DIRS.INFO The most relevant business & tech news

☆ Supreme Court to Examine Clash Between Idaho Abortion Ban and Federal Law
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-24 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday about whether Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicts with a federal law that protects patients who need emergency care, in a case that would determine access to abortions in emergency rooms across the country. The federal law affects only the sliver of women who face dire medical complications during pregnancy. But a broad decision by the court could have implications for the about 14 states that have enacted near-total bans on abortion since the court overturned a constitutional right to abortion in June 2022. The dispute is the second time in less than a month that the Supreme Court is grappling with abortion. In late March, the justices considered the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone.

Persons: Samuel A, Alito Jr Organizations: Jackson, Health Organization Locations: Idaho’s, Alabama, Dobbs v

☆ Supreme Court Appears Sharply Divided in Emergency Abortion Case
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-24 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court appeared sharply divided on Wednesday over whether federal law should allow doctors to perform emergency abortions in states with near-total bans on the procedure, in a case that could determine access to abortion in emergency rooms across the country. The lively, two-hour argument focused on a clash between Idaho, whose law limits access to abortion unless the life of the pregnant woman is in danger, and federal law. Questioning by the justices suggested a divide along ideological — and possibly gender — lines. “What Idaho is doing is waiting for women to wait and deteriorate and suffer the lifelong health consequences with no possible upside for the fetus,” said Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the federal government. “It just stacks tragedy upon tragedy.”Justice Elena Kagan interjected that the current situation seemed untenable: “It can’t be the right standard of care to force somebody onto a helicopter.”

Persons: ”, Elizabeth B, Elena Kagan interjected Locations: Idaho

☆ Live Updates: Supreme Court to Consider Access to Emergency Abortions
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-24 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +5 min

A hospital emergency department in Jackson, Mississippi, one of several states with bans that outlaw most abortions, allowing it to save a woman’s life, but not to prevent severe health consequences. The abortion case before the Supreme Court on Wednesday centers on a federal law requiring emergency medical care for any urgent condition, but its specific mention of one condition — pregnancy — will matter most. The law requires that emergency departments provide stabilizing care not only to patients facing imminent death, but patients whose health would otherwise deteriorate. There were alarming cases involving pregnant women in labor jettisoned from private hospitals before their babies could be born. “I remember a young woman in labor who was sent to Parkland from another hospital — a religiously-affiliated hospital,” he said.

Persons: ”, Dr, Ron Anderson, “, Sara Rosenbaum, Rosenbaum, Roe, Wade, EMTALA Organizations: Labor, Parkland, George Washington University Locations: Jackson , Mississippi, Idaho, Texas, Dallas, Parkland, ”

☆ Two Lawsuits, in Texas and Idaho, Highlight Fight Over Emergency Medicine Law
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-24 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

In the weeks after the Supreme Court dismantled a constitutional right to abortion in 2022 and returned the issue of access to the states, a new series of court battles began. After the Biden administration announced it would protect access to abortion under emergency situations through a decades-old federal law, conservative states pushed back, leading to dueling lawsuits in Texas and Idaho. Those cases created a divide among federal courts, known as a circuit split. It intensified pressure on the Supreme Court to settle whether the law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, pre-empts state abortion bans, shielding doctors who perform emergency abortions in efforts to stabilize the health of a pregnant woman. After Roe fell, the Department of Health and Human Services issued guidance to hospitals, including those in states with abortion bans, that federal law mandated that pregnant women be allowed to receive abortions in emergency rooms so long as doctors believed the procedures were required for “stabilizing treatment.”

Persons: Roe, ” Organizations: Biden, Labor Act, Department of Health, Human Services Locations: Texas, Idaho

☆ Supreme Court Seems Poised to Allow Local Laws That Penalize Homelessness
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-22 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared inclined on Monday to uphold a series of local ordinances that allowed a small Oregon city to ban homeless people from sleeping or camping in public spaces. The justices seemed split along ideological lines in the case, which has sweeping implications for how the country deals with a growing homelessness crisis. In a lengthy and, at times, fiery argument that lasted over two and a half hours, questioning from the justices reflected the complexity of the homelessness debate. They wrestled with what lines could be drawn to regulate homelessness — and, crucially, who should make those rules. The conservative majority appeared sympathetic to arguments by the city of Grants Pass, Ore., that homelessness is a complicated issue best handled by local lawmakers and communities, not judges.

