Local News

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire's highest court on Friday upheld a judge's dismissal of civil rights complaints against a white nationalist group that prosecutors said committed trespassing when it launched “Keep New England White” without authorization in 2022 banner from an overpass.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in its first review of the state's civil rights law, agreed with the lower court judge that prosecutors' interpretation of the law was unconstitutionally overbroad.

The court explained that the state's interpretation of the law provides for state sanctions against individuals who inadvertently invade public property and whose presence is motivated by considered one of the characteristics laid out in the law. These characteristics include race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability.

“Such a broad statement discourages the expression of certain messages for fear of government sanctions under the law due to the content of the messages expressed,” the court wrote in its opinion.

The court also said it was “not persuaded” that the complaints “sufficiently allege” that group members intentionally trespassed.

The attorney general's office said it was dissatisfied with the court's decision but respected it, spokesman Michael Garrity said in an announcement.

“Our office remains steadfast in its commitment to enforcing the Civil Rights Act to ensure that all Granite Staters are free from discrimination, violence and hateful threats. “We will continue to explore all options to protect the rights and safety of our communities,” the statement said.

William Gens, a lawyer representing the group, said its members were “very happy with the decision and it was based on reasons that we had put forward all along.” He said the attorney general's interpretation “failed to adequately inform the public as to what conduct, including the speech portion of conduct, constitutes a violation of the law.”

The complaints alleged that the Nationalist Social Club, also generally known as NSC-131, and two of its members trespassed on public property and hung the banners on the overpass overlooking U.S. Route 1 in Portsmouth for racist reasons. About 10 people participated, the complaints say. The complaints asked a judge to issue an order banning the group and its members from threatening physical violence or violence and interesting in discriminatory behavior for 3 years.

NSC-131 was identified by the Anti-Defamation League as a New England-based neo-Nazi group founded in 2019 that “advocates racism, anti-Semitism and intolerance” and whose “members are a collection of neo-Nazis and racist skinheads, many of them.” “They were previously members of other white supremacist groups.”

A second lawsuit from the attorney general's office against the group is pending. She accuses the group of violations in response to an indication outside a Concord cafe where a drag story hour was happening.

crime

NEW YORK (AP) — A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a jury's finding in a civil case that Donald Trump sexually assaulted a columnist within the dressing room of a luxury department store within the mid-Nineteen Nineties.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a written opinion upholding the $5 million award that the Manhattan jury awarded E. Jean Carroll on defamation and sexual abuse charges.

The magazine's longtime columnist had testified at a 2023 trial that Trump turned a friendly encounter within the spring of 1996 right into a violent attack after they playfully entered the shop's dressing room.

Trump skipped the trial after repeatedly denying that the attack ever happened. But he testified briefly earlier this 12 months in a follow-up defamation trial that ended with an $83.3 million award. The second trial stemmed from comments made by then-President Trump in 2019 after Carroll first made the allegations public in his memoir.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected claims by Trump's lawyers that trial Judge Lewis A. Kaplan made several decisions that thwarted the trial, including his decision to confess two other women who had accused Trump of marrying them statements about having been sexually abused.

The judge also allowed the jury to look at the infamous “Access Hollywood” video wherein Trump bragged in 2005 about grabbing women's genitals because when someone is a star, “you can do anything.”

“We conclude that Mr. Trump has not established that the district court erred in any of the impugned rulings,” the 2nd Circuit said. “Furthermore, he has failed to establish that any alleged error or combination of alleged errors affected his essential rights necessary to justify a new trial.”

In September, each Carroll, 81, and Trump, 78, attended oral arguments within the 2nd Circuit.

Steven Cheung, a Trump spokesman, said in an announcement that Trump was elected by voters who “cast an overwhelming mandate, and they are calling for an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and a rapid end to all witch hunts, including…” Democratic-sponsored Carroll Hoax, which stays under appeal.”

