with the fact that he or she will make mistakes ... But it is something else entirely to perpetuate" a wrong "only because we fear the consequences of being right."

The consequences of Monday's decision will likely be felt more in Louisiana, which allowed non-unanimous verdicts for more serious crimes than Oregon. The court's decision will require retrials for any prisoner who still has appeals pending.

There are about 100 of those cases in Louisiana, says Jamila Johnson, the managing attorney at the Promise of Justice Initiative, which represented Ramos. But there are also at least 1,700 prisoners in the state who might qualify for a new trial if the court eventually holds that Monday's decision is retroactive.

The high court left that question open for another day.

Altogether the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions totaled a whopping 86 pages and reflected an important subtext--divergent views about when the court should follow its usual rule of adhering to precedent and when it should not.

It's important because, the new ultra-conservative court majority has very different views than the courts of the last 75 years on topics as diverse as abortion, voting rights, federal regulation, and the clash between religious views and generally applicable laws.

"The court's views about when it's OK to overrule prior precedent have always been more about the eye of the beholder than they have been about a rule that is easy or straightforward to apply," says Deborah Pearlstein, professor and co-director of the Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy at Cardozo School of Law. Ultimately, she said, "all of these major questions that are coming before the court are going to be fought along these lines."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court is no stranger to controversy, but it still gets higher marks in public opinion polls than the other branches of government. Now though, for the first time in memory, the court is not just split along ideological lines, but along political lines as well: All the conservatives are Republican appointees, all the liberals Democratic appointees. That division could put the court in the crosshairs of public opinion if it is forced to make decisions that affect the 2020 election.

Chief Justice John Roberts has worked hard to persuade the public that the justices are fair-minded legal umpires--not politicians in robes. That image got pretty scuffed up earlier this month when the conservative court majority shot down accommodations for the coronavirus that would have allowed six more days for absentee ballots to be received in Wisconsin's election for 500 school board seats, over 100 judicial seats, and thousands of other state and local positions.

In the weeks leading up to the election, the COVID-19 pandemic had become a public health crisis. Encouraged by local officials, about a million more voters than usual requested absentee ballots, and local officials were unable to keep up with the surge. To mitigate that problem, the lower courts allowed an extra six days for election officials to receive completed absentee ballots.

But the day before the election, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling by a 5-to-4 vote. The result was that tens of thousands of people who had not yet even received their absentee ballots were forced to, as the dissenters put it, choose between their health and their right to vote.

The TV footage of people wearing masks waiting for hours to vote at the very few precincts that were open amid the pandemic was, to say the least, not a good look. Health officials in Milwaukee have since identified six voters and one poll worker who appear to have contracted the virus during the election.

The majority opinion was unsigned, so no one knows who the principal author was. But we do know some things.

First, the emergency appeal in the case came through the justice assigned to that region of the country, Brett Kavanaugh. Typically, when a justice refers a case to the full court, he or she writes a memo about the issues, likely with a recommendation. Kavanaugh almost certainly did that. But other justices would then chime in. And in a voting case, Chief Justice Roberts assuredly would have played a pivotal role.

"John Roberts' fingerprints are on this as chief justice and as someone who has owned this area of the law," says Joan Biskupic, a Supreme Court biographer and CNN legal analyst who is the author of a critically acclaimed biography about Roberts.

Indeed, Roberts was invested in voting-rights law as far back as 1982 when he was a staffer in the Reagan administration. Back then, he led the effort to narrow the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. When that failed, President Reagan signed the broad extension of the law, rejecting advice to veto it. But years later, on the Supreme Court, Roberts wrote the decision in Shelby County v. Holder, gutting a key provision of that law.

So, it was no surprise when the conservative majority refused to make even a modest accommodation to the pandemic. What was surprising was the tone of the opinion. Critics of the opinion, including some Roberts defenders, called the language "callous," "cynical," and "unfortunate."

In fact, the word "pandemic" appears not once in the court's unsigned opinion. Rather, the majority sought to portray the issue before the court as a "narrow, technical question." The majority said the lower court had overstepped the Supreme Court's established rule that courts should "ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election."

The dissenters replied that the court's treatment of the current situation as ordinary "boggles the mind." Writing for the dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that "a voter cannot deliver...a ballot she has not yet received. Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested absentee ballots" are being asked to do just that.

"I do think there's something to this idea that we need to stick with the rules even in the context of an emergency," says law professor Rick Hasen, an election expert at the University of California, Irvine.

He and others see the legal question before the court as a close call, but say the decision was, at the very least, tone deaf in light of the reality of a pandemic.

Hasen says that the court could have recognized "the inhumanity of making people vote in this way," but that instead the tone of the opinion was "really dismissive of the entire threat facing these voters."

Chief Justice Roberts has, on some occasions tried to bridge the two wings of the court, in a couple of big cases siding with the court's liberals, or sometimes trying to fashion a compromise. But as Hasen observes, "there really is not any case I can think of involving elections where Roberts has forged a larger consensus."

Roberts must have anticipated at least some of the outcry over the Wisconsin decision. He is, after all, an astute political observer.

But as any student of the court knows, Roberts is a reliable, and often leading member of the conservative majority when it comes to a whole host of issues involving campaigns, voting and elections. That includes decisions he has written striking down laws aimed at limiting the role of big money in campaigns and decisions upholding partisan gerrymanders. Moreover voting rights in particular "is an area of the law where John Roberts has not been deterred by anticipated public criticism," says Biskupic, his biographer.

For the chief, says Biskupic, "It's not just voting rights. It's a broader overlay of representation" in his decisions, a pattern that "often will favor Republicans, but more fundamentally, it seems to favor entrenched powers, the status quo in many states, against ordinary citizens. And we certainly saw that in Wisconsin."

Uncertainties around COVID-19 remain, with states facing decisions about when to reopen and what size of public gatherings are safe. As November inches closer, those decisions could affect the 2020 election. Who gets to vote, when, and how, are unanswered questions and states are surely exploring different plans to keep voters safe. But Roberts' Supreme Court may be the ultimate arbiter of what changes and accommodations to voting are allowed.

The majority opinion "tried to tell the public that this was a very small decision," says Biskupic. "But as the dissent pointed out, it laid down a very serious marker about how voters will be accommodated in the middle of the coronavirus crisis."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again punted on the question of gun rights, throwing out as moot a challenge to New York City's strict gun regulations on transporting licensed guns outside the home.

New York City, in the name of public safety, has very strict gun regulations. It allows people to have a permit for guns in their homes, but those regulations originally barred people from transporting their guns anywhere except shooting ranges within the city. The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association challenged the regulation as a violation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms and lost in the lower courts.

But, after the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, New York state and New York City changed their laws to allow gun owners to transport their guns outside the city to shooting ranges, to competitions, and to second homes. That gave the challengers exactly what they asked for in their lawsuit, and so on Monday, the court, by a 6-to-3 vote, dismissed the case as moot--in short, it no longer presented a live controversy.

