Today is Tuesday, January twenty first, the twenty first day of 2025. There are 344 days left within the yr.

Today in history:

On January 21, 2020, the United States reported the primary known case of the 2019 novel coronavirus circulating in China. It said a Washington state resident who had returned from the epicenter of the outbreak the week before had been hospitalized near Seattle.

Also on this date:

In 1793, through the French Revolution, King Louis XVI was convicted of treason. executed by the guillotine.

In 1924, Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin died on the age of 53.

In 1950, former State Department official Alger Hiss, accused of being a part of a communist spy ring, was found guilty in New York of lying to a grand jury. (Hiss, who maintained his innocence, served lower than 4 years in prison.)

In 1976, British Airways and Air France introduced scheduled passenger service with the supersonic Concorde aircraft.

In 1977, on his first full day in office, President Jimmy Carter pardoned nearly all Vietnam War draft evaders.

In 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court significantly increased the influence of massive business and labor unions by allowing unlimited donations to political campaigns.

In 2017, the day after Donald Trump's first inauguration as president, an estimated 3 to five million people gathered at Women's March demonstrations across the United States to support civil rights and protest Trump's rhetoric and policies.

Today's birthdays:

• Golf Hall of Famer Jack Nicklaus is 85.
• Opera singer Plácido Domingo is 84.
• Singer-songwriter Billy Ocean is 75.
• Former US Attorney General Eric Holder is 74 years old.
• The artist Jeff Koons is 70.
• Actor and director Robby Benson is 69.
• Actress Geena Davis is 69.
• Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., is 64.
• Basketball Hall of Famer Hakeem Olajuwon is 62.
• Singer Emma Bunton (Spice Girls) is 49.
• Actor Luke Grimes is 41.

Originally published: January 21, 2025 at 1:00 am PST

The Supreme Court agreed to a hearing Wednesday of arguments that a law that may effectively ban TikTok if its parent company doesn't sell the favored social media app violates free speech protections within the U.S. Constitution.

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments within the case for January 10. That's nine days before the law targeting the app, which is utilized by an estimated 170 million Americans, is about to take effect.

The law would require TikTok's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to sell or foreclose on the app Google, Appleand other platforms to stop supporting the app within the US.

Congress passed the law, the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, amid concerns that Chinese ownership of TikTok posed a national security risk.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the law on December 6, ruling that the DOJ had presented “compelling evidence that” the divestment law was “narrowly tailored to protect national security.”

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will hear challenges to the law filed jointly by TikTok and ByteDance, in addition to by a bunch TikTok user.

These users include a rancher who produces short videos about agricultural topics, a girl who creates videos about parenting and mental health, and one other woman who advocates for survivors of sexual assault.

TikTok spokesman Michael Hughes said: “We are pleased with today’s order from the Supreme Court. We believe the court will find the TikTok ban unconstitutional so that the over 170 million Americans on our platform can continue to exercise their right to free speech.”

The company says that if the app were banned, small U.S. businesses that use TikTok for marketing would suffer greater than $1 billion in lost revenue within the month following the ban, in addition to individuals who create videos using the app , would lose nearly $300 million in revenue.

The Supreme Court's announcement on Wednesday that it’s going to hear TikTok's appeal got here two days after the corporate filed a request for an injunction against the law that takes effect next month.

In that filing, TikTok had said, “Congress's unprecedented attempt to single out applicants and ban them from operating one of the most prominent speech platforms in this country raises serious constitutional issues that this Court is unlikely to allow.”

The Supreme Court's order allowing an appeal hearing required lawyers for TikTok and ByteDance to submit briefs to app users and the Justice Department discussing whether the law applied to TikTok “violates the First Amendment.” Constitution violates.

However, the court didn’t issue an interim injunction that may prevent the law from coming into force and said it postponed consideration of this application “until the hearing” on January 10.

The court could rule on the injunction before the law takes effect on Jan. 19, a day before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

Trump met with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, on Monday, the identical day the corporate asked the Supreme Court to just accept its case.

Earlier within the day, Trump told reporters: “We're going to take a look at TikTok” when asked in regards to the possible ban.

“You know, I have a heart for TikTok,” Trump said, suggesting the app boosted young voters’ support for him within the November election.

Jeff Yass, one in every of Trump's top supporters, is co-founder and CEO of Susquehanna International Group, a significant investor in ByteDance.

A lawyer for Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican caucus leader, said in an announcement submission On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected TikTok's request for an injunction against the law.

