NewzIntel.com

Category: Universities

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

    The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.

    In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.

    The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.

    The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.

    The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.

    More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.

    The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.

    Implications for other laws

    This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.

    Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.

    The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.

    Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.

    What comes next?

    But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.

    Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.

    The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.

    For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

    Meg Leta Jones 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.

    – ref. Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-upholds-childproofing-porn-sites-260052

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

    The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.

    In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.

    The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.

    The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.

    The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.

    More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.

    The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.

    Implications for other laws

    This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.

    Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.

    The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.

    Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.

    What comes next?

    But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.

    Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.

    The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.

    For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

    Meg Leta Jones 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.

    – ref. Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-upholds-childproofing-porn-sites-260052

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

    The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.

    In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.

    The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.

    The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.

    The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.

    More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.

    The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.

    Implications for other laws

    This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.

    Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.

    The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.

    Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.

    What comes next?

    But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.

    Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.

    The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.

    For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

    Meg Leta Jones 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.

    – ref. Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-upholds-childproofing-porn-sites-260052

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

    The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.

    In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.

    The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.

    The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.

    The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.

    More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.

    The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.

    Implications for other laws

    This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.

    Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.

    The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.

    Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.

    What comes next?

    But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.

    Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.

    The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.

    For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

    Meg Leta Jones 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.

    – ref. Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-upholds-childproofing-porn-sites-260052

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Meg Leta Jones, Associate Professor of Technology Law & Policy, Georgetown University

    The Supreme Court greenlights states’ efforts to block kids from online porn by requiring age verification. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the internet.

    In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas’ law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users’ ages – for example by making users scan and upload their driver’s license – before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not adults.

    The majority on the court rejected both the porn industry’s argument for strict scrutiny – the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary – and Texas’ argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law’s legitimate aims and its actions. Instead, Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate standard.

    The court’s reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only “incidentally” burdening adults’ First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate regulation.

    The court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop computers. Today, 95% of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions “could not have conceived of these developments,” making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades ago.

    More importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an “ordinary and appropriate means” doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver’s licenses and voting, the court held that it’s similarly appropriate for regulating minors’ access to sexual content.

    The key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that boundary.

    Implications for other laws

    This decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users’ ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there’s no actual knowledge and thus no privacy protections.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California’s Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this framework.

    Meanwhile, social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids hooked.

    The Supreme Court’s reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for everyone.

    The decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can’t enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same online. Proposed legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on “loot boxes” – digital gambling-like features – and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to parents.

    Since states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court’s logic.

    What comes next?

    But this decision doesn’t give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court’s reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to access.

    Laws trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny’s standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not settled. Many advocates worry that while the “obscene for minors” standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for minors.

    The court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled unconstitutional. The court’s decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully written.

    For parents worried about their kids’ online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

    Meg Leta Jones 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.

    – ref. Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-upholds-childproofing-porn-sites-260052

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: So Alberta, what’s next? | Alors, quelle est la prochaine étape pour l’Alberta?

    [embedded content]

    Albertans are frustrated after 10 years of punitive policies, enacted by the federal government, attacking Alberta’s economy and targeting its core industries.

    Chaired by Premier Danielle Smith, the Alberta Next panel will bring together a broad mix of leaders, experts, and community voices to gather input, discuss solutions, and provide feedback to government on how Alberta can better protect its interests, defend its economy, and assert its place in Confederation.

    The panel will consult across the province over the summer and early fall to ensure that those living, working, doing business and raising families are the ones to drive Alberta’s future forward. The work will include identifying solutions advanced by Albertans on how to make Alberta stronger and more sovereign within a united Canada that respects and empowers the province to achieve its full potential. It will also include making recommendations to the government on potential referendum questions for Albertans to vote on in 2026.

    It will consider and hear from Albertans on the risks and benefits of ideas like a establishing an Alberta Pension Plan, using an Alberta Provincial Police Service rather than the RCMP for community policing, whether Albertans should consider pursuing constitutional changes, which (if any) changes to federal transfer payments and equalization Albertans should demand of the federal government, potential immigration reform that would give the provincial government more oversight into who comes to the province, and changes to how Alberta collects personal income tax. Albertans will also have the opportunity to put forward their own ideas for discussion.

    “This isn’t just about talk. It’s about action. The Alberta Next Panel is giving everyday Albertans a direct say in the direction of our province. It’s time to stand up to Ottawa’s overreach and make sure decisions about Alberta’s future are made here, by the people who live and work here.”

    Danielle Smith, Premier

    “Right now, there is a need to restore fairness and functionality in the country. Years of problematic policy and decisions from Ottawa have hurt Albertan and Canadian prosperity. I am honoured to be asked by Premier Smith to participate in the Alberta Next Panel. This panel is about listening to Albertans on how we build a stronger Alberta within a united Canada, to which I, and the Business Council of Alberta, are firmly committed.”

    Adam Legge, president of the Business Council of Alberta

    Chaired by Premier Danielle Smith, the panel includes 13 additional members, including elected officials, academics, business leaders and community advocates:

    • Honourable Rebecca Schulz, Minister of Environment and Protected Areas of Alberta
    • Brandon Lunty, MLA for Leduc-Beaumont
    • Glenn van Dijken, MLA for Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock
    • Tara Sawyer, MLA-elect for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills
    • Bruce McDonald, former justice, Court of Appeal of Alberta
    • Trevor Tombe, director of fiscal and economic policy, the University of Calgary School of Public Policy
    • Adam Legge, president, Business Council of Alberta
    • Andrew Judson, vice chairman (prairies), Fraser Institute
    • Sumita Anand, vice president, Above and Beyond Care Services
    • Melody Garner-Skiba, business and agricultural advocate
    • Grant Fagerheim, president and CEO, Whitecap Resources Inc.
    • Dr. Akin Osakuade, physician and section chief, Didsbury Hospital
    • Dr. Benny Xu, community health expert
    • Michael Binnion, president, Questerre Energy

    Albertans have a choice: let Ottawa continue calling the shots—or come together to chart our own course. What’s next? You decide.

    Key facts:

    • Town hall dates and sites, along with other opportunities to participate in this engagement, are available online at Alberta.ca/Next. Exact locations will be posted in the weeks ahead of the event, and Albertans will be asked to RSVP online.
    • The panel’s recommendations will be submitted to government by Dec. 31, 2025.
    • It is anticipated that the panel will add additional members in the coming weeks.

    Related information

    • Alberta.ca/Next
    • Panel member biographies

    Related news

    • Alberta Next: Albertans to choose path forward (May 5, 2025)

    Multimedia

    • Watch the news conference
    • Listen to the news conference

    Ce sont les Albertains, et non Ottawa, qui devraient façonner l’avenir de l’Alberta. Le groupe d’experts Alberta Next prend la route pour consulter directement les Albertains et tracer la voie à suivre pour la province.

    Les Albertains sont frustrés après 10 ans de politiques punitives adoptées par le gouvernement fédéral qui s’en prennent à l’économie de la province et qui ciblent ses principales industries.

    Le groupe d’experts Alberta Next, présidé par la première ministre Danielle Smith, réunira un large éventail de chefs de file, d’experts et de membres de la collectivité pour recueillir des commentaires, discuter de solutions et fournir une rétroaction au gouvernement sur la façon dont l’Alberta peut mieux protéger ses intérêts. défendre son économie et affirmer sa place dans la Confédération.

    Le groupe d’experts tiendra des consultations dans toute la province au cours de l’été et au début de l’automne pour veiller à ce que les personnes qui vivent, travaillent, font des affaires et élèvent une famille soient celles qui conduiront l’avenir de l’Alberta. Le travail consistera notamment à trouver des solutions proposées par les Albertains pour rendre l’Alberta plus forte et plus souveraine au sein d’un Canada uni qui respecte la province et qui lui donne les moyens de réaliser son plein potentiel. Il s’agira également de formuler des recommandations au gouvernement sur les questions référendaires potentielles sur lesquelles les Albertains pourront se prononcer en 2026.

    Il tiendra compte des risques et des avantages d’idées comme l’établissement d’un régime de retraite de l’Alberta, le recours à un service de police provincial de l’Alberta plutôt qu’à la Gendarmerie royale du Canada pour les services de police communautaires et entendra ce que les Albertains ont à dire à ce sujet. Il déterminera si les Albertains devraient envisager de modifier la Constitution, (s’il y a lieu) des changements aux paiements de transfert fédéraux et à la péréquation que les Albertains devraient exiger du gouvernement fédéral, une réforme potentielle de l’immigration qui donnerait au gouvernement provincial plus de contrôle sur ceux qui viennent dans la province, et des changements à la façon dont l’Alberta perçoit l’impôt sur le revenu des particuliers. Les Albertains auront également l’occasion de présenter leurs propres idées aux fins de discussion.

    « Il ne s’agit pas seulement de paroles. Il s’agit d’agir. Le groupe d’experts Alberta Next donne aux Albertains ordinaires la chance d’experimer leur point de vue sur l’orientation de notre province. Il est temps de résister à l’excès d’Ottawa et de veiller à ce que les décisions concernant l’avenir de l’Alberta soient prises ici, par les gens qui vivent et travaillent ici. »

    Danielle Smith, première ministre

    « Il est désormais nécessaire de rétablir l’équité et la fonctionnalité du pays. Des années de politiques et de décisions problématiques d’Ottawa ont nui à la prospérité de l’Alberta et du Canada. Je suis honoré d’avoir été invité par la première ministre Smith à participer au groupe d’experts Alberta Next. Ce groupe d’expers a pour objectif d’écouter les points de vue des Albertains sur la façonde bâtir une Alberta plus forte au sein d’un Canada uni, ce à quoi le Business Council of Alberta et moi-même tenons fermement. »

    Adam Legge, président du Business Council of Alberta

    Le groupe d’experts, présidé par la première ministre Danielle Smith, comprend 13 autres membres, y compris des représentants élus, des universitaires, des chefs d’entreprise et des défenseurs de la collectivité :

    • L’honorable Rebecca Schulz, ministre de l’Environnement et des Aires protégées de l’Alberta
    • Brandon Lunty, député de Leduc-Beaumont
    • Glenn van Dijken, député d’Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock
    • Tara Sawyer, députée élue d’Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills
    • Bruce McDonald, ancien juge, Cour d’appel de l’Alberta
    • Trevor Tombe, directeur de la politique fiscale et économique, École de politique publique de l’Université de Calgary
    • Adam Legge, président, Business Council of Alberta
    • Andrew Judson, vice-président (Prairies), Institut Fraser
    • Sumita Anand, vice-présidente, Above and Beyond Care Services
    • Melody Garner-Skiba, défenseure des affaires et de l’agriculture
    • Grant Fagerheim, président-directeur général, Whitecap Resources Inc.
    • Dr Akin Osakuade, médecin et chef de section, Hôpital Didsbury
    • Dr Benny Xu, expert en santé communautaire
    • Michael Binnion, président, Questerre Energy

    Les Albertains ont le choix : laisser Ottawa continuer à prendre les décisions ou s’unir pour tracer notre propre voie. Prochaines étapes? C’est vous qui décidez.

