FBI raids Polymarket founder’s home in criminal probe of election betting platform

(CODY, Wyo.) — A 60-year-old woman was walking off-trail in Yellowstone National Park when she suffered burns from scalding water in a thermal area by Old Faithful, park officials said.

The woman was walking with her husband and their dog in a thermal area near Mallard Lake Trailhead on Monday afternoon “when she broke through a thin crust” over the extremely hot water, suffering second-degree and third-degree burns to her leg, the National Park Service said.

The woman, who was visiting Yellowstone from New Hampshire, was taken to a park medical clinic and later flown to a hospital for further treatment, officials said.

Her husband and dog were not hurt, park officials said.

“Visitors are reminded to stay on boardwalks and trails in hydrothermal areas and exercise extreme caution,” Yellowstone National Park said in a statement. “The ground in these areas is fragile and thin, and there is scalding water just below the surface.”

Park spokesperson Linda Veress urges visitors to “follow the beaten path.”

“In thermal areas, boardwalks take you to amazing places, protect the park, and keep you safe,” Veress told ABC News. “People have been severely burned and killed after leaving the boardwalk or reaching into hot water.”

Pets aren’t allowed on boardwalks or hiking trails, or in thermal areas, park officials noted.

The incident is under investigation, park officials said.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Universities across the country have transformed at the command of anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) legislation. At the University of Texas-Austin, the legislation led to resource cancellations, office closures, and staff firings — pushing some students to create alternatives to their school’s defunct diversity programs.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB 17 into law in 2023, barring public institutions of higher education from having diversity, equity, and inclusion offices, as well as programs, activities, and training conducted by those offices. The law also restricts training or hiring policies based on race, gender identity or sexual orientation.

His office told ABC News in a recent statement that the legislation was intended to ensure people “advance based on talent and merit at public colleges and universities in Texas.”

Abbott’s office criticized universities for using DEI offices to “advance political agendas and exclude conservative viewpoints on college campuses. These efforts adversely affect our students, limit exposure to diverse thought, and destroy our education system,” read the statement from Abbott’s press secretary Andrew Mahaleris.

ABC News spoke to UT Austin students and a terminated faculty member about the compounding impact the loss of diversity programs has had on campus.

The Monarch Program

The long list of potential college life logistics – like how to pay for school, open an independent bank account or get a job – is even longer for undocumented students and those with temporary status.

These students are not eligible for federal student aid, federal work-study, are limited in their access to grants and scholarships and, in some cases, cannot accept paying jobs while in school.

With limited guidance and limited options, Arely, a student at UT Austin who asked to be referenced by only her first name out of privacy concerns, said her status created many unknowns and uncertainties for her future when applying to colleges. As a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient, Martinez told ABC News she worked hard to be at the top of her high school class so she could get into a good school.

DACA is a U.S. government policy that allows some undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States temporarily and work. Recipients must have entered the United States illegally before their 16th birthday and be younger than 31 years old on June 15, 2012, according to the U.S. Citizens and Immigration Services website.

“It was always kind of told to me, like, your education is going to be the only way you’re going to be able to kind of push forward and build something out for yourself – it’s through your education,” said Arely.

At UT Austin, students like Arely had a place to turn to for answers. Monarch, an on-campus student program for undocumented and temporary status students, hosted workshops on those logistical concerns, mental health resources at little to no cost, career fairs specifically geared toward undocumented students, panel discussions with undocumented grads, and a donor-based scholarship.

“Those are the things that I would help students navigate,” said Alicia Moreno, the former Monarch Student Program Coordinator. “Like working with campus partners to create resources and help students understand what their options were because many students that I heard – before they ran into Monarch – they believed their options were really slim.”

Monarch was a way for the university to ensure students could succeed despite the barriers they face due to their status, Moreno said.

“A lot of my college experience would have definitely been way more different had Monarch not been there,” said Arely. “I can’t imagine in what situation I would have been had I not had that support system.”

Arely, who worked at the center, said the Monarch team also would get requests from faculty and staff asking to hold trainings regarding the challenges undocumented students face.

“A lot of these students had gone their whole college career having access to these resources, and now they were suddenly taken away and ripped out of their hands,” said Arely. “Especially for, like, incoming freshmen who had maybe specifically applied to UT Austin because of this program, and now they’re going to get to the UT campus and they’re going to realize that program that was supposed to support them and acknowledge them is no longer there.”

Moreno was one of about 60 people whose positions were terminated following the closure of DEI offices and related initiatives, according to a joint letter from the Texas NAACP & Texas Conference of American Association of University Professors.

The university initially stated that some programs would be shifted to other divisions or renamed to complement ongoing operations. Monarch, according to students and former staff, was also initially not targeted by SB 17 since it does not specifically refer to any race or ethnicity.

However, university officials later stated that the law changed the scope of some programs, making them broader and creating overlap between existing programs.

“We know these programs and the dedicated staff who run them will continue to have positive impacts on our campus and community,” read the university’s letter referring to the programs that remained.

The terminations came shortly after state Sen. Brandon Creighton, who introduced the legislation, warned universities against simply renaming their DEI programs, threatening to freeze funding.

“I was getting ready to prepare for the next year. My office was just painted. I had just gotten that Exemplary Service Award, and then – boom! – we were all terminated,” Moreno said.

Students say they have been left to pick up the pieces without the dedicated resources to support them. Victoria Uriostegui-Garcia, a member of a student-run group called Rooted, said her organization has become a substitute for the services once provided by Monarch. It is one of several student-run organizations to take on the responsibilities of the now-shuttered offices.

“It falls on students again to provide their own resources, which is a very heavy burden,” said Uriostegui-Garcia. “We’re going to try our best.”

Students lead the charge

Among the centers and programs shut down by UT Austin were Multicultural Engagement Center, the Gender and Sexuality Center, and the Fearless Leadership Institute – a professional development program for African American & Hispanic women.

However, UT Austin is not the only school facing these restrictions. Schools across the state — and in some states across the country — have seen similar mass closures and firings following the implementation of anti-DEI legislation.

At least nine states have implemented legislation restricting DEI in education: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, lowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

Supporters of anti-DEI legislation, like Creighton, have applauded the changes made by SB 17. Creighton argued that it returned the university to “a merit-based operational framework, ensuring that every student, faculty, and staff member is afforded equal opportunities and not silenced by DEI-oriented policies,” he said in a March 2024 statement.

UT Austin states that it remains vigilant in ongoing efforts to ensure the university’s compliance with the state law, defining DEI offices as any office that implements programs or training with reference to race, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual orientation, “influences hiring or employment practices” with respect to those identities or promotes “differential treatment of or providing special benefits to individuals” on the basis of identity.

I recognize that strong feelings have surrounded SB 17 from the beginning and will shape many Longhorns’ perceptions of these measures,” said university president Jay Hartzell. “It is important that we respect the perspectives and experiences of our fellow Longhorns as the changes we are announcing today take effect. It is also important that this continues to be a welcoming, supportive community for all.”

UT Austin did not respond to ABC News’ requests for further comment.

Alex and Sophia, members of Texas Students for DEI who asked to be referenced by only their first names out of privacy concerns, say the services were targeted for specific groups who have historically faced discrimination or barriers to success, but were open to all students.

Alex noted, for example, that a closet of free clothes located in the gender center was open to all: “If it meant that you got kicked out of the home, or if it meant that you needed clothes for a job — hey, there’s clothes available, no questions asked.”

Alex and Sophia say many students they have spoken to did not know about SB 17 until it passed and they started seeing their centers close on campus.

Student organizations have stepped up to the plate, hoping to foster community in a time when resources backed by the university have shrunk. They say schools across the state have “over-complied” with the law — leading to a chilling effect of classroom curriculum and discussion concerning race, gender and sexual orientation.

“Even now, if you read some of the syllabi for some classes, they’ll have a disclaimer at the end saying no material in this class is pertaining to SB 17 or falls under the guidelines of SB 17,” said Sophia, despite the UT Austin website stating explicitly that academic instruction and research is not to be impacted by the law. “They’re expecting to be censored. They’re expecting the state to want to do things against them, and so they’re, they feel less comfortable talking about these topics openly, which ultimately affects our education.”

She continued, “We are a university, we’re a place of learning, and learning requires people to be open about information in a way that isn’t censored, and when a state tries to censor that, they ultimately harm themselves.”

With SB 17 passed, students are worried the state will continue to embrace other anti-DEI initiatives. They hope to safeguard from further efforts by educating the college community about what DEI is and what it means.

“It isn’t just one university. It’s all of us. And silence isn’t really the way out,” said Alex.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The U.S. Supreme Court, at once a major flashpoint in the 2024 campaign and potential presidential election referee, gavels open a new term on Monday with the nation deeply divided over its recent rulings and skeptical of the justices’ ethics and impartiality.

The court’s fall docket includes high-profile disputes over age-verification to access pornography online, the marketing of flavored e-cigarettes to kids, regulation of untraceable “ghost guns,” and EPA limits on sewage dumped into the Pacific Ocean.

A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors is considered one of the most significant cases of the term, so far. The justices have been asked to decide whether the medical restriction, adopted in more than 20 states, discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause.

“This is one of the most significant LGBTQ cases to ever reach the Supreme Court,” said Chase Strangio, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, who is expected to argue before the court. “This case will have a huge impact on the future of litigation on behalf of LGBTQ people.

