A New Jersey construction company owner was sentenced yesterday to 15 months in prison for evading employment tax penalties assessed against him.
The following is according to court documents and statements made in court: Joseph Caravella, of Randolph, owned several masonry companies in New Jersey. From 2008 to 2016, the IRS assessed approximately $650,000 in Trust Fund Recovery penalties against Caravella for causing three masonry businesses that he owned to not pay their federal employment taxes. The timely payment of federal employment taxes is critical to the functioning of the U.S. government because, for example, they are the primary source of funding for Social Security and Medicare. The federal income taxes that are withheld from employees’ wages also account for a significant portion of all federal income taxes collected each year. Congress empowered the IRS to impose a penalty equal to the amount of the unpaid taxes — called a Trust Fund Recovery Penalty — against any responsible individual who fails to ensure that these taxes are paid timely. Caravella pleaded guilty to attempting to evade these Trust Fund Recovery penalties.
From around March 2008 through April 2019, Caravella sought to evade the payment of these penalties by placing companies that he controlled in the names of nominee owners and avoiding the use of a bank account in his own name to prevent the IRS from levying the funds. Also during that time, Caravella continued to cause his businesses not to pay employment taxes, resulting in an additional loss of $1.2 million to the IRS.
In total, Carvalla caused a tax loss to the IRS of $1,885,519.39.
Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Kelly of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Alina Habba for the District of New Jersey made the announcement.
IRS Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.
Trial Attorney Hayter L. Whitman of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Christopher Fell for the District of New Jersey are prosecuting the case.
The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division today announced that it has filed a response in support of the City of Seattle’s Motion to Terminate the Consent Decree in United States v. City of Seattle. The decree required reforms in the Seattle Police Department’s practices regarding use of force, crisis intervention, stops and detentions, supervision and accountability. With support from the Justice Department, the Seattle Police Department (SPD) achieved sustained substantial compliance.
The Justice Department brought this case pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Civil Division and the Special Litigation Section of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division jointly investigated and found that the Seattle Police Department (SPD) had engaged in a pattern or practice of unnecessary or excessive force that violated the Constitution and federal law. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington entered the consent decree in 2012.
“We congratulate the Seattle Police Department on its achievement of sustained substantial compliance with this thirteen-year-old consent decree,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This Civil Rights Division will continue to work with police departments across the country to help make America’s communities safe again.”
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Washington, believes the district court should terminate the consent decree and monitorship, which have been in place for 13 years,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Teal Luthy Miller for the Western District of Washington. “Seattle has been held up as an example of successful police reform and has done recent work on its crowd control policies and accountability systems. We trust it will continue to lead the way on constitutional policing.”
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University
In June 2025, Immigration Judge ShaSha Xu in New York City reportedly told lawyers in her courtroom: “We’re not really doing names publicly.” Only the government lawyers’ names were hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys had to give their names as usual. Xu cited privacy concerns, saying, “Things lately have changed.”
When one immigration lawyer objected that the court record would be incomplete without the government attorney’s name, Xu reportedly refused to provide it. In another case, New York immigration Judge James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney as merely “Department” throughout the hearing.
New York immigration Judge Shirley Lazare-Raphael told The Intercept that some ICE attorneys believe it is “dangerous to state their names publicly.” This follows a broader pattern of ICE agents wearing masks during arrests to hide their identities.
This secrecy violates a fundamental principle that has protected Americans for centuries: open courts. Here’s how those courts operate and why the principle governing them matters.
Hiding of ICE attorneys’ names in court fits a broader pattern seen here outside a New York immigration courtroom of ICE agents wearing masks. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova
‘Presumption of openness’
The U.S. legal system is built on openness, with multiple layers of legal protection that guarantee public access to court proceedings.
This tradition of open courts developed as a direct rejection of secret judicial proceedings that had been used to abuse power in England. The notorious Star Chamber operated in secret from the 15th to 17th centuries, initially trying people “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”
But the Star Chamber eventually became a tool of oppression, using torture to obtain confessions and punishing jurors who ruled against the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.
By the time American colonial courts were established, the reaction against the Star Chamber had already shaped English legal thinking toward openness. American courts adopted this principle of transparency from the beginning, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.
Today, the term “star chamber” refers to any secret court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or is used to persecute individuals.
Many state constitutions also guarantee open courts – such as Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”
While there’s no explicit law requiring attorneys to be publicly named, there’s also no policy allowing their names to be kept secret. The presumption is always toward openness.
In response to these recent developments, law professor Elissa Steglich said that she’d “never heard of someone in open court not being identified,” and that failing to identify an attorney could impair accountability “if there are unethical or professional concerns.”
Rules for anonymity
Courts sometimes allow anonymity, but only in specific circumstances.
Juries can be anonymous when there’s “substantial danger of harm or undue influence,” as legal expert Michael Crowell writes – like in high-profile organized crime cases or when defendants have tried to intimidate witnesses before. Even then, the lawyers still know the jurors’ names.
Similarly, parties to a lawsuit can sometimes use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case involves highly sensitive matters such as sexual abuse, or when there’s a real risk of physical retaliation.
What’s happening with ICE attorneys is different. There’s no formal court ruling allowing it, no specific safety findings and no established legal process.
Immigration courts have fewer protections
Immigration courts operate differently from regular federal courts. They are so-called “administrative courts” that are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
These courts decide claims involving an individual’s right to stay in the U.S., either when the government seeks to remove someone from the country for violating immigration law or when an individual seeks to stay in the country through the asylum process.
Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that regular federal judges have. As executive branch government employees, they can be hired and fired, just like other Department of Justice employees.
People in immigration court also have fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. They have no right to court-appointed counsel and must represent themselves unless they can afford to hire an attorney. The majority of immigrants appear without an attorney. Outcomes are better for those who can afford to hire counsel.
Immigration court records are also less accessible to the public than other federal court proceedings.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration court, made less than 1% of its opinions publicly available. A federal court ruled that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its decisions online.
Because immigration courts operate with less oversight than regular federal courts, public observation becomes more critical.
Open courts aren’t just about legal procedure – they’re about democracy itself. When the public can observe how justice is administered, it builds confidence that the system is fair.
Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 21, 2025, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Court watching protects transparency
Court watching has become an important way for citizens to ensure due process is honored, especially in immigration cases.
Observers can monitor whether proper legal procedures are being followed. They can watch for signs that attorneys are prepared, treating people respectfully and following court rules – regardless of whether those attorneys identify themselves.
Observers help track trends such as lack of legal representation, language barriers or procedural unfairness that can inform advocacy for reforms. This kind of public oversight is especially important in immigration court, where people often don’t have lawyers and may not understand their rights.
When community members bear witness to these proceedings, it helps ensure the system operates fairly and transparently.
State bar associations have clear standards about attorney conduct in court proceedings. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize that lawyers are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.
Immigration judges, despite being government employees rather than lifetime-tenured federal judges, are also bound by judicial conduct codes that require them to uphold public confidence in the justice system. When judges allow or encourage anonymity without formal procedures or safety findings, they risk violating these ethical obligations.
Bar associations can investigate professional conduct violations and impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. While enforcement against federal government lawyers has historically been uncommon, sustained documentation by court observers can provide the evidence needed for formal complaints.
While government attorneys, judges and other court personnel may face real safety concerns, hiding their identities in open court is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of legal tradition that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.
As pressure mounts to process immigration cases quickly, courts are ethically and legally bound to ensure that speed doesn’t come at the expense of fundamental fairness and transparency.
Cassandra Burke Robertson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Reacting to the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) first Advisory Opinion clarifying the obligations of states in respect of climate change, Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation at Amnesty International, said:
“Today’s opinion is a landmark moment for climate justice and accountability. The ICJ made clear that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment. The world’s highest court stressed that states have a duty to act now, regulate the activities of private actors and cooperate to protect current and future generations and ecosystems from the worsening impacts of human induced climate change. This unprecedented opinion will bolster the hundreds of ongoing and upcoming climate litigation cases around the world, where people seek justice for the livelihoods that have been snatched away and the damage caused by major polluters.
Today’s opinion is a landmark moment for climate justice and accountability. The ICJ made clear that the full enjoyment of human rights cannot be ensured without protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment.
Mandi Mudarikwa, Head of Strategic Litigation, Amnesty International
Candy Ofime, Researcher and Legal Advisor in the Climate Justice Team at Amnesty International, said:
“In light of the polluters pay principle, the ICJ established that states’ failure to take action to protect the climate system— including through continued fossil fuel production, licencing or the provision of subsidies to fossil fuel companies—may constitute an internationally wrongful act. Despite big polluters’ suggestion to the contrary, the ICJ recognized that it is scientifically possible to determine each state’s contribution to the climate crisis, taking into account current and cumulative emissions. States, particularly historically high greenhouse gas emitters, must take responsibility and repair the climate harms they have caused and provide guarantees of non-repetition.”
Following in the footsteps of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the ICJ reaffirmed that climate change can lead to the forced displacement of people seeking safety, including across borders, emphasizing that in such circumstances, non-refoulement protections applies.
The ICJ recognized that climate change constitutes “an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet”. It stressed that a complete solution to this “life-daunting” and “self-inflicted” crisis does not only require contribution of all fields of knowledge but also “human will, at individual, social and political levels to change our current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.” Delivering a message to the climate justice movement worldwide, the ICJ expressed “hope that its conclusions would inform and guide social and political action to address the ongoing climate crisis.”