The unsigned opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's four liberals, and Trump appointee Brett Kavanaugh.

But Kavanaugh wrote separately to stress that while he agreed with the majority on procedural grounds, he agreed with the dissenters--Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch--on one key issue.

Those three said that the lower courts were using the wrong test to evaluate gun laws, a test that is far too deferential to gun regulators. The dissenters mainly argued however, that the court essentially had been gamed on the mootness question, and that the justices should have decided the case, and decided it for the gun owners.

Gun-safety advocates breathed a sigh of relief that there was no decision adverse to gun regulations. But they worry that gains they are making in some state legislatures may be taken away by a conservative court majority.

"The reality is that the gun-safety movement is winning in state houses and at the ballot box, so the NRA is turning to the court to try to change the tide," says Eric Tirschwell, managing mirector of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Monday's decision was the first in a major gun case in 10 years, the first since a landmark set of decisions in 2008 and 2010. In those cases, a sharply divided court ruled that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right, not a right associated with the militia, as the court had previously implied. Those decisions marked a huge victory for the NRA and other gun-rights organizations.

In the decade following that decision, however, the court did not agree to hear any of the dozens of challenges to gun restrictions in cases appealed to the court. In part because the composition of the court made outcomes uncertain.

The previous big gun cases were decided by 5-to-4 votes, with Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the fifth and decisive vote. Kennedy, according to court sources, insisted, as the price of his vote, on adding limiting language that likely would have resulted in some, maybe even most, gun restrictions being upheld. With neither side of the court sure how Kennedy would vote on most regulations, neither the pro-gun, nor the pro-gun-control side wanted to risk an adverse ruling.

That changed when Kennedy retired in 2018 to be replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, who has a much more gun-friendly record than Kennedy did.

Nothing Kavanaugh said in his concurring opinion Monday would dissuade anyone from thinking he has changed his mind.

Bottom line here is that when it comes to gun control, there look to be four pretty solid votes against a lot of the measures enacted in recent years after mass shootings. Specifically, laws that bar carrying weapons in public places, and bans on assault weapons and large ammo magazines. All these, plus so called red-flag laws and other measures could be in jeopardy.

The question is where Chief Justice Roberts will be on these and other gun-control questions. To date, he has never been much of a supporter of gun-control laws, but he hasn't been an outspoken opponent, either. All we really know is that he was part of the 2008 and 2010 majority that for the first time declared that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not, as the court had previously implied, a collective right that was attached to the colonial militia.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, said the federal government must pay health insurers $12 billion under a provision of the Affordable Care Act.; Credit: Patrick Semansky/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court has told the federal government that it has to pay $12 billion to insurance companies, money that was promised in the Affordable Care Act as part of the start-up costs of Obamacare in the first three years of its existence.

The law, as enacted, promised to limit profits and losses for insurance companies in the first three years of the Obamacare program. Some companies made more money than allowed by the formula, and had to pay some back to the government, and other companies lost money and were owed money by the government under the formula.

But in 2014, the first year that the ACA's plan was in place, the Republican-controlled Congress reneged on the promise to appropriate money for the companies that had lost money. It did the same for the next two years as well, adding to appropriation bills a rider that barred the government from fulfilling the promise in the statute. After President Trump was elected, his administration supported the GOP-led refusal to pay.

The insurance companies sued, and on Monday the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has to pay up.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing for the majority that the decision reflects a principle "as old as the nation itself. The government should honor its obligations."

She noted that the language of the ACA was "rare" in that it permitted lawsuits to enforce the provisions at issue here, provisions that declare the government"shall pay" the losses suffered by insurance companies that participated over the first three years.

The lone dissenter was Justice Samuel Alito, who called the decision "a massive bailout" for the insurance industry, which "took a calculated risk and lost."

Monday's decision was the third involving Obamacare at the Supreme Court. Conservative groups, and now the Trump administration, have consistently sought to invalidate or undermine the law — so far, with limited or no success. But next year, the Supreme Court is scheduled to consider once again whether the law is unconstitutional.

Despite repeated efforts by Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration to either undermine or entirely do away with the program, Obamacare has remained popular, likely because it has enabled millions of Americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, to obtain medical insurance and medical coverage for the first time.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court; Credit: Mark Sherman/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court begins an extraordinary two weeks of oral arguments Monday. It will be the first time in history that the court has allowed live streaming of its audio, and the first time that the court is hearing arguments via telephone hookup, instead of in the flesh.

The justices are trying to simulate their normal arguments as much as possible, beginning with Chief Marshal Pamela Talkin calling the court to order with a slightly modified version of her usual "Oyez, oyez, oyez...."

After that, very little will be as usual.

Because the arguments are conducted over the phone, the justices and the lawyers cannot see one another, and listeners will all try to imagine where the justices and lawyers are sitting or standing in their homes to hear or present arguments.

While most of the lawyers will be in their homes, the government's lawyers will be making their arguments from the office of the Solicitor General, and in a bow to formality, they plan to wear their usual formal morning coat attire.

The lawyers we sampled, to a person, said they are more comfortable standing, or even standing at a lectern, as they usually do during oral arguments, even though nobody can see them. The arguments are limited to a half hour on each side. And, as usual, each side will get to make an opening argument for two minutes uninterrupted.

After that, under normal circumstances, the justices engage in rapid-fire questioning of the lawyers, interrupting counsel frequently, and even, on occasion, each other.

But starting Monday, the justices will ask questions in order of seniority, for two or three minutes each, with Chief Justice John Roberts starting off, followed by Justice Clarence Thomas — if he has any questions, which he rarely does. (If Thomas asks a question, it will be the first time he has spoken from the bench in over a year, when he broke a three-year silence, which was preceded by a whopping 10-year silence from the bench.)

Next Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who often asks the first question in oral arguments, will be at bat, and so on, ending with the court's newest appointee, Brett Kavanauagh. More questions will be permitted if there is time left at the end of the first round of questioning.

Lawyers say there will be big challenges with the new format.

"You lose the ability to read body language. That's No. 1," says Jay Sekulow, who will be representing President Trump in cases testing whether the president can be subpoenaed for his pre-presidential financial records either by Congress or by a state grand jury subpoena in a criminal case.

As Sekulow observes, oral argument is typically a "pretty intimate event when you're actually arguing in the courtroom. You see them. You can see their reactions. You see if they nod to each other. Here you're doing this literally over a telephone line. So you lose the intimacy."

Stanford Law professor Jeff Fisher, who will be arguing a religion case a week from Monday, agrees. "I just feel that not being able to see their faces and body language is going to be a real challenge. It's just a cost for how effective and useful the arguments are going to be."