“TikTok clearly hopes that the 'new Trump administration' will be more sympathetic to their plight than 'President Joe Biden's administration,'” the filing said.

“In other words, delay is the point” of the injunction, argued McConnell’s attorney, Michael Fragoso.

Fragoso said TikTok's “First Amendment arguments are baseless and without merit.”

“While the forced divestiture could cause them irreparable harm, any delay caused by an injunction would be contrary to the public interest,” Fragoso wrote.

“This is a common litigation at the end of a government, in which a plaintiff hopes the next government will grant a stay of execution,” the attorney wrote. “This court should no more tolerate it coming from foreign adversaries than from hardened criminals.”

The impact of the upcoming ban on TikTok within the United States on free expression is breathtaking and unprecedented. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a federal law requiring TikTok to stop operations here on Jan. 19 unless its owner, ByteDance, sells it to a non-Chinese company. The 150 million Americans who use TikTok to share and receive information would now not have the opportunity to achieve this.

By upholding the law, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals minimized the first Amendment impact of TikTok's ban while uncritically accepting the federal government's claim that national security was threatened by the app.

This is the primary time in history that the federal government has banned a communication medium. This isn’t simply about banning a single newspaper or publisher, which might itself be deeply troubling under the first Amendment, but about banning a platform where billions of videos are uploaded yearly. As District Court Chief Justice Sri Srinivasan said in a concurring opinion, the TikTik ban will lead to large numbers of individuals on this country “denying access to an outlet for expression, a source of community, and even… loses a source of income.” ”

The decision emphasized that TikTok is controlled by a “foreign adversary,” the People’s Republic of China, and that individuals outside the United States have no rights under the 1st Amendment. But this violates the rights of millions of TikTok users in this country to post on the site and receive information.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has long made clear that a speaker's identity should not matter under the 1st Amendment. This was the basis for Citizens United's decision that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts on election campaigns. The central premise of the 1st Amendment is that more speech is inherently better, regardless of the source.

National security

The appeals court recognized the impact of the TikTok ban on free speech, but concluded that the ban was justified by national security considerations. In doing so, the court reiterated the need to show great “reverence” to the government and its “assessment of the facts” regarding TikTok.

The district court identified two national security concerns. First, China would use TikTok to “collect data from and about individuals in the United States.” It is undisputed that China is doing this, but the question the court does not answer is how this data can be used to harm national security. The court points out that China is capable of using the data for “commercial” advantage, but that seems very different than showing that China can gain a national security advantage by knowing what Americans are on Upload and watch TikTok.

The court's second reasoning is even more problematic: China will “secretly manipulate content on TikTok” in order to “undermine democracy” and “expand the influence of the People's Republic of China abroad.” The court said China “threatens to distort freedom of expression in an important communications medium.”

Under this rationale, the United States could ban the publication in that country of a foreign newspaper or book published in another country because it is viewed as undermining democracy. In effect, this justification would allow the federal government to ban any book published by the Chinese government, as it could be viewed as an attempt to “expand the influence of the People’s Republic of China” in the United States. The government should never have the power to censor speech because it doesn't like the message being expressed.

Save TikTok

There are still several ways to save TikTok in the USA. There will certainly be an appeal to the Supreme Court. The justices could grant expedited review and decide the case by Jan. 19, or they could temporarily suspend the law's entry into force until they hear and resolve the matter by the end of the court's term at the end of June. Because of the unique and important issues raised, the case requires the attention of the Supreme Court. Of course, it is uncertain whether the judges will view the law differently than the federal appeals court judges. There is a long history of judicial deference to the government when it cites national security as justification for its actions.

Another possibility is that President-elect Donald Trump tries to save TikTok after his inauguration, a day after the TikTok ban is scheduled to take effect. Trump has explicitly stated that he wants to do this, but it is unclear how he might achieve this. He can't repeal the law banning TikTok; This would require a resolution from Congress. He could order the Justice Department not to enforce the law.

However, it’s doubtful that this could be enough reassurance for corporations like Apple and Google to proceed making the TikTok app available, despite being aware of the potential liability for doing so. According to the law, if there’s a sale or restructuring of TikTok's ownership, Trump can assume that the corporate is not any longer under foreign control and permit it to operate. If a deal is within the works, the president can grant a one-time 90-day extension before the ban takes effect.

It seems highly unlikely that the Chinese government will comply with a sale or restructuring of TikTok. And its cost is astronomical: about $200 billion.

