Tag Archives: NRLPA:OCIV

Trump incited Jan. 6 attack after ‘unhinged’ White House meeting, panel told

WASHINGTON, July 12 (Reuters) – U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday accused Donald Trump of inciting a mob of followers to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a last-ditch bid to remain in power fueled by a chaotic meeting with some of his most ardent supporters.

The House of Representatives committee also produced evidence that aides and outside agitators knew before the riot that Trump would urge thousands of his supporters to march on the Capitol that day.

The panel’s seven Democrats and two Republicans have used the hearings to build a case that Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election constitute illegal conduct, far beyond normal politics.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

As the three-hour hearing ended, Republican Representative Liz Cheney said Trump had tried to phone a potential committee witness, raising the possibility he might have illegally tried to influence witness testimony. read more

In video testimony shown during the hearing, witnesses described a loud late-night six-hour meeting on Dec. 18, 2020, where Trump disregarded White House staffers who urged him to concede the November 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden.

Instead, Trump sided with outside advisers who urged him to keep pressing his baseless claims of election fraud.

Committee members said Trump ultimately was responsible for the chaos that followed.

“President Trump is a 76-year-old man. He is not an impressionable child. … He is responsible for his own actions and his own choices,” said Cheney, the committee vice chairperson.

Committee members said Trump incited the riot through his refusal to admit he lost the election and through comments like his Dec. 19, 2020, Twitter post, shortly after the meeting, for supporters to flock to Washington for a “big protest,” saying, “Be there, will be wild.”

Trump, a Republican who has hinted he will seek the White House again in 2024, denies wrongdoing and has falsely asserted that he lost only because of widespread fraud that benefited Biden, a Democrat.

‘NOT TOUGH ENOUGH’

The committee played recorded testimony from White House aides describing the angry Dec. 18 meeting where a handful of Trump’s outside advisers, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, attorney Sidney Powell and Patrick Byrne, former chief executive of Overstock.com, encouraged him to fight the election result.

“I don’t think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. I didn’t understand how they had gotten in,” Pat Cipollone, Trump’s former White House counsel, said in video testimony.

Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democratic committee member, displayed a text from White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson, who gave explosive testimony last month, saying of the meeting, “The West Wing is unhinged.”

Giuliani, who was escorted from the White House grounds, said in video testimony his argument had been: “You guys are not tough enough. Or maybe I put it another way: You’re a bunch of pussies, excuse the expression. I’m almost certain the word was used.”

The attack on the Capitol, following a speech Trump gave at a rally outside the White House, delayed certification of Biden’s election for hours, injured more than 140 police officers and led to several deaths.

‘A MOB WAS BEING ORGANIZED’

The committee presented evidence that it said showed Trump’s call for his supporters to march on the Capitol was not spontaneous but had been planned in advance.

The panel showed an unsent Twitter message about the rally, with a stamp showing Trump had seen it: “Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!”

The committee also played audio testimony from a former employee of Twitter describing his fear after Trump’s December tweet and deep concern on Jan. 5 about the possibility of violence on Jan. 6.

“It felt as if a mob was being organized and they were gathering together their weaponry and their logic and their reasoning behind why they were prepared to fight,” the Twitter employee said, his voice disguised.

About 800 people have been charged with taking part in the Capitol riot, with about 250 guilty pleas so far.

The hearing also looked at links between right-wing militant groups, including the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys and the QAnon internet conspiracy movement, with Trump and his allies. Many Oath Keepers and Proud Boys participated in the Jan. 6 attack.

Two witnesses testified in the hearing room – Stephen Ayres, who has pleaded guilty to a federal charge for participating in the attack on the Capitol, and Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the Oath Keepers.

Ayres said he joined the march because he believed Trump, and that he had since lost his job, sold his house and no longer believes Trump’s “Big Lie” that the election had been stolen. “It changed my life, you know, definitely not for the good.”