The audio argument format presents another interesting twist for the court: For the first time ever, oral arguments will be available via livestream. Typically, Supreme Court arguments are followed by a narrow group of lawyers, law students and court watchers. But with millions of Americans stuck at home, and arguments carried live online and on C-Span, the justices will likely have a larger audience than usual.

Monday's case presents a trademark question — not exactly the kind of thing to rivet public attention. And it is the only case of the day. Clearly, the court is using this relatively unimportant case to see how the system is working, and whether it needs to be adjusted in any way — in short, to work out the bugs.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

It was a new day at the Supreme Court, which for the first time ever live-streamed oral arguments.; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The U.S. Supreme Court made history Monday. The coronavirus lockdown forced the typically cautious court to hear arguments for the first time via telephone, and to stream the arguments live for the public to hear.

Chief Justice John Roberts was at the court as the telephone session began, one or two other justices were in their offices at the court, and the rest of the justices dialed in from home.

The first and only case heard Monday involved an arcane trademark question only a lawyer could love. Online travel search engine Booking.com is appealing a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refusal to grant a trademark to the company.

With the justices asking questions in order of seniority, the first big surprise was that Justice Clarence Thomas, who in the past has gone years without asking a question, did ask one, several in fact, when it came his turn.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number ... that's a vanity number, 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked Assistant Solicitor General Erica Ross.

Yes, replied Ross, but domain names pose a different problem than phone numbers. Ultimately, she argued "the core problem with Booking.com is that it allows [Booking.com] to monopolize booking on the internet" to the exclusion of other sites like hotelbooking.com.

Justice Stephen Breyer followed up when his turn came: "Same question as Justice Thomas ... good morning, anyway ... You can have a trademark that's an address. You can have a trademark that's a telephone number. So why can't you have a trademark that's a dot-com?"

Justice Samuel Alito noted that the court's prior decision in this area of the law was more than 100 years old, and the statute dealing with trademarks was similarly enacted decades ago.

"How can a rule that makes sense in the internet age be reconciled with the language" in these "pre-Internet era" laws? asked Alito.

Next up to her lectern from her home was lawyer Lisa Blatt. This was her 40th Supreme Court argument and despite being a veteran, she said later that she was, as usual, sick to her stomach beforehand.

But once at the lectern "it's always a rush of excitement," she said, and this time it was a special rush.

"I loved getting a question from Justice Thomas ... I would go to the phone for the foreseeable future if I could get Justice Thomas to ask questions. That was wonderful," she said.

Indeed, despite the new format Blatt and Ross seemed to have had a good time.

"Your client would not object to the registration of any trademark that simply made a slight variation in Booking.com?" asked Alito.

"There's a million booking registrations already," parried Blatt.

Alito: "Would you just answer the question."

Blatt: "They don't and have not and would not."

Not, she added, unless another company ripped off the trademark with no variation. That would be theft, she said.

So, when when the argument was over, what was her reaction?

"After I hung up, I screamed, 'That was hard!' Because you're saying enough to answer, but not too much. And you don't have any like visual feedback, so it was hard."

In the end, she said, the argument felt more like an oral exam than an oral argument.

Tom Goldstein, publisher of Scotusblog, had a similar reaction. Goldstein, who has argued 43 cases before the court, said he thought the argument was probably more useful to the public than usual.

"But I bet it was less useful for the justices," he said. "Because there was less opportunity to follow up on lines of questions and less opportunity to influence someone ... so there's much less engagement in the oral argument."

Still there were no major hitches on this first day. Justice Sonia Sotomayor briefly forget to unmute her phone at one point, prompting a "Sorry, chief." Justice Breyer's voice broke up in static for a second or two. But as Goldstein observes, this was a big change for the court.

"Culturally a change, technologically a change. And it could have been a big embarrassment if it didn't go well, but it went fine," he said. "I think they're happy."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court's second day of arguments by phone was devoted to a new version of a case it decided seven years ago involving federal money to fight AIDS around the world.; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The Supreme Court kicked off a second day of telephone arguments Tuesday with a case that mingles sex, the HIV/AIDS epidemic and free speech.

At issue is whether the government can require private nonprofits to denounce prostitution in order to qualify for U.S foreign aid grants aimed at fighting the worldwide AIDS epidemic. This is the second time the court has faced this issue, but this time it comes with a twist.

In 2003, Congress, at the urging of President George W. Bush, enacted a major foreign aid program to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic and prevent new infections worldwide. In appropriating the money, Congress included a provision requiring any private organization that received funding through the program to adopt an explicit policy denouncing prostitution and sex trafficking.

In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down that provision, declaring it unconstitutional because it compelled U.S. nonprofits to adopt an explicit policy as a condition for receiving grant money. By a 6-2 vote, the high court said such a requirement interfered with the free speech rights of private U.S. organizations engaged in the fight against AIDS.

The case was back Tuesday, but this time, the question was whether foreign organizations closely affiliated with those same U.S. nonprofits can be required to adopt the policy denouncing prostitution.

Defending the provision was Assistant to the Solicitor General Christopher Michel. He argued that foreign affiliates of U.S. organizations like Save The Children, CARE and WorldVision are separate legal entities from their parent U.S. organizations, and that as foreign entities, they have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the 2013 decision, seemed unpersuaded.

"Is it reasonable to insist on formal corporate ties in this context?" he asked. "It's undisputed that to be effective in many of the foreign countries involved here, you have to operate through a foreign entity."

Michel responded that if the U.S. nonprofits "make the choice to operate through a foreign entity because they decide that is more convenient or more effective, they have to accept the bitter with the sweet."

Roberts still seemed doubtful, noting that the U.S. nonprofits and their foreign affiliates "have the same name, the same logo, the same brand. And I wonder if it makes more sense to think of the foreign entity as simply another channel for the domestic entity's speech."

Representing the nonprofits was lawyer David Bowker. He maintained that for all practical purposes, there is no difference between the U.S. nonprofits and their foreign affiliates, so making the affiliate adopt an anti-prostitution message effectively puts words in the mouth of the U.S. nonprofit.

Questioned by Justice Clarence Thomas, Bowker said that the harm suffered by the U.S. nongovernmental organizations is that their foreign affiliates must either lose their funding by refusing to comply with the anti-prostitution policy or undermine their mission by denouncing the very people they need to work with — namely prostitutes. And if the foreign affiliates make the pledge needed to get funding, he said, the U.S. parent organizations have to disavow their own affiliates' anti-prostitution pledge, thus harming the entire anti-AIDS fight.

"It's a Catch-22 for these U.S. organizations," said Bowker.

Justice Stephen Breyer followed up: "So why don't you simply write a grant to get all the money yourself and then you give it to CARE India? Why doesn't that work?"

Because, replied Bowker, under the statute, CARE USA, in subcontracting a grant to CARE India, would be required to impose the anti-prostitution pledge on its own affiliate on behalf of the government.