The TikTok case is a difficult case and involves questions that the courts have never faced before. But when the impact on speech is so vast and the rationale for the restrictions so speculative, one can only conclude that the D.C. Circuit has struck the unsuitable balance. The Supreme Court should correct it.

A baby who visited Marin County during Thanksgiving week is being tested for possible infection with H5N1, the bird flu.

Marin Health Officer Dr. Lisa Santora said the kid tested positive for influenza type A at a hospital. Bird flu belongs to the kind A category. The child was visiting from out of state for the vacations.

“Additional local and state testing has not been able to confirm whether this is seasonal influenza or a subtype of avian influenza,” Santora said.

Staff submitted a sample from the patient to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The county expects to receive test results by the top of the week, Santora said Monday.

RELATED: Maverick operator of California raw milk dairy could play role in Trump's FDA

H5N1, which generally infects poultry flocks and wild birds, has been transmitted to a minimum of 58 people within the United States this 12 months, based on the CDC. 32 cases have been reported in California.

A human case of H5N1 was reported in Alameda County last month. Authorities have no idea the patient's source of exposure, Marin County Health officials reported.

Symptoms of the virus in humans include eye redness, mild flu-like symptoms, fever, pneumonia, fatigue and difficulty respiration, based on the CDC.

Marin County public health officials reported that H5N1 has been detected in wild birds, poultry and wastewater in Marin. Last month, staff began investigating “presumptive” positive test results at a poultry farm.

H5N1 outbreaks led to the euthanasia of 1.2 million birds by business breeders in Sonoma County last 12 months, officials said

Santora said H5N1 spread from birds to cattle this 12 months.

“We don’t see the same level of severity in the cows themselves,” she said.

Cows might be quarantined and returned to take advantage of production after their infectious period ends, she said.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture ordered H5N1 testing for the country's milk supply this month.

“This will give farmers and farm workers greater confidence in the safety of their animals and the ability to protect themselves, and it will put us on the path to quickly controlling and stopping the spread of the virus across the country,” said Agriculture Minister Tom Vilsack in a press release.

Santora said her employees' fundamental concern is the dairy and poultry staff in Marin County.

“As with any virus transmission, improved hand hygiene is an important factor,” she said.

Santora added that dairy and poultry farmers are also urged to be vigilant for possible H5N1 illnesses.

“Early detection is key for farms to identify sick animals and quarantine them as quickly as possible to minimize harm to the animals,” she said.

Originally published: December 9, 2024 at 10:47 am PST

ORCHARD PARK, NY – Here's how the 49ers (5-7) fared in Sunday night's 35-10 loss to the AFC East-winning Buffalo Bills (9-2):

Pass offense: D-

The smartest thing you’ll be able to say: Brock Purdy said his “arm is fine” every week after he was forced to miss the 49ers' 38-10 humiliation at Green Bay due to shoulder soreness. A blizzard in Buffalo didn't improve the passing conditions, so it's no surprise that he threw for just 94 yards on 11 of 18 passes. The next smartest thing you could possibly say: George Kittle's 7-yard reception on the 49ers' first snap kept alive his streak of catching a pass in all 120 games of his profession, including the playoffs. Then Kittle disappeared from the statistics, as a substitute getting used on blocking duty and later playing a brief pass near the 49ers' goal line. Ricky Pearsall went with no catch for the third straight game, while Purdy focused on Jauan Jennings (three catches, 56 yards) and Deebo Samuel (4 catches, just 20 yards). The departure of Christian McCaffrey obviously robbed the 49ers offense of a brief pass when it needed it. Purdy lost a fumble on a sack and the ball slipped out of his hands on one other throw, however the protection behind left backups Jaylon Moore and Ben Bartch gave the impression to be sufficient.

RUN OFFENSE: B-

McCaffrey suffered a potentially season-ending injury to the posterior cruciate ligament in his right knee, ruining the mood of this game even before the Bills' flurry of touchdowns put the rating out of reach. McCaffrey managed runs of 19 and 18 yards throughout the season and was as high as 58 yards on six carries before testing his knee and intentionally slipping on his final run for a 5-yard loss. That opened the door for early-season star Jordan Mason, and he gained 78 yards on 13 carries (none in the ultimate quarter). Isaac Guerendo was also called and scored the 49ers' only touchdown (15-yard run, third quarter; lead blocks by Kittle and Kyle Juszczyk). But of all of the runs in the sport, the 2 crucial ones were McCaffrey's 18-yard throw, on which he injured his knee, and Juszczyk's fumble on the 1-yard line, which ruined the primary drive after halftime.