The court could also be forced to weigh in on last-minute appeals over election rules, including changes to how ballots are cast and counted and, potentially, how contested election results are certified. It has already issued decisions allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for state voter registration and rejecting Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein’s bid to appear on the Nevada ballot.

The six conservative and three liberal justices return to the bench for oral arguments after delivering an extraordinary round of socially and politically-consequential decisions in June.

“Depending on your point of view, last term was either the term that the court saved the presidency or the term that the court let the most dangerous man in the history of American politics off the hook,” said Irv Gornstein, executive director of the Supreme Court institute at Georgetown Law.

The court’s blockbuster ruling on presidential immunity for former President Donald Trump and a pair of decisions sharply curtailing the power of federal agencies, among others, galvanized partisan interests around the court and ignited fierce public debate even as the full scope and impact of the judgments remains unclear.

Just 43% of Americans say they approve of the court’s work, a near-record low, according to Gallup. A successive series of reported alleged ethics violations by several justices, their resistance to independent enforcement of a new ethics code, and extraordinary leaks to the media of internal justice communications has only complicated the public’s view.

“Something does feel broken,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran high court litigator, of the internal workings of the court. “Some of [the justices] up there seem visibly frustrated.”

With less than a month before the general election, the justices may be eager to maintain a lower profile, some court analysts say, and their lighter-than-normal case load might be a key indicator.

“This term is, at least at the moment, a much quieter term than we’ve had in the last couple of years,” said outgoing ACLU legal director David Cole. “But that could change if the presidential election is close and disputed.”

Here’s a look at five key cases to watch:

Transgender kids: U.S. v Skrmetti

Key question: Does Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender minors violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?

Tennessee and 25 other states have passed bans on medical treatments for minors seeking to identify with, or live as, a gender identity inconsistent with his or her sex at birth. The Supreme Court is asked to decide whether those bans are constitutional.

While leading American medical organizations have endorsed the use of puberty blockers, hormone therapy and, in some cases, surgeries to improve the health and wellbeing of young people diagnosed with gender dysphoria, some medical groups and conservative lawmakers consider the treatments inappropriate and dangerous.

LGBTQ advocates and families of transgender minors allege Tennessee’s ban prohibits an otherwise legal and approved treatment for some people illegal for others purely on the basis of their sex. They claim it violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and overrides parental authority.

The state denies discrimination, insisting it has the right to regulate medical treatments and access to certain types of procedures, independent of a patient’s sex. The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sided with Tennessee.

This case marks the first time the nation’s highest court will take up the merits of legislation targeting transgender Americans. A decision could most directly impact the more than 300,000 high school-aged transgender youth in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute.

“We expect the Supreme Court is going to say whether governments have to treat trans people with equality, whether it’s okay for them to single us out for mistreatment, specifically in the realm of health, but with implications beyond,” said Gabriel Arkles, senior legal counsel with Advocates for Trans Equality.

The case has not yet been set for oral argument; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.

Ghost guns: Garland v VanDerStok

Key question: Can the government require purchase-age limits, background checks, serialization and registration for self-assemble gun kits widely available online?

Facing an explosion of crimes and deadly accidents involving self-assembled and untraceable weapons known as ghost guns, the Biden Administration issued a new regulation in 2022 classifying online parts kits and gun templates as “firearms” under federal law.

The Supreme Court will now decide whether that regulation can stand, forcing manufacturers and retailers to comply with licensing, background check, record-keeping and serialization requirements for gun kits, parts, and blueprints as with any other fully-assembled firearm.

Gun groups, which sued over the rule, say parts kits and 3D blueprints do not meet the definition of a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which governs gun sales and production in the U.S. The administration says the law is broadly written and clearly applies to anything that can be “readily converted to a functional condition.”

The dispute centers on competing interpretations of the text of federal law – not Second Amendment rights – but the outcome could have a major practical impact, experts say.

“If the Court strikes down the rule, it significantly limits federal regulation in this area,” said Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court litigator and Harvard Law professor. “There’s a real risk that criminals will be able to order guns on the internet, and the entire gun control framework will not apply to them.”

Oral arguments in the case have been scheduled for Oct. 8; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.

Death penalty: Glossip v Oklahoma

Key question: Must Oklahoma put a man to death even though the state doesn’t want to, he maintains his innocence, and prosecutors suppressed key evidence that could have undermined a conviction?

Richard Glossip has been scheduled for execution 8 times and been given his “last meal” 3 times. In 2015, he won a temporary reprieve by challenging the method of lethal injection at the U.S. Supreme Court; he ultimately lost.

Now, Glossip is back at the high court in a last-ditch bid to save his life – this time with the state of Oklahoma on his side, declaring that he may be innocent and deserves a new trial.

Oklahoma’s Republican governor and attorney general – both staunch supporters of the death penalty – have called Glossip’s 2004 murder conviction “deeply flawed.” He was linked to the crime by only the testimony of the confessed killer who later recanted and, unbeknownst to the jury, was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and taking psychiatric medication.