Justice Samuel Alito, who signed on to the court's 2013 decision, said he had more concerns in this case — mainly "that it will force Congress to either withhold foreign aid entirely or allow foreign aid to be used in ways that are contrary to the interests of the people of this country."

Justice Brett Kavanaugh followed up: "Suppose the U.S. government wants to fund foreign NGOs that support peace in the Middle East but only if the NGOs explicitly recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Are you saying the U.S. can't impose that kind of speech restriction on foreign NGOs that are affiliated with U.S. organizations?"

Bowker said that kind of a restriction would likely be acceptable because the aid in that case would be tied to the U.S. relationship with Israel.

Kavanaugh moved on to another question, noting, "The government says your position would unleash foreign affiliates of U.S. corporations to pump money" into U.S. election campaigns, something that is explicitly barred under current law.

Bowker replied that U.S. campaign laws, as ruled on by the Supreme Court in prior cases, allow the ban on foreign contributions because they do not come from U.S. entities at all.

A decision in the case is expected some time this summer. While the court usually concludes its work by the end of June, it is expected that this term will extend into July because the arguments in this and nine other cases were postponed for more than a month because of the coronavirus.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg poses for the official photo at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in 2018.; Credit: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent non-surgical treatment Tuesday for a benign gallbladder condition, according to a press release from the Supreme Court. She plans to participate in oral arguments from the hospital on Wednesday, according to the release.

In pain on Monday, Ginsburg went to Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington after hearing the first-ever Supreme Court teleconference of oral arguments. At Sibley, she was diagnosed with acute cholecystitis, a condition in which a gallstone migrates to the cystic duct. She nonetheless participated in arguments from home on Tuesday, but was in enough pain that she went to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore for treatment of the infected duct later Tuesday.

Doctors not involved in Ginsburg's care said non-surgical treatment typically involves antibiotics and insertion of a tube to drain the infected duct.

Friends said the justice was in good spirits on Tuesday night, and watching the Metropolitan Opera on her iPad.

Ginsburg's emergency treatment coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court's historic live-streaming of its oral arguments in which the justices are participating by telephone because of the coronavirus. According to the court statement, Ginsburg, 87, is "resting comfortably" and plans to participate in oral arguments again on Wednesday when the court considers an important birth control case.

She is expected to remain in the hospital for another day or two.

Last year, Ginsburg completed three weeks of radiation treatment after a cancerous tumor was discovered on her pancreas. It was the fourth time in 20 years that she had been treated for cancer, and the second time in a year. In December 2019, she was operated on for lung cancer.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Nuns with the Little Sisters of The Poor, including Sister Celestine, left, and Sister Jeanne Veronique, center, rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington on March 23, 2016.; Credit: Jacquelyn Martin/AP

The birth-control wars return to the Supreme Court Wednesday, and it is likely that the five-justice conservative majority will make it more difficult for women to get birth control if they work for religiously affiliated institutions like hospitals, charities and universities.

At issue in the case is a Trump administration rule that significantly cuts back on access to birth control under the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare, the massive overhaul of the health care system, sought to equalize preventive health care coverage for women and men by requiring employers to include free birth control in their health care plans.

Listen to the arguments live beginning at 10 a.m. ET.

Houses of worship like churches and synagogues were automatically exempted from the provision, but religiously affiliated nonprofits like universities, charities and hospitals were not. Such organizations employ millions of people, many of whom want access to birth control for themselves and their family members. But many of these institutions say they have a religious objection to providing birth control for employees.

For these nonprofits, the Obama administration enacted rules providing a work-around to accommodate employers' religious objections. The workaround was that an employer was to notify the government, or the insurance company, or the plan administrator, that, for religious reasons, it would not be providing birth-control coverage to its employees. Then, the insurance company could provide free birth-control options to individual employees separately from the employer's plan.

But some religiously affiliated groups still objected, saying the work-around was not good enough, and sued. They contended that signing an opt-out form amounted to authorizing the use of their plan for birth control. Among those objectors was the Little Sisters of the Poor, an order of Catholic nuns that runs homes for the elderly poor.

The Supreme Court punted in 2016

The Little Sisters sued, and their case first reached the Supreme Court in 2016. At the time, Sister Constance Viet explained why she refused to sign any opt-out form, saying that "the religious burden is what that signifies and the fact that the government would ... be inserting services that we object into our plan. And it would still carry our name."

Back then, when the Little Sisters' case got to the Supreme Court, the justices basically punted, telling the government and the sisters to work together to try to reach a compromise that would still provide "seamless birth control" coverage for employees who want it, without burdening the Sisters' religious beliefs. Although the Little Sisters did eventually get relief from the lower courts, the fight over the accommodations rules continued right up to the end of the Obama administration.

But when President Trump came into office, the administration issued new rules that would give broad exemptions to nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have objections to providing birth-control coverage for their employees. And the new rules expanded the category of employers who would be exempt from the birth-control mandate to include not just those with religious objections, but those with moral objections, too.

New rules

Those new rules, currently blocked by lower courts, are what is at issue Wednesday in the Supreme Court.

"Many states are suing and none of them can find a single actual woman who claims she's been harmed," says Mark Reinezi, president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is defending the Trump rules against challenges brought by Pennsylvania and other states.

And, he adds, "there are many other ways to provide contraceptive coverage to people if they happen to work for religious objectors."

Rienzi says that employees who work for birth-control objectors can get coverage from their spouse's insurance plan, or by switching to a different insurance plan on an Obamacare exchange. And he says that birth control is also available under a program known as Title X, which gives money to state and local governments to provide health care for women.

But Brigitte Amiri, the deputy director the of ACLU's Reproductive Freedom project, says the idea that Title X could make up for the lost coverage is "a joke." Amiri notes that the Title X program has been underfunded for years, and the Trump administration has issued new regulations that in her words "decimated the program."

According to Amiri, "the Trump administration and Vice President [Mike] Pence have long wanted to ... take away coverage for contraception. They want to block access to birth control. They want to block access to abortion ... so this is all part and parcel of the overall attack on access to reproductive health care."

Potential consequences

She maintains that if the expanded Trump rules are upheld for religious objectors, hundreds of thousands of women across the country will lose their contraceptive coverage. Ultimately, Amiri says, there just is no way to maintain birth-control coverage for employees who work for religiously affiliated institutions unless that employer, as she puts it, is willing to "raise their hand" to opt out.

A break in birth-control coverage that big could have serious consequences, say say birth-control advocates. They note that the National Academy of Medicine, a health policy nonprofit, recommended the original rules because birth control is prescribed not just to avoid pregnancy but also to treat various female medical conditions. In fact, it is the most frequently taken drug for women ages 15-60. And it is expensive, $30 a month and more for pills, and as much as $1,000 for buying and having an IUD inserted.

Birth-control advocates say that's the very reason that a broad requirement to cover birth control in insurance was included in Obamacare. They say the new Trump rule improperly undermines that mandate.