PASS DEFENSE: D+

Nick Bosa missed his second straight game, so it was no surprise that MVP candidate Josh Allen wasn't sacked and was only hit within the pocket once (by rookie defensive tackle Evan Anderson). Allen accomplished 13 of 17 passes for 148 yards and two touchdowns, including one he was credited with for a rating on one Amari Cooper sideways and a dive for a touchdown within the third quarter that gave the Bills a 28-3 lead. The snowy field made route running difficult, but rookie cornerback Renardo Green was also hindered from making some necessary completions. Charvarius Ward incurred a third-down penalty for illegal contact on the Bills' first touchdown drive after a four-game absence and failed to forestall two touchdowns in the primary half. Still, getting back into motion was a positive for Ward, and the 49ers needed him with Deommodore Lenoir inactive for the primary time this season.

RUN DEFENSE: F

This unit is the bane of the 49ers' existence in 2024, or not less than it rivals the special teams woes. The 49ers rushed for a season-high 220 yards on 38 carries and allowed three more rushing touchdowns to bring this season's total to 19, which is greater than in any of Shanahan's previous seven seasons. James Cook threw a 65-yard touchdown run on the Bills' first series after McCaffrey's departure, and the Bills were away. Linebacker Fred Warner was not on the sector for that play due to what he described as “unusual” forearm cramps; Whether or not it had anything to do with it, Warner was sleeveless during pregame warmups. But the 49ers' running problems initiate front and the emergency defense line isn't doing its job.

SPECIAL TEAMS: D

Samuel had a 60-yard kick return to start out the second half and averaged 30.4 yards on six returns, but he also fumbled one other return. Jake Moody made his first field goal attempt (33 yards), but he missed two more field goal attempts (45 yards, 55 yards) before halftime because the 49ers desperately looked for points.

COACHING: F

It's no surprise that the 49ers are on a three-game losing streak, but the way in which they exited here on the road after a 38-10 loss at Green Bay shows how far the mighty have fallen under Kyle Shanahan are. This strong team is missing necessary players (Bosa, Williams, Brandon Aiyuk and now McCaffrey again). The 49ers appear to be overwhelmed every week. Shanahan admitted after that defeat that this is just not the identical club that has been on the rise in recent times. One more month until an off-season is required to make the essential improvements in personnel, attitude, discipline, etc.

Known to his followers as Bitcoin Jesus, Roger Ver is a charismatic advocate of the cryptocurrency that’s once more charming investors with record-breaking profits. But to the Internal Revenue Service, Ver symbolizes a brand new goal within the digital age: a crypto holder suspected of failing to pay taxes after selling tokens.

U.S. prosecutors this 12 months accused Ver of evading greater than $48 million in taxes by selling $240 million value of tokens. It is the highest-profile case involving solely tax fraud and the sale of digital assets, and represents a break from the tradition of prosecutors taxing crypto cases for crimes similar to money laundering, ransomware attacks and investor fraud.

Ver, 45, is awaiting a Spanish judge's decision on whether he ought to be extradited to the United States following his arrest in April in Barcelona while attending a crypto conference. The US expatriate spent a month in prison before being released on bail and moving to Mallorca, where he received a gradual stream of holiday makers. An outspoken critic of the US government, he said he was being pursued by prosecutors.

“They don’t like me, and they don’t like my political views, and they just came after me in every way they could,” Ver said in an exclusive interview with Bloomberg News in late October.

RELATED: Two California men charged with $230 million in cryptocurrency theft following FBI raid on a Miami mansion

Ver said the Justice Department ignored evidence that helped his defense and refuted a central assumption of prosecutors – that he desired to defraud the Internal Revenue Service. Rather, he said he relied on professionals to advise him when IRS policy on taxing crypto sales remained unclear.

“I instructed all of my tax lawyers and accountants, ‘We have to do everything perfectly because I don’t want to have any problems with the IRS at all,’” Ver said. “That was her instruction all along.”

A Justice Department representative declined to comment.

The reason for Ver's legal jeopardy was his success as an early crypto investor – long before the recent Bitcoin rally fueled by Donald Trump's US presidential victory. The focus is on his representations to the IRS and the authority's reconstruction of his holdings.

