Supreme Court rules in favor of marijuana user charged with unlawful gun possession

(WASHINGTON) — One Washington, D.C.-area waste collection company says the long-term agreements it has made with its customers means it can’t raise its rates fast enough to keep up with the rising cost of diesel fuel.

Marc Shaener, director of market development for JLT Trucking Inc., told ABC News’ Elizabeth Schulze on Friday that rising diesel costs are costing the company $100,000 more per month for its fleet of more than 100 trucks.

“There’s no relief in sight,” Shaener said. “We can’t sustain it any longer, period, in that it’s going to detract from investment. It’s going to take away from our employees. It’s going to shrink business.”

Diesel prices have risen nearly 60% since the war with Iran began almost seven months ago. The average price of diesel hit a record high on Monday at around $6.49 per gallon, according to GasBuddy. The national average price sat near $3.70 a year ago.

Diesel prices rose 30.7 cents over the last week, according to GasBuddy, boosted by the flareup in fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia.

Vice President JD Vance told reporters today that the Navy is trying to push back against the Iranians “trying to terrorize international shipping.”

“We’re very cognizant of the fact that because the Iranians are terrorizing international shipping, energy prices are elevated,” Vance said. “We’re doing everything that we can to, one, try to clamp down on those prices, but give American people some relief in the interim.”

President Donald Trump has previously pointed to Ukraine’s attacks on energy infrastructure in Russia as driving up prices.

“Russia has unfortunately lost control of its Diesel Oil Industry due to its War with Ukraine,” Trump posted on his social media platform on Monday. “A large number of their Diesel refineries have been blown up and are, at least temporarily, out of commission.”

Shaener said his fleet burns about 2,000 gallons of diesel a day to collect waste and recyclables in the D.C. and Baltimore region. He said he’ll now spend an extra $1.2 million a year on fuel.

“They rebounded so high and so fast that we can’t even change pricing fast enough to account for that cost,” Shaener said. 

He said JLT can’t increase its rates to keep up because its contracts usually adjust annually or every five years so it has been forced to absorb its higher costs. 

Shaener said his business is an economic indicator.

“When things go down, trash is the first to feel it. And we’re starting to feel it already,” he said. “People have budgets to hit. They can’t afford this, so they have to cut somewhere. They cut from the trash.”

Shaener said he feels like JLT’s employees and customers are political “pawns.”

“We have to tell our customers. We have to tell our employees. We have to tell our investors why we can’t do what we want, what we planned to do,” he said. “Why is that? That’s because someone somewhere is running a government that decided that they’re going to impact our industrial fuel economy.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett made a rare appearance before Congress on Tuesday to pitch lawmakers on new security enhancements for the Supreme Court even as they fielded criticism about their transparency and ethics practices.

The hearing marked the first time since 2019 that members of the Supreme Court have testified on Capitol Hill and comes as the justices seek support for a larger budget — $228 million, up 10% from last year — to accommodate more security.

The funding increase would go almost entirely toward beefing up personal protection for the justices, though the court has also asked for funding to support more building officers, an off-site security office and new cybersecurity hires.

Lawmakers seemed largely sympathetic to the justices on Tuesday, who cited a heightened threat environment — and the personal toll it takes on their daily lives — in recent years. The Supreme Court police report that threats against the justices increased by 38% last year and 25% the prior year.

In the hearing’s most personal moment, Justice Barrett shared that she brought a bulletproof vest home around the time of the court’s leaked opinion overturning Roe v. Wade — a precaution she struggled to explain to her 12-year-old son. 

“I didn’t expect that performing this service was going to put me in the position of explaining to my children what a bulletproof vest was and why I had to wear one,” Barrett said, calling the threat environment “really high.”

Barrett also confirmed news reports that she was the target of a swatting incident six weeks ago, saying her teenage son opened the door to swarms of law enforcement. Swatting involves hoax calls about bogus shootings and other emergencies.

Other justices have also faced security concerns in recent years, most notably when a man went to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s house in 2022 looking to assassinate him in the weeks after the Dobbs opinion was leaked.

Each member currently has between four and eight agents assigned to them, the justices testified on Tuesday — a number they said fluctuates based on the justices’ schedule and the scrutiny they’re under. 

The Supreme Court’s requested 2027 budget would significantly expand that security force. The justices are seeking $14.6 million to fund six additional agents per justice — a total of 54 new officers — and to hire 25 officers dedicated to the Supreme Court building.

The justices argued on Tuesday that the current staff allocation is insufficient. Barrett said it risks burn out and exhaustion, noting the same detail often drops her off at 11 p.m. and must then arrive in the morning again.

The court has also asked for $6.5 million to fund an “exterior visitor screening facility design.” The money would go toward blueprints and early planning for an off-campus security process for those entering the court.

Kagan briefly addressed the proposal, saying the justices were concerned about visitors entering the building before they had been screened. Currently, members of the public go through magnetometers and x-ray machines inside the lobby area beneath the grand staircase. 

The justices were also asked about more unconventional threats, including from drones and cyber warfare.

Barrett acknowledged that “drone mitigation measures are certainly on security’s radar.” She also said that cybersecurity attacks were increasing “by magnitudes year after year.” The Supreme Court has asked for $2.3 million to fund cybersecurity-related hires — part of a yearslong plan to protect its data and bolster technology infrastructure.

Though lawmakers largely steered clear of hot-button policy issues on Tuesday, Democrats pressed the justices on transparency-related concerns that they say have eroded trust in the court. 

Lawmakers appeared most frustrated with the court’s prolific use of the so-called “shadow docket” — also known as the “emergency docket” — to reach decisions on emergency requests more quickly and without a full briefing or oral argument.