Roberta Kaplan, an attorney who represented Carroll throughout the trial and will not be related to the judge, said in an announcement: “Both E. Jean Carroll and I are pleased with today’s decision. We thank the Second Circuit for its careful consideration of the parties’ arguments.”

The first jury present in May 2023 that Trump sexually abused Carroll and defamed her with comments he made in October 2022. That jury awarded Carroll $5 million.

In January, a second jury awarded Carroll a further $83.3 million in damages for comments Trump made about her while he was president, finding them defamatory. That jury had been instructed by the judge to simply accept the primary jury's finding that Trump had sexually abused Carroll.

Trump testified for lower than three minutes within the second trial and was not allowed to challenge the jury's May 2023 conclusions. Still, he was animated within the courtroom throughout the two-week trial and jurors could hear him grumbling in regards to the case.

A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a law that could lead on to a ban on TikTok in only a number of months, handing the favored social media platform a convincing defeat in its fight for survival within the United States

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected TikTok's request to overturn the law – which requires TikTok to chop ties with its China-based parent company ByteDance or be banned by mid-January – and dismissed the law's challenge company back. which it argued violated the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment is designed to protect free speech in the United States,” said the court’s opinion, written by Justice Douglas Ginsburg. “Here, the government acted solely to protect that freedom from a foreign adversary nation and to limit that adversary’s ability to collect data about people in the United States.”

TikTok and ByteDance – one other plaintiff within the lawsuit – are expected to appeal to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, President-elect Donald Trump, who tried to ban TikTok in his first term and whose Justice Department would need to implement the law, said through the presidential campaign that he now opposes a TikTok ban and is committed to “saving” the social Network will use media platform.

Friday's ruling got here after the appeals court, made up of two Republican-appointed judges and one Democratic-appointed judge, heard oral arguments in September. The three judges all rejected TikTok's petition. Justice Sri Srinivasan, the court's chief justice appointed by former President Barack Obama, delivered a concurring opinion.

The law, signed by President Joe Biden in April, was the culmination of a years-long saga in Washington over the short-video sharing app that the federal government sees as a threat to national security due to its ties to China.

The US has said it is anxious that TikTok is collecting vast amounts of user data, including sensitive details about viewing habits, which could find yourself within the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned that the proprietary algorithm that drives what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to change content on the platform in ways which might be difficult to detect — a priority also expressed by the European Union on Friday because it investigates the video-sharing app's role in Romania's elections.

However, a significant slice of the federal government's information on this case was redacted and hidden from the general public and the 2 corporations.

TikTok, which sued the federal government in May over the law, has long denied that it might be utilized by Beijing to spy or manipulate Americans. Its lawyers have appropriately identified that the U.S. has not provided evidence that the corporate shared user data with the Chinese government or manipulated content within the U.S. to learn Beijing. The Justice Department emphasized that it was citing, partly, unspecified actions that the Both corporations have allegedly taken motion up to now following demands from the Chinese government.

After the hearing in September, some legal experts had said it might be obscure the ultimate decision on how the three justices would rule.

In a court hearing that lasted greater than two hours, the panel appeared to grapple with the query of how TikTok's foreign ownership affects rights under the Constitution and the way far the federal government could go to curb potential foreign influence on a foreign-owned platform restrict.

The justices pressed Daniel Tenny, a Justice Department attorney, on the impact the case could have on the First Amendment. But in addition they expressed some skepticism about TikTok's arguments, questioning the corporate's lawyer – Andrew Pincus – whether any First Amendment rights prevent the federal government from curtailing a strong company that’s subject to the laws and influence of a foreign one opponent.

In portions of their questions on TikTok's ownership, the justices pointed to wartime precedent that permits the U.S. to limit foreign ownership of broadcast licenses and asked whether the arguments made by TikTok would apply if the U.S. were involved in a war.

To allay concerns in regards to the company's owners, TikTok says it has invested greater than $2 billion to enhance protections for U.S. user data.

The company also argues that the administration's broader concerns might have been addressed in a draft contract it presented to the Biden administration during talks between the 2 sides greater than two years ago. She accuses the federal government of refraining from further negotiations on the agreement, which the Justice Ministry believes is insufficient.

Lawyers for the 2 corporations claimed that it was inconceivable to sell the platform commercially and technologically. They also say any sale of TikTok without its coveted algorithm — the platform's secret sauce that Chinese authorities would likely block as a part of a divestment plan — would turn the U.S. version of TikTok into an island separate from other global content .

This week, a spokesman for McCourt's Project Liberty initiative, which goals to guard online privacy, said unnamed participants in its offering had made informal commitments of greater than $20 billion in capital would have.

TikTok's lawsuit was consolidated by a second lawsuit brought by several content creators — for which the corporate is covering legal costs — in addition to a 3rd lawsuit on behalf of conservative creators working with a nonprofit called BASED Politics Inc.

If TikTok appeals and the courts proceed to uphold the law, it would be as much as Trump's Justice Department to implement it and punish potential violations with fines. The penalties would apply to app stores that might be banned from offering TikTok and web hosting services that might be banned from supporting it.

Originally published: December 6, 2024 at 8:43 am PST

RIO DE JANEIRO – A panel of Brazil's Supreme Court on Monday unanimously upheld the choice of one among its judges to dam billionaire Elon Musk's social media platform X nationwide, the court's website said.

The broader support among the many justices undermines efforts by Musk and his supporters to portray Judge Alexandre de Moraes as a renegade and authoritarian censor of political speech.

The panel, which voted in a virtual session, consisted of 5 of the 11 full judges, including de Moraes, who ordered the platform blocked last Friday for failing to appoint an area legal representative as required by law.

X will remain suspended until it complies together with his orders and pays outstanding fines, which, based on his decision, exceed three million dollars as of last week.

De Moraes also imposed a every day advantageous of fifty,000 reais ($8,900) on individuals or corporations using virtual private networks (VPNs) to access X. Some legal experts questioned the reasoning behind this decision and its enforcement. The Brazilian Bar Association announced it could ask the Supreme Court to review this provision.

But nearly all of the panel upheld the advantageous for VPNs – one judge opposed it unless it could be proven that users are using X to commit crimes.

Brazil is one among the most important markets for X, with tens of hundreds of thousands of users. His ban marked a dramatic Escalation in a months-long feud between Musk and de Moraes about free speech, right-wing extremist accounts and misinformation.

“He has repeatedly and egregiously violated the Constitution of Brazil, despite having sworn to protect it,” Musk wrote within the hours before the vote on de Moraes. He also announced on Sunday that he would create an X-account to publish the judge's decisions, which he said would offer evidence for his claims.

De Moraes' decision to quickly forward his resolution to a committee for approval was intended to achieve “collective, more institutional support that seeks to depersonalize the decision,” Conrado Hübner, a professor of constitutional law on the University of Sao Paulo, told the Associated Press.

Had de Moraes done the latter, two judges who had questioned his decisions up to now – and who were appointed by former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro – would have had the chance to object or prevent the vote from happening.

Originally published: September 2, 2024 at 11:04 am

TOPEKA, Kansas – Kansas' highest court on Friday reaffirmed that the state structure protects access to abortion, striking down a ban on a typical procedure within the second trimester and striking down laws that regulate abortion providers more strictly than other health care providers.

The two 5-1 decisions suggest that other restrictions – even those which were in place for many years – may not withstand legal challenges. The court's dissenting judge, widely considered essentially the most conservative, warned that Kansas is heading toward “a legal system of unfettered access to abortion.”

“This is an immense victory for the health, safety and dignity of the people of Kansas and the entire Midwest region, where millions of people have been denied access to abortion,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the abortion providers difficult the 2 laws.

The decisions got here nearly two years after a statewide vote in August 2022 that clearly affirmed abortion rights. It was the primary such vote for the reason that U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs decision in June 2022 that allowed states to ban abortions entirely. Kansas voters rejected a proposed amendment to the state structure approved by the Republican-dominated legislature saying the document doesn’t grant a right to abortion.