Locations: Oregon, Grants

☆ Live Updates: Supreme Court Considers How Far Cities Can Police Homelessness
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-22 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +4 min

Gavin Newsom of California ordinarily have little in common. One is a conservative think tank in Arizona, the other a Democrat leading one of the nation’s most liberal states. On Monday, the Supreme Court will consider an Oregon case that could reshape homelessness policy nationally. On its face, The City of Grants Pass v. Johnson asks how far cities can constitutionally go to restrict sleeping and camping in parks and on sidewalks. Advocates for homeless people, the American Psychiatric Association and several left-leaning states, including New York, Illinois and Minnesota, argue that criminalizing homelessness only worsens the problem.

Persons: Gavin Newsom, Johnson, Daniel Bress, Timothy Sandefur, ”, Newsom, “ Organizations: Goldwater Institute, Gov, Democrat, ., Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Democratic, Republican, American Psychiatric Association, Circuit, Arizona State Capitol, ”, ‘ Raiders Locations: California, Grants, Arizona, Oregon, The City, San Francisco, New York , Illinois, Minnesota, Phoenix, Oakland

☆ Live Updates: Supreme Court to Consider How Far Cities Can Police Homelessness
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-22 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +2 min

Inside a warming shelter, Laura Gutowski detailed how her life had changed since she became homeless two and a half years ago in Grants Pass, a former timber hub in the foothills of southern Oregon. She lived in a sedan, and then in a tent, in sight of the elementary school where her son was once a student. Many states and cities that are increasingly overwhelmed by homelessness are hoping the Supreme Court overturns that decision — or severely limits it. The case highlights the fierce divide over the thorny issue of how to regulate homelessness. Theane Evangelis, a lawyer representing Grants Pass, said the Supreme Court’s decision would reverberate widely.

Persons: Laura Gutowski, “, ”, Gutowski, Theane, Ed Johnson Organizations: Oregon Law Center, Homelessness Locations: Oregon, Grants, United States

☆ Supreme Court to Consider How Far Cities Can Police Homelessness
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-22 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court will consider on Monday how far cities and states can go to police homelessness, in a case that could have profound implications for how the country addresses an escalating crisis. The case reflects a broader fight over regulating homelessness and the complexity of balancing the civil rights of homeless people with concerns about health and safety in public spaces. The issue has united people across the political spectrum, with some leaders of left-leaning cities and states joining with conservative groups to urge the justices to clarify the extent of their legal authority in clearing encampments that have proliferated across the West in recent years. The dispute centers on Grants Pass, a city of about 40,000 in southern Oregon that, through a series of overlapping ordinances, outlawed sleeping and camping with any kind of bedding in public spaces. The question before the justices is whether those laws went so far that they punished people for being homeless and violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Locations: Grants, Oregon

☆ The Town at the Center of a Supreme Court Battle Over Homelessness
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-20 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Inside a warming shelter, Laura Gutowski detailed how her life had changed since she became homeless two and a half years ago in Grants Pass, a former timber hub in the foothills of southern Oregon. She lived in a sedan, and then in a tent, in sight of the elementary school where her son was once a student. She constantly scrambled to move her belongings to avoid racking up more fines from the police. “I never expected it to come to this,” Ms. Gutowski, 55, said. She is one of several hundred homeless people in this city of about 40,000 that is at the center of a major case before the Supreme Court on Monday with broad ramifications for the nationwide struggle with homelessness.

Persons: Laura Gutowski, “, Ms, Gutowski Locations: Oregon

Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon MusicDebates over homeless encampments in the United States have intensified as their number has surged. To tackle the problem, some cities have enforced bans on public camping. As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments about whether such actions are legal, Abbie VanSickle, who covers the court for The Times, discusses the case and its far-reaching implications.

Persons: Abbie VanSickle Organizations: Spotify, The Times Locations: United States

☆ Supreme Court Clears Way, for Now, for Idaho to Ban Transgender Treatment for Minors
▼ + stars: | 2024-04-15 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily allowed a ban to take effect in Idaho on gender-affirming treatment for minors, a signal that at least some justices appear comfortable with wading into another front in the culture wars. In siding with state officials who had asked the court to lift a block on the law, the justices were split, with a majority of the conservative justices voting to enforce the ban over the objections of the three liberal justices. The justices also specified that their decision would remain in place until the appeals process had ended. The court specified that it would allow the ban to apply to everyone except the plaintiffs who brought the challenge. Although orders on the emergency docket often include no reasoning, the decision included concurrences by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who was joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Persons: Neil M, Gorsuch, Samuel A, Alito Jr, Clarence Thomas, Brett M, Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett Organizations: Justice Locations: Idaho