    Faits saillants :

    • Les dates et les sites des assemblées publiques locales, ainsi que d’autres occasions de participer à cette consultation, sont disponibles en ligne à Alberta.ca/Next. Les lieux exacts seront publiés dans les semaines précédant l’événement et les Albertains seront invités à confirmer leur présence en ligne.
    • Les recommandations du groupe d’experts seront soumises au gouvernement d’ici le 31 décembre 2025.
    • On prévoit que le groupe d’experts ajoutera d’autres membres au cours des prochaines semaines.

    Renseignements connexes

    • Alberta.ca/Next
    • Biographies des membres du groupe d’experts (en anglais seulement)

    Nouvelles connexes

    • Alberta Next: Albertans to choose path forward (5 mai 2025)

    Multimédia

    • Visionnez la conférence de presse (en anglais seulement)

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: RFK Junior is stoking fears about vaccine safety. Here’s why he’s wrong – and the impact it could have

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julie Leask, Professor, School of Public Health, University of Sydney

    The United States used to be a leader in vaccine research, development and policymaking. Now US Secretary of Health Robert F. Kennedy Jr is undermining the country’s vaccine program at the highest level and supercharging vaccine skepticism.

    Two weeks ago, RFK Jr sacked the entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices responsible for reviewing the latest scientific evidence on vaccines. RFK Jr alleged conflicts of interest and hand-picked a replacement panel.

    On Wednesday, RFK Jr announced the US would stop funding the global vaccine alliance, Gavi, because he claimed that “when the science was inconvenient today, Gavi ignored the science”. RFK Jr questioned the safety of COVID vaccines for pregnant women, as well as the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine.

    On Thursday, when the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met, the person who first drew RFK Jr into vaccine scepticism, Lyn Redwood, shared disproved claims about a chemical called thimerosal in flu vaccines being harmful.

    The undermining of regulation, advisory processes and funding changes will have global impacts, as debunked claims are given new levels of apparent legitimacy. Some of these impacts will be slow and insidious.

    So what should we make of these latest claims and funding cuts?

    Thiomersal is a distraction

    Thiomersal (thimerosal in the the US) is a safe and effective preservative that prevents bacterial and fungal contamination of the vaccine contained in a multi-dose vial. It’s a salt that contains a tiny amount of mercury in a safe form.

    Thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in any vaccines routinely given in Australia. But it’s still used in the Q fever vaccine.

    Other countries use multi-dose vials with thiomersal when single-dose vials are too expensive.

    In the US, just 4% of adult influenza vaccines contain thiomersal. So focusing on removing vaccines containing thimerosal is a distraction for the committee.

    COVID vaccines in pregnancy prevent severe illness

    On Wednesday, RFK criticised Gavi’s encouragement of pregnant women to receive COVID-19 vaccines.

    A COVID-19 infection before and during pregnancy can increase the risk of miscarriage two- to four-fold, even if it’s only a mild infection.

    Conversely, there is good evidence vaccination during pregnancy is safe and can reduce the chance of hospitalisation of pregnant people and of infants by passing antibodies through the placenta.

    In Australia, pregnant people who have never received a primary COVID-19 vaccine are recommended to have one. However, they are not generally recommended to have booster unless they have underlying risk conditions or prefer to have one. This is due to population immunity.

    COVID-19 vaccine advice should adapt to changes in disease risk and vaccine benefit. It doesn’t mean previous decisions were wrong, nor that vaccine boosters are unsafe.

    RFK’s criticism of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy may influence choices individuals make in other countries, even when unvaccinated pregnant women are encouraged to consider vaccination.

    The diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine is safe

    RFK Jr also questioned the safety of the combined diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine as he announced the withdrawal of US funding support for Gavi.

    In the early 2000s, three community-based observational studies reported a possible association between increased chance of death in infants and use of the DTP vaccine.

    A few subsequent studies also reported associations, with higher risk in girls, prompting a World Health Organization (WHO) review of safety.

    Real world studies are complicated and the data can be difficult to interpret correctly. Often, the very factors that influence whether someone gets vaccinated can also be associated with other health risks.

    When the WHO committee reviewed all the studies on DTP safety in 2014, it did not indicate serious adverse events. It concluded there was substantial evidence against these claims.

    What will de-funding Gavi mean for vaccination rates?

    Gavi, the vaccine alliance, supports vaccine purchasing in low-income countries.

    The US has historically accounted for 13% of all donor funds.

    However, RFK Jr said Gavi needed to re-earn the public trust and “consider the best science available” before the US would contribute funding again.

    Gavi predicted in March that the impact of US funding cuts could result in one million deaths through missed vaccines.

    Could something like this happen in Australia?

    Australia is fortunate to be buffered from these impacts.

    Our vaccine advisory body, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, has people with deep expertise in vaccination. We have robust decision processes that weigh evidence critically and make careful recommendations to government.

    Our governments remain committed to vaccination. The federal government released the National Immunisation Strategy in mid-June with a comprehensive plan to continue to strengthen our program.

    The federal government also announced A$386 million to support the work of Gavi from 2026 to 2030.

    All of this keeps our vaccine policies strong, preventing disease and increasing life expectancy here and overseas.

    But to mitigate the possible influence of the US in Australia, our governments, health professionals and the public need to be ready to rapidly tackle the misinformation, distortions and half-truths RFK Jr cleverly packages – with quality information.

    Julie Leask receives research funding from NHMRC, WHO, US CDC, NSW Ministry of Health. She received funding from Sanofi for travel to an overseas meeting in 2024. She has consulting fees from RTI International and the Task Force for Global Health.

    Catherine Bennett has received honoraria for contributing to independent advisory panels for Moderna and AstraZeneca, and has received NHMRC, VicHealth and MRFF funding for unrelated projects. She was the health lead on the Independent Inquiry into the Australian Government COVID-19 Response .

    – ref. RFK Junior is stoking fears about vaccine safety. Here’s why he’s wrong – and the impact it could have – https://theconversation.com/rfk-junior-is-stoking-fears-about-vaccine-safety-heres-why-hes-wrong-and-the-impact-it-could-have-259986

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Budd Joins Cotton, Colleagues in Introducing Bill To Reform, Improve, and Streamline ODNI

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator Ted Budd (R-North Carolina)

    Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.), a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, joined Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, in introducing the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act, legislation that would realign resources to intelligence missions, eliminate duplicative efforts and inefficient, non-functioning bureaucracies across the intelligence community (IC) and return the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to its original size, scope, and mission.

    “The ODNI was established to unify America’s intelligence community, enhancing coordination among agencies efficiently and collectively focusing on the threats to our nation. Over the years, the ODNI has become a bloated bureaucracy, contrary to the vision laid out for this vital agency. I’m proud to join Senator Cotton and our colleagues in introducing needed reforms to stop ODNI from stumbling over bureaucratic red tape and return the agency to its original, lean form—one solely focused on our nation’s security, said Senator Budd.”

    “Created after the September 11th attacks, ODNI was intended to be a lean organization to align America’s intelligence resources and authorities, not the overstaffed and bureaucratic behemoth that it is today, where coordinators coordinate with other coordinators. These reforms will be vital to keeping our country safe from the wide range of threats that we continue to face,” said Senator Cotton. 

    Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), and James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) are also cosponsoring the legislation.

    Text of the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act may be found here.

    The Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act would:

    • Cap ODNI full-time staff at 650.
    • Eliminate certain reporting requirements and the transfer of personnel authorities.
    • Modify the National Intelligence Council’s duties and terminate the National Intelligence Managers’ positions.
    • Terminate the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) at ODNI and transfer its responsibilities to the FBI.
    • Redesignate the National Counterterrorism Center as the National Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics Center and limit its mission to foreign intelligence authorities. 
    • Terminate the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center (NCBC) at ODNI, transfer NCBC’s responsibilities to the CIA, and redesignate it as the National Counterproliferation Center.
    • Repeal various positions (including the Director of the NCSC, the Director of the NCBC, and the Intelligence Community Chief Data Officer) and seven units, centers, councils, offices, and programs (including obsolete bureaucratic entities that have failed to function, such as the Joint Intelligence Community Council).  
    • Prohibit National Intelligence Program funds from being used to outsource IC analytic efforts to organizations that take funds from foreign governments.  
    • Require the DNI to wind down and terminate the National Intelligence University within 180 days.
    • Prohibit the use of National Intelligence Program funds to implement any diversity, equity, or inclusion practice in the intelligence community.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Mast Exposes Boston University’s Phony USAID Stats

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-226-8467

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This Week, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast wrote a letter to Boston University President Melissa Gilliam raising concerns over the “Impact Counter,” a dashboard promoted by the university that makes false and misleading claims about the impacts of restructuring at the U.S. Agency for International Development.  

    In his letter, Chairman Mast exposes a series of falsehoods conveyed by the dashboard and used to spread dangerous hysteria about deaths caused by the USAID restructuring.  

    “I am deeply concerned that Boston University is serving as a platform for the weaponization of academia, where federally funded professors are spreading disinformation about the ongoing reorganization of USAID and its consequences,” Chairman Mast wrote. “Brooke Nichols, an Associate Professor at BU, is at the heart of this dangerous hysteria through her creation of the ‘Impact Counter,’ a dashboard of numbers that claim the restructuring of USAID has killed hundreds of thousands of people.” 

    As Chairman Mast notes, the dashboard has been used as ammunition to attack President Trump as his administration carries out a foreign policy agenda that puts America first and promotes U.S. interests abroad. 

    “Unfortunately, hidden behind Dr. Nichols’ claim is an erroneous set of assumptions based on inaccurate information,” Chairman Mast wrote. “This platform has become no better than a Russian bot farm or CCP propaganda. Boston University is creating a breeding ground for far-left activists to exploit academia for political gain which undermines the legitimacy of these institutions.” 