Amnesty International expresses the utmost gratitude to the Pacific Islands students whose innovative and inspiring global advocacy was critical in making today a reality.
Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
Cotton, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Provide Parental Leave and Compensation for Miscarriages and Stillbirths
Washington, DC — Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), and Jim Risch (R-Idaho) today introduced the Helping with Equal Access to Leave and Investing in Needs for Grieving Mothers and Fathers Act, or HEALING Mothers and Fathers Act, to amend the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include the spontaneous loss of an unborn child as a qualifying medical condition for FMLA leave. The bill would also establish a tax credit for a woman that suffers the loss of a child in the womb.
“This bill will make sure families receive the resources they need to help recover from the unexpected loss of a child. No amount of money can replace such a loss, but the legislation will make sure parents have time to begin the recovery process,” said Senator Cotton.
“It has taken policymakers too long to recognize that parents should be allowed time to heal following a miscarriage or stillbirth. The loss of a child is devastating and heartbreaking for families, and this legislation formally acknowledges their need for time following such a loss,” Senator Hyde-Smith said.
The HEALING Mothers and Fathers Act mirrors a similar bill in Arkansas introduced by State Representative Les Eaves called Paisley’s Law, named in honor of his late granddaughter, Paisley.
Bill text is here.
The HEALING Mothers and Fathers Act would:
Amend the FMLA to include spontaneous loss of an unborn child as a qualified medical condition for FMLA leave and civil service employee leave.
Women and their spouses would be entitled to take up to 12 work weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period for loss of an unborn child.
Spontaneous loss of an unborn child is defined in the bill as ‘the loss of a child in the womb that is unplanned and not resulting from a purposeful act.’
All requirements related to certification, notice, flexibility and leave substitution are consistent with current standards for claiming FMLA leave.
Establish refundable tax credit for any mother, or couple, who suffers a stillbirth.
Stillbirth is defined as “the delivery of a child where there was a spontaneous death, not induced by any purposeful act, before the complete delivery from the child’s mother.”
A family would be eligible for the tax credit if a stillbirth certificate, under applicable state law, has been issued for the child.
These funds could not be used for any abortion procedure
Source: United States Senator for Texas John Cornyn
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) joined Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Congresswoman Beth Van Duyne (TX-24) in introducing the Stop Financial Underwriting of Nefarious Demonstrations and Extremist Riots (Stop FUNDERs) Act, which would add rioting as defined by the federal anti-riot statute to the list of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act predicate offenses, allowing the Department of Justice to use the full suite of RICO tools against entities who fund or coordinate violent interstate riots:
“Radical, left-wing groups who fund acts of violence, coordinate attacks against law enforcement, and spearhead the destruction of property must be stopped,” said Sen. Cornyn. “This legislation would add rioting to the list of racketeering offenses to crack down on this lawless behavior while ensuring the First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceful protest are protected.”
“Every American has the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest, but not to commit violence,” said Sen. Cruz. “Domestic NGOs and foreign adversaries fund and use riots in the United States to undermine the security and prosperity of Americans. My legislation will give the Department of Justice the tools it needs to hold them accountable, and I urge colleagues to pass it expeditiously.”
“The standard of treating violent, extremist activists as individual criminals must end. It is time we empower our law enforcement with a commonsense tool to treat these violent mobs, their funding sources, and their organizers as the criminal enterprises they are by passing the Stop FUNDERS Act,” said Rep. Van Duyne. “Since the days of the George Floyd riots, to the violence we see across American cities and college campuses today, it is obvious there are well funded, well outfitted, and highly coordinated efforts to plan and execute violent and potentially deadly missions of chaos and mayhem. This is organized crime, and we need to attack it as such.”
Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Mike Lee (R-UT), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Josh Hawley (R- MO) cosponsored this legislation in the Senate.
Background:
During the recent riots in Los Angeles, left-wing groups openly coordinated and assisted violent rioters who destroyed property and attacked police. For example, some groups coordinated providing protective equipment to rioters so they could withstand crowd control munitions and assault police.
The Stop FUNDERs Act would:
Amend 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) to add “rioting,” as defined in the Anti-Riot Act, to the list of racketeering predicate offenses;
Enable the Department of Justice to use RICO tools, including joint liability and group prosecution, conspiracy charges, asset forfeiture, and enhanced criminal penalties, against organizations and individuals who repeatedly fund or coordinate violent interstate riots;
And deter abuse of nonprofit status and expose hidden financial pipelines behind politically motivated violence.
This bill is endorsed by Heritage Action and the National Right to Work Committee.
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
An important disclaimer is at the bottom of this article.
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
LONDON, July 23 (Xinhua) — Two children and a woman were killed in a shooting incident in Northern Ireland’s County Fermanagh on Wednesday morning, local police said.
All the victims were members of the same family, District Commander Inspector Robert McGowan told a news conference.
“We can advise that there is currently no threat to the public,” a Police Service of Northern Ireland spokesman said.
Law enforcement officials say the motive for the shooting remains unclear. A case of premeditated murder has been opened, and the investigation is in its early stages. –0–
Please note: This information is raw content obtained directly from the source of the information. It is an accurate report of what the source claims and does not necessarily reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Source: Hong Kong Government special administrative region – 4
The Water Supplies Department (WSD) today (July 23) alerted the public to a fraudulent SMS message purportedly issued by the department.
The WSD recently received enquiries from members of the public concerning such SMS message purportedly issued by the department. The message requested that recipients settle outstanding payments and click a link (https[:]//pnigov [.]sbs), which is not the WSD’s website address. The department has reported the case to the Police.
The WSD clarified that it did not send the SMS message in question and will not direct customers to other websites with hyperlinks embedded in an SMS message. The WSD reminded that the department is registered in the SMS Sender Registration Scheme by the Office of the Communications Authority. All SMS messages issued by the department will include the prefix “#” in the SMS Sender ID for easy identification by the public.
Anyone who has provided his or her personal information to the website concerned should contact the Police. For enquiries, please call the WSD’s customer enquiry hotline at 2824 5000.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Oregon’s U.S.Senator Jeff Merkleyand U.S. Representative Val Hoyle (OR-04) introduced the Columbia River Clean-Up Act to reauthorize the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program. Sen. Merkley created the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program in 2016 to focus federal attention on reducing toxics and pollution through voluntary efforts in the Columbia River Basin. However, funding for the program is set to expire next year. The Columbia River Clean-Up Act would ensure the program can be funded for another five years, through 2030.
“Our rivers and waterways are the lifeblood of communities across Oregon and the rest of the Pacific Northwest,” said Sen. Merkley. “The Columbia River Basin Restoration Program—which I created in 2016—is vital to preventing toxic pollutants from accumulating in our environment. Our bill reauthorizes this critical program, ensuring federal dollars will continue to support a cleaner, healthier Columbia River for Tribal communities, wildlife, ecosystems, and the economy.”
“The Columbia River Basin is one of our most important watersheds — supporting communities, economies, and ecosystems across the Pacific Northwest,” said Rep. Hoyle. “Reauthorizing the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program is critical to continuing the progress we’ve made in cleaning up toxic pollution and protecting public health. This voluntary program is a proven, bipartisan success, and I’m proud to join Senator Merkley in leading the effort to ensure it continues delivering results for Oregonians, Tribal Nations, and future generations.”
The Columbia River Basin is the second-largest watershed in the United States, stretching across parts of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, and beyond. Home to 8 million people and more than 15 Tribal Nations, the Basin is central to the cultural, economic, and ecological identity of the Pacific Northwest.
For decades, industrial pollution, toxic runoff, and habitat degradation have threatened the health of the river and the communities that depend on it. The Columbia River Basin Restoration Program, first authorized in 2016, was the first federal initiative specifically designed to address toxic contamination in this critical watershed. Since its inception, the program has helped fund on-the-ground restoration projects, empowered Tribal and community-led efforts, and strengthened the scientific foundation for long-term recovery.
The Columbia River Clean-Up Act is endorsed by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, The Freshwater Trust, Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, National Wildlife Federation, The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies, Pacific Northwest Waterways Association, and Trout Unlimited.
The Freshwater Trust – Joe Witworth, President & CEO:
“The Columbia River Basin Restoration program incentivizes effective and collaborative conservation effort with public and private partners across Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. We strongly support the reauthorization of this funding.”
Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership – Elaine Placido, Executive Director:
“The Columbia River Basin Restoration Program unites Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington to reduce toxic pollution in the Columbia River Basin through coordinated, community-driven solutions. This program is a transformative resource for the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. With its support, we are implementing locally designed stormwater projects at schools and community centers. We’ve also leveraged program funding to secure over $1 million in additional investments, significantly amplifying the program’s reach and impact.”
The National Wildlife Federation – Alicia Marrs, Director of Wester Water:
“The health and resilience of the Columbia River Basin is critical to the more than 8 million people that depend on it for their drinking water. Reducing contaminants is essential to maintaining a healthy water supply so that fish, wildlife, and communities and economies in the Basin can thrive.?With the future of EPA funding uncertain, reauthorizing the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program ensures previous investments are not wasted and we continue to leverage collaborative, voluntary efforts with tribes and states that protect communities and ecosystems from toxic pollution. We are grateful for Representative Hoyle’s sustained leadership on this critical issue and look forward to continued collaborations to build resilience for the entire region.”