Trump and his supporters – including many Republicans in Congress – dismiss the Jan. 6 panel as a political witch hunt, but the panel’s backers say it is a necessary probe into a violent threat against democracy.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle and Richard Cowan, additional reporting by Sarah N. Lynch, Doina Chiacu and Rose Horowitch; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Howard Goller

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Biden weighs authority to declare abortion-related public health emergency

July 10 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden on Sunday said he has asked his administration to consider whether he has authority to declare an abortion-related public health emergency after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

The comments come after Biden on Friday signed an executive order to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies. read more

Biden was on his way to a bike ride near his residence in Delaware when he stopped to speak to reporters, who asked if he was considering declaring a public health emergency regarding abortion access. The president responded that he was asking his staff to see “whether I have the authority” and what the impacts would be.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure from his own party to take action after the landmark decision last month to overturn Roe v. Wade, which upended roughly 50 years of protections for women’s reproductive rights.

On his stop to speak with reporters, Biden said his goal was to codify abortion rights through legislation and delivered a message to abortion rights protesters who have gathered outside the White House.

“Keep protesting. Keep making your point. It’s critically important,” he said. “We can do a lot of things to accommodate the rights of women.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Nandita Bose; Writing by Tyler Clifford in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

New York bans guns in many public places after Supreme Court ruling

NEW YORK, July 1 (Reuters) – New York state passed a law on Friday banning guns from many public places, including Times Square, and requiring gun-license applicants to prove their shooting proficiency and submit their social media accounts for review by government officials.

The law, passed in an emergency legislative session, was forced by a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that struck down New York’s restrictive gun-license laws. The court’s conservative majority ruled for the first time that the U.S. Constitution grants an individual the right to carry weapons in public for self-defense. read more

New York’s Democratic leaders have decried the ruling and the court, saying there will be more gun violence if there are more people carrying guns.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

They conceded they must loosen the state’s century-old permit scheme to comply with the ruling, but sought to keep as many restrictions as they could in the name of public safety. Some will likely be targets for further legal challenges.

The court ruled that New York’s former license regime, which dates from 1911, gave too much discretion to officials to deny a permit.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat who ordered the extraordinary session in the legislature, said the state’s gun-licensing regulations had resulted in New York having the fifth-lowest rate of gun deaths of the 50 U.S. states.

“Our state will continue to keep New Yorkers safe from harm, even despite this setback from the Supreme Court,” she told a news conference in the state capital, Albany, while lawmakers were debating the bill. “They may think they can change our lives with the stroke of a pen, but we have pens, too.”

The court’s ruling allowed that people could be banned from carrying weapons in certain “sensitive places” but warned lawmakers against applying the label too broadly.

The court also made it easier for pro-gun groups to have a regulation overturned. It ruled that a weapons regulation was likely unconstitutional if it was not similar to the sort of regulations around in the 18th century, when the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment was ratified, letting states maintain militias and defining a right to “keep and bear Arms.”

The law passed on Friday makes it a felony crime to carry a gun into a new list of sensitive places, including: government buildings, medical facilities, places of worship, libraries, playgrounds, parks, zoos, schools, colleges, summer camps, addiction-support centers, homeless shelters, nursing homes, public transit including the New York City subway, places where alcohol or marijuana is consumed, museums, theaters, stadiums and other venues, polling places and Times Square.

Law enforcement officials and registered security guards are among those exempt from the sensitive-place restrictions.

Republican lawmakers voted against the law, set to take effect on Sept. 1, complaining that it makes the right to carry weapons lesser than other constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and of religion.

“Now, it’s going to be easier to get a concealed-carry” license, said Mike Lawler, a Republican member of the Assembly, during the debate. “But you’re not going to be able to carry it anywhere.”

‘FLAGRANT VIOLATION’

The National Rifle Association, the powerful gun-owners’ rights group whose local affiliate was the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case, called New York’s law a “flagrant violation” of the ruling by creating more barriers to New Yorkers’ self-defense rights, indicating it may soon face legal challenges.

“Gov. Hochul and her anti-Second Amendment allies in Albany have defied the United States Supreme Court with an intentionally malicious rewriting of New York’s concealed carry law,” Darin Hoens, the New York NRA state director, said in a statement.