    Read the full letter here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Mast Exposes Boston University’s Phony USAID Stats

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-226-8467

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This Week, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast wrote a letter to Boston University President Melissa Gilliam raising concerns over the “Impact Counter,” a dashboard promoted by the university that makes false and misleading claims about the impacts of restructuring at the U.S. Agency for International Development.  

    In his letter, Chairman Mast exposes a series of falsehoods conveyed by the dashboard and used to spread dangerous hysteria about deaths caused by the USAID restructuring.  

    “I am deeply concerned that Boston University is serving as a platform for the weaponization of academia, where federally funded professors are spreading disinformation about the ongoing reorganization of USAID and its consequences,” Chairman Mast wrote. “Brooke Nichols, an Associate Professor at BU, is at the heart of this dangerous hysteria through her creation of the ‘Impact Counter,’ a dashboard of numbers that claim the restructuring of USAID has killed hundreds of thousands of people.” 

    As Chairman Mast notes, the dashboard has been used as ammunition to attack President Trump as his administration carries out a foreign policy agenda that puts America first and promotes U.S. interests abroad. 

    “Unfortunately, hidden behind Dr. Nichols’ claim is an erroneous set of assumptions based on inaccurate information,” Chairman Mast wrote. “This platform has become no better than a Russian bot farm or CCP propaganda. Boston University is creating a breeding ground for far-left activists to exploit academia for political gain which undermines the legitimacy of these institutions.” 

    Read the full letter here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Mast Exposes Boston University’s Phony USAID Stats

    Source: US House Committee on Foreign Affairs

    Media Contact 202-226-8467

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – This Week, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Brian Mast wrote a letter to Boston University President Melissa Gilliam raising concerns over the “Impact Counter,” a dashboard promoted by the university that makes false and misleading claims about the impacts of restructuring at the U.S. Agency for International Development.  

    In his letter, Chairman Mast exposes a series of falsehoods conveyed by the dashboard and used to spread dangerous hysteria about deaths caused by the USAID restructuring.  

    “I am deeply concerned that Boston University is serving as a platform for the weaponization of academia, where federally funded professors are spreading disinformation about the ongoing reorganization of USAID and its consequences,” Chairman Mast wrote. “Brooke Nichols, an Associate Professor at BU, is at the heart of this dangerous hysteria through her creation of the ‘Impact Counter,’ a dashboard of numbers that claim the restructuring of USAID has killed hundreds of thousands of people.” 

    As Chairman Mast notes, the dashboard has been used as ammunition to attack President Trump as his administration carries out a foreign policy agenda that puts America first and promotes U.S. interests abroad. 

    “Unfortunately, hidden behind Dr. Nichols’ claim is an erroneous set of assumptions based on inaccurate information,” Chairman Mast wrote. “This platform has become no better than a Russian bot farm or CCP propaganda. Boston University is creating a breeding ground for far-left activists to exploit academia for political gain which undermines the legitimacy of these institutions.” 

    Read the full letter here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Trustees Announced to NYS Interest Lawyer Account Fund

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced six trustee appointments to the New York State Interest on Lawyer Account Fund (IOLA). IOLA helps low-income New Yorkers obtain civil legal services to protect their needs. Established in 1983, IOLA pools interest from lawyer trust accounts to provide civil legal aid and support justice system improvements at no cost to taxpayers, lawyers or their clients.

    “I’m committed to helping New York’s most vulnerable secure legal resources in times of need, and the IOLA board helps bring those resources to bear — providing vital legal services to thousands of New Yorkers in need of legal assistance,” Governor Hochul said. “These appointees embody what it means to serve others. I am encouraged by their commitment to the law, civil legal services and the most vulnerable, and I am confident that with their leadership, IOLA will continue to fulfill its important mission.”

    As Chair and Trustee:

    Pei Pei Cheng de Castro

    Pei Pei Cheng de Castro is a partner in Commercial Litigation & Complex Trials and White Collar & Government Investigations at Barclay Damon LLP. Previously, Cheng de Castro was a Deputy Counsel to Governor Kathy Hochul from 2021 to 2024.

    Cheng de Castro obtained a J.D. from New York Law School in 2000 and a B.A. in Environmental Science and Economics from the University of California, Berkeley in 1997.

    As Trustees:

    Rahul Agarwal

    Rahul Agarwal is a Partner in White Collar and Litigation at Friedman Kaplan Seiler Adelman & Robbins LLP, a position he began in 2024. Previously, Agarwal was a Deputy Chief Counsel in the office of the Mayor of the City of New York from 2022 to 2023.

    Agarwal obtained a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 2006, and a B.A. from Brown University in 2001.

    Darren J. Cohen

    Darren J. Cohen is the Associate General Counsel for Clipboard Health, a position he has held since 2023. Previously, Cohen was the Senior Counsel for the Office of Governor Kathy Hochul in 2023.

    Cohen obtained a J.D. from Yale Law School in 2004 and a B.A. in English from Columbia University in 2004.

    Jason C. Hegt

    Jason C. Hegt is a Partner in the Litigation and Trial Department at Latham & Watkins, a position he has held since 2018. Previously, Hegt was an Associate at Latham & Watkins from 2009 to 2017.

    Hegt obtained his J.D. from American University Washington College of Law in 2009 and a B.A. in Political Science from Emory University in 2004.

    Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix

    Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix was most recently the Corporate Counsel for the City of New York from 2022 to 2024. Previously, Hinds-Radix was an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department, from 2012 to 2022.

    Hinds-Radix obtained a J.D. from Howard University School of Law in 1984, an M.A. in Political Science from Long Island University in 1978, and a B.S. in History from the University of Massachusetts in 1976.

    Daniel M. Kummer

    Daniel M. Kummer is the Principal at DKummer Photography, LLC, a position he began in 2023. Previously, Kummer was a Senior Vice President for Litigation at NBCUniversal Media LLC from 1997 to 2023.

    Kummer obtained a J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 1987, and a B.A. from Wesleyan University in 1982.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Las Vegas Jury Convicts Woman for Threats Against Two Federal Judges and Her Probation Officer; San Diego Trial Team Prosecuted the Case in the District of Nevada

    Source: US FBI

    LAS VEGAS – A federal jury has convicted Latonia Smith of cyberstalking and threatening two district court judges and a probation officer, all of whom were involved in her previous federal conviction for death threats she made against lawyers in yet another case.

    In the current case, after a six-day trial and less than one day of deliberation, a jury found that Smith threatened U.S. District Judge Richard Franklin Boulware, who presided over Smith’s 2021 trial and sentenced her to 36 months in prison for that offense. The jury also found that Smith targeted U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey, who presided over the defendant’s supervised release, and Shawn Mummey, her probation officer.

    At the time of the grand jury’s indictment in the current matter, Smith was on supervised release from that previous federal 2021 conviction. In that case, Smith targeted corporate lawyers involved in defending the 2017 firing of her mother from her job as a guest room attendant at the Planet Hollywood Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas after she allegedly took a small amount of money from a guest’s room.

    “All of these victims felt threatened and emotionally distressed. They then took steps to protect themselves and their families,” said U.S. Attorney Adam Gordon for the Southern District of California. “Threats directed at members of the judiciary are not only criminal acts, but direct attacks on the rule of law. Intimidation of judges and court personnel erodes public trust and threatens the fair administration of justice for all.”

    “The FBI takes threats of violence very seriously and works diligently to protect the communities we serve,” said Rafik Mattar, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Las Vegas, “We will not tolerate threats of violence to any member of our community, particularly those dedicated to safeguarding our democratic process. The defendant’s actions were dangerous and unacceptable. We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners to disrupt and investigate those who engage in violent rhetoric—ensuring accountability for anyone who threatens to harass, intimidate, or harm others.”

    When Smith was released from federal prison in the first case against her, she was sent to Washoe County jail to face allegations related to an October 31, 2019, armed home-invasion in Reno she allegedly committed against another lawyer involved in the Planet Hollywood case.

    Smith was granted bail in early June 2022. Upon her return to Las Vegas, Smith immediately began searching Google for information about Judge Boulware along with his wife, Las Vegas City Councilwoman Nancy Brune, and their family. At the same time, she googled “judges should die.”

    Over the next several weeks, the defendant became increasingly frustrated with judges and anyone involved with her prior federal case. On June 23, 2022, the defendant emailed her probation officer and explained, “Some good advice: Life is short, society should be careful who they piss off.” Below the warning, the defendant sent a link to a YouTube video showing a six-minute compilation of cell phone videos from the October 1 mass shooting at the Mandalay Bay Hotel.

    Over the next few days, Smith sent a series of emails. Some threatened a mass casualty event: “LET THE SHOW BEGIN. NEVADA IS GOING TO LOVE THIS!!!!”  Some were designed to let victims know their loved ones were in jeopardy: “LETS KEEP [YOUR KIDS] IN FOCUS”.

    Throughout many of the emails, the defendant made it clear that she had deeply researched the recipients of her threats, accurately identifying where they could be found, either during hobby activities, or in their actual homes. For example, to Judge Jennifer Dorsey the defendant wrote: “Tell Jennifer, Henderson is nice I see why she chose that area. Lots of shops nearby. Smart.” At trial, Judge Dorsey testified that the defendant’s identification of her personal residence inspired her to immediately sell her home and move.

    The victims of Smith’s threats testified at trial they were frightened and believed Smith was capable of violently acting on her threats as she had allegedly done in the pending case regarding the armed home invasion targeting the lawyer in Reno.

    U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro reported Smith’s threats to U.S. Marshals, who protect the federal judiciary. Judge Navarro testified at the trial, telling the jury that she recognized the danger posed by the defendant and immediately took action.  “I emailed the chief of probation; anybody I could get a hold of to prevent a tragedy…I didn’t want to die. I didn’t want my family to die.  I didn’t want my coworkers to die.” The Marshals then contacted the FBI.

    After two special agents from the FBI interviewed the Smith on June 27, 2022, she was immediately taken into custody, where she has remained. During the interview, when asked what she was thinking about when she was researching mass shooters, Smith responded: “I think what they were thinking.”