The Nature Conservancy – Sammy Mastaw Jr., Columbia Basin Program Director:
“Salmon are facing a myriad of threats, including pollution and contamination of vital habitat. The introduction of the Columbia River Clean-Up Act — reauthorizing the Columbia River Basin Restoration Program — is a practical, science-based investment in the resilience of the Basin, and an important step toward healing for salmon and people.” Said Sammy Matsaw Jr, Columbia Basin Program Director with The Nature Conservancy.
Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies – Jerry Linder, Executive Director:
“Columbia Basin Restoration Funds enabled EPA to provide grant funds to the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies to complete work aimed at toxics reduction, specifically reducing PFAS and Phthalates through public education, low toxicity institutional purchasing guidelines, assessment of PFAS and Phthalate sources, and industrial pollution prevention information and assistance. The products of this effort are on the Oregon ACWA website and there have been 5111 downloads, so the information is making a difference to reduce toxics in the Columbia Basin and elsewhere. There is still much work to be done and the Columbia River Basin Clean-Up Act is essential to continuing the progress that has been made so far.”
Pacific Northwest Waterways Association – Neil Maunu, Executive Director:
“The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association (PNWA) was proud to support the?original?legislation that created this voluntary program to aid in the clean up and prevention of toxins that are harmful to the Columbia River ecosystem, listed species, and people. PNWA supports the reauthorization of?the?program?under the Columbia River Clean Up Act?to continue the?valuable?collaborative work being done by local communities, organizations, and Tribes to improve water quality and the environment on the Columbia River,”?said Neil Maunu, Executive Director of the PNWA.
“For nearly a decade, the successful Columbia River Basin Restoration Program has made key investments across the Columbia River Basin to reduce toxins and improve water quality. Trout Unlimited applauds Congresswoman Hoyle’s leadership to ensure that this program continues to support Tribal, state and local governments, and non-profit groups throughout the basin who are working to make a difference for our waters and communities.”
This bill is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Wyden (D-Ore) and Murray (D-Wash.)
The text of the Columbia River Clean-Up Act is available here.
Background
The Columbia River Basin Restoration Program
Officially designates the national importance of the Columbia River Basin, which includes Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana.
Authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish the Columbia River Basin Restoration Working Group to understand and reduce toxics across the basin. It includes representatives of states, local governments, Tribal governments, ports, and non-profit organizations.
Directed the EPA to develop the Columbia River Basin Restoration Funding Assistance Program, which is a voluntary, competitive grants program for environmental protection and restoration programs throughout the Basin.
In 2021, the EPA awarded more than $79 million in Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding through this program to reduce toxics in fish and water throughout the Basin. Awardees in past years have included:
Source: United States Senator for Maine Angus King
WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), co-chair of the Senate Arctic Caucus, has introduced a bipartisan resolution urging the U.S. Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS, which has been ratified by 170 parties, defines the rights and responsibilities of nations regarding the world’s oceans — including guidelines for businesses and the management of marine natural resources — and provides a legal framework to protect those rights while avoiding conflict.
“America is an Arctic Nation, but as we fail to assert our rights on the global stage, we allow rival countries to seize opportunities in our maritime territory that should rightfully be ours,” said U.S. Senate Arctic Caucus Co-Chair Senator Angus King (I-ME). “Signing on to the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea would give us our rightful seat at the table for international conversations about territorial rights, navigation, environmental protections and economic opportunities — especially in the race for critical minerals that will unlock our technological future. Every military official and diplomatic appointee I have met with has said that America joining the Law of the Sea Treaty would assist in advancing America’s interests, increase our supply chain resilience, and strengthen our national security. The High North offers historical possibilities for America’s future, but we are holding ourselves back by standing still.”
UNCLOS — sometimes referred to as the “constitution of the oceans” — is a comprehensive legal framework governing all uses of the world’s oceans and seas, and their resources. It also allows for further development of specific areas of the law of the sea. It is the globally recognized framework for dealing with all matters relating to the law of the sea, governing areas including, but not limited to, environmental control, marine scientific research, economic and commercial activities, and the settlement of disputes relating to ocean matters. Without American agreement to the treaty, the United States cannot enforce their maritime boundaries and rights against nations like China, Japan, and India investing in icebreakers and other High North hardware.
The treaty was opened for signature on December 10, 1982, and was entered into force on November 16, 1994. The United States signed UNCLOS on July 29, 1994, but the U.S. Senate has not yet voted to ratify the treaty, despite urging from environmental, scientific, labor, and industry organizations.
In addition to Senator King, the resolution was cosponsored by Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Todd Young (R-IN). The full text of the resolution is available here.
As Co-Chair of the U.S. Senate Arctic Caucus, Senator King is an advocate for Maine and America’s interests in the North Atlantic and Arctic region — with Maine being the first port in the contiguous 48 states that will see increased traffic via activity in northern waters. Along with Caucus co-chair Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), King introduced the Arctic Commitment Act in 2022 to improve America’s posture and opportunities in the Arctic. He has been calling for the appointment of an Arctic Ambassador since 2015, and pushed for the confirmation of the first Arctic Ambassador last year. King also laid out the challenges and opportunities of a warming arctic in an article in the Wilson Quarterly, and in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, he successfully secured the inclusion of provisions including funding authorizations for University of Maine to increase America’s activity and opportunities in the Far North. Earlier this year, in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Senator King warned the Commander of the United States European Command of the “looming threat” of Arctic aggression.
I welcome that the International Court of Justice has issued its historic advisory opinion.
They made clear that all States are obligated under international law to protect the global climate system.
This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice, and for the power of young people to make a difference.
Young Pacific Islanders initiated this call for humanity to the world.
And the world must respond.
As the ICJ has laid out today, the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Agreement must be the basis of all climate policies, under the current climate change treaty regime.
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
July 22, 2025
During his opening, Durbin called out the Trump Administration for neglecting serious threats posed by unauthorized drone use as it focuses federal law enforcement efforts on mass deportation
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered an opening statement at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Securing the Skies: Law Enforcement, Drones, and Public Safety.” During his opening remarks, Durbin criticized the Trump Administration’s unilateral focus on mass deportation at the expense of addressing serious threats posed by hostile foreign nations, cartels, and other malign actors. Further, Durbin expressed his frustration that Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has failed to testify before the Committee on her agency’s unprecedented campaign of mass deportation.
Key Quotes:
“Thanks, Chairman Grassley, for holding this hearing to highlight the need to better combat the threat posed by unmanned aircraft systems, known as drones. As the use of drones continues to increase, these conversations are more important than ever.
“However, I want to first note that while we have witnesses from the Trump Administration, and they are welcome, this Committee has yet to hear from Homeland Security Secretary Noem on this issue and a broad array of other critical issues. Secretary Noem is overseeing an unprecedented campaign of mass deportations. She should answer for the indiscriminate arrests of law-abiding individuals by masked officials, and even the arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, including [a] veteran.”
“Why do I bring this up today? Because this Administration is diverting federal law enforcement away from countering threats to our nation in order to participate in its mass deportation campaign.”
“As we will discuss today, there is a real threat posed by hostile foreign nations, cartels, and other malign actors exploiting drone technology for espionage, cyber-attacks, and drug and weapons trafficking. So, we need to hear from Secretary Noem about why she is shifting the focus of the agency she leads away from these threats to our homeland in order to arrest immigrants with no criminal record [and with] deep roots in our country.”
“The FAA reports that over a million drones are currently registered in the United States for a broad range of commercial and recreational activities—from farming to photography to journalism. Law enforcement and government agencies also use drones for search and rescue, disasters, surveillance of criminal activity, and even traffic enforcement.”
“But, like any technology, drones can also be dangerous. Drone operators can create safety hazards simply by flying into restricted areas, even if they do so by accident. Criminals and foreign adversaries also use drones for cyber-attacks, espionage, and transportation of drugs, weapons, or other contraband—including into prisons and across our borders.”
“For example, if I am sitting at Wrigley Field during a ball game with my grandkids, and I see a drone in the sky, I want to know that drone is safe and is authorized to be there.”
“Currently, the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security are among four federal agencies with drone detection and mitigation authorities. These authorities allow DOJ and DHS to detect, track, monitor, seize, and even destroy drones that pose a credible threat to [places] such as federal courthouses, prisons, and mass gatherings.”
“The challenge we face now is how to update these authorities to enable law enforcement to protect us from nefarious drone activity without endangering civilian air traffic and people or property on the ground and [while] honor[ing] our First and Fourth Amendment. Addressing the threats posed by drones will require carefully tailored authorities with strong safeguards.”
“I hope that today’s hearing will be a step forward to reaching a bipartisan, bicameral agreement.”
Video of Durbin’s opening statement is available here.
Audio of Durbin’s opening statement is available here.
Footage of Durbin’s opening statement is available here for TV Stations.
Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
July 22, 2025
In today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Durbin called on the Trump Administration to focus on real threats to national security rather than mass deportation efforts
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned witnesses at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing entitled “Securing the Skies: Law Enforcement, Drones, and Public Safety.” During his questioning, Durbin made clear that the Trump Administration should utilize its resources to address the serious threat of unauthorized drone usage, including at the U.S.-Mexico border and special events, rather than unilaterally focusing on the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, many of whom do not have a criminal record.
“If you determine there’s a malicious drone overhead at one of these events, what do you do to mitigate the threat?” Durbin asked Michael Torphy, Unit Chief and Supervisory Special Agent at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
Mr. Torphy explained that FBI and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) implement flight restrictions during special events and that some drone manufacturers will provide a software barrier based on the geo-fence created by federal agencies. Mr. Torphy noted that FBI uses two forms of mitigation – ground interception in which FBI teams and law enforcement make physical contact with the unauthorized drone pilot and using technical countermeasures in which FBI uses technology to disrupt the unauthorized drone’s signal.
Durbin then asked Steven Willoughby, Director of the Counter-UAS Program Management Office at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), about DHS plans to address the threat of unauthorized drones used by drug traffickers while Secretary Noem continues to put a larger emphasis on deporting undocumented immigrants without a criminal record.
“Mr. Willoughby, part of your testimony suggests that in some ways we are fighting the last war when it comes to narcotics in this country, which is a scourge and kills so many innocent people. Of course, we are mindful that individuals transport these narcotics with the simplest forms of communication, transportation, trucks, and the like. But what you are suggesting is now they are flying these narcotics into this country. It’s an amazing number – 27,000 drones were detected in the last six months of 2024. You go through the various ways they are using to avoid detection in this situation. We just recently had a debate over a reconciliation bill, where we are investing billions, billions of dollars in detention facilities and new things that will be built at the border to deal with the human trafficking back-and-forth over the border. How much is it going to take for us to deal with the drone threat that you have outlined very specifically?” Durbin asked.
Mr. Willoughby replied that transnational criminal organizations are moving operations to locations along the border where DHS operators cannot interdict drones. Mr. Willoughby noted that significant investment is needed to properly detect drones operating along the border.
Durbin concluded by underscoring that DHS and FBI should be investing in resources to address unauthorized drone use rather than deport undocumented immigrants without a criminal record.
“This seems like a big undertaking. I will just say for the record, now that we know of those who are being deported in the mass deportation policy of President Trump, eight percent have a criminal record, which means that 11 out of the 12 we are deporting do not have a criminal record. And yet we are going through all of the infrastructure necessary and process necessary to deport them. It seems to me that if we are going after real threats, current threats, and growing threats to the United States, we should divert some of this money from the mass deportation, which is only deporting people who overstayed a visitor visa for example, instead of focusing on what you have identified as a scary prospect, the 2,000 mile border that is vulnerable to these narcotics and other dangerous elements that are being sent into our country,” Durbin said.
Video of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here.
Audio of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here.
Footage of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here for TV Stations.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)
U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-VA) and Jamie Raskin (D-MD) today led a House delegation in reintroducing the Fair Representation Act, an election reform bill to address structural gerrymandering issues and extreme partisanship in federal elections. The bill would implement measures to elect U.S. House Representatives through ranked choice voting in multi-member districts drawn by independent redistricting commissions and would require ranked choice voting to elect U.S. Senators.
“Hyperpartisan gerrymandering has suppressed meaningful electoral competition, which in turn has allowed extremist ideologies to hijack our political discourse and sown public distrust of our political system,” said Rep. Don Beyer. “Our Fair Representation Act would provide necessary solutions by implementing critical reforms to strengthen our electoral system, ensure every voter has their voice represented, and restore public trust. This is how we create a Congress made up of Members who prioritize pragmatic legislative results and solutions for the benefit of the American people.”
“Every day brings more bad news of gerrymandering, extreme gerrymandering and straight-up disenfranchisement,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin. “The Fair Representation Act is the opposite of all that: it brings democracy up to date in the 21st century instead of turning the clock back to the white primaries, grandfather clauses, literacy tests and poll taxes of the 20th century.”
“Nearly 9 in 10 Americans say elected officials don’t care what people like them think. We need ranked choice voting and proportional representation to make our government work for the American people,” said Meredith Sumpter, President and CEO of FairVote. “The Fair Representation Act gives voters more choice and more power. It would make our elections fairer and more competitive and offer a path away from gerrymandering and polarization. It would reward candidates and elected officials who build coalitions and work across the aisle to get things done for voters, rather than those who succeed by attacking and turning Americans against one another.”
Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), and Ro Khanna (D-CA) are co-sponsors of the Fair Representation Act.
The legislation is supported by organizations including FairVote Action, RepresentUs, RepresentWomen, Rank the Vote, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, Bridge Alliance Education Fund, People Power United, Divided We Fall, 7th Generation Labs, DemCast USA, National Black Justice Coalition, More Equitable Democracy Action, Voices for Progress, United Church of Christ, Voter Choice Massachusetts, N.C. For The People Action, League of Women Voters Rogue Valley, Ocean State RCV, Vote Nevada, FairVote Minnesota, Ranked Choice Voting Maryland, Rank The Vote Ohio, Voter Choice Arizona, Better Ballot NC, NH Ranked Choice Voting, Better Ballot SC.
Full text of the Fair Representation Act is available here with a one-pager available here. Additional resources are available here.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Reprepsentative Kathy Castor (FL14)
WASHINGTON, D.C.– Today, U.S. Reps. Kathy Castor (FL-14) and Derek Tran (CA-45) reintroduced legislation to provide continuous health care coverage for eligible children in Medicaid and CHIP. The Keep Kids Covered Act would expand the 12-month continuous eligibility (CE) protection for children, providing uninterrupted coverage for children until age 6 – a crucial time for their development – and for a 24-month period for children age 6 to 19.
Continuous eligibility requires states to cover children in CHIP and Medicaid for a defined period of time – without coverage lapse – regardless of changes in circumstances. Access to consistent, high-quality coverage is crucial for children’s development and well-being, particularly in their early years, enabling them to grow into healthy and productive adults. Not only does CE improve short- and long-term health coverage, it lowers costs and reduces churn and financial barriers to care. Too many children who are eligible for Medicaid or CHIP have lost coverage for procedural reasons, like missing paperwork. The Keep Kids Covered Act would ensure kids and families across the country have access to the lifesaving care they need and deserve. The bill would also ensure that former foster youth have CE until age 26, as the Affordable Care Act intended.
Over 37 million children rely on Medicaid and CHIP across the country, but Congressional Republicans’ Big Ugly Budget Bill puts children’s health at risk. At President Trump’s urging, they are cutting $1 trillion in funding from Medicaid, CHIP and the Affordable Care Act and enacting policies that will strip coverage from millions of children in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy and well-connected. Last week, President Trump announced that states will no longer be able to provide enhanced CE for kids with Medicaid and CHIP coverage. And in Florida, Governor DeSantis continues to break the law by throwing children off the state’s CHIP program in violation of the federal 12-month CE protection. Legislation like the Keep Kids Covered Act would act as a bulwark against these harmful state policies.
“In Florida and across the country, children pay the price when politicians rip health coverage away and create bureaucratic barriers to care,” said Rep. Castor. “The Keep Kids Covered Act will ensure eligible kids across the country can access reliable, stable Medicaid and CHIP coverage so they can live happy, healthy lives. Research has shown that children with health coverage do better in school and grow into more successful adults, lowering costs for everyone. While Congressional Republicans and President Trump have spent the past few months making it more difficult and expensive for kids to access critical health coverage, Democrats are fighting to protect our kids and their future. I’m grateful to my colleagues Rep. Derek Tran and Senator Michael Bennet, as well as the child and family advocates, for their partnership and support of this critical legislation.”
“As a father of young kids, I know how critical adequate health care is for our children to grow and thrive. No child should be denied access to medical treatment because President Trump and Congressional Republicans wanted to give their billionaire friends a tax break,” said Rep. Tran. “I’m proud to join Rep. Castor in introducing the Keep Kids Covered Act to bring down costs for hard-working families and ensure high-quality access to health care so all of our kids can stay healthy.”
“In the face of Republicans’ biggest attack on health care access yet, I’m grateful to Rep. Castor for her persistence in protecting health care for our nation’s children,” said Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ-06). “As the Big Ugly Bill is set to take health care away from millions of Americans, Democrats will keep fighting to minimize coverage gaps, burdensome paperwork requirements, and price hikes for families. The Keep Kids Covered Act is a critical tool in this fight against Republican cuts and will ensure young children continue to have health care coverage.”
“Pediatricians know how vital it is that children have uninterrupted access to health care coverage that supports them as they grow and develop. As its name states, the Keep Kids Covered Act would help ensure children enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP do not face gaps in coverage, providing families with certainty that their children can continue to receive the health care they need. The American Academy of Pediatrics thanks Representative Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) for introducing this important legislation and calls on lawmakers to swiftly advance it,” said Susan J. Kressly, MD, FAAP, American Academy of Pediatrics President.
“Every child deserves the opportunity to grow and thrive, and no child should miss out on essential health care because of a lapse in coverage,” said Margaret A. Murray, CEO of the Association for Community Affiliated Plans (ACAP). “For more than 20 years, ACAP has advocated for continuous eligibility for all people covered by Medicaid. We’re pleased that Representative Castor’s reintroduction of the Keep Kids Covered Act advances this priority by ensuring continuous coverage for children enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP.”