The office of Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach had argued that the 2022 vote wouldn’t matter in deciding whether the 2 laws could stand. But Judge Evelyn Wilson, considered one of three justices appointed to the seven-member court after the court's landmark decision in 2019, said that while she can have disagreed then, “the people have spoken with their voices.”

“The results were accepted by the people and Kansas has shown the world how things work in a successful democracy,” wrote Wilson, a congressman appointed by Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly, a staunch supporter of abortion rights.

None of the laws overturned by the court were enforced in consequence of lawsuits brought against them by abortion providers.

Other lawsuits in lower state courts involve restrictions on medication abortion, a ban on doctors seeing patients by telephone conference, regulations on what doctors must tell their patients before an abortion, and a requirement that patients wait 24 hours after being informed a few possible abortion.

Friday's rulings can be felt far beyond Kansas, as they’ve drawn hundreds of patients from states where abortion is virtually banned, most notably Oklahoma and Texas. The Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for abortion rights, predicted last month that about 20,000 abortions could be performed in Kansas in 2023, up 152% from 2020.

Abortion opponents argued ahead of the August 2022 vote that a failure to amend the state structure would derail long-standing restrictions under previous Republican governors. Kansas saw a spate of recent restrictions from 2011 to 2018 under Republican Governor Sam Brownback.

“It hurts to have to say, 'We told you so,' to the many Kansas residents who were misled by the abortion industry's assurances that there would still be 'strong regulations' in our state even if voters rejected the 2022 amendment,” Danielle Underwood, a spokeswoman for Kansans for Life, the state's most influential anti-abortion group, said in a press release.

Judge KJ Wall, a Kelly appointee, didn’t take part in any of Friday's rulings, while Judge Caleb Stegall, appointed by Brownback, was the just one to vote against.

In his dissent within the clinic regulations case, Stegall said the bulk's actions would damage the court's legitimacy “for years to come.” He said its statements on bodily autonomy could affect a “wide swath” of health and safety regulations outside of abortion, including licensing requirements for hair salons.

“Surely the government has no compelling interest in who trims my beard,” Stegall wrote. “Let the litigation begin in this new, target-rich environment. The majority has – perhaps unwittingly – put the entire administrative state under scrutiny.”

Judge Melissa Standridge, also a Kelly appointee and the judge who wrote the bulk opinion within the clinic regulations case, called Stegall's comments “inappropriate and demeaning to women who are faced with the decision between having a child and having an abortion.”

Kansas bans most abortions until 22 weeks of pregnancy, but requires minors to have written consent from their parents or guardians. Other requirements, including the 24-hour waiting period and what a physician must tell patients, have been placed on hold. A lower court is considering difficult those requirements from doctors.

The health and safety rules, aimed specifically at abortion providers, were enacted in 2011. Proponents said they might protect women's health – although there was no evidence on the time that such rules had led to raised health outcomes elsewhere. Providers said the true goal was to place them out of business.

Standridge said in the bulk opinion on hospital regulations that not only is there no evidence that the regulations improve patient health, but that in some cases they “positively contradict” that position.

The other law overturned by the court would have banned a certain variety of dilation and evacuation, also referred to as D&E. It was the primary state ban of its kind when it went into effect in 2015.

According to statistics from the state Department of Health, about 600 D&E procedures were performed in Kansas in 2022, representing 5% of all abortions within the state. About 88% of the state's abortions occurred in the primary trimester. The state has not yet released statistics for 2023.

Banning the procedure would have forced providers to resort to alternative methods that, in keeping with the Center for Reproductive Rights, are riskier and costlier for patients.

Judge Eric Rosen, a judge appointed by former Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, said in the bulk opinion on the ban that lower court evidence showed it could force patients to undergo alternative procedures “that are rarely used, untested and sometimes more dangerous or impossible.”