Ver grew up in Silicon Valley and founded a pc company called MemoryDealers on the precocious age of 19. He also participated in tax protests and, at 21, ran for the California Legislature as a Libertarian.

In 2001, he pleaded guilty to dealing in explosives with no license. (Ver says he was simply selling fireworks on eBay.) He served 10 months in prison, which hardened his attitude toward the U.S. government. In 2006 he left America and moved to Japan. He focused on constructing MemoryDealers and one other company, Agilestar, which sold optical transceivers.

Spread the gospel

He co-founded Blockchain.com, a crypto company once valued at $14 billion, and was an early investor in payment processor BitPay and digital asset company Ripple. When the Bitcoin network underwent a software upgrade in 2017 that it rejected, Ver broke with the community and moved to a fork called Bitcoin Cash. He said his current holdings include Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ether and Zeno.

Despite his fame, Ver decided to surrender his US citizenship in 2014 and later became a citizen of St. Kitts and Nevis. U.S. residents who go abroad and are value greater than $2 million must report their worldwide assets to the IRS and pay an exit tax based on their asset sales.

As he planned to emigrate abroad, prosecutors alleged, Ver concealed the number and value of bitcoins he owned and controlled personally and thru his California-based firms, MemoryDealers and Agilestar.

The IRS used blockchain evaluation to find out that Ver and his firms owned about 131,000 Bitcoin in early 2014, which the indictment says traded between $782 and $960 – greater than he reported on tax returns. He is accused of tax evasion, wire fraud and filing a false tax return.

Ver worked with a law firm and appraisers on the exit tax, but gave them false or misleading details about his Bitcoin holdings, and an exit tax return filed in 2016 did not report the Bitcoins he personally owned and understated the worth of his businesses stated, based on the general public prosecutor's charge.

The indictment also accuses Ver of “fraudulently misrepresenting and concealing” from the IRS the cryptocurrency that his firms sold for about $240 million in 2017.

Ver disputes that characterization but declined to debate the fees further or elaborate on his crypto holdings with Bloomberg.

A web site, freerogernow.org, links to Ver's personal website and asks supporters to sign an open letter calling on the U.S. government to finish his “unfair prosecution.” It adds some details about his investigation, including allegations that IRS agents questioned his tax attorney in 2018 with no warrant and that there was a dispute over communications along with his attorneys.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that didn’t name the parties but was specific to Ver's circumstances. The court dropped this case in 2023 without issuing a ruling.

If extradited, Ver's case can be the primary to face trial on purely crypto tax charges. In February, a Texas man, Frank Ahlgren, was accused of under-reporting capital gains from the sale of $3.7 million value of Bitcoin. Ahlgren pleaded guilty in September.

Ver, who has greater than 700,000 followers on X, was under IRS investigation for years while traveling the world. In 2021, he released a satirical video titled “Taxation is Theft.”

Ver was indicted under court seal on February 15, but only discovered about it weeks later when he was on the Privacy Guardians conference in Barcelona. His book “Hijacking Bitcoin: The Hidden History of BTC” was just released. A police officer approached him within the lobby of the W Hotel, asked him to substantiate his identity and said he had an Interpol arrest warrant against him.

“The bottom dropped out of my stomach and I thought, 'Oh my God, the U.S. is going to do this to me again,'” Ver said.

Back to prison

After his arrest, Ver returned to prison, this time in a two-man cell in Spain. Some inmates mistakenly believed he was an American spy or undercover agent, he said.

“I didn’t tell anyone there who I was because I didn’t want to be blackmailed or have any problems with anyone,” Ver said.

Spain has been a detailed ally of the US in extradition cases. This 12 months, Spain sent Douglas Edelman, a former defense contractor, to face U.S. allegations that he evaded taxes on greater than $350 million in income. He pleaded not guilty and denies the allegations.

Ver said he spends his days in Mallorca chatting with his lawyers over Zoom, practicing Brazilian jujitsu and entertaining friends from overseas. He attended Bitcoin meetings and said he was well received there.

Ver appeared in an HBO documentary in regards to the origins of Bitcoin. A jiu-jitsu sparring partner said he saw him on the show.

“I said, 'If you don't mind, please don't mention this to anyone.' He said, 'Sure, no problem.' But he kind of grinned mischievously when he said that to me.”

–With assistance from Ava Benny-Morrison and Jorge Zuloaga.

For more stories like this, take a look at Bloomberg.com

©2024 Bloomberg LP

Originally published: November 14, 2024 at 7:17 am PST