    The investigation found that Smith, who has a biochemistry degree from the University of Nevada Las Vegas, Googled phrases like “judges die,” “how to become a bomb maker,” “how to be a mass shooter,” “buying a gun,” and “ar 15 for sale.” She also watched the compilation of videos from the October 1 mass shooting 13 times over a three-week period.  At the same time, the defendant repeatedly searched the names of her targets, some of their children, and some of their home addresses. The jury deliberated for less than a day before returning a guilty verdict on three counts of cyberstalking for the emails sent to Judges Dorsey and Boulware, along with her probation officer. The jury acquitted the defendant on the other two counts of cyberstalking.

    The defendant will remain in custody pending sentencing, on a date yet to be determined.

    The trial took place in the federal courthouse in Las Vegas. The presiding judge was Senior District Court Judge Michael W. Mosman, from the District of Oregon. Judge Mosman was appointed to preside over the case by special designation of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    Smith’s prosecution was initiated by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada, out of their office in Reno.  In March 2024, the Department of Justice recused the entire U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada and had the prosecution reassigned.

    This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Andrew Haden and Francisco Nagel for the Southern District of California, both of whom were named Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys in Las Vegas after the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Nevada was recused.

    DEFENDANT                                                Case Number 22CR051-MWM                              

    Latonia Dyshawna Smith                               Age: 31                       Las Vegas, NV

    SUMMARY OF CHARGES

    Three Counts of Cyberstalking – Title 18, U.S.C., Sections 2261A

    Maximum penalty: Five years in prison, as to each count of conviction

    INVESTIGATING AGENCIES

    Federal Bureau of Investigation

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Security: U.S. Marshals Arrest Homicide Suspect

    Source: US Marshals Service

    Albuquerque, NM – The U.S. Marshals Service Southwest Investigative Fugitive Team on June 26 arrested near Coal Avenue SE and University Boulevard SE here a New Mexico man wanted for two felony warrants.

    Jonathan Torres, 38, was wanted for a New Mexico state felony warrant out of Metropolitan Court, charging him with murder, kidnapping, three counts of aggravated assault against a household member, aggravated assault, felon in possession of a firearm, and battery against a household member. 

    Additionally, Torres was wanted for a federal probation violation warrant, following a 2024 federal conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm.

    “The United States Marshals Service is dedicated to joining forces with our law enforcement partners to reduce violent crime,” said U.S. Marshal for the District of New Mexico David O. Barnett, Jr. “We are committed to working together to improve the lives of our New Mexico communities.”

    Following his arrest, Torres was booked into the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Detention Center, with a federal detainer attached.

    This arrest was the result of efforts by multiple local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, including the Albuquerque Police Department, the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office, the New Mexico State Police, the New Mexico Department of Corrections-Probation and Parole and the U.S. Marshals Service.

    Anyone with information on wanted fugitives is urged to contact the nearest U.S. Marshals office, the U.S. Marshals Service Communications Center at 1-800-336-0102 or submit information via the USMS Tips App.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA Announces Winners of 2025 Human Lander Challenge

    Source: NASA

    NASA’s Human Lander Challenge marked its second year on June 26, awarding $18,000 in prize money to three university teams for their solutions for long-duration cryogenic, or super chilled, liquid storage and transfer systems for spaceflight.
    Building on the crewed Artemis II flight test, NASA’s Artemis III mission will send astronauts to explore the lunar South Pole region with a human landing system and advanced spacesuits, preparing humanity to ultimately go to Mars. In-space propulsion systems that use cryogenic liquids as propellants must stay extremely cold to remain in a liquid state and are critical to mission success. The Artemis mission architecture will need these systems to function for several weeks or even months.

    NASA announced Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott as the overall winner and recipient of the $10,000 top prize award. Old Dominion University won second place and a $5,000 award, followed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology in third place and a $3,000 award.
    Before the winners were announced, 12 finalist teams selected in April gave their presentations to a panel of NASA and industry judges as part of the final competition in Huntsville. As part of the 2025 Human Lander Challenge, university teams developed systems-level solutions that could be used within the next 3-5 years for Artemis.

    “Today’s Golden Age of Innovation and Exploration students are tomorrow’s mission designers, systems engineers, and explorers,” said Juan Valenzuela, main propulsion systems and cryogenic fluid management subsystems lead for NASA’s Human Landing System Program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “The Human Lander Challenge concepts at this year’s forum demonstrate the ingenuity, passion, and determination NASA and industry need to help solve long-duration cryogenic storage challenges to advance human exploration to deep space.”
    The challenge is sponsored by the agency’s Human Landing System Program within the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate and managed by the National Institute of Aerospace.
    Through the Artemis campaign, NASA will send astronauts to explore the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and to build the foundation for the first crewed missions to Mars – for the benefit of all.
    For more information about Artemis missions, visit:
    https://www.nasa.gov/artemis

    Corinne Beckinger Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. 256.544.0034  corinne.m.beckinger@nasa.gov 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: NASA Announces Winners of 2025 Human Lander Challenge

    Source: NASA

    NASA’s Human Lander Challenge marked its second year on June 26, awarding $18,000 in prize money to three university teams for their solutions for long-duration cryogenic, or super chilled, liquid storage and transfer systems for spaceflight.
    Building on the crewed Artemis II flight test, NASA’s Artemis III mission will send astronauts to explore the lunar South Pole region with a human landing system and advanced spacesuits, preparing humanity to ultimately go to Mars. In-space propulsion systems that use cryogenic liquids as propellants must stay extremely cold to remain in a liquid state and are critical to mission success. The Artemis mission architecture will need these systems to function for several weeks or even months.

    NASA announced Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott as the overall winner and recipient of the $10,000 top prize award. Old Dominion University won second place and a $5,000 award, followed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology in third place and a $3,000 award.
    Before the winners were announced, 12 finalist teams selected in April gave their presentations to a panel of NASA and industry judges as part of the final competition in Huntsville. As part of the 2025 Human Lander Challenge, university teams developed systems-level solutions that could be used within the next 3-5 years for Artemis.

    “Today’s Golden Age of Innovation and Exploration students are tomorrow’s mission designers, systems engineers, and explorers,” said Juan Valenzuela, main propulsion systems and cryogenic fluid management subsystems lead for NASA’s Human Landing System Program at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. “The Human Lander Challenge concepts at this year’s forum demonstrate the ingenuity, passion, and determination NASA and industry need to help solve long-duration cryogenic storage challenges to advance human exploration to deep space.”
    The challenge is sponsored by the agency’s Human Landing System Program within the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate and managed by the National Institute of Aerospace.
    Through the Artemis campaign, NASA will send astronauts to explore the Moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and to build the foundation for the first crewed missions to Mars – for the benefit of all.
    For more information about Artemis missions, visit:
    https://www.nasa.gov/artemis

    Corinne Beckinger Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala. 256.544.0034  corinne.m.beckinger@nasa.gov 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sophia Roberts: Showcasing the Cosmos

    Source: NASA

    Astrophysics Science Video Producer – Goddard Space Flight Center
    Growing up in Detroit with a camera in her hand, Sophia Roberts — now an award-winning astrophysics science video producer—never imagined that one day her path would wind through clean rooms, vacuum chambers, and even a beryllium mine. But framing the final frontier sometimes requires traveling through some of Earth’s less-explored corners.

    Sophia received her first camera from her father, a photography enthusiast, when she was just five or six years old. “I’ve basically been snapping away ever since!” she says. 
    With a natural curiosity and enthusiasm for science, Sophia pursued a degree in biology at Oberlin College in Ohio. There, she discovered that she could blend her two passions.
    “I often lingered in lab sessions, not to finish an experiment but to photograph it,” Sophia says. “I had an epiphany at the beginning of class one day, which always opened with clips from BBC nature documentaries. I decided right then that I would be one of the people who make those videos one day.”

    She initially thought that meant wildlife filmmaking—perched in a blind on a mountainside, waiting hours for an animal to appear. That dream led her to Montana State University, where she learned to blend scientific rigor with visual storytelling through their science and natural history filmmaking master’s program.
    While completing her degree, Sophia worked as a traveling presenter for the Montana Space Grant Consortium. “I was mainly giving presentations about NASA missions and showing kids beautiful images of space,” she says. “That was my first true introduction to NASA. I loved being able to watch the children’s eyes light up when they saw what’s out there in space.”
    Sophia then completed an internship at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History while completing her thesis. Once she graduated, she landed a year-long fellowship at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, as an Earth science news fellow. In this role, she focused on packaging up stories through satellite imagery and explanations. 

    She leaned into her videography skills in her next role, as part of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope team. 
    “Webb is one of my great loves in life,” she says. “I learned to negotiate with engineers for the perfect shot, navigate NASA’s protocols, and work with mission partners. I only spent five years on Webb, but it feels like it was half my life. Still—it was everything.”
    That mission took her to some unforgettable places, like a mine in Delta, Utah, where raw material for Webb’s mirrors was unearthed. “It was this giant, spiral pit where they were mining beryllium at just 0.02% concentration,” Sophia says. The process was as otherworldly as the location.

    She also documented thermal vacuum testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston in a giant pill-shaped chamber with a 40-foot round door. “I had to take confined space training to crawl around in the area underneath the chamber,” she says. “It felt like spelunking.”
    Once Webb launched, Sophia pivoted to covering many of NASA’s smaller astrophysics missions along with the upcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. These days, she can often be found gowned up in a “bunny suit” in the largest clean room at Goddard to document space telescope assembly, or in a studio recording science explanations. 

    “I love capturing the visual stories and helping fill in the gaps to help people understand NASA research,” Sophia says. “I try to focus on the things that will get people excited about the science so they’ll stop scrolling to find out more.”
    For Sophia, the process is often as exhilarating as the result. “I love venturing out to remote places where science is being done,” she says. “I’d love to film a balloon launch in Antarctica someday!”

    To others who dream of pursuing a similar career, Sophia recommends diving in headfirst. “With cameras readily available and free online platforms, it’s never been easier to get into the media,” she says. “You just have to be careful to research your topic and sources, making sure you really know what you’re sharing and understand that science is always evolving as we learn more.” And Sophia emphasizes how important storytelling is for conveying information, especially when it’s as complex as astrophysics. “Studying science is wonderful, but I also think helping people visualize it is magical.” 
    By Ashley BalzerNASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Sophia Roberts: Showcasing the Cosmos

    Source: NASA

    Astrophysics Science Video Producer – Goddard Space Flight Center
    Growing up in Detroit with a camera in her hand, Sophia Roberts — now an award-winning astrophysics science video producer—never imagined that one day her path would wind through clean rooms, vacuum chambers, and even a beryllium mine. But framing the final frontier sometimes requires traveling through some of Earth’s less-explored corners.

    Sophia received her first camera from her father, a photography enthusiast, when she was just five or six years old. “I’ve basically been snapping away ever since!” she says. 
    With a natural curiosity and enthusiasm for science, Sophia pursued a degree in biology at Oberlin College in Ohio. There, she discovered that she could blend her two passions.
    “I often lingered in lab sessions, not to finish an experiment but to photograph it,” Sophia says. “I had an epiphany at the beginning of class one day, which always opened with clips from BBC nature documentaries. I decided right then that I would be one of the people who make those videos one day.”

    She initially thought that meant wildlife filmmaking—perched in a blind on a mountainside, waiting hours for an animal to appear. That dream led her to Montana State University, where she learned to blend scientific rigor with visual storytelling through their science and natural history filmmaking master’s program.
    While completing her degree, Sophia worked as a traveling presenter for the Montana Space Grant Consortium. “I was mainly giving presentations about NASA missions and showing kids beautiful images of space,” she says. “That was my first true introduction to NASA. I loved being able to watch the children’s eyes light up when they saw what’s out there in space.”
    Sophia then completed an internship at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History while completing her thesis. Once she graduated, she landed a year-long fellowship at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, as an Earth science news fellow. In this role, she focused on packaging up stories through satellite imagery and explanations. 

    She leaned into her videography skills in her next role, as part of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope team. 
    “Webb is one of my great loves in life,” she says. “I learned to negotiate with engineers for the perfect shot, navigate NASA’s protocols, and work with mission partners. I only spent five years on Webb, but it feels like it was half my life. Still—it was everything.”
    That mission took her to some unforgettable places, like a mine in Delta, Utah, where raw material for Webb’s mirrors was unearthed. “It was this giant, spiral pit where they were mining beryllium at just 0.02% concentration,” Sophia says. The process was as otherworldly as the location.

    She also documented thermal vacuum testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston in a giant pill-shaped chamber with a 40-foot round door. “I had to take confined space training to crawl around in the area underneath the chamber,” she says. “It felt like spelunking.”
    Once Webb launched, Sophia pivoted to covering many of NASA’s smaller astrophysics missions along with the upcoming Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. These days, she can often be found gowned up in a “bunny suit” in the largest clean room at Goddard to document space telescope assembly, or in a studio recording science explanations. 

    “I love capturing the visual stories and helping fill in the gaps to help people understand NASA research,” Sophia says. “I try to focus on the things that will get people excited about the science so they’ll stop scrolling to find out more.”
    For Sophia, the process is often as exhilarating as the result. “I love venturing out to remote places where science is being done,” she says. “I’d love to film a balloon launch in Antarctica someday!”

    To others who dream of pursuing a similar career, Sophia recommends diving in headfirst. “With cameras readily available and free online platforms, it’s never been easier to get into the media,” she says. “You just have to be careful to research your topic and sources, making sure you really know what you’re sharing and understand that science is always evolving as we learn more.” And Sophia emphasizes how important storytelling is for conveying information, especially when it’s as complex as astrophysics. “Studying science is wonderful, but I also think helping people visualize it is magical.” 
    By Ashley BalzerNASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Maryland Man Convicted of Two Convenience Store Robberies and Money Laundering

    Source: US FBI

    A man who was previously convicted of robbing the Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust on Council Street in Cedar Rapids on January 3, 2024, pled guilty to additional charges today in federal court in Cedar Rapids.

    Andrew Philip Derr, age 22, from Fredrick, Maryland, was convicted of Two Convenience Store Robberies and Money Laundering.

    In a plea agreement, Derr admitted that after being discharged from the military for misconduct in 2023, he moved to Iowa City and conducted a series of robberies in the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, area.  Derr admitted that on December 27, 2023, he robbed the Casey’s General Store in Robins, Iowa, and obtained over $7,000 in cash. Derr admitted that on January 1, 2024, he robbed the Kum & Go store on Four Oaks Drive in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.  Derr was previously convicted and sentenced for robbing the Cedar Rapids Bank and Trust branch on Council Street in Cedar Rapids on January 3, 2024, in which he obtained over $16,000 in cash.  Derr admitted that after each robbery he laundered the stolen funds by making multiple deposits into his Maryland Bank account to disguise the nature, source of ownership of the funds.  Ultimately on January 3, 2024, Derr flew to Maryland, and subsequently made two deposits of robbery proceeds totaling more than $4,800.  When the United States Marshals Service tried to arrest Derr at his Iowa City, Iowa, apartment, they found a note stating, “Catch me if you can.” On January 12, 2024, Derr turned himself into Orleans Parish, Louisiana, Sheriff’s Office.  

    Sentencing before United States District Court Chief Judge C.J. Williams will be set after a presentence report is prepared.  Derr remains in custody of the United States Marshal pending sentencing.  Derr faces a possible maximum sentence of 60 years’ imprisonment, a $1,000,000 fine, and 3 years of supervised release following any imprisonment.  Additionally, Derr must forfeit the stolen funds from the convenience store robberies and the money that he laundered and will be required to pay restitution to the victims of his crimes.

    The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Patrick J. Reinert and was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, the United States Marshals Service’s Northern Iowa Fugitive Task Force, the Cedar Rapids Police Department, Robins Police Department, Linn County Attorney’s Office, the University of Iowa Police Department and the Orleans Parish, Louisiana, Sheriff’s Office.  

    Court file information at https://ecf.iand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.

    The case file number is 24-CR-00105

    Follow us on X @USAO_NDIA.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What the Supreme Court ruling against ‘universal injunctions’ means for court challenges to presidential actions

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

    A journalist runs out of the U.S. Supreme Court building carrying a ruling on the last day of the court’s term on June 27, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    When presidents have tried to make big changes through executive orders, they have often hit a roadblock: A single federal judge, whether located in Seattle or Miami or anywhere in between, could stop these policies across the entire country.

    But on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court significantly limited this judicial power. In Trump v. CASA Inc., a 6-3 majority ruled that federal courts likely lack the authority to issue “universal injunctions” that block government policies nationwide. The ruling means that going forward federal judges can generally only block policies from being enforced against the specific plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit, not against everyone in the country.

    The ruling emerged from a case challenging President Trump’s executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship. While three federal courts had blocked the policy nationwide, the Supreme Court allowed it to proceed against anyone who isn’t a named plaintiff in the lawsuits. This creates a legal environment where the same government policy can be simultaneously blocked for some people but enforced against others.

    Crucially, the court based its decision on interpreting the Judiciary Act of 1789 – not the Constitution – meaning Congress could restore this judicial power simply by passing new legislation.

    But what exactly are these injunctions, and why do they matter to everyday Americans?

    Immediate, irreparable harm

    When the government creates a policy that might violate the Constitution or federal law, affected people can sue in federal court to stop it. While these lawsuits work their way through the courts – a process that often takes years – judges can issue what are called “preliminary injunctions” to temporarily pause the policy if they determine it might cause immediate, irreparable harm.

    A “nationwide” injunction – sometimes called a “universal” injunction – goes further by stopping the policy for everyone across the country, not just for the people who filed the lawsuit.

    Importantly, these injunctions are designed to be temporary. They merely preserve the status quo until courts can fully examine the case’s merits. But in practice, litigation proceeds so slowly that executive actions blocked by the courts often expire when successor administrations abandon the policies.

    Legislation introduced by GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley would ban judges from issuing most nationwide injunctions.
    Sen. Chuck Grassley office

    More executive orders, more injunctions

    Nationwide injunctions aren’t new, but several things have made them more contentious recently.

    First, since a closely divided and polarized Congress rarely passes major legislation anymore, presidents rely more on executive orders to get substantive things done. This creates more opportunities to challenge presidential actions in court.

    Second, lawyers who want to challenge these orders got better at “judge shopping” – filing cases in districts where they’re likely to get judges who agree with their client’s views.

    Third, with growing political division, both parties used these injunctions more aggressively whenever the other party controls the White House.

    Affecting real people

    These legal fights have tangible consequences for millions of Americans.

    Take DACA, the common name for the program formally called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which protects about 500,000 young immigrants from deportation. For more than 10 years, these young immigrants, known as “Dreamers,” have faced constant uncertainty.

    That’s because, when President Barack Obama created DACA in 2012 and sought to expand it via executive order in 2015, a Texas judge blocked the expansion with a nationwide injunction. When Trump tried to end DACA, judges in California, New York and Washington, D.C. blocked that move. The program, and the legal challenges to it, continued under President Joe Biden. Now, the second Trump administration faces continued legal challenges over the constitutionality of the DACA program.

    More recently, judges have used nationwide injunctions to block several Trump policies. Three courts stopped the president’s attempt to deny citizenship to babies born to mothers who lack legal permanent residency in the United States – the cases that led the Supreme Court to limit the reach of injunctions. Judges have also temporarily blocked Trump’s efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the military and to freeze some federal funding for a variety of programs.

    Nationwide injunctions have also blocked congressional legislation.

    The Corporate Transparency Act, passed in 2021 and originally scheduled to go into effect in 2024, combats financial crimes by requiring businesses to disclose their true owners to the government. A Texas judge blocked this law in 2024 after gun stores challenged it.

    In early 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the law to take effect, but the Trump administration announced it simply wouldn’t enforce it – showing how these legal battles can become political power struggles.

    A polarized Congress rarely passes major legislation anymore, so presidents – including Donald Trump – have relied on executive orders to get things done.
    Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

    A ruling that Congress could change

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA was notably narrow in its legal reasoning. The court explicitly stated that its ruling “rests solely on the statutory authority that federal courts possess under the Judiciary Act of 1789” and that it expressed “no view on the Government’s argument that Article III forecloses universal relief.”

    This distinction matters enormously. Because the court based its decision on interpreting a congressional statute rather than the Constitution itself, Congress has the power to overturn the ruling simply by passing new legislation that authorizes federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions.

    The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, emphasized that universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts” under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The court found these injunctions lack sufficient historical precedent in traditional equity practice.

    However, the three dissenting justices strongly disagreed. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, focused on the importance of birthright citizenship, explaining that “every court to evaluate the Order has deemed it patently unconstitutional.”

    As a result, the dissent argues, “the Government instead tries its hand at a different game. It asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone.”

    Legislative solutions on the table

    Congress was already considering legislation to limit judges’ ability to grant nationwide injunctions.

    Another way to address the concerns about a single judge blocking government action would be to require a three-judge panel to hear cases involving nationwide injunctions, requiring at least two of them to agree. This is similar to how courts handled major civil rights cases in the 1950s and 1960s.

    My research on this topic suggests that three judges working together would be less likely to make partisan decisions, while still being able to protect constitutional rights when necessary. Today’s technology also makes it easier for judges in different locations to work together than it was decades ago.

    What comes next

    With the Supreme Court limiting judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions based on an old statute, the ball is now in Congress’ court. Lawmakers could choose to restore this judicial power with new legislation, further restrict it, or leave the current limitations in place.

    Until Congress acts, the legal landscape has fundamentally shifted.

    Future challenges to presidential actions may require either cumbersome class action lawsuits or a patchwork of individual cases – potentially leaving many Americans without immediate protection from policies that courts determine violate the Constitution. But unlike a constitutional ruling, this outcome isn’t permanent: Congress holds the key to change it.

    This is an updated and expanded version of a story originally published on April 3, 2025.

    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.

    – ref. What the Supreme Court ruling against ‘universal injunctions’ means for court challenges to presidential actions – https://theconversation.com/what-the-supreme-court-ruling-against-universal-injunctions-means-for-court-challenges-to-presidential-actions-260040

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: “We are all inclusive from birth”: the results of the All-Russian competition “My Good Business” have been summed up

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: State University of Management – Official website of the State –

    On June 27, 2025, a ceremony was held to present awards to the winners of the All-Russian competition of socially responsible initiatives of entrepreneurs and socially oriented non-profit organizations “My Good Business”.

    The organizer of the All-Russian competition “My Good Business” is the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia. The federal operator of the Competition for the third year in a row was the State University of Management. The award ceremony for the winners, as in the previous year, was held at the Social Entrepreneurship Forum “More than Business”.

    “This is a very kind competition, fully corresponding to its name. It is not only and not so much about money, but about the impulse of the soul. The exhibition in the foyer clearly showed the interest and involvement of entrepreneurs and their clients, grandmothers and mothers. I am personally happy to participate in the main events of the Competition,” admitted Deputy Minister of Economic Development of the Russian Federation Tatyana Ilyushnikova and thanked the State University of Management for assistance in organizing the Competition.

    “GUU has been the operator of the Competition for the third year already. We can see how interest in it is growing based on the number of applications. I often visit the regions and never miss the opportunity to visit local My Business centers to meet social entrepreneurs. It is rare to find such passionate people who are ready to give everything for the sake of people and the promotion of their projects. I have never regretted that we started working on this Competition,” shared Vladimir Stroyev, Rector of GUU.

    “We see that more and more entrepreneurs are taking part in the Competition, both small and large businesses. Our foundation will be happy to continue supporting the Competition. We have recently developed state standards for assessing the social effects of good business. All of these are elements of a major task – focusing the economy on people,” said Roman Davydov, development advisor for the Our Future Foundation and member of the Public Council of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development.

    “My experience of meeting with entrepreneurs shows that for every second one, the main motive for implementing their projects is the desire to be socially useful. Focus on society has recently become increasingly important. And since everyone here is for good, there are simply no losers in this Competition,” said Dmitry Litvin, head of the Rosmolodezh.Predprinimatel and Rosmolodezh.Profi departments.

    Results of the All-Russian competition of projects in the field of social entrepreneurship and NPO “My good business”

    Track “Social Interaction”

    Nomination “Good Guy”: 2nd place: Irina Romacheva, project “Implementation of charitable and infrastructure programs aimed at supporting youth and children’s sports, adaptation of people with disabilities”, Nizhny Novgorod Region; 1st place: Anna Knyazeva, project “Dorogobuzhkotlomash – for children”, Smolensk Region.

    Nomination “Cultural Code”: 1st place: Iskandar Bakhtiyarov, project “Annual holiday for first-graders “Children are our future” from the Ufanet company”, Republic of Bashkortostan.

    Nomination “Initiatives to support socially responsible business and NPOs”: 3rd place: Nikolay Makarov, project “Competition for students of the construction program “KSM Scholar”, Republic of Karelia; 2nd place: Irina Medvedeva, project “Social entrepreneurship development program “Start your own business”, Nizhny Novgorod Region; 1st place: Evgeny Petrov, project “Information technologies in the field of social entrepreneurship”, Nizhny Novgorod Region.

    Track “Help with meaning”

    Nomination “Kind Assistance”: 3rd place: Anna Zueva, project “Charity Shop “Teplo”, Perm Krai; 2nd place: Tatyana Egorova, project “Assistance Point for Participants of the SVO “Territory of Good 26”, Stavropol Krai; 1st place: Aishat Karaeva, project “Comprehensive Social, Medical, Scientific and Information Support for the Population of the Republic of Dagestan”, Republic of Dagestan.

    Nomination “Young Entrepreneur”: 3rd place: Yaroslav Kozlov, project “NeuroCareer Guidance”, Moscow; 2nd place: Anna Pokshivanova, project “Centers for Additional Education for Children and Family Classes “Mirta Superclass”, Lipetsk Region; 1st place: Vladislav Kozin, project “School of Music KozinMusicEducation”, Rostov Region.

    Nomination “Cultural Code”: 3rd place: Elena Bobrova, project “OOO “Valeologiya” Comprehensive rehabilitation of children with disabilities in the Ivanovo Regional Center for Exercise Therapy and Sports Medicine”, Ivanovo Region; 2nd place: Marina Kolesnichenko, project “Theatrical anthology of school literature (Educational theater of the Association of Artists of the Moscow Art Theater)”, Moscow; 1st place: Irina Slesareva, project “STARFISH network of family health aqua clubs”, Moscow.

    Nomination “Kind Mom”: 3rd place: Anastasia Kupriyanova, project “Let’s Help You Learn”, Yaroslavl Region; 2nd place: Yulia Moshkina, project “Family Inclusive Club “We Are Together”, Kirov Region; 1st place: Ekaterina Davydova, project “Correctional and Development Center for Children with Disabilities “MIR”, Tyumen Region.

    Nomination “Good Guy”: 3rd place: Roman Usachev, project “EQUICENTER – power in motion”, Lugansk People’s Republic; 2nd place: Olga Repkina, project “Good Robot” – creation and development of a children’s technical creativity club”, Arkhangelsk region; 1st place: Olga Cherpakova, project “Ecosystem of assistance to the elderly and disabled “Comfort”, Tyumen region.

    Nomination “Crafts of Russia”: 3rd place: Ulyana Voitenko, project “Siberian Will”, Novosibirsk Region; 2nd place: Elena Kuvshinova, “Project for the creation of a cultural and educational center for folk art and crafts in the city of Kirovo-Chepetsk, Kirov Region”, Kirov Region; 1st place: Vladimir Matveyev, project “Reproduction of ancient Russian jewelry”, Novgorod Region.

    Silver Business nomination: 3rd place: Larisa Krutskikh, project From Movement to Speech, Altai Krai; 2nd place: Oleg Serdyuk, project Organization of Care for the Elderly and People with Limited Mobility at Home and in Hospital, Saratov Oblast; 1st place: Galina Bozhenko, project I Want! I Can! I Do!, Donetsk People’s Republic.

    Nomination: “Working to Help”: 3rd place: Gulnaz Kamalova, project “Inclusive Workshops “Dobroshtuki”, Republic of Bashkortostan; 2nd place: Yulia Romeiko, project “Charity Program “Social Hotel for Children with Cancer “Good House”, Moscow; 1st place: Marina Sintsova, project “Center for Reconstructive Dermatology, Cosmetology and Aesthetic Rehabilitation for Participants of the Special Military Operation (SVO)”, Samara Region.

    My Kind Startup nomination: 3rd place: Daniil Bredikhin, project “Smart sticker for the blind and visually impaired”, Oryol region; 2nd place: Alexander Ryabinin, project “Elevatek: creating the opportunity to live without restrictions”, Bryansk region; 1st place: Alexander Litvinov, project “Production of polymer ophthalmological implants for mass use to solve medical and social problems associated with visual impairment”, Nizhny Novgorod region.

    Special nomination “Best social franchise”: Winner – Olga Zubkova, project “Inclusive camp Novy Gorod “Druzhny”, Perm Krai.

    We congratulate all the winners and are already looking forward to the start of the next season of the All-Russian competition “My Good Business”.

    Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: Note to Correspondents: Lead author selected for the second independent progress study on youth, peace and security

    Source: United Nations secretary general

    In its resolution A/RES/79/1 on the Pact for the Future, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to carry out the second independent progress study on youth’s positive contribution to peace processes and conflict resolution. The report will be submitted to Member States by the end of the eightieth session of the General Assembly.

    The request follows Security Council resolution 2250 (2015) adopted almost ten years ago. The resolution mandated the development of the first independent progress study, entitled The Missing Peace and published in 2018. Building on this work, the second independent progress study will serve as a critical input to advancing the youth, peace and security agenda within the multilateral system.

    Ms, Nanjala Nyabola (Kenya) was selected to lead the drafting process of the report. She is a writer, researcher and policy expert based in Nairobi, Kenya, with extensive expertise on youth engagement, technology, social change and digital rights. She has held fellowships and research roles with the Oxford Internet Institute, the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Lab, the Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), NYU’s Centre on International Cooperation, and Strathmore University’s CIPIT. She studied at the University of Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, as well as at the University of Birmingham and Harvard Law School. Her writings appear in The Nation, Al Jazeera, and The Boston Review.

    Ms. Nyabola will work in close coordination with the United Nations Joint Secretariat on youth, peace and Security, composed of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, the United Nations Population Fund, and the United Nations Youth Office. 

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warner & Kaine Statement on Resignation of Jim Ryan As President of UVA

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Virginia Tim Kaine
    Published: June 27 2025

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (D-VA) released the following statement after Jim Ryan resigned as President of University of Virginia following pressure from the Department of Justice (DOJ):
    “Virginia’s economy and prosperity depend on the strength and integrity of our higher education system. It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth’s globally recognized university remove President Ryan—a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward—over ridiculous ‘culture war’ traps. Decisions about UVA’s leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia’s well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia’s future.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Statement of U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine on Resignation of Jim Ryan as UVA President

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Commonwealth of Virginia Mark R Warner
    WASHINGTON —Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) released the following statement after Jim Ryan resigned as President of University of Virginia following pressure from the Department of Justice (DOJ):
    “Virginia’s economy and prosperity depend on the strength and integrity of our higher education system. It is outrageous that officials in the Trump Department of Justice demanded the Commonwealth’s globally recognized university remove President Ryan—a strong leader who has served UVA honorably and moved the university forward—over ridiculous ‘culture war’ traps. Decisions about UVA’s leadership belong solely to its Board of Visitors, in keeping with Virginia’s well-established and respected system of higher education governance. This is a mistake that hurts Virginia’s future.”
        