☆ How Justice Thomas’s ‘Nearly Adopted Daughter’ Became His Law Clerk
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-28 | by ( Steve Eder | Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The email went out to members of Justice Clarence Thomas’s law clerk network late last month celebrating his newest addition to an exclusive club. “Crystal Clanton’s clerkship for OT ’24 was announced by Scalia Law today!” wrote an assistant to Virginia Thomas, the justice’s wife, who is known as Ginni. The email referred to the 2024 October term of the court, and the tone was jubilant: “Please take a look at these posts of congratulations and support. In 2019, at the Thomases’ urging, Ms. Clanton enrolled at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University in Virginia, where Justice Thomas has taught. She received a full merit scholarship, according to another judge who later hired her.

Persons: Clarence Thomas’s, Scalia, ”, Virginia Thomas, Clanton, ” Ms, Thomas, Antonin Scalia Organizations: Scalia Law, Antonin, George Mason University Locations: New York, Virginia

☆ Supreme Court Poised to Hear Arguments About Abortion Pill Access
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-26 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court is expected on Tuesday to weigh the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, raising the possibility that it could sharply curtail access to the drug — even in states where abortion access remains legal. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, potentially calling into question the agency’s ability to approve and distribute other drugs. The current challenge involves mifepristone, a drug approved by the F.D.A. more than two decades ago that is used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the country. At issue is whether the agency acted appropriately in expanding access to the drug in 2016 and again in 2021.

Persons: ” Organizations: Food and Drug Administration

☆ Erin Hawley: The Woman Arguing Against the Abortion Pill
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-26 | by ( Elizabeth Dias | Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

It was 2014, and Erin Morrow Hawley was fighting against the egg-laying hens of Missouri. A law professor from five generations of ranchers and the wife of Senator Josh Hawley, Ms. Hawley joined a challenge to California, which required more spacious enclosures for hens laying eggs to be sold there. Ms. Hawley continued teaching, and Ms. Harris became Joe Biden’s vice president. Ten years later, Ms. Hawley, 44, is now at the center of one of the country’s most heated cultural battles about bodily autonomy, gender roles and abortion. And Ms. Hawley was the woman standing before the justices, arguing to sharply curtail access to the abortion pill.

Persons: Erin Morrow Hawley, Josh Hawley, Hawley, Kamala Harris, Harris, Joe Biden’s, Roe, Wade Locations: Missouri, California

☆ Live Updates: Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Abortion Pill Access
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-26 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | Linda Qiu | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +4 min

If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs and decides to roll back or invalidate Food and Drug Administration regulations on mifepristone, it would be the first time the court undercut the federal agency’s authority. The abortion pill case before the Supreme Court could have implications far beyond abortion, potentially undermining the regulatory system for all medicines in the United States. If the Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs and decides to roll back or invalidate F.D.A. They would have to pick up mifepristone in person from a doctor and would have to visit the doctor three times during the medication abortion process. and not to abortion providers, some medication abortion services have been stockpiling mifepristone and may continue prescribing and mailing their supply.

Persons: ”, Matthew J, mifepristone Organizations: Drug, Food and Drug Administration, Northern, Northern District of, Trump, U.S ., Appeals, Fifth Circuit Locations: United States, Northern District, Northern District of Texas

☆ Justices Seem Likely to Side With N.R.A. in First Amendment Dispute
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-18 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared on Monday to embrace arguments by the National Rifle Association that a New York State official violated the First Amendment by trying to dissuade companies from doing business with it after a deadly school shooting. The dispute, which began after a gunman opened fire in 2018 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., was one of two cases on Monday that centered on when government advocacy crosses a line to violate the Constitution’s protection of free speech. After the shooting, which killed 17 students and staff members, Maria Vullo, then a superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, said banks and other insurance companies regulated by her agency should assess whether they wanted to continue providing services to the N.R.A. The gun rights group sued, accusing Ms. Vullo of unlawfully leveraging her authority as a government official.