The court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that New York licensing officials had too much subjective discretion over who could enjoy what it said was a constitutional right. Applicants were denied a concealed-carry permit if they could not convince an official they had “proper cause,” or some kind of special reason, for carrying a handgun for self-defense. read more

Reluctantly and not without protest, Hochul agreed the state must remove the “proper cause” requirements, though the law still requires licensing officers find the applicant is of “good moral character.” read more

The new licensing rules require applicants to meet with the licensing officer, usually a judge or a police official, for an in-person interview, and provide the contact details of some immediate family members and any adults they live with.

The law makes it a felony to carry a gun into private business premises unless the business affirmatively gives notice that concealed weapons are welcome.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Jonathan Allen in New York; Editing by Chris Reese, Daniel Wallis and William Mallard

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Suspected truck driver in Texas migrant deaths was on meth, lawmaker says

  • 53 migrants died in U.S. border smuggling attempt
  • Suspected driver charged with human trafficking offense
  • Driver had meth in his system, lawmaker and U.S. official say

SAN ANTONIO, June 30 (Reuters) – The suspected driver of a truck packed with dozens of migrants who died in blazing heat during a Texas smuggling attempt was allegedly under the influence of methamphetamine when police encountered him, a U.S. lawmaker told Reuters, citing information from law enforcement.

San Antonio police officers found Homero Zamorano Jr, a Texas native, hiding in brush near the abandoned tractor-trailer on Monday, according to documents filed in federal court on Thursday. Fifty-three migrants lost their lives, making it the deadliest such trafficking incident on record in the United States.

U.S. Representative Henry Cuellar, a Democrat whose district includes the eastern part of San Antonio, told Reuters on Thursday that Zamorano was found to have had methamphetamine, a powerful synthetic drug, in his system.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Cuellar said he was briefed on the matter by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), but did not know how authorities made that determination. A CBP official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, separately told Reuters that Zamorano had methamphetamine in his system.

Reuters was not immediately able to independently confirm the accounts of the alleged drug use.

Zamorano, 45, appeared in federal court in San Antonio on Thursday where human trafficking charges against him were read. If convicted, he faces a maximum sentence of life in prison or the death penalty and up to a $250,000 fine, he was told.

He was accompanied by public defender Jose Gonzalez-Falla, who declined to comment on the case. U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Chestney said Zamorano would be held in custody until his next hearing, on July 6.

Officials described finding the trailer’s rear door ajar with bodies stacked inside that were hot to the touch. In nearby brush, officers discovered other victims, some deceased. They found Zamorano hiding near the victims and escorted him to a local hospital for medical evaluation, prosecutors said. Mexican officials said he had tried to pass himself off as one of the survivors.

‘WHERE YOU AT?’

The truck had been carrying migrants from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador and was found in a desolate, industrial area near a highway on the outskirts of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Temperatures in the area that day had soared as high as 103 Fahrenheit (39.4 Celsius), and authorities called to the scene found no water supplies or signs of working air-conditioning inside the cargo trailer.

Prosecutors allege Zamorano conspired with Christian Martinez, 28, who was also charged with a human trafficking offense. Martinez on Monday sent a photo of a truck load manifest to Zamorano, who responded by saying, “I go to the same spot,” a federal investigator wrote in a court filing Wednesday.

Martinez repeatedly messaged Zamorano in the hours after but received no reply, wrote Nestor Canales, a special agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) investigations division. Martinez sent messages including “Call me bro” and “Wya bro,” meaning “where you at,” Canales wrote.

A confidential informant for ICE and the Texas police spoke with Martinez after the incident, Canales wrote. Martinez told the informant, “The driver was unaware the air conditioning unit stopped working and was the reason why the individuals died,” Canales added.

Reuters was unable to reach Martinez for comment. Martinez, who is in official custody, made an initial appearance in a court in the Eastern District of Texas on Wednesday.

‘STASