Judge blocks Louisiana law requiring the Ten Commandments in classrooms
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Louisiana’s new law requiring all public school classrooms to display the Ten Commandments was temporarily blocked on Tuesday by a judge who called it “unconstitutional on its face and in all applications.”
A multi-faith group of Louisiana families with children in public schools sued the state to challenge the law, HB 71, which mandates that public schools — from kindergarten to the collegiate level — display the religious text in every classroom on “a poster or framed document that is at least 11 inches by 14 inches.”
The lawsuit argues that requiring poster-sized displays of religious doctrine in classrooms violates the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and the separation of church and state.
The suit further argues that the law violates a U.S. Supreme Court precedent, pointing to the Stone v. Graham case in which the court overturned a similar 1980 Kentucky law, holding that the separation of church and state bars public schools from posting the Ten Commandments in classrooms.
Supporters of the law say the Ten Commandments have historical significance to the foundation of U.S. history and are not just a religious text.
In July, both parties agreed that the Ten Commandments would not be posted in any public school classroom and that defendants — including the state’s Louisiana State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education — would not publicly move forward on the law’s implementation until the court’s decision in November.
Florida also recently passed a policy which allowed volunteer religious chaplains to serve as student counselors. The ACLU has expressed “grave concerns” over Florida’s policy but legal challenges have yet to be filed in that matter.
(WASHINGTON) — New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy is throwing his support behind proposed federal legislation that would address unmanned aircraft systems as the state deals with an ever-growing spate of drone sightings. The bill would grant the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice more authority over the unmanned aircraft.
Murphy wrote to President Joe Biden and congressional leaders Thursday calling for more federal resources and the passing of the legislation in light of the unexplained drones sightings within the state’s airspace in recent weeks.
“As New Jersey works alongside our federal partners to identify the source of these UAS, the clock is ticking on the authorization language that enables us to do so,” Murphy wrote. “On December 20th, the U.S Department of Homeland Security and the FBI’s counter-UAS authority will lapse alongside the continuing resolution currently funding the federal government. State and local law enforcement entities lack the authority and capability to counter and mitigate UAS, which would significantly hamper our ability to understand what is happening, so it is of utmost importance that this language is reauthorized in a timely manner.”
“It is also clear that this is not a job the federal government can do on its own and I would encourage you to empower state and local law enforcement entities with the ability to use advanced detection and mitigation technology,” he continued. “Senators [Gary] Peters (D-MI) and [Ron] Johnson (R-WI) have pending legislation, the ‘Safeguarding the Homeland from the Threats Posed by Unmanned Aircraft Systems Act of 2023’ (S.1631) that would accomplish these goals.”
The legislation would allow Homeland Security and the DOJ personnel who are tasked with the safety, security or protection of people, facilities or assets “to detect, identify, monitor, track, and mitigate a credible threat … that an unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft poses to the safety or security of a covered facility or asset,” according to the legislation.
Some of the specific actions also include: warning the operator of the unmanned aircraft system; disrupting control of the unmanned aircraft system; seizing or exercising control of the unmanned aircraft system; seizing or otherwise confiscating the unmanned aircraft system; and even using reasonable force, if necessary, to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system, according to the legislation.
The final section, on disabling, damaging or destroying the drones echoes the sentiment expressed by several politicians, including Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal and other local officials, that local officials should be able to shoot down any unknown drones to study where they are coming from.
The Department of Homeland Security has warned against that, saying, “Shooting down a drone can pose safety risks to people and property on the ground. Debris from a downed drone can cause injury or damage, especially in populated areas.” Anyone who unlawfully shoots down a drone can also be fined up to $250,000 and face up to 20 years in prison, according to the DHS.
The legislation suggests launching a pilot program for state, local, tribal or territorial agencies to enroll in, allowing them authority over drones for a period of up to six years. Government agencies that are a part of the pilot program will need to report to Congress their usage of the authority, including any privacy or civil liberties complaints.
The secretary of transportation and the attorney general may also provide regulations and shall issue guidance in relation to action stemming from the proposed legislation. They are also to coordinate with the Federal Aviation Administration and the secretary of transportation before carrying out any action.
“I wrote to [Biden] to express my concerns about reports of unmanned aircraft systems in and around NJ airspace. Since existing laws limit the ability of state and local law enforcement to counter UAS, more federal resources are needed to understand what is behind this activity,” Murphy said in a statement.
In his letter to Biden, Murphy wrote that unmanned aircraft systems have introduced additional risks to pubic safety, privacy and homeland security while state and local law enforcement “remain hamstrung by existing laws and policies to successfully counteract them, leaving action around UAS squarely on the shoulders of the federal government.”
“New Jersey residents deserve more concrete information about these UAS sightings and what is causing them. The continued reporting of UAS activity has raised more questions than answers and prompted an outcropping of conspiracy theories across social media and other platforms,” Murphy said.
(GREEN LAKE, Wis.) — A husband and father of three who vanished at a Wisconsin lake this summer may have faked his own death and fled to Eastern Europe, authorities said, and the sheriff is now urging the missing man to come forward.
“Our most important thing, for us, is to know that you’re safe,” Green Lake County Sheriff Mark Podoll said in his message to Ryan Borgwardt. “We can talk through all this and we can work things out.”
The case began on the morning of Aug. 12, when authorities learned Borgwardt, 45, hadn’t returned home and was last known to be on Green Lake, according to the Green Lake County Sheriff’s Office.
Borgwardt last texted his wife on the night of Aug. 11, saying he was turning his kayak around and heading to shore soon, Podoll said.
Officials discovered Borgwardt’s overturned kayak and life jacket in the lake, authorities said, and they later found his fishing rod and tackle box.
Responders believed the missing dad drowned and they scoured the lake using divers, drones, sonar and cadaver K-9s, officials said.
“The search continued for about 54 days, with no sign of Ryan,” the sheriff said during a news conference on Friday. “Near daily drone searches were completed. And Bruce’s Legacy [a volunteer search organization] methodically searched approximately 1,500 acres. … Keith Cormican, [who leads] Bruce’s Legacy, sifted through hours and hours of sonar data and images.”
“Keith’s expertise and equipment led us to believe either something very odd occurred and Ryan was outside the area that had been searched, or something else had occurred,” the sheriff said.
The case took a turn in October when investigators discovered Borgwardt’s name had been checked by law enforcement in Canada on Aug. 13, the sheriff said.
Authorities also learned Borgwardt had been communicating with a woman from Uzbekistan, the sheriff said.
Other behavior included clearing his browsers the day he disappeared, inquiries about moving funds to foreign banks, getting a new life insurance policy, obtaining a new passport and replacing his laptop hard drive, the sheriff said.
“I was totally shocked,” Podoll told ABC News on Monday. “It was just unbelievable that we would have a case like this where some party actually staged his death.”
Authorities have stopped searching the lake.
“As far as we know, he’s someplace in Eastern Europe,” the sheriff told ABC News.
Investigators are “looking into what charges could be filed,” Podoll said, adding, “that’s a work in progress.”
Authorities hope to pursue restitution for the expenses of the search, the sheriff’s office said.
“He wasted a lot of my time and it cost me a lot of money,” Cormican of Bruce’s Legacy said.
Podoll said it’s not clear if Borgwardt was given help, and he urged anyone with information to come forward.
Podoll praised Borgwardt’s wife, whom he said was not involved, calling her “a very, very strong lady.”
“I was there when the sheriff broke the news to the whole family. And it was pretty, pretty heart-wrenching to see,” Cormican told ABC News. “I feel horrible for the family. They’re the ones that are going to really struggle.”
ABC News’ Karolina Rivas contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — The judge in Donald Trump’s New York criminal hush money case indicated Friday that he intends to sentence the president-elect to an “unconditional discharge” out of respect for the presidential immunity doctrine.
Judge Juan Merchan ordered Trump to appear, either in person or virtually, for sentencing on Jan. 10, which is 10 days before Trump’s presidential inauguration.
Merchan, in his ruling Friday, called an unconditional discharge the “most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options.”
Trump faces the possibility of up to four years in prison for his conviction, though most legal experts believe he is more likely to receive a lighter sentence.
Trump’s legal team is expected to try to stop the Jan. 10 sentencing, sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News. His lawyers intend to ask an intermediate New York appellate court to intervene and stop the sentencing hearing from going forward, the sources said.
Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung, in a statement, called Merchan’s ruling “a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s Immunity decision and other longstanding jurisprudence.”
“President Trump must be allowed to continue the Presidential Transition process and to execute the vital duties of the presidency, unobstructed by the remains of this or any remnants of the Witch Hunts. There should be no sentencing,” the statement said.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office, which secured the conviction against Trump, did not respond to a request for comment from ABC News.
Trump was found guilty this past May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels in order to boost his electoral prospects in the 2016 presidential election.
Merchan, in his ruling, described Trump’s conduct as a “premediated and continuous deception by the leader of the free world.”
“To vacate this verdict on the grounds that the charges are insufficiently serious given the position Defendant once held, and is about to assume again, would constitute a disproportionate result and cause immeasurable damage to the citizenry’s confidence in the Rule of Law,” the ruling said.
While Merchan said that he cannot determine Trump’s sentence without hearing from Trump himself and others in the case, he signaled his plan to sentence him to an unconditional discharge, under which Trump would avoid serious punishment but the record of his conviction would remain on his record.
Trump’s lawyers had long fought to push back the sentencing, successfully delaying it three times following the Supreme Court’s sweeping ruling on presidential immunity and a heated presidential campaign.
Merchan initially scheduled the sentencing for July 11 before pushing it to Sept. 18 in order to weigh if Trump’s conviction was impacted by the Supreme Court’s July ruling prohibiting the prosecution of a president for official acts undertaken while in office. Merchan subsequently ruled that Trump’s conviction related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
Merchan wrote that a unconditional discharge would respect the sanctity of the jury’s verdict — which he called “a bedrock principle in our nation’s jurisprudence” — and the principle of presidential immunity.
“While this Court as a matter of law must not make any determination on sentencing prior to giving the parties and Defendant an opportunity to be heard, it seems proper at this juncture to make known the Court’s inclination to not impose any sentence of incarceration, a sentence authorized by the conviction but one the People concede they no longer view as a practicable recommendation,” the ruling said.
“As such; in balancing the aforementioned considerations in conjunction with the underlying concerns of the Presidential immunity doctrine, a sentence of an unconditional discharge appears to be the most viable solution to ensure finality and allow Defendant to pursue his appellate options,” Merchan wrote.
Merchan’s ruling criticized Trump and his lawyers — several of whom are set to take top positions at the Department of Justice — for using rhetoric that “has no place in legal pleadings.”
“Dangerous rhetoric is not a welcome form of argument and will have no impact on how the Court renders this or any other Decision,” Merchan wrote.
The judge also criticized Trump for his “disdain” for the judiciary.
“Defendant’s disdain for the Third Branch of government, whether state or federal, in New York or elsewhere, is a matter of public record. Indeed, Defendant has gone to great lengths to broadcast on social media and other forums his lack of respect for judges, juries, grand juries and the justice system as a whole,” the ruling said.
The jury’s verdict, handed down last summer, made Trump the first U.S. president, current or former, to be criminally convicted.