Persons: Marjory Stoneman, Maria Vullo, Ms, Vullo Organizations: National Rifle Association, New York State, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, New York State Department of Financial Services Locations: Parkland, Fla

☆ Supreme Court Narrowly Interprets Landmark Reduced Sentencing Law
▼ + stars: | 2024-03-15 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court sided with the government on Friday, narrowly interpreting a provision of a landmark criminal justice law in a decision likely to limit the number of federal prisoners who are eligible for reduced sentences for nonviolent drug crimes. The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concluded that a criminal defendant must meet a series of criminal history conditions to qualify for relief. A failure to meet any of the criteria, she wrote, would render a prisoner ineligible. The case focused on who is eligible for shorter prison sentences under the First Step Act, bipartisan legislation passed in 2018 to address the human and financial costs of the country’s booming prison population. Under a provision known as the “safety valve,” judges can disregard federal mandatory minimum sentences for people with limited criminal history convicted of certain nonviolent drug offenses.

Persons: Justice Elena Kagan

The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the first part of the ruling — that Mr. Trump had engaged in an insurrection. Mr. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, setting out more than half a dozen arguments about why the state court had gone astray and saying his removal would override the will of the voters. Both results are inconsistent with the plain language and history of Section 3.”The State Supreme Court addressed several other issues. 23-719, is not the only one concerning Mr. Trump on the Supreme Court’s docket. And the justices already agreed to decide on the scope of a central charge in the federal election-interference case against Mr. Trump, with a ruling by June.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Bush, Gore, George W, Mr, “, ” Mr, Trump’s, Jan, Anderson Organizations: Colorado, Republican, United, The, The Colorado Supreme, Colorado Supreme, Mr, U.S, Supreme, “, Trump, Capitol Locations: United States, Colorado, The Colorado

All the opinions focused on legal issues, and none took a position on whether Mr. Trump had engaged in insurrection. In an interview on a conservative radio program, Mr. Trump said he was pleased by the ruling. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the first part of the ruling — that Mr. Trump had engaged in an insurrection. Mr. Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, setting out more than half a dozen arguments about why the state court had gone astray and saying his removal would override the will of the voters. 23-719, is not the only one concerning Mr. Trump on the Supreme Court’s docket.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson —, “, ”, John G, Roberts, ” “, Amy Coney Barrett, Barrett, Bush, Gore, George W, Mr, ” Mr, Trump’s, Anderson, Michael Gold Organizations: Trump, Congress, Jackson, Health Organization, Colorado, Republican, United, The, The Colorado Supreme, Colorado Supreme, Mr, U.S, Supreme Locations: Dobbs v, United States, Colorado, The Colorado, New York

☆ In Fight Over Bump Stock Ban, Lawyers Take Aim at Administrative State
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-28 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

A simple device that speeds up a semiautomatic weapon’s rate of fire is at the center of a case that could cast a shadow over a government agency’s ability to regulate firearms. For Michael Cargill, a fierce defender of gun rights who sells firearms in Austin, the accessory, a bump stock, was until 2017 a niche item on the shelves of his store, Central Texas Gun Works. It mainly appealed to people who were injured or disabled, like veterans who needed support firing a gun or by “people who just wanted to have fun,” he said. But that year, a high-stakes gambler stationed on the 32nd floor of a Las Vegas hotel opened fire on a country music festival, killing 60 people and injuring hundreds. Government officials swiftly called for a ban, eliciting alarm among gun store owners like Mr. Cargill, 54, a gregarious Army veteran who said that the mugging and assault of his grandmother had shaped his views on gun control.

Persons: Michael Cargill, ”, Cargill Organizations: Central Texas Gun, Government, Army Locations: Austin, Las Vegas

Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works in Austin, opposes the ban on bump stock sales. “During the Trump administration, the bump stock ban cropped up as a rather glaring example of unlawful administrative power,” Philip Hamburger, a founder of the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said in an email. Image A bump stock attaches to a semiautomatic rifle and enables it to fire at a much higher rate. In response, the Justice Department promised to review the legality of bump stocks, but A.T.F. Eventually, the full court agreed with Mr. Cargill by vote of 13 to 3, split along ideological lines.