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI: CIRI Announces the 2025 Recipient for the Award for Excellence in Investor Relations

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    TORONTO, June 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The Canadian Investor Relations Institute (CIRI), Canada’s national association representing investor relations professionals, is pleased to announce that Jennifer McCaughey, F.CIRI, has been chosen as the 37th recipient of the Award for Excellence in Investor Relations. Jennifer was honoured at CIRI’s 38th Annual Investor Relations Conference in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario.

    The Award for Excellence in Investor Relations is presented by CIRI to honour individuals who have made an exceptional contribution to the investor relations profession and the Institute.

    Award for Excellence in Investor Relations

     

    Jennifer McCaughey, F.CIRI, has had a distinguished career in Investor Relations, spanning over 25 years with several key small-cap, mid-cap and large-cap issuers. Most notably, she served as the leading IRO at Transcontinental for 15 years. During this time, Ms. McCaughey joined the CIRI Quebec Chapter Executive as a member (2010-2016) and assumed the Chapter Chair position from 2012-2014, where her leadership significantly expanded the Chapter’s reach beyond the IR community. Ms. McCaughey’s efforts to broaden CIRI’s scope aligned with the overarching goal of enhancing the IRO’s importance within senior management and the C-suite.

    Throughout her leadership, Ms. McCaughey instilled a vision to grow and expand the influence of the IR function, effectively channelling her efforts through CIRI to achieve this goal.

    “Jennifer is a highly regarded investor relations professional in Canada and a significant contributor to CIRI. She is recognized for her outstanding leadership, commitment to best practices, and steadfast support for CIRI and the broader IR community,” said Nathalie Megann, CPIR, President & CEO, CIRI. “Whether through her role at Calian Group or her ongoing efforts to advance the profession as a mentor, advocate, and thought leader, she continually strives to open doors and expand the exposure of the value of the investor relations profession through active involvement and leadership in the Canadian investor relations community.”

    Ms. McCaughey received the designation of F.CIRI, the CIRI Fellowship in 2021, which recognizes IR leaders who bring distinction to the profession and serve as role models for others. She also received the Belle Mulligan Award for Leadership in Investor Relations in 2014, which recognizes individuals who have shown singular leadership in one or more aspects of the practice of IR. As a longstanding member of CIRI, she has generously shared her expertise and experience through speaking engagements, leadership roles and mentorship.

    Ms. McCaughey is the Director of Investor Relations at Calian Group, bringing nearly 30 years of experience in capital markets and investor relations. She holds a Bachelor of Commerce in Finance from McGill University and is a CFA Charterholder. 

    “I’m incredibly honoured to receive the Award for Excellence in Investor Relations from CIRI. This recognition reflects not just a milestone in my career, but a journey spanning nearly 30 years in the capital markets, the majority of which has been dedicated to investor relations. IR has been more than a profession—it’s been a passion. I’ve always believed in the strategic value of investor relations and the critical role it plays in building trust, enhancing corporate reputation, and driving long-term value for companies. To have now received all three of CIRI’s awards is truly humbling, and I share this honour with the many colleagues and mentors who have inspired me along the way. I hope this recognition encourages others in our field to continue raising the bar for excellence in IR. CIRI plays a vital role in supporting that mission, and I’m proud to be part of such a dedicated community.”

    “I extend sincere congratulations to Jennifer as well as heartfelt thanks for her valued contributions to CIRI and the IR profession,” said Nathalie Megann.

    About CIRI
    CIRI is a professional, not-for-profit association of executives responsible for communication between public corporations, investors and the financial community. CIRI contributes to the transparency and integrity of the Canadian capital markets by advancing the practice of investor relations, the professional competency of its members and the stature of the profession. With over 300 members and four Chapters across the country, CIRI is the voice of IR in Canada. For further information, please visit CIRI.org. 

    For further information, please contact:
    Nathalie Megann, CPIR, ICD.D
    President & CEO
    Canadian Investor Relations Institute
    (416) 364-8200 ext. 101
    nmegann@ciri.org

    A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/b4e523d7-cdcf-409e-9af6-66917d968a83

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Judge Kenneth A. Talley named district administrative judge for the District Court of Maryland in Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s counties

    Source: US State of Maryland

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    June 27, 2025

    Government Relations and Public Affairs
    187 Harry S. Truman Parkway
    Annapolis, Maryland 21401

    Judge Kenneth A. Talley named district administrative judge for the District Court of Maryland in Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s counties

    ANNAPOLIS, Md. – District Court of Maryland Chief Judge John P. Morrissey, with the approval of Supreme Court of Maryland Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader, has named Charles County District Court Judge Kenneth A. Talley as the new administrative judge for District 4 (Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s counties). Judge Talley’s new role is effective August 1, 2025.

    Judge Talley succeeds District Administrative Judge Karen Christy Holt Chesser, who will step down from her administrative judge role in preparation for her retirement in 2026.

    “Judge Talley is an excellent jurist and choice as the new administrative judge for the District Court in Southern Maryland,” said Supreme Court of Maryland Chief Justice Matthew J. Fader. “I am confident that he will continue to be an effective leader in his district to provide fair, efficient, and effective justice for all.”

    District 4 Administrative Judge Kenneth A. Talley

    District administrative judges oversee the administration of the court and manage trial calendars to ensure the expeditious disposition of cases.

    “Judge Talley’s leadership in the District Court in Charles County for the past 16 years has prepared him to take on this new role,” said District Court of Maryland Chief Judge John P. Morrissey. “Administrative Judge Chesser has been an exemplary administrative Judge, has served her District well for the past 15 years, and will be available to manage the transition with Judge Talley.”   

    Judge Talley was appointed as an associate judge to the District Court in Charles County in May 2009 by then-Governor Martin O’Malley. 

    Judge Talley has served on the Judiciary’s Security and Post-COVID Judicial Operations Committees. Additionally, he served as a member of the Maryland Judiciary’s Judicial Council Equal Justice Committee from 2020 to 2022. 

    Judge Talley served as a law clerk for retired Judge Herman C. Dawson, Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, from 1998 to 1999, before starting his career as an attorney at Don Ansell & Associates, at which he worked from 1999 to 2000. He formerly served as an assistant public defender in Charles County from 2000 to 2005. Additionally, he served as a partner at Collins & Talley from 2005 to 2007, and as an assistant state’s attorney in Charles County from 2007 to 2009. 

    Judge Talley earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Maryland, College Park, in government and politics in 1990, and a juris doctorate from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1993. He is admitted to the Maryland Bar, and he is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association. He has been a member of the Charles County Bar Association since 2002, serving on its board of directors from 2004 to 2009, as treasurer, secretary, vice president, and president, and still served in the role as president upon his appointment to the bench in 2009. Judge Talley was also a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America.

    Judge Talley served from 2004 to 2007 as a community judge for the Charles County Teen Court Program, where he earned the Community Judge Appreciation Award for Outstanding Service. He also served as a member of the board of directors of Jude House, Inc. In 2001, Judge Talley earned the Assistant Public Defender of the Year Award, District IV.

    “It is a great honor and a privilege to be able to serve the citizens, staff, and judges of Southern Maryland, said Judge Kenneth A. Talley, Charles County District Court.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: 27 June 2025 Departmental update Partners unite to launch WHO Disability Health Equity

    Source: World Health Organisation

    WHO has launched the WHO Disability Health Equity Initiative, a landmark global initiative to advance health equity for over 1.3 billion people with disabilities.

    Unveiled on 10 June 2025, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York during the 18th session of the Conference of States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the initiative marks a bold step toward achieving health equity for all. The initiative aims to guide governments, health institutions, and communities in addressing barriers to care, promoting inclusive policies, and strengthening data and research on disability and health. Over 150 participants—government leaders, civil society, academia, and persons with disabilities—gathered in person, while many more joined online.

    Darryl Barrett, WHO’s Technical Lead on Disability presented a bold vision for the initiative. He discussed persistent systemic failures – political inaction, underinvestment, fragmented collaboration, and the exclusion of organizations of persons with disabilities – as critical barriers to progress. “Health systems are not fit-for-purpose,” Barrett said. “If we agree on Health for All, then we must agree that services must be inclusive and accessible. Right now, we can’t say that with confidence.”

    The Initiative is built around four strategic pillars:

    1. Leadership by persons with disabilities and their organizations
    2. Political prioritization of disability-inclusive health
    3. Inclusive health systems and service delivery
    4. Strengthening data and evidence

    Barrett also outlined how this new initiative will facilitate strategic engagement with key partners to advance health equity for persons with disabilities, including through a multi-stakeholder network, partnerships with the private sector, technical guidance development, and support for country-level implementation. He emphasized that WHO’s work has been shaped by years of collaboration with diverse partners, including organizations of persons with disabilities. “We at WHO haven’t done this by ourselves,” Barrett noted. “The strong presence of partners – both in the room and online – reflects the shared commitment needed to drive meaningful, lasting change.”

    David Duncan, Special Olympics athlete and Chair of the Global Athlete Leadership Council, delivered a powerful testimony about the discrimination people with intellectual and developmental conditions often face in health care. “Invisible, unknown, disrespected… but I know it’s possible to do better – and that’s something everyone deserves,” Duncan said.

    Norway’s Minister of Culture and Equality, Lubna Jaffery, issued a powerful call to action, urging governments to close health access gaps and uphold the rights of persons with disabilities. Emphasizing access to health services, reproductive autonomy for women with disabilities, and expanded availability of assistive products, Jaffery affirmed Norway’s leadership in disability-inclusive development. “Inclusion is not just a policy, it is a principle and we are committed to making it a reality for all.”

    Sweden’s Director-General of the Agency for Participation, Malin Ekman-Aldén, echoed this commitment, stressing that advancing health equity for persons with disabilities is a human rights imperative. She highlighted Sweden’s continued investments in inclusive development and welcomed the WHO initiative as a key driver of accountability, better data, and systemic change.