But selling that argument to the Supreme Court will be hard. When the court last considered this issue in 2016, its makeup was far less conservative than it is now. Since then, two Trump appointees have been added to the court. And both of those appointees — Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — have already indicated strong support for the notion that religious rights may often trump other rights.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A moment in Larry Mantle’s recent conversation with Steve Inskeep has stuck with me.

The NPR Morning Edition co-host was in our Pasadena studios to talk about his latest book, Imperfect Union. Asked how he approaches his day job, Inskeep told a story about the time he dispassionately called a heartbreaking loss for his high school football team. That “straight call” earned praise from a veteran broadcaster he admired. It’s a lesson, he said, that stayed with him.

“I may have a personal opinion; it doesn’t matter,” Inskeep told Mantle. “My job as a journalist is to get the facts right, that are in front of me, and you can do that even if you have a personal opinion.”

Mantle, who has hosted KPCC’s AirTalk for decades, responded: 

“You can’t do this work if you’re wired like an activist. I sort of see my wiring as more how a teacher would be, wired where you’re amassing information. You’re leading people through a story, and the joy is in people coming to their own conclusions.”

“If you’re an activist at all, you’re an activist for the truth,” Inskeep replied. 

Activists for truth. Finding joy in people reaching their own conclusions.

What a compelling description of what our newsroom strives to deliver every day to Southern Californians.

These were my thoughts even before my colleague at NPR came under attack for doing her job.

If you haven't been following the story, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo angrily objected to being questioned about Ukraine during an interview with All Things Considered co-host Mary Louise Kelly. Pompeo didn't care for Kelly's questions on air and the conversation grew even more contentious behind closed doors.

The next day he accused Kelly of lying about the topic of the interview and then reporting a conversation he claimed was off the record. [Including his odd demand she locate Ukraine on unmarked world map.]  Kelly has denied both claims and media outlets have reported on emails between her and Pompeo's staff that back up her assertion she told them the interview would go beyond questions about Iran.

Then, this week, the State Department denied credentials to NPR's Michele Kelemen, who'd been scheduled to cover Pompeo's trip to Europe.

NPR President and CEO John Lansing and Nancy Barnes, who heads news, are rightfully demanding answers.

Why does it matter? Because as Lansing notes having access to people in power is fundamental to "the role of journalism in America.

Get KPCC in your inbox

Breaking news alerts sent to your inbox

I want to take a few minutes to tell you more about how our newsroom works and why you’ll be hearing more from us about our mission and ambition.

Listeners may have noticed a new phrase on our air: “Democracy needs to be heard.” It’s a statement you’ll also start seeing on billboards and bus benches around Los Angeles.

It’s part of the first marketing campaign for our station in many years. The goal is to make more people aware of what we do and why we do it. We also want to grow our audience and our supporters, so we can do even more original journalism.

Southern California Public Radio — home to 89.3 KPCC, LAist Studios, and LAist.com — turns 20 this year. SCPR was born out of a belief that the region would embrace and support a news-focused NPR station serving Southern California with original programming and reporting.

In the two decades since, our members stepped up and helped us build what is now one of the biggest newsrooms in the region. We’ve gone from cramped quarters in the library of Pasadena City College, to a new headquarters in 2010, to today, when we have to scramble for desks for our growing operation.

If you’ve ever heard me on-air during a pledge drive, you’ve heard me talk about how remarkable it is that your support has fueled our ambition and growth. We’re the most listened to NPR station in Southern California. The public media model depends on people donating their hard-earned money because they believe in what we are doing. You don’t have to pay a dime to listen to us on your radio, or stream us on your smart speaker or our app. You’ll never hit a paywall when you visit our website.

Our relationship with you isn’t transactional — that’s one of the ways nonprofit member-supported newsrooms are different. Instead, we make a case that what we do matters, that it’s valuable to you — so valuable that you voluntarily support us (even though you can still listen and read if you don’t). 

That’s a powerful relationship.

It’s why we take community engagement so seriously. That means listening closely to your concerns, answering your questions, meeting you in person, thinking about how our coverage can be both for and about Southern Californians.

In September, we were awarded the first-ever Gather Award for engaged journalism from the Online News Association. In December, we won our second-in-a-row Champion of Curiosity Award for our breaking news coverage of the wildfires.

Our approach to engaged journalism has been transformational for coverage, and we’ve emerged as a clear leader in the industry — sharing what we’ve learned with other newsrooms.

***

We talk a lot about our public-service mission in this newsroom. It permeates how we approach stories. It’s why our reporters, producers, hosts and editors choose to work here. 

And we’ve made this promise to you:

“You deserve great local news — and we need your help to find those stories. We listen to what you’re curious about, what keeps you up at night, and who you want held accountable. We’re inviting you to be part of the conversation.”

We do this work because of you. We do it for you and with you. 

We’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about how we’re finding and telling stories, and how we can do an even better job of delivering reporting that you won’t find anywhere else. We want our reporters to spend their energy on original stories (and not get stuck echoing information that everyone else is reporting). 

To that end, each reporter has their own individual mission statement to reflect their goals in covering communities and crucial issues. 

The free press is a cornerstone of democracy. That’s why in 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost." 

More than 200 years later, Nelson Mandela said: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy.”

Activists for truth. That means scrutinizing the information we receive from our sources or uncover through our reporting. It means giving you the context you need to consider what is fact and what is spin.

It’s truly an exciting time to work in our newsroom.

We have ambitious plans for coverage of the upcoming California primary and presidential election.

We have so much great work in progress — including three in-depth investigations scheduled to publish in the coming weeks.

Those stories took months to report, involving thousands of public documents, hundreds of miles of travel, and data analysis that no one else has done.

And it was only possible because of your support.  

Thank you.

Megan Garvey, Executive Editor

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

To safely phase out social distancing measures, the U.S. needs more diagnostic testing for the coronavirus, experts say. But how much more?

The Trump administration said on April 27 the U.S. will soon have enough capacity to conduct double the current amount of testing for active infections. The country has done nearly 248,000 tests daily on average in the last seven days, according to the nonprofit Covid Tracking Project. Doubling that would mean doing around 496,000 a day.

Will that be enough? What benchmark should states try to hit?

One prominent research group, Harvard's Global Health Institute, proposes that the U.S. should be doing more than 900,000 tests per day as a country. This projection, released Thursday, is a big jump from its earlier projection of testing need, which was between 500,000 and 600,000 daily.

Harvard's testing estimate increased, says Ashish Jha, director of the Global Health Institute, because the latest modeling shows that the outbreak in the U.S. is worse than projected earlier.

"Just in the last few weeks, all of the models have converged on many more people getting infected and many more people [dying]," he says.

But each state's specific need for testing varies depending on the size of its outbreak, explains Jha. The bigger the outbreak, the more testing is needed.