“First Focus Campaign for Children strongly supports the reintroduction of the Keep Kids Covered Act led by Representative Kathy Castor. The legislation makes an important investment in children by ensuring that they have continuous eligibility in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) during their earliest and most critical years of development. This guarantee of coverage provides a powerful antidote to the recently passed budget reconciliation package, which cuts Medicaid and CHIP by hundreds of billions of dollars, jeopardizing the health and well-being of over 37 million children. The Keep Kids Covered Act is a practical, common-sense approach that will provide kids in Medicaid and CHIP with consistent health care coverage, laying a foundation of care that will benefit them throughout their lives.” — Bruce Lesley, President, First Focus Campaign for Children.
“Rep. Kathy Castor is fighting to protect children’s health care in the wake of Donald Trump and Republicans’ health care emergency,” said Protect Our Care Chair Leslie Dach.“Republicans’ actions are ripping coverage away from hard-working families and putting children at risk, but Democrats are working to ensure kids can stay covered and get the care they need to grow up healthy and strong. No child should lose care just because Republicans want to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations.”
“Children’s hospitals witness the critical role Medicaid and CHIP play in providing essential care to more than half of the children they treat, particularly those with serious and complex medical needs. The Keep Kids Covered Act addresses the pressing issue of coverage gaps that can disrupt this vital care, ensuring that no child’s health suffers due to administrative hurdles. By providing continuous, multi-year coverage, this legislation offers much-needed stability and peace of mind to families facing challenging health circumstances. We commend Representatives Castor and Caraveo for their leadership in making sure all children have access to the consistent care they need to lead healthy, successful lives,” said Matthew Cook, President and CEO of the Children’s Hospital Association.
In addition to Reps. Castor and Tran, the Keep Kids Covered Act is cosponsored by Reps. Kim Schrier, Raul Ruiz, Marc Veasey, Nanette Barragán, Lizzie Fletcher, Greg Landsman, Jan Schakowsky, Jennifer McClellan, Darren Soto, Troy Carter, and Doris Matsui.
Endorsing organizations include: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Nurses Association, American Psychiatric Association, Association for Community Affiliated Plans, Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs, BayCare Health System—St. Joseph’s Children’s Hospital, Child Welfare League of America, Children’s Defense Fund, Children’s Hospitals Association, Colorado Children’s Campaign, Families USA, First Focus Campaign for Children, Florida Health Justice Project, Florida Policy Institute, Florida Voices for Health, March of Dimes, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners, National Foster Youth Institute, National League for Nursing, Nemour Children’s Health, Primary Development Corporation, Protect Our Care, The Center for Law and Social Policy, UnidosUS, ZERO TO THREE.
The full bill text of the legislation can be viewedhere.
A one-pager about the legislation is available here.
Pearl River, NY – 7/18/25… Today, Congressman Mike Lawler (NY-17) issued the following statement celebrating the Trump Administration’s decision to release funding for 21st Century Community Learning Centers. This follows Congressman Lawler’s direct advocacy to the Administration last week, urging the release of funds prior to the beginning of the school year.
“Today is a great day for students, families, and educators across New York and nationwide,” said Congressman Lawler. “The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is a valuable investment with proven results, providing students with the academic tools they need to succeed.”
Congressman Lawler personally wrote to President Trump last week after concerns were raised by local educators and parents about potential disruptions to these essential services. He emphasized the need to release these funds to support communities that heavily rely on these programs.
“I would like to thank President Trump for responding promptly to our request, as well as recognizing the importance of these programs for our children’s futures. As always, I remain committed to ensuring students have every opportunity for success,” concluded Congressman Lawler.
Congressman Lawler is one of the most bipartisan members of Congress and represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, which is just north of New York City and contains all or parts of Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester Counties. He was rated the most effective freshman lawmaker in the 118th Congress, 8th overall, surpassing dozens of committee chairs.
Washington, D.C. – 7/17/25… Today, Congressman Mike Lawler (NY-17), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and House Financial Services Committee member, introduced the Syria Sanctions Accountability Act, legislation to modernize U.S. sanctions policy for a post-Assad Syria.
“This bill modernizes the existing sanctions regime on Syria, requires assessments on existing sanctions relief provisions, and sets out goals for the Syrian government to meet anti-money laundering and anti-corruption standards. As the Trump Administration is already reviewing sanctions policy, we must ensure they have the tools to do so that reflect the current security environment,” said Chairman Lawler.
The Syria Sanctions Accountability Act:
Directs the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to provide a briefing to Congress on the exceptive relief for the Commercial Bank of Syria.
Instructs U.S. representatives to the IMF and World Bank to support regular economic monitoring in Syria, processes to improve financial connectivity in Syria, and priorities related to anti-money laundering, weapons non-proliferation, and anti-corruption policies in Syria.
Requires a formal assessment from the Export-Import Bank on the appropriateness of current country limitations concerning Syria.
Updates the Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act by updating conditions to lift sanctions. This includes requiring the Syrian government to take verifiable steps to combat illicit proliferation of Captagon, ensuring the Syrian government is not engaged in the targeting or extrajudicial detention of religious minorities, and removing references to Russia and Iran that were originally placed in the law due to Assad’s relationship with these adversarial regimes.
“The al-Sharaa Administration certainly has a lot of work to do to reintegrate Syria with the U.S. and our allies. While this job should be difficult given the circumstances, it shouldn’t be impossible,” concluded Chairman Lawler.
Congressman Lawler is one of the most bipartisan members of Congress and represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, which is just north of New York City and contains all or parts of Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester Counties. He was rated the most effective freshman lawmaker in the 118th Congress, 8th overall, surpassing dozens of committee chairs.
Washington, D.C. – 7/23/25… Today, Congressman Mike Lawler (NY-17) introduced the Measuring Adverse Market Disruption And National Impact (MAMDANI) Act, legislation that directs the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a comprehensive study into the competitive, economic, and supply chain impacts of government-owned grocery stores.
As municipalities across the country, including some in New York, entertain proposals to open public grocery stores, this legislation calls on the FTC to investigate potential consequences of using taxpayer dollars to compete against local, private-sector grocers.
The MAMDANI Act requires the FTC, in coordination with USDA agencies, to evaluate the downstream effects these government-run entities could have on food prices, consumer access, farmers, charitable food organizations, and the long-term health of the retail grocery market.
“Government-run grocery stores raise serious questions about market fairness and taxpayer accountability,” said Congressman Lawler. “The MAMDANI Act ensures we carefully assess the potential impacts of such proposals before public funds are committed, or they risk undermining local businesses and disrupting supply chains, ultimately leaving consumers worse off,” said Congressman Lawler.
By mandating an analysis of how public grocery stores might affect prices received by producers, purchasing power in food supply chains, and whether these initiatives actually address food deserts or simply create a new layer of government-run inefficiency, the bill aims to ensure that policymakers fully understand the potential consequences before embracing such proposals.
The FTC’s findings will be submitted in a public report to Congress and updated annually with recommendations for legislative or regulatory action.
“Zohran Mamdani’s push for government-owned grocery stores is straight out of the Marxist playbook, and history shows exactly how this experiment ends. New Yorkers deserve solutions, not socialist fantasies that have failed spectacularly every time they’ve been tried,” concluded Congressman Lawler.
Congressman Lawler is one of the most bipartisan members of Congress and represents New York’s 17th Congressional District, which is just north of New York City and contains all or parts of Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, and Westchester Counties. He was rated the most effective freshman lawmaker in the 118th Congress, 8th overall, surpassing dozens of committee chairs.
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty in federal court to fentanyl and cocaine trafficking, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.
DeVaughn Faulk, 28, of the Bon Air neighborhood of Pittsburgh, pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Marilyn J. Horan to conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute quantities of fentanyl and cocaine.
In connection with the guilty plea, the Court was advised that, between March 2024 and July 2024, Faulk participated in a conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and cocaine, both Schedule II controlled substances, by functioning as a redistributor of street-level amounts of both substances.
Judge Horan scheduled sentencing for November 12, 2025. The law provides for a total sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $1 million, or both. Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed is based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.
Pending sentencing, Faulk will remain in custody.
Assistant United States Attorneys Katherine C. Jordan and Kelly M. Locher are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation that led to the prosecution of Faulk.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
PITTSBURGH, Pa. – A resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, pleaded guilty in federal court to fentanyl and cocaine trafficking, Acting United States Attorney Troy Rivetti announced today.
DeVaughn Faulk, 28, of the Bon Air neighborhood of Pittsburgh, pleaded guilty before United States District Judge Marilyn J. Horan to conspiracy to distribute and possession with the intent to distribute quantities of fentanyl and cocaine.
In connection with the guilty plea, the Court was advised that, between March 2024 and July 2024, Faulk participated in a conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and cocaine, both Schedule II controlled substances, by functioning as a redistributor of street-level amounts of both substances.
Judge Horan scheduled sentencing for November 12, 2025. The law provides for a total sentence of up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $1 million, or both. Under the federal Sentencing Guidelines, the actual sentence imposed is based upon the seriousness of the offenses and the prior criminal history, if any, of the defendant.
Pending sentencing, Faulk will remain in custody.
Assistant United States Attorneys Katherine C. Jordan and Kelly M. Locher are prosecuting this case on behalf of the government. The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted the investigation that led to the prosecution of Faulk.
This prosecution is part of an Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) investigation. OCDETF identifies, disrupts, and dismantles the highest-level drug traffickers, money launderers, gangs, and transnational criminal organizations that threaten the United States by using a prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven, multi-agency approach that leverages the strengths of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies against criminal networks.