The state’s highest court, in narrowly divided rulings, denied all of Glossip’s appeals and rejected the state officials’ requests to vacate the conviction and initiate a new trial. It has said the execution must go forward.

“You might think this is extraordinary – someone having exculpatory evidence in the file that the state didn’t disclose and sometimes even allowing people to testify falsely,” said University of Chicago Law professor David Strauss. “It’s actually not that extraordinary. It actually happens pretty often, and the court should pay attention to that, and, if possible, do something about it.”

The dramatic case will test the Supreme Court on the competing values of finality after decades of failed appeals; the primacy of state courts on matters of state law; and the meaning of justice in a case with so many apparent flaws.

“It would be remarkable to me for the Supreme Court to say where the state and the individual don’t want execution it should go forward nonetheless,” said ACLU legal director David Cole.

Oral arguments in the case have been scheduled for Oct. 9; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.

Online porn: Free Speech Coalition v Paxton

Key question: Can states require websites with sexual material “harmful to minors” to verify a user’s age and display warnings that porn is potentially addictive?

Nineteen states have enacted age verification requirements for websites with sexually-explicit material that could be harmful to minors. Under Texas’ law, adults must submit personal information – including an uploaded copy of their ID – in order to obtain access.

The Supreme Court will now decide whether forcing adults to prove their age unlawfully burdens their First Amendment rights to view constitutionally-protected material, even if the objective is to protect kids.

“Pornography is protected speech; that’s black letter law. Material that is not obscene as to adults may be obscene as to children; that’s black letter law. No one’s disputing any of that,” said Jeremy Broggi, a Supreme Court litigator with Wiley Rein LLP. “In this case, the dispute is about when you say that everyone has to verify their age to access the material, does that burden the rights of adults that want to access it?”

Free speech advocates and the ACLU argue that the law is astonishingly broad and burdensome – applying to not just porn sites but public health resources and R-rated entertainment, among other things. They say it also robs people of a right to anonymity and that there are more effective and automated ways to block children.

“In addition to the censorship problem, there’s a question about what happens to this data. You put your photo ID on the website. They, in theory, are not allowed to keep it, although, how is Texas going to police that?” said Alan Morrison, associate dean for public interest and public service at George Washington University Law School.

Texas insists its requirements are reasonable measures to protect children, not unlike lawful requirements to verify a customer’s age before purchasing liquor or entering a strip club.

“PornHub has now disabled its website in Texas,” said Attorney General Ken Paxton, “because Texas has a law that aims to prevent them from showing harmful, obscene material to children. In Texas, companies cannot get away with showing porn to children. If they don’t want to comply, they should leave Texas.”

Both sides say the Supreme Court’s ruling could have a sweeping impact nationwide.

“More people watch porn and view porn each year than vote and read the newspaper,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran Supreme Court litigator with Williams & Connolly LLP. A 2016 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine reports that up to 70% of men and 40% of women have used pornography within the past year.

The case has not yet been set for oral argument; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.

Flavored e-cigarettes: FDA v Wages and White Lion

Key question: Did the FDA illegally refuse to approve the sale of flavored vapes, or e-cigarettes, popular among teens?

With e-cigarettes and vapes booming in popularity, the Supreme Court will scrutinize how the Food and Drug Administration vets new nicotine products for market and why it rejected a wave of flavored vapes in recent years.

Under federal law, the companies must provide FDA with reliable and robust evidence to show that the products would promote public health and that, on balance, the benefits to adult smokers would outweigh the risks of youth addiction.

At the center of the case is FDA’s refusal to approve applications from makers of e-liquid flavors like “Jimmy The Juice Man Peachy Strawberry,” “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies” and “Iced Pineapple Express.”

The agency said the companies had provided insufficient evidence that the benefits of their flavored products exceed the dangers to hooking kids. The companies later sued, alleging a flawed analysis that discounted the ways vape products help people stop smoking.

A Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel concluded that the FDA refusal to approve new flavored nicotine products was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of federal law. The agency has appealed.

“If you ask adults who smoke if they were to switch to e-cigarettes what kind of flavors are they interested in, the majority of responses are tobacco flavor. If you ask kids, they like the fruit or candy flavor,” said Caroline Cecot, an administrative law expert at George Washington University Law School. “This was a big part of what the FDA was sort of thinking about. And we have this evidence.”

Nearly a quarter of high school students who use e-cigarettes consume illicit menthol-flavored varieties, according to the 2023 National Youth Tobacco Survey.

The Supreme Court’s decision could impact how quickly and how much more widely available additional flavored nicotine products will be on the market in the U.S. The case has not yet been set for oral argument; a decision is expected by the end of June 2025.

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.