Persons: Michael Cargill, ”, Cargill, Trump, ” Philip Hamburger, Elizabeth B, Prelogar, George Frey, Cargill strolled, “, Mark Chenoweth, ” Mr, Chenoweth, Obama, ” “, Mr, Charles Koch, Jonathan F, Mitchell, Donald J, Stephen Paddock, Erin Schaff, Jennifer Walker Elrod Organizations: Central Texas Gun, Government, Army, New Civil Liberties Alliance, —, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, National Firearms, Charles Koch Foundation, Koch Industries, Colorado Supreme, National Rifle Association, Justice Department, Congress, The New York Times Federal, U.S ., Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Mr, Gun Control Locations: Austin, Las Vegas, ”, “, Texas

☆ Supreme Court Appears Split Over Ban on Bump Stocks Enacted Under Trump
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-28 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

The Supreme Court wrestled on Wednesday over whether the Trump administration acted lawfully in enacting a ban on bump stocks after one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history. The justices appeared split largely along ideological lines over the ban, which prohibits the sale and possession of bump stocks, attachments that enable semiautomatic rifles to fire at speeds rivaling machine guns. The case does not turn on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Officials at the Justice Department initially said the executive branch could not prohibit the accessory without action by Congress. But it ultimately reversed course and enacted a ban on its own.

Persons: Trump Organizations: —, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, Justice Department Locations: Las Vegas

Supporters of the state laws say they foster free speech, giving the public access to all points of view. One contrarian brief, from liberal professors, urged the justices to uphold the key provision of the Texas law despite the harm they said it would cause. “Social media platforms exercise editorial judgment that is inherently expressive,” Judge Kevin C. Newsom wrote for the panel. To the surprise of many, some prominent liberal professors filed a brief urging the justices to uphold a key provision of the Texas law. In the second case, Miami Herald v. Tornillo, the Supreme Court in 1974 struck down a Florida law that would have allowed politicians a “right to reply” to newspaper articles critical of them.

Persons: Samuel A, Alito Jr, ”, Scott Wilkens, Ron DeSantis, John Tully, Donald J, Trump, Greg Abbott of, —, Ken Paxton, “, Andrew S, Oldham, Kevin C, Newsom, Lawrence Lessig, Tim Wu of, Teachout, Mandel Ngan, Richard L, “ Florida’s, Moody, Paxton, Robins, William H, Rehnquist, Pat L, Tornillo, Warren E, Burger Organizations: Facebook, YouTube, Columbia University, Big Tech, The New York Times, Gov, Republican, Computer & Communications Industry, New York Times, Fox News, U.S ., Appeals, Fifth Circuit, ISIS, Harvard, Tim Wu of Columbia, Zephyr, Fordham, Twitter, Manchester Union, Citizens United, Agence France, University of California, Miami Herald, Florida, Representatives, Constitution Locations: Florida, Texas, Greg Abbott of Texas, Ukraine, Los Angeles, Campbell , Calif

☆ Supreme Court Allows $2.4 Billion Boy Scouts Sex Abuse Deal to Go Forward
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-22 | by ( Abbie Vansickle | More About Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: 1 min

The Supreme Court cleared the way on Thursday for a $2.4 billion plan to settle sex abuse lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America to go forward. The court’s brief, unsigned order gave no reasons, which is typical for emergency applications. There were no public dissents. A group of victims had asked the court to pause the plan as the justices consider an opioid settlement against Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of OxyContin, and the members of the wealthy Sackler family who owned it, because that deal raised similar issues. Like the Purdue Pharma deal, the Boy Scouts agreement was settled in bankruptcy court using a contentious mechanism that insulates a third party from future lawsuits even without requiring that party to declare bankruptcy.

Persons: Sackler Organizations: Boy Scouts of, Purdue Pharma, Boy Scouts Locations: Boy Scouts of America

☆ Trump Asks Supreme Court to Pause Ruling Denying Him Absolute Immunity
▼ + stars: | 2024-02-12 | by ( Adam Liptak | Abbie Vansickle | ) www.nytimes.com time to read: +1 min

Former President Donald J. Trump asked the Supreme Court on Monday to pause an appeals court’s ruling rejecting his claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal charges based on his attempts to subvert the 2020 election. Unless the justices issue a stay while they consider whether to hear his promised appeal, proceedings in the criminal trial, which have been on hold, will resume. The filing was Mr. Trump’s last-ditch effort to press his claim of total immunity, which has been rejected by two lower courts. The Supreme Court is now poised to determine whether and how fast his federal trial on charges that he tried to subvert the 2020 election will proceed. Mr. Trump’s filing came after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously rejected Mr. Trump’s argument that he may not be prosecuted for actions he took while in office.

Persons: Donald J, Trump, Trump’s Organizations: U.S ., Appeals, District of Columbia

Search resuls for: "Abbie VanSickle"

25 mentions found