Through Budget 2025, Alberta’s government is investing an additional $3.2 million for a total of $11.2 million for the Family Justice Strategy to give more Albertans a streamlined and consistent process to access family justice services. The Family Justice Strategy helps families resolve matters outside the courts to reduce the stress on children and parents during an already difficult time.
“We’re making it easier for Albertans to resolve family matters by expanding access to pre-court services. This investment means more communities will benefit from simpler, faster supports that put families first.”
This additional funding will support an expansion of the strategy to Grande Prairie, Stony Plain, St. Albert, Sherwood Park, Leduc and Fort Saskatchewan. The Family Justice Strategy directs Albertans to pre-court services that help people either avoid making a court appearance or better understand the process if they do go to court.
This includes:
Forms of dispute resolution such as mediation, where people meet with a neutral mediator to discuss issues including parenting, child support and spousal support.
An online Parenting After Separation course for all parents with minor children.
A meeting with a family court counsellor for anyone representing themselves.
These services are meant to help Albertans resolve their family law issues in a manner that emphasizes the best interests of the child, lessens the hardship between separating parents and promotes family wellness.
“The continued expansion of the Alberta Family Justice Strategy throughout the province represents a significant achievement in the collective efforts of justice sector partners. We look forward to continued innovations in our justice system, which will serve to improve court processes and advance access to justice for Alberta families.”
After launching in Edmonton and Calgary in December 2023, the Family Justice Strategy was implemented in Red Deer on March 17. Since the strategy was launched, more than 69,000 Albertans have accessed pre-court services helping them resolve their family law issues.
Quick facts
There was a 33 per cent increase in the number of matters resolved by Alberta Justice dispute resolution programs, such as mediation, in the first quarter of 2025 compared to 2023.
Since its launch, 42,536 Albertans have accessed the Alberta Family Resolution Hub.
The Family Resolution Hub supports the Family Justice Strategy by giving Albertans an online tool for discovering their options and next steps to resolve a legal family dispute.
Related information
Family Resolution Hub
Related news
Empowering Albertans dealing with family law matters (April 15, 2024)
Increasing access to family justice services (Dec. 1, 2023)
Home Newsroom Attorney General Labrador Commends Life Sentences for Bryan Kohberger
BOISE — Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador issued the following statement after Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler sentenced Bryan Kohberger to four consecutive fixed life sentences for the 2022 murders of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. Kohberger also received an additional fixed ten-year sentence for burglary, stemming from his unlawful entry into the students’ home with the intent to kill. The four life sentences imposed by Judge Hippler are for fixed terms and will run consecutively. The Office of the Attorney General supported Latah County’s prosecution for more than two years through a formal cooperation agreement. Under the agreement, Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson retained full authority over the case, including plea negotiations, while the State provided legal resources that came in the form of pre-trial litigation conducted by three Deputy Attorneys General: Jeff Nye, Chief of the Criminal Law Division; Ingrid Batey, Lead Deputy Attorney General in the Special Prosecutions Unit; and Madison Gourley, the current Lead Deputy Attorney General who replaced Batey when she became the Senior Chief Deputy in the Canyon County Prosecutor’s office. “Our hearts are with the victims and their families. While no sentence can bring full justice to this kind of evil, today’s sentence ensures that Bryan Kohberger will never see the outside of a prison and will never again harm innocent families,” said Attorney General Labrador. “Under Idaho law, the fixed prison sentences mean Kohberger will never be eligible for parole. I’m especially grateful to Prosecutor Bill Thompson and my Criminal Division Chief, Jeff Nye, whose leadership, judgment, and tireless efforts brought this case to a just conclusion. Their teams served the State of Idaho with distinction, and our families and the public are safer because of their hard work.” The Attorney General’s attorneys focused on key legal briefing and arguments to give Latah County prosecutors the ability to concentrate on discovery and prepare for trial. The Deputy Attorneys General protected the grand jury indictment from dismissal, fended off more than a dozen motions challenging the death penalty, and defended law enforcement’s use of investigative genetic genealogy. The use of investigative genetic genealogy helped first identify Kohberger as a suspect and was the first time it had been used in Idaho. After extensive briefing and argument, Judge Hippler ruled that law enforcement’s use of the technique did not violate Kohberger’s constitutional rights. Kohberger will spend the rest of his life behind bars and will be housed at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution in Kuna, Idaho.
Jayson Fernandez Butay, 30, of Sacramento, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb to 25 years in prison for producing child sexual abuse material and possessing child sexual abuse material, Acting U.S. Attorney Kimberly A. Sanchez announced. Judge Shubb also ordered Butay to pay $118,278 to his victims in restitution.
According to court documents, in April 2019, Butay used Snapchat to correspond with a 15‑year-old girl living in Finland. Butay lied about his identity and convinced her to send him naked images of herself. Once he received these images, Butay threatened to disclose them to his victim’s family and friends unless she sent him sexually explicit videos. In this way, Butay obtained at least one additional sexually explicit video from the victim. Butay also produced child sexual abuse material depicting additional minor victims, including at least one 9-year-old girl who remains unidentified, using common internet applications.
Law enforcement agents subsequently executed federal search warrants at Butay’s residence in Sacramento. Agents seized hundreds of images and videos from Butay’s digital devices that depicted the sexual exploitation of children, including infants.
“This investigation highlights the serious threat sextortionists pose to children who use popular messaging and social media apps,” said FBI Sacramento Field Office Special Agent in Charge Sid Patel. “Online anonymity combined with the natural inexperience of youth creates a dangerous environment that parents must better understand and monitor. The FBI works closely with our law enforcement partners to identify and bring these predators to justice. We urge anyone who has been targeted or victimized to come forward. You are not alone — we will help you.”
This case was the product of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Sam Stefanki is prosecuting the case.
This case was brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse. Led by the United States Attorneys’ Offices and the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state, and local resources to locate, apprehend, and prosecute those who exploit children via the internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit Justice.gov/PSC.
A federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment today against Rueben Paul Phill, 41, of Tracy, charging him with illegal firearms trafficking and two counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, Acting U.S. Attorney Kimberly A. Sanchez announced.
According to court documents, between Aug. 22, 2023, and Aug. 27, 2024, Phill trafficked firearms with Alejandra Susana Castillo, 34, of Tracy, by purchasing them in Nevada and selling them on the black market in California.
On July 27, 2024, Phill led a law enforcement officer on a high-speed chase in excess of 100 miles per hour. The officer ultimately ended the pursuit for public safety concerns. Two days later, another officer observed the car parked at a gas station. The officer detained Castillo, who was then using the car. During a search of the vehicle, the officer discovered a semi-automatic rifle in the trunk, along with three extended magazines.
In total, more than 30 firearms were traced to this conspiracy. At least three of these firearms have been recovered in connection with suspected firearm-related crimes. One such firearm, for example, was recovered in the possession of a felon in Vallejo on July 25, 2024, only three days after Castillo purchased the firearm in Nevada on July 22, 2024.
Castillo pleaded guilty to illegal firearms trafficking on Jan. 31, 2025, and is scheduled to be sentenced on Aug. 1, 2025.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the California Highway Patrol, the Pleasonton Police Department, the Reno Police Department, the Tracy Police Department, and the San Joaquin County District Attorney’s Office. Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrian T. Kinsella is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Phill faces a maximum statutory penalty of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; Phill is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results.
This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to combat illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN).
A federal grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging James Cargill, 44, of Vacaville, him with two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, being a felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, Acting U.S. Attorney Kimberly A. Sanchez announced.
According to court documents, Cargill was arrested in January 2025 for possessing more than 500 grams of a substance or mixture containing methamphetamine and a loaded semi-automatic pistol. Cargill is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition due to his prior felony convictions for burglary, evading police officers, and possession of a firearm. After being released from custody, Cargill was arrested again in May 2025 for possessing methamphetamine and another loaded semi-automatic pistol.
This case is the product of an investigation by the Vacaville Police Department, the Fairfield Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Assistant U.S. Attorney Charles Campbell is prosecuting the case.
If convicted, Cargill faces a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison, a maximum statutory penalty of life in prison and a $10 million fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University
In June 2025, Immigration Judge ShaSha Xu in New York City reportedly told lawyers in her courtroom: “We’re not really doing names publicly.” Only the government lawyers’ names were hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys had to give their names as usual. Xu cited privacy concerns, saying, “Things lately have changed.”
When one immigration lawyer objected that the court record would be incomplete without the government attorney’s name, Xu reportedly refused to provide it. In another case, New York immigration Judge James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney as merely “Department” throughout the hearing.
New York immigration Judge Shirley Lazare-Raphael told The Intercept that some ICE attorneys believe it is “dangerous to state their names publicly.” This follows a broader pattern of ICE agents wearing masks during arrests to hide their identities.
This secrecy violates a fundamental principle that has protected Americans for centuries: open courts. Here’s how those courts operate and why the principle governing them matters.
Hiding of ICE attorneys’ names in court fits a broader pattern seen here outside a New York immigration courtroom of ICE agents wearing masks. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova
‘Presumption of openness’
The U.S. legal system is built on openness, with multiple layers of legal protection that guarantee public access to court proceedings.
This tradition of open courts developed as a direct rejection of secret judicial proceedings that had been used to abuse power in England. The notorious Star Chamber operated in secret from the 15th to 17th centuries, initially trying people “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”
But the Star Chamber eventually became a tool of oppression, using torture to obtain confessions and punishing jurors who ruled against the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.