Thursday Jha's group at Harvard published a simulation that estimates the amount of testing needed in each state by May 15. In the graphic below, we compare these estimates with the average numbers of daily tests states are currently doing. (Jump to graphic)

Two ways to assess whether testing is adequate

To make their state-by-state estimates, the Harvard Global Health Institute group started from a model of future case counts. They calculated how much testing would be needed for a state to test all infected people and any close contacts they may have exposed the virus. (The simulation estimates testing 10 contacts on average.)

"Testing is outbreak control 101, because what testing lets you do is figure out who's infected and who's not," Jha says. "And that lets you separate out the infected people from the non infected people and bring the disease under control."

This approach is how communities can prevent outbreaks from flaring up. First, test all symptomatic people, then reach out to their close contacts and test them, and finally ask those who are infected or exposed to isolate themselves.

Our chart also shows another testing benchmark for each state: the ratio of tests conducted that come back positive. Communities that see around 10% or fewer positives among their test results are probably testing enough, the World Health Organization advises. If the rate is higher, they're likely missing a lot of active infections.

What is apparent from the data we present below is that many states are far from both the Harvard estimates and the 10% positive benchmark.

Just nine states are near or have exceeded the testing minimums estimated by Harvard; they are mostly larger, less populous states: Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

Several states with large outbreaks — New York, Massachusetts and Connecticut among others — are very far from the minimum testing target. Some states that are already relaxing their social-distancing restrictions, such as Georgia, Texas and Colorado, are far from the target too.

Jha offers several caveats about his group's estimates.

Estimates are directional not literal

Researchers at the Global Health Initiative at Harvard considered three different models of the U.S. coronavirus outbreak as a starting point for their testing estimates. They found that while there was significant variation in the projections of outbreak sizes, all the models tend to point in the same direction, i.e. if one model showed that a state needed significantly more testing, the others generally did too.

The model they used to create these estimates is the Youyang Gu COVID-19 Forecasts, which they say has tracked closely with what's actually happened on the ground. Still the researchers caution, these numbers are not meant to be taken literally but as a guide.

If social distancing is relaxed, testing needs may grow

The Harvard testing estimates are built on a model that assumes that states continue social distancing through May 15. And about half of states have already started lifting some of those.

Jha says, that without the right measures in place to contain spread, easing up could quickly lead to new cases.

"The moment you relax, the number of cases will start climbing. And therefore, the number of tests you need to keep your society, your state from having large outbreaks will also start climbing," warns Jha.

Testing alone is not enough

A community can't base the decision that it's safe to open up on testing data alone. States should also see a consistent decline in the number of cases, of two weeks at least, according to White House guidance. If their cases are instead increasing, they should assume the number of tests they need will increase too.

And Jha warns, testing is step one, but it won't contain an outbreak by itself. It needs to be part of "a much broader set of strategies and plans the states need to have in place" when they begin to reopen.

In fact, his group's model is built on the assumption that states are doing contact tracing and have plans to support isolation for infected or exposed people.

"I don't want anybody to just look at the number and say, we meet it and we're good to go," he says. "What this really is, is testing capacity in the context of having a really effective workforce of contact tracers."

The targets are floors not goals

States that have reached the estimated target should think of that as a starting point.

"We've always built these as the floor, the bare minimum," Jha says. More testing would be even better, allowing states to more rapidly tamp down case surges.

In fact, other experts have proposed the U.S. do even more testing. Paul Romer, a professor of economics at New York University proposed in a recent white paper that if the U.S. tested every resident, every two weeks, isolating those who test positive, it could stop the pandemic in its tracks.

Jha warns that without sufficient testing, and the infrastructure in place to trace and isolate contacts, there's a real risk that states — even those with few cases now — will see new large outbreaks. "I think what people have to remember is that the virus isn't gone. The disease isn't gone. And it's going to be with us for a while," he says.

Daniel Wood contributed to this report.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Students walk outside Detroit's Pershing High School in 2017. A lawsuit claims the state of Michigan failed to provide the city's students with the most fundamental of skills: the ability to read.; Credit: Carlos Osorio/AP

In a landmark decision, a federal appeals court has ruled that children have a constitutional right to literacy, dealing a remarkable victory to students.

The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by students of five Detroit schools, claiming that because of deteriorating buildings, teacher shortages and inadequate textbooks, the state of Michigan failed to provide them with the most fundamental of skills: the ability to read.

For decades, civil rights lawyers have tried to help students and families in underfunded schools by arguing that the U.S. Constitution guarantees children at least a basic education. Federal courts have consistently disagreed. Until now.

The ability to read and write is "essential" for a citizen to participate in American democracy, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday. One cannot effectively vote, answer a jury summons, pay taxes or even read a road sign if illiterate, wrote Judge Eric Clay, and so where "a group of children is relegated to a school system that does not provide even a plausible chance to attain literacy, we hold that the Constitution provides them with a remedy."

"Like a daycare"

The 2016 complaint alleges that Michigan's then-Gov. Rick Snyder and the state's board of education denied Detroit students their fundamental right to literacy. It cites textbooks that were tattered, outdated and in such short supply that teachers could not send work home. The suit also describes school buildings that were in shocking disrepair: broken toilets and water fountains, leaking ceilings, shattered windows.

In warmer months, the complaint says, a lack of air-conditioning caused some students to faint; in winter, students regularly wore hats, coats and scarves to class. Students became accustomed to seeing cockroaches, mice or rats scurrying across the floor.

"You're sitting down in the classroom, and you see rodents in a corner. Or you can hear things crawling in the books," says Jamarria Hall, a plaintiff in the class-action suit, who graduated in 2017. "But the saddest thing of all was really the resources that they had, like, being in a class where there's 34 students, but there's only six textbooks."

Given these conditions, the five K-12 schools named in the complaint also struggled to retain teachers. Many classes were taught by paraprofessionals or inexperienced teachers placed through the Teach For America program. Often, Hall says, when teachers quit suddenly or didn't show up, students would simply be sent to the gym.

"For days on end — weeks on end — if the school didn't have a substitute or couldn't fill that gap, the gym was basically the go-to place. Or they would set students down in the classroom and really put on a movie, like Frozen... like a daycare," Hall remembers.

At one school, the complaint says, a math teacher quit soon after the school year began "due to frustration with large class sizes and lack of support. ... Eventually, the highest performing eighth grade student was asked to take over teaching both seventh and eighth grade math. This student taught both math classes for a month."

The complaint delivers a crushing assessment of these schools' failure to educate students: Proficiency rates "hover near zero in nearly all subject areas," it says.

"Illiteracy is the norm."

Previous legal efforts to argue that families in low-income, underfunded schools deserve better have run headlong into the U.S. Constitution, which makes no mention of the word "education," let alone a right to it.

One of the most famous cases, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, made it all the way to the Supreme Court before the justices, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that families in poorer districts have no federal right to the same levels of funding as wealthier districts. They essentially said: The system isn't fair, but the U.S. government has no obligation to make it so.