Notably, Kagan — who has long been publicly critical of this practice — defended the practice on Tuesday. She said it was no longer accurate to refer to it as “shadow” because the court was more frequently providing explanations alongside their snap decisions on the docket.

“We have done, I think, a better job in the recent past of where appropriate — and it’s not always appropriate — but where appropriate, explaining ourselves at least to a moderate degree,” Kagan said.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, pressed the justices in particular on their ethical practices after recent ethics scandals, such as Justice Clarence Thomas’ unreported financial ties to and luxury travel with a billionaire GOP donor and Justice Samuel Alito’s reported luxury vacation he took with a wealthy hedge fund manager who later had business before the Supreme Court.

DeLauro called on the Supreme Court to adopt a gift ban, citing a bill reintroduced by her colleague Rep. Jamie Raskin on Tuesday that would prevent the justices from accepting gifts greater than $50.

DeLauro also pressed the justices on how they were enforcing their code of conduct, adopted in 2023. Though Barrett hesitated to endorse an independent enforcement mechanism, Kagan said she was supportive. 

“I think that we would be better off with an enforcement mechanism,” Kagan said. “I think that my colleagues are taking this code incredibly seriously, all making every effort — and I think successful efforts — to live by it. But if nothing else, for public confidence.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The White House released a scathing 162-page report accusing the Smithsonian Institution of engaging in “extreme political activism” and presenting “a radical view of American history.”

The report, which was published on Saturday, July 4, particularly took aim at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History (NMAH), accusing its leadership of adopting “an ideological framework that no longer treats the American story as a shared national inheritance to be taught or celebrated, but as a political instrument to divide, dispirit, and discourage our citizens.”

The report accuses the museum of “anti-White activism,” “illegal alien activism,” and “transgender activism.” It also includes many photos of materials the White House has identified as problematic.

Asked about the report, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian, which oversees 21 museums, galleries and the national zoo, told ABC News that the institution remains committed to impartial learning.

“For more than 180 years, the Smithsonian has served the American public with nonpartisan and independent scholarship, and we remain committed to doing so,” the spokesperson said on Sunday.

In his most recent public comments, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch told NBC’s “Meet the Press” in an interview that aired Sunday morning that the institution is “in pursuit of the promise of America.”

The report, which was published by the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, comes amid an ongoing White House review of the Smithsonian as well as a separate internal review launched by the Smithsonian into its own exhibits and processes. Asked about the status of the internal review, a spokesperson for the Smithsonian did not comment.

The White House review was launched in response to President Donald Trump’s March 27, 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.”

The executive order directed Vice President J.D. Vance, in consultation with the president’s advisers on domestic policy, “to remove improper ideology” from Smithsonian institutions, arguing that materials that cast America in a “negative light” have no place in federal cultural institutions.

“The serious concerns raised in this report are not about a few exhibits or a few controversial labels,” the report says. “As it stands today, it would benefit most Americans, especially parents bringing their children for a tour, if the Smithsonian’s flagship history museum had a label at every entrance that reads: ‘Warning: the exhibits in this museum were prepared by people who don’t want you to love your country.'”

What’s in the report?

The report includes dozens of examples of exhibits and materials in exhibits that the White House has determined to be examples of “radical activism.”

For instance, the report highlights an exhibit titled “Many Voices, One Nation,” and claims that its contents attempt “to instill within visitors its belief that migration and immigration, including the granting of citizenship to illegal aliens, is a defining modern-day civil rights and human liberty issue.”

The report also takes issue with displays about transgender people, including an exhibit titled “Girlhood” that profiled transgender media personality and LGBTQ+ rights advocate Jazz Jennings.

“One of the clearest examples of NMAH’s radical ideology is its refusal to correctly identify or define what a woman is,” the report states — reinforcing language from Trump’s January 2025 executive order, which outlined that this administration’s policy would be to “recognize two sexes, male and female” based on biology.

Overall, the report takes issue with materials addressing “white supremacy,” “racism” and the country’s history of “slavery,” “conquest” and “exclusion.”

The report claims that the museum fails to substantially represent the founders of the United States and that the exhibits cast America as “a problematic country irredeemably conceived, founded by deeply flawed men, and still operating today as an instrument of systemic racism and oppression.”

Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, previously told ABC News that the White House is seeking to create “a narrowly sanitized version of the American past” at federal cultural institutions “that fits comfortably” into Trump’s executive order.

The American Historical Association (AHC), which represents 10,000 historians across various educational and cultural institutions in the U.S., has publicly defended the Smithsonian and urged the White House to “respect and value the expertise of the historians, curators, and other museum professionals who conduct the review and revision of historical content according to the professional standards of our discipline.”

ABC News reached out to AHA for further comment.

What comes next?

The report does not specify action points related to correcting the so-called “activism,” but does reference the fact that the Smithsonian Institution is largely funded by the federal government and U.S. taxpayers.

“That means the public has a right to expect that it will operate as a faithful steward of the Nation’s historic and cultural heritage, not as a vehicle for ideological campaigns,” the report says.

According to the Smithsonian Institution, which oversees 21 museums and galleries and the national zoo, it currently receives more than $1 billion in federal funding — about 62% of its funding — and the remainder of the funds come from “trust funds or non-federal funds, including contributions from private sources” and revenues from Smithsonian enterprises.

Bunch has been leading the Smithsonian since 2019 but the institution is overseen by a 17-member governing body, known as the Board of Regents. Bunch, who met with Trump at the White House on Aug. 28, 2025, repeatedly affirmed the Smithsonian’s “independence” from political influence.

Referencing his conversations with Trump in a Sept. 3, 2025 letter to the institution’s employees, Bunch underscored the independence of the Smithsonian, saying it was “paramount.” He also told employees that the institution remains committed to telling the “American story” and “will always be, a place that welcomes all Americans and the world.”

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.