    Dirk Platzen, Director at Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, underscored the need for political leadership in building inclusive health systems. Introducing Australia’s new International Disability Equity and Rights Strategy, he called for recognition of health as a fundamental human right, not a privilege.

    Representing Germany, Michael Schloms of the Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development emphasized international collaboration, sustainable financing, and shared responsibility. Reflecting on Germany’s experience hosting global disability events and co-leading the Global Disability Summit, he reaffirmed support for the initiative and the Amman-Berlin Declaration.

    Speakers from civil society, funding agencies, and academia highlighted the importance of funding, civil society engagement, and academic research in sustaining momentum and ensuring accountability. Ola Abualghaib, Director of the Global Disability Fund, emphasized the Fund Strategy’s alignment with the new WHO initiative. Hannah Loryman, Co-Chair of the International Disability and Development Consortium UN Task Force, stressed the vital role of civil society in advocacy, technical input, and accountability. Bonnielin Swenor, Director of the Disability Health Research Center at Johns Hopkins University, highlighted academia’s responsibility to advance disability health equity through inclusive research, education, and community engagement. She called for a paradigm shift from “living with a disability” to “thriving with a disability,” driven by data and implementation science.

    This initiative offers a pathway to making better choices – choices that ensure dignity, autonomy, and the right to health for all persons with disabilities.

    Jarrod Clyne / Deputy Director of the International Disability Alliance

    Audience members raised critical issues including the need for sustainable health system funding in humanitarian crises, the inclusion of Deaf people and persons with a psychosocial condition, the importance of training health professionals, digital health acccessibility, and support for independent living – highlighting the diverse and intersectional challenges that must be addressed to achieve true health equity for persons with disabilities.

    Jarrod Clyne, Deputy Executive Director of the International Disability Alliance, closed the event by stressing the importance of persistence, partnership, and shared responsibility. “This initiative offers a pathway to making better choices – choices that ensure dignity, autonomy, and the right to health for all persons with disabilities,” he said.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Dingell Announces $20.5 Million in NSF Grants for the University of Michigan

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) today announced that the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor will receive $20,539,108 in grant funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support a wide range of research initiatives. The funding will advance work in critical areas including artificial intelligence, quantum photonics, neuroscience, wildfire and flood response, social science, advanced manufacturing, cyber-physical systems, and more.

    “The University of Michigan continues to lead in innovation that addresses real-world challenges and drives economic growth,” said Dingell. “These investments will support breakthrough research across diverse fields, from improving public safety and infrastructure to exploring new materials and technologies to strengthening Michigan’s role as a national leader in science and innovation while building a smarter, healthier, and more sustainable future.”

    Projects receiving funding include:  

    • $31,443.00 for Doctoral Dissertation Research: The fitness impact of female social resource competition

    • $20,000.00 for Broadening Student Participation to the 7th Annual Learning for Dynamics and Control Conference (L4DC25); Ann Arbor, Michigan; 4-6 June 2025

    • $20,000.00 for A Conference on the Geometry, Topology, and Dynamics of Infinite-Type Surfaces

    • $66,962.00 for Bootcamp for the 2025 Algebraic Geometry Summer Research Institute

    • $70,007.00 for RAPID: 2025 Southern California Fires Embers Project: Crowdsourcing Data on the Distribution and Transport of Firebrands

    • $302,965.00 for SBIR Phase I: Turmeric Assisted Pressure Sterilization

    • $499,742.00 for ACED: GRAM-CAROLINE: Grammar-Reinforced AI Modeling with Conditional Autoencoder and Relevance-Oriented Learning for Interpretable knowledge Extraction

    • $20,000.00 for IUCRC Planning Grant University of Michigan: Cyber and Terrorism Insurance Studies (CATIS) Center

    • $500,000.00 for CPS: Small: Lifted Hybridization: A New Representation for Efficient Control and Verification of Cyber-Physical Systems

    • $31,500.00 for Doctoral Dissertation Research: Craft Specialization and Economic Organization

    • $35,000.00 for Conference: CBMS Conference: Strong Matrix Properties and the Inverse Eigenvalue Problem

    • $1,000,000.00 for IUCRC Phase I University of Michigan: Center for Digital Twins in Manufacturing (CDTM)

    • $750,000.00 for Collaborative Research: CS2: A Comprehensive Pipeline for Formal Verification of Floating-Point Errors and Compilation for Scientific Computing

    • $500,000.00 for ACED: A Unified Framework of Physics-informed and Domain-Adapted Generative Diffusion Model for Efficient and Reliable Nanophotonics Inverse Design

    • $599,998.00 for CAREER: Topography-mediated Immunomodulation for Implant-associated Infections

    • $640,000.00 for High-Intensity Tunable Light by Frequency Upshifting in Plasma Waves

    • $690,000.00 for CAREER: Empowering People Who are Blind to Create Personal Assistive Technology

    • $600,000.00 for CAREER: Bringing Structure to the Unstructured: Robust Causal and Statistical Modeling of High-dimensional Unstructured Data

    • $599,491.00 for CAREER: Data-Driven Extrusion-Based Robotic Three-Dimensional Printing of Reinforced Concrete

    • $1,753,908.00 for Research Infrastructure: Leveraging the Research Data Ecosystem for ICPSR’s Comprehensive Data Archive

    • $25,000.00 for Conference: Modern Perspectives in Representation Theory

    • $9,250.00 for Conference: Travel support for trainees to attend Dynein 2025; Ann Arbor, Michigan; 22-24 July 2025

    • $1,244,153.00 for SBIR Phase II: Ubiquitous Flood Forecasting using Sensors and Analytics

    • $10,024,230.00 for Expanding the Industries of Ideas: Understanding the link between research investments, jobs, and skills

    • $205,596.00 for Collaborative Research: NERC-NSFGEO–Constraining Longwave Energy Flows in Cold Climates (CLEFCC)

    The National Science Foundation(NSF) supports research, innovation, and discovery that provides the foundation for economic growth in this country. By advancing the frontiers of science and engineering, our nation can develop the knowledge and cutting-edge technologies needed to address the challenges we face today and will face in the future.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Republic Services Responds to Dingell Questions About Hazardous Waste at Wayne Disposal

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (12th District of Michigan)

    Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (MI-06) today shared a letter from Republic Services in response to questions raised at her June 18 Western Wayne Community Town Hall regarding hazardous waste and safety at Wayne Disposal Inc. 

    In the letter, Russ Knocke, Vice President of Public and Government Affairs for Republic, writes:

    “Per our recent telephone conversation, we would like to provide some answers to questions we believe were raised by participants at your Western Wayne Town Hall event on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. Specifically, we would like to provide details regarding the testing and characterization procedures in place for all waste being shipped to WDI for disposal by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as part of its Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (“FUSRAP”).”

    Excerpts from the letter:

    “WDI is not permitted to accept waste any more radioactive than a traditional non-hazardous solid waste landfill in Michigan- USACE simply chooses to dispose of this material at WDI because of its highly engineered construction and robust environmental monitoring programs.”

    “WDI has an approved Radiological Monitoring Plan for the collection of data specifically designed to ensure the safe management and disposal of radiological waste. As part of that plan, the site monitors worker exposure, perimeter air samples, leachate, surface water, radon and groundwater data for radionuclides. All data collected is submitted to EGLE for its review. Site worker exposure has always been well below occupational safety levels, all monitoring results are consistent with natural background concentrations and below established action levels, and landfill leachate meets drinking water standards for radioactivity even before it is treated. In summary, WDI has a robust radiological monitoring program and makes the data publicly available via submission to EGLE as part of its regular compliance reporting cadence.”

    “WDI remains firmly committed to transparency, active community engagement, and the responsible management of all materials accepted at the facility. We are confident in the strength and rigor of our environmental monitoring programs, which are designed to ensure that site operations remain protective of human health and the environment, with no adverse offsite impacts.”

    View the full text of the letter here.

    In addition to the information provided in the letter, Republic informed Dingell they are sending two of their team members to a nuclear training program at Harvard University in August and offered for someone from VBT Fire to join them. They also stated that if there’s ever a similar program with the University of Michigan, they would be open to such a training in state.

    In addition, at Rep. Dingell’s request, Republic agreed to create a website for the landfill for transparency and community engagement.

    The letter comes ahead of the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) public information session on Republic Services’ application to expand operations at Wayne Disposal.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Chairman Cotton to Introduce Bill to Reform, Improve, and Streamline ODNI

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEContact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353June 27, 2025
    Chairman Cotton to Introduce Bill to Reform, Improve, and Streamline ODNI 
    Washington, D.C. — Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, today will introduce the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act, legislation that would realign resources to intelligence missions, eliminate duplicative efforts and inefficient, non-functioning bureaucracies across the intelligence community (IC) and return the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to its original size, scope, and mission.
    Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), and James Lankford (R-Oklahoma) are cosponsoring the legislation.
    “Created after the September 11th attacks, ODNI was intended to be a lean organization to align America’s intelligence resources and authorities, not the overstaffed and bureaucratic behemoth that it is today, where coordinators coordinate with other coordinators. These reforms will be vital to keeping our country safe from the wide range of threats that we continue to face,” said Senator Cotton. 
    Text of the Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act may be found here.
    The Intelligence Community Efficiency and Effectiveness Act would:
    Cap ODNI full-time staff at 650.
    Eliminate certain reporting requirements and the transfer of personnel authorities.
    Modify the National Intelligence Council’s duties and terminate the National Intelligence Managers’ positions.
    Terminate the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) at ODNI and transfer its responsibilities to the FBI.
    Redesignate the National Counterterrorism Center as the National Counterterrorism and Counternarcotics Center, and limit its mission to foreign intelligence authorities. 
    Terminate the National Counterproliferation and Biosecurity Center (NCBC) at ODNI, transfer NCBC’s responsibilities to the CIA, and redesignate it as the National Counterproliferation Center.
    Repeal various positions (including the Director of the NCSC, the Director of the NCBC, and the Intelligence Community Chief Data Officer), and seven units, centers, councils, offices, and programs (including obsolete bureaucratic entities that have failed to function, such as the Joint Intelligence Community Council).  
    Prohibit National Intelligence Program funds from being used to outsource IC analytic efforts to organizations that take funds from foreign governments.  
    Require the DNI to wind down and terminate the National Intelligence University within 180 days.
    Prohibit use of National Intelligence Program funds to implement any diversity, equity, or inclusion practice in the intelligence community.

    MIL OSI USA News –