By the time American colonial courts were established, the reaction against the Star Chamber had already shaped English legal thinking toward openness. American courts adopted this principle of transparency from the beginning, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.
Today, the term “star chamber” refers to any secret court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or is used to persecute individuals.
Many state constitutions also guarantee open courts – such as Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”
While there’s no explicit law requiring attorneys to be publicly named, there’s also no policy allowing their names to be kept secret. The presumption is always toward openness.
In response to these recent developments, law professor Elissa Steglich said that she’d “never heard of someone in open court not being identified,” and that failing to identify an attorney could impair accountability “if there are unethical or professional concerns.”
Rules for anonymity
Courts sometimes allow anonymity, but only in specific circumstances.
Juries can be anonymous when there’s “substantial danger of harm or undue influence,” as legal expert Michael Crowell writes – like in high-profile organized crime cases or when defendants have tried to intimidate witnesses before. Even then, the lawyers still know the jurors’ names.
Similarly, parties to a lawsuit can sometimes use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case involves highly sensitive matters such as sexual abuse, or when there’s a real risk of physical retaliation.
What’s happening with ICE attorneys is different. There’s no formal court ruling allowing it, no specific safety findings and no established legal process.
Immigration courts have fewer protections
Immigration courts operate differently from regular federal courts. They are so-called “administrative courts” that are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
These courts decide claims involving an individual’s right to stay in the U.S., either when the government seeks to remove someone from the country for violating immigration law or when an individual seeks to stay in the country through the asylum process.
Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that regular federal judges have. As executive branch government employees, they can be hired and fired, just like other Department of Justice employees.
People in immigration court also have fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. They have no right to court-appointed counsel and must represent themselves unless they can afford to hire an attorney. The majority of immigrants appear without an attorney. Outcomes are better for those who can afford to hire counsel.
Immigration court records are also less accessible to the public than other federal court proceedings.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration court, made less than 1% of its opinions publicly available. A federal court ruled that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its decisions online.
Because immigration courts operate with less oversight than regular federal courts, public observation becomes more critical.
Open courts aren’t just about legal procedure – they’re about democracy itself. When the public can observe how justice is administered, it builds confidence that the system is fair.
Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 21, 2025, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Court watching protects transparency
Court watching has become an important way for citizens to ensure due process is honored, especially in immigration cases.
Observers can monitor whether proper legal procedures are being followed. They can watch for signs that attorneys are prepared, treating people respectfully and following court rules – regardless of whether those attorneys identify themselves.
Observers help track trends such as lack of legal representation, language barriers or procedural unfairness that can inform advocacy for reforms. This kind of public oversight is especially important in immigration court, where people often don’t have lawyers and may not understand their rights.
When community members bear witness to these proceedings, it helps ensure the system operates fairly and transparently.
State bar associations have clear standards about attorney conduct in court proceedings. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize that lawyers are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.
Immigration judges, despite being government employees rather than lifetime-tenured federal judges, are also bound by judicial conduct codes that require them to uphold public confidence in the justice system. When judges allow or encourage anonymity without formal procedures or safety findings, they risk violating these ethical obligations.
Bar associations can investigate professional conduct violations and impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. While enforcement against federal government lawyers has historically been uncommon, sustained documentation by court observers can provide the evidence needed for formal complaints.
While government attorneys, judges and other court personnel may face real safety concerns, hiding their identities in open court is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of legal tradition that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.
As pressure mounts to process immigration cases quickly, courts are ethically and legally bound to ensure that speed doesn’t come at the expense of fundamental fairness and transparency.
Cassandra Burke Robertson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University
In June 2025, Immigration Judge ShaSha Xu in New York City reportedly told lawyers in her courtroom: “We’re not really doing names publicly.” Only the government lawyers’ names were hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys had to give their names as usual. Xu cited privacy concerns, saying, “Things lately have changed.”
When one immigration lawyer objected that the court record would be incomplete without the government attorney’s name, Xu reportedly refused to provide it. In another case, New York immigration Judge James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney as merely “Department” throughout the hearing.
New York immigration Judge Shirley Lazare-Raphael told The Intercept that some ICE attorneys believe it is “dangerous to state their names publicly.” This follows a broader pattern of ICE agents wearing masks during arrests to hide their identities.
This secrecy violates a fundamental principle that has protected Americans for centuries: open courts. Here’s how those courts operate and why the principle governing them matters.
Hiding of ICE attorneys’ names in court fits a broader pattern seen here outside a New York immigration courtroom of ICE agents wearing masks. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova
‘Presumption of openness’
The U.S. legal system is built on openness, with multiple layers of legal protection that guarantee public access to court proceedings.
This tradition of open courts developed as a direct rejection of secret judicial proceedings that had been used to abuse power in England. The notorious Star Chamber operated in secret from the 15th to 17th centuries, initially trying people “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”
But the Star Chamber eventually became a tool of oppression, using torture to obtain confessions and punishing jurors who ruled against the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.
By the time American colonial courts were established, the reaction against the Star Chamber had already shaped English legal thinking toward openness. American courts adopted this principle of transparency from the beginning, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.
Today, the term “star chamber” refers to any secret court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or is used to persecute individuals.
Many state constitutions also guarantee open courts – such as Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”
While there’s no explicit law requiring attorneys to be publicly named, there’s also no policy allowing their names to be kept secret. The presumption is always toward openness.
In response to these recent developments, law professor Elissa Steglich said that she’d “never heard of someone in open court not being identified,” and that failing to identify an attorney could impair accountability “if there are unethical or professional concerns.”
Rules for anonymity
Courts sometimes allow anonymity, but only in specific circumstances.
Juries can be anonymous when there’s “substantial danger of harm or undue influence,” as legal expert Michael Crowell writes – like in high-profile organized crime cases or when defendants have tried to intimidate witnesses before. Even then, the lawyers still know the jurors’ names.
Similarly, parties to a lawsuit can sometimes use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case involves highly sensitive matters such as sexual abuse, or when there’s a real risk of physical retaliation.
What’s happening with ICE attorneys is different. There’s no formal court ruling allowing it, no specific safety findings and no established legal process.
Immigration courts have fewer protections
Immigration courts operate differently from regular federal courts. They are so-called “administrative courts” that are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
These courts decide claims involving an individual’s right to stay in the U.S., either when the government seeks to remove someone from the country for violating immigration law or when an individual seeks to stay in the country through the asylum process.
Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that regular federal judges have. As executive branch government employees, they can be hired and fired, just like other Department of Justice employees.
People in immigration court also have fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. They have no right to court-appointed counsel and must represent themselves unless they can afford to hire an attorney. The majority of immigrants appear without an attorney. Outcomes are better for those who can afford to hire counsel.
Immigration court records are also less accessible to the public than other federal court proceedings.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration court, made less than 1% of its opinions publicly available. A federal court ruled that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its decisions online.
Because immigration courts operate with less oversight than regular federal courts, public observation becomes more critical.
Open courts aren’t just about legal procedure – they’re about democracy itself. When the public can observe how justice is administered, it builds confidence that the system is fair.
Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 21, 2025, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Court watching protects transparency
Court watching has become an important way for citizens to ensure due process is honored, especially in immigration cases.
Observers can monitor whether proper legal procedures are being followed. They can watch for signs that attorneys are prepared, treating people respectfully and following court rules – regardless of whether those attorneys identify themselves.
Observers help track trends such as lack of legal representation, language barriers or procedural unfairness that can inform advocacy for reforms. This kind of public oversight is especially important in immigration court, where people often don’t have lawyers and may not understand their rights.
When community members bear witness to these proceedings, it helps ensure the system operates fairly and transparently.
State bar associations have clear standards about attorney conduct in court proceedings. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize that lawyers are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.
Immigration judges, despite being government employees rather than lifetime-tenured federal judges, are also bound by judicial conduct codes that require them to uphold public confidence in the justice system. When judges allow or encourage anonymity without formal procedures or safety findings, they risk violating these ethical obligations.
Bar associations can investigate professional conduct violations and impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. While enforcement against federal government lawyers has historically been uncommon, sustained documentation by court observers can provide the evidence needed for formal complaints.
While government attorneys, judges and other court personnel may face real safety concerns, hiding their identities in open court is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of legal tradition that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.
As pressure mounts to process immigration cases quickly, courts are ethically and legally bound to ensure that speed doesn’t come at the expense of fundamental fairness and transparency.
Cassandra Burke Robertson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-01)
Bill ensures all Americans can continue to enjoy Iowa Ag Products & blocks blue-state bacon bans
Washington, D.C. — Today, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-02) introduced the Save Our Bacon Act to protect access to interstate commerce for Iowa family farmers and lower grocery prices for consumers. California and Massachusetts have proposed arbitrary mandates on production practices for farmers in other states. The Save Our Bacon Act would alleviate this overregulation by prohibiting state and local governments from interfering with the production of livestock in other states.
“California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3 pose a major threat to family farms and food security—both in Iowa and across the country. The Save Our Bacon Act reaffirms livestock producers’ right to sell their products across state lines, without interference from arbitrary mandates. This legislation will stop out-of-touch activists—who don’t know the first thing about farming—from dictating how Iowa farmers do their job.