In fact, the first judge to hear the current, Detroit case came to much the same conclusion.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Murphy dismissed the Michigan suit in 2018, writing that, yes, "literacy — and the opportunity to obtain it — is of incalculable importance," but not necessarily a fundamental right.

The students' lawyers disputed Murphy's reasoning and appealed his ruling, and, on Thursday, two of three judges took their side.

"We're not asking for a Cadillac"

In the past, many of the arguments used to pursue educational equity in the courts have been inherently comparative. Using the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, lawyers have focused on disparity — how one school or one district's resources compare to another's.

"This [case] is different," says Tacy Flint, a partner at Sidley Austin LLP and a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It's not comparative. It's not a question of some people being treated worse than others. This fundamental right to a basic minimum education is a right that every child has."

Flint and her co-counsel focused more on a different pillar of the 14th Amendment, the Due Process Clause, saying the Constitution protects essential rights that "you can't imagine our constitutional democracy or our political life functioning without." And, Flint says, "access to literacy clearly fits that description."

Put simply: The plaintiffs' lawyers did not set out to level the playing field for all students. Instead, they attempted to use the appalling conditions of five Detroit schools to establish a floor.

"This case focuses squarely on literacy as the irreducible minimum," says Kristine Bowman, professor of law and education policy at Michigan State University.

And that minimum is pretty minimal.

"We're not asking for a Cadillac, or even a used, low-end Kia. We're asking for something more than the Flintstones' car," says co-counsel Evan Caminker, a former dean of the University of Michigan Law School.

In his dissent to Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Eric Murphy argued that accepting literacy as a constitutional right would open a Pandora's box for states, and force federal courts to wrestle with questions beyond their purview: "May they compel states to raise their taxes to generate the needed [school] funds? Or order states to give parents vouchers so that they may choose different schools? How old may textbooks be before they become constitutionally outdated? What minimum amount of training must teachers receive? Which HVAC systems must public schools use?"

Murphy wrote that history, and legal precedent, are on his side: "The Supreme Court has refused to treat education as a fundamental right every time a party has asked it to do so."

After all, the judge reasoned, food, housing and medical care are also "critical for human flourishing and for the exercise of constitutional rights," but the Constitution "does not compel states to spend funds on these necessities of life." Why should education be any different?

A spokesperson for Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says her office is reviewing the court's decision before it decides what to do next. Whitmer's office also said in a statement that "the governor has a strong record on education and has always believed we have a responsibility to teach every child to read."

While the ruling is historic, it comes with several caveats. Basic literacy is a remarkably low standard to set for schools. As such, legal experts say, this ruling won't have an immediate impact on children in underfunded schools.

"We're not talking about the court having to recognize a broad-based, free-floating, generalized right to education," says Michelle Adams, a professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York City. This will not "open the floodgates of litigation. We're talking about a situation where students are being warehoused and required to be in school and yet they literally cannot read."

The case is also relatively young. The court's decision could be reviewed by the full 6th Circuit, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, or returned to play out in District Court. Whitmer's office has not yet indicated how the state will respond.

"The fight is not done yet," says Jamarria Hall, who is now living in Tallahassee, Fla., and taking classes at a community college. "We were fighting just to get into the ring. Now we're in the ring. Now the fight really starts."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Robert F. Kennedy's speech at the Ambassador Hotel. Sandi Gibbons the woman in the white dress on the bottom right.

She’s spent her life on both sides of the microphone.

For half of her career she was a reporter, finding herself in places like the Ambassador Hotel ballroom on the night Robert F. Kennedy was shot, and in the courthouse covering Charles Manson.

For the other half of her professional life, she spent a lot more time in L.A.’s courthouses as the spokeswoman for the L.A. County District Attorney’s office. She served three DAs, and now she’s hanging it up. Her retirement lunch was attended by three past and present DAs, with a fond message from a fourth, and as many of her reporter and DA friends could fit in the restaurant.

RELATED: Veteran reporter, DA spokesperson Sandi Gibbons is retiring

Sandi Gibbons has tales to tell, and here she recounts a few funny, moving and plain old perplexing ones from her life in court. And I can tell you from knowing her, she is one great dame.

Correction: Original headline spelled Sandi Gibbons' name "Sandy"

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: Michelle Lanz/KPCC

From brights the other day to mutes today. You could call this color palette "blush and sand," which sounds like the title of a romance novel with a Valentino lookalike on the cover!

This is exactly the kind of sweater I used to tease my grandmother about wearing, the elaborately beaded 1950s cardigans that you saw on everyone from Babe Paley to Lucille Ball to … your grandmother. 

Of course, now I wish I had more of them! The best are the silk-lined cashmere or merino wool ones made in what was, for more than 150 years, the British Crown Colony of Hong Kong. The work of Hong Kong tailors is legendary, and now all the 1950s and early 1960s pieces are enjoying a tremendous vogue.

In this case the colors – bronze, blush and sand – are hushed, which lets the beading look more pronounced. The sleeveless top is a silk jersey criss-crossed with stitched bands of darker silk chiffon. King’s X? And then the skirt is bias-cut chiffon in very quiet hues. If designers gave quirky names to prints the way cosmetics makers do to lipstick and cheek color, we could call this one, "Shhh! This is a library!’"

So I’m glad that the shoes get paroled to holler. The nude patent color is ladylike, not loud, which is why I’m surprised but gratified that it’s hung around for a couple of seasons now. It’s a very versatile hue, even if it’s not making it as Pantone's color of the year.

No, the troublemaker part of this ensemble is the jeweled heels. Paul Simon sang of diamonds on the soles of one’s shoes; these are big dazzling rhinestones on the heels of mine. They gleam, they coruscate, they twinkle, they flash – amid all these well-behaved quiet colors, they send out a wink and a message that "I’m really a lively girl at heart, and at my feet."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Before he Picks this Week's featured File Exchange submission, Brett would like to give a nod of appreciation to the developers of the Image Processing Toolbox. Back in September of 2018, I wrote... read more >>

Director Eliza Hittman on the set of her film "Never Rarely Sometimes Always".
; Credit: Focus Features/Never Rarely Sometimes Always (2020)

The film “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” was slated for a theatrical release in March, but due to COVID-19 screenings were postponed. Instead, the film is out on digital this week, currently sporting a 98 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes and receiving critical acclaim both here on FilmWeek and nationwide as one of the best films of 2020 so far.

Writer-director Eliza Hittman’s third feature-length film is about two teenage girls Skylar (Talia Ryder) and Autumn (Sidney Flanagan) from rural Pennsylvania who travel to New York City for medical help after an unplanned pregnancy. Hittman says the idea for the film came to her when she read in a book about how some women in Ireland, which up until recently had very strict laws against abortions, would travel from Ireland to London in 24 hours just to get a procedure. It struck her as worthy of a screenplay, and the idea was born. As part of her research for the film Hittman went to a small coal-mining community in rural Pennsylvania and, even though she wasn’t pregnant, visited pregnancy centers, got tested, and talked with women getting treatment and counseling so she could, as she says, “write the scenes with credibility.”

Today on FilmWeek, we’ll air “The Frame” host John Horn’s interview with “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” director Eliza Hittman where the two discuss how Hittman came up with the idea for the film, her journey to rural America to find out what visiting pregnancy centers there is like, and how that informed the way she conceived and wrote the film.

Guest:

Eliza Hittman, writer and director of “Never Rarely Sometimes Always”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Justin Timberlake and Anna Kendrick in Trolls World Tour.; Credit: Universal Pictures/Trolls World Tour (2020)

Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Lael Loewenstein, Amy Nicholson and Charles Solomon review this weekend’s new movie releases and share some of their recommendations for movies and TV shows to discover, rediscover and binge-watch while you’re at home.

• "Trolls World Tour" on VOD (Vudu, FandangoNOW, AppleTV, Amazon Prime Video , Microsoft Store & more)

• "The Quarry" on VOD (FandangoNOW, Google Play, DirecTV On Demand)

• "A White, White Day" on The Frida Virtual Cinema

• "Away" on Laemmle's Virtual Cinema and Amazon Prime Video

• "Selah And The Spades" on Amazon Prime Video

• "The Booksellers" on VOD (Google Play) and virtual cinemas, including Laemmle's and The Virutal Frida Cinema

• "Endings, Beginnings" on VOD (iTunes and FandangoNOW)

• "Sergio" on Netflix

Want to see what our critics are watching and recommending you watch during stay at home? Click here to see a full list of our FilmWeek critics' favorite TV shows and films to binge-watch during COVID-19.

Guests:

Amy Nicholson, film critic for KPCC, film writer for The Guardian and host of the podcasts ‘Unspooled’ and the podcast miniseries “Zoom”; she tweets @TheAmyNicholson

Lael Loewenstein, KPCC film critic and film columnist for the Santa Monica Daily Press; she tweets @LAELLO

Charles Solomon, film critic for KPCC, Animation Scoop and Animation Magazine

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The National Science Foundation: Creating knowledge to transform our future

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Congress from seeking the materials, saying, "The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay."; Credit: Andrew Harnik/AP

The Supreme Court has temporarily put on hold the release of redacted grand jury material from the Russia investigation to a House panel.

The Trump administration is trying to block the release.

Last October, a district court judge ruled the Justice Department had to turn over the materials, which were blacked out, from former special counsel Robert Mueller's report into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

An appeals court upheld the decision, but the Trump administration, hoping to keep the evidence secret, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts' order temporarily stops the process. Lawyers for the House Judiciary Committee have until May 18 to file their response to the Justice Department's attempts to keep the materials from the House panel.

The Justice Department had until Monday to turn over the material following the appeals court order. But on Thursday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block Congress from seeking it, saying, "The government will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay."

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely this week, and for the first time the arguments were streamed live to the public.; Credit: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

For the first time in its 231-year history, the Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments remotely by phone and made the audio available live.

The new setup went off largely without difficulties, but produced some memorable moments, including one justice forgetting to unmute and an ill-timed bathroom break.

Here are the top five can't-miss moments from this week's history-making oral arguments.

A second week of arguments begin on Monday at 10 a.m. ET. Here's a rundown of the cases and how to listen.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas speaks ... a lot

Supreme Court oral arguments are verbal jousting matches. The justices pepper the lawyers with questions, interrupting counsel repeatedly and sometimes even interrupting each other.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has sat on the bench for nearly 30 years, has made his dislike of the chaotic process well known, at one point not asking a question for a full decade.

But with no line of sight, the telephone arguments have to be rigidly organized, and each justice, in order of seniority, has an allotted 2 minutes for questioning.

It turn out that Thomas, second in seniority, may just have been waiting his turn. Rather than passing, as had been expected, he has been Mr. Chatty Cathy, using every one of his turns at bat so far.

Thomas broke a year-long silence on Monday in a trademark case testing whether a company can trademark by adding .com to a generic term. In this case, Booking.com.

"Could Booking acquire an 800 number, for example, that's a vanity number — 1-800-BOOKING, for example?" Thomas asked.

2. The unstoppable RBG

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participated in Wednesday's argument from the hospital. In pain during Tuesday's arguments, the 87-year-old underwent non-surgical treatment for a gall bladder infection at Johns Hopkins Hospital later that day, according to a Supreme Court press release.

But she was ferocious on Wednesday morning, calling in from her hospital room in a case testing the Trump administration's new rule expanding exemptions from Obamacare's birth control mandate for nonprofits and some for-profit companies that have religious or moral objections to birth control.

"The glaring feature" of the Trump administration's new rules, is that they "toss to the winds entirely Congress' instruction that women need and shall have seamless, no-cost, comprehensive coverage," she said.

3. Who flushed?

During Wednesday's second oral argument, Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, a case in which the justices weighed a First Amendment challenge to a federal rule than bans most robocalls, something very unexpected happened.

Partway through lawyer Roman Martinez's argument time, a toilet flush could be distinctly heard.

Martinez seemed unperturbed and continued speaking in spite of the awkward moment.

The flush quickly picked up steam online, becoming the first truly viral moment from the court's new livestream oral arguments.

4. Hello, where are you?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the most tech-savvy of the justices, experienced a couple of technical difficulties with her mute button.

In both Monday and Tuesday arguments, the first time she was at bat, there were prolonged pauses, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to call, "Justice Sotomayor?" a few times before she hopped on with a brief, "Sorry, Chief," before launching into her questions.

By Wednesday she seemed to have gotten used to the new format, but the trouble then jumped to Thomas, who was entirely missing in action when his turn came. He ultimately went out of order Wednesday morning.

5. Running over time

Oral arguments usually run one hour almost exactly, with lawyers for each side having 30 minutes to make their case. In an attempt to stick as closely as possible to that format, the telephone rules allocate 2 minutes of questioning to each justice for each round of questioning.

Chief Justice John Roberts spent the week jumping into exchanges, cutting off both lawyers and justices in the process, to keep the proceedings on track. Even so the arguments ran longer than usual.

But in Wednesday's birth control case, oral arguments went a whopping 40 minutes longer than expected.

Justice Alito, for his part, hammered the lawyer challenging the Trump administration's new birth control rules for more than seven minutes, without interruption from the chief justice.

Referencing a decision he wrote in 2014, Alito said that "Hobby Lobby held that if a person sincerely believes that it is immoral to perform an act that has the effect of enabling another person to commit an immoral act, the federal court does not have the right to say that this person is wrong on the question of moral complicity. That is precisely the question here."

Christina Peck is NPR's legal affairs intern.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.