“Since day one in Congress, I’ve fought to keep food affordable and protect local producers. Under the Trump Administration, rural America will continue to be at the forefront of policy conversations that impact producers’ ability to feed and fuel the world—and there will be no bacon ban on my watch.” – Congresswoman Ashley Hinson
“With Proposition 12, California has set out-of-touch, arbitrary requirements for how producers should operate their farming businesses. California activists now claim to know what’s best for the producers who have raised livestock from generation to generation. The Save Our Bacon Act will allow Iowa’s farmers to continue doing what they do best – feeding our country and the world.” – Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds
“California needs to keep its hands off our bacon. No other state should dictate how Iowans farm, let alone California’s bureaucrats. The Save Our Bacon Act stops California’s overreach, protects hog farmers, and lets states like Iowa regulate how their own farmers raise livestock. I want to thank Representative Hinson for her work on this important legislation, and I urge Congress to pass it and stand up for livestock producers across the nation.” – Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird
“I applaud Congresswoman Hinson for introducing legislation to address the overreach of California’s Prop 12 and restore robust interstate commerce. As the nation’s leading pork-producing state, Iowa plays a critical role in maintaining the safest, most abundant, and most affordable food supply in the world. Allowing states like California to dictate farming practices only creates a patchwork of requirements that drive up production costs and food prices for consumers. This important legislation, which previously earned bipartisan support in the House Agriculture Committee’s passage of last year’s Farm Bill, is essential to safeguarding Iowa’s agriculture and preventing any single state from setting a precedent that undermines the foundation of our food supply. This legislation would protect Iowa’s farmers from burdensome out-of-state regulations that threaten our rural economies and communities, and I urge the House and Senate to send this legislation to President Trump for his signature.” – Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig
“We sincerely appreciate Representative Hinson for consistently engaging with family farmers and championing legislation that provides the certainty we need to pass along our farms to the next generation. Without legislation to shield America’s 60,000+ pork-producing family farms from heavy-handed, multi-state regulations, many producers otherwise would be faced with business-crushing decisions.” – National Pork Producers Council President Duane Stateler, a pork producer from McComb, Ohio
“We appreciate Rep. Hinson’s leadership in fighting to protect Iowa pig farmers, who work hard every day to care for their animals and produce safe, high-quality pork. The Supreme Court made it clear the best option is for Congress to address California’s Prop 12 to prevent a patchwork of conflicting state regulations. Since Prop 12 took effect, the law has negatively impacted both consumers and producers. We urge Congress to act this year and support Rep. Hinson’s efforts to stop this burdensome mandate.” – Aaron Juergens, a pig farmer from Carroll County who serves as president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association.
“Iowa Farm Bureau members are thankful for Rep. Hinson’s unwavering support for Iowa agriculture and being a champion for fair interstate commerce through the introduction of the Save Our Bacon Act. When states enact laws that restrict or ban the sale of any type of goods from other states, they hinder market access for both farmers and businesses. This creates a negative ripple effect, as these entities struggle with arbitrary business standards and increased costs. Farm families and consumers are grappling with record-high prices, and without congressional action to strengthen the Interstate Commerce Clause, consumers will face fewer choices and higher costs at the grocery store.” – Iowa Farm Bureau Federation
Background:
In 2018, California passed Proposition 12, which prohibits the sale of certain meat and poultry products unless they are produced in compliance with the state’s arbitrary animal housing requirements.
In May 2023, the US Supreme Court upheld Proposition 12 in a 5 – 4 decision, with the Court noting that Congress has the authority to determine how states may interfere with interstate commerce.
California makes up nearly 15% of the national market for pork, leading many Iowa livestock producers to choose between complying with another state’s mandate and losing access to a major market for their products. Similar state-level mandates – such as Massachusetts’ Question 3 – create further uncertainty for livestock producers and risk an unworkable patchwork of state regulations for American farmers.
Research from economists has shown that mandates like Prop 12 come at a significant cost to both producers and consumers. Following the implementation of Prop 12, the cost per pound of pork loin in California increased by 41%. Estimates also show that pork producers face costs of up to $4,000 per sow to comply with California’s arbitrary mandate.
Rep. Hinson has been a tireless champion for Iowa pork producers against this overreach.
In December 2023, Rep. Hinson testified before the House Agriculture Committee to share stories from farmers in Iowa about the negative impact that mandates like Prop 12 would have on their operation.
In a recent House Appropriations Committee hearing, Hinson asked USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins about the potential consequences of laws like Prop 12. Secretary Rollins called mandates like Prop 12 “unsustainable.”
On July 9, the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of California over state laws that have caused grocery prices to skyrocket, including Prop 12.
This bill was introduced with Representatives Feenstra, Nunn, Miller-Meeks, Sam Graves, Rouzer, Murphy, Messmer, Adrian Smith, Flood, LaMalfa, Alford, Dusty Johnson, Bost, Newhouse, Mark Harris, Finstad, Wied, and Rose.
The bill text can be found here. Click here to read exclusive reporting by Bloomberg News.
OAKLAND –California Attorney General Rob Bonta today announced the launch of a statewide survey to assess how hospital emergency departments are complying with reproductive healthcare laws, particularly when abortion care is the medically necessary emergency treatment.
The survey is being conducted by the California Department of Justice’s Healthcare Rights and Access Section as part of an ongoing effort to identify and address gaps in emergency care across the state. The findings will help determine whether hospitals are meeting their legal obligations under California’s Emergency Services Law (ESL) and will ensure patients are receiving the care they are entitled to without delay or denial.
“Access to emergency abortion care is not optional. It’s the law,” said Attorney General Bonta. “No patient should need to wonder whether they will receive the care they need in a medical emergency. We’re letting the facts and data lead the way to ensure every hospital in California is fulfilling its responsibility to protect patients’ health and dignity.”
California’s Emergency Services Law (ESL)
California’s Emergency Services Law requires every general acute care hospital with an emergency department to treat all patients experiencing a medical emergency regardless of insurance, ethnicity, citizenship, age, preexisting medical condition, immigration status, or ability to pay, among other protected characteristics.
Patients have the right to receive the emergency healthcare needed to determine if they have an emergency medical condition, as well as the emergency healthcare needed to relieve or eliminate that emergency medical condition, provided the hospital has the personnel and facilities to provide such healthcare. Under the law, hospitals must act not only when a person’s life is in danger, but also when a patient is experiencing acute symptoms and, without immediate medical attention, the patient could reasonably be expected to face serious:
Jeopardy to their health
Impairment to bodily functions
Dysfunction to any organ or body part
Despite these clear legal protections, the Department has received alarming reports of hospitals refusing to provide emergency abortion care, including delaying treatment and placing patients at risk of infection, hemorrhage, or permanent harm. This practice fails to meet the standard of care required by California law.
Providence St. Joseph’s Lawsuit Highlights Dangers of Delayed Reproductive Care
In September 2024, Attorney General Bonta filed a lawsuit against Providence St. Joseph Hospital (Providence) alleging it violated multiple California laws due to its refusal to provide emergency abortion care to people experiencing obstetric emergencies. One particular patient, Anna Nusslock, had her water break when she was 15 weeks pregnant with twins on February 23, 2024. Despite the immediate threat to her life and health, and despite the fact her pregnancy was no longer viable, Providence refused to treat her with the necessary abortion or induction. She had to travel to a small critical access hospital called Mad River, 12 miles away, where she was actively hemorrhaging by the time she was on the operating table.
Emergency Reproductive Health Laws
The survey also seeks to ensure that designated hospitals offer Sexual Assault Forensic Exams (SAFE), which are designed to gather evidence of sexual assault and provide healthcare services, including medical and mental health treatment. Victims of sexual assault are entitled to a SAFE exam from a trained medical professional free of charge. Sexual assault victims shall be provided with the option of emergency contraception at no cost. All patients are entitled to obtain a prescription for emergency contraception, where medically appropriate.
Statewide Survey Will Evaluate Hospital Compliance
The survey will reach approximately 333 hospitals across California, gathering detailed information about how emergency departments administer reproductive healthcare and how they respond when abortion care is the required emergency treatment. Results from the survey will inform oversight, guide enforcement efforts, and ensure hospitals are fully complying with the Emergency Services Law.
SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A Mt. Vernon, Mo., woman pleaded guilty in federal court today for her role in a wire fraud conspiracy that targeted the Missouri Lottery Commission and an area gas station.
Amy Young, 42, pleaded guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge David P. Rush to one count each of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud.
According to the plea agreement, Young conspired with others to employ a scheme to purchase Missouri lottery tickets using stolen and fraudulent credit cards and credit card numbers at a Joplin, Mo., Phillips 66 Fuel Station.
Young and her co-conspirators made $62,082.50 in fraudulent transactions at the gas station in July and August of 2022. These transactions included the purchase of Missouri Lottery tickets. The perpetrators would send other individuals to collect any cash prizes associated with the tickets. The group fraudulently claimed $54,248 in cash prizes from the Missouri Lottery Commission. The fraudulent cash prizes and credit card transactions totaled $116,330.50.
Young’s co-defendant, Larry Duane Green, 56, of Mt. Vernon, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud on April 15, 2024, and is pending sentencing.
Under federal statutes, Young and Green are subject to sentences of up to 20 years in federal prison without parole and a maximum fine of $250,000 for each count. The maximum statutory sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendant will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office.
This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Carney. It was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Joplin, Mo., Police Department, and the Springfield, Mo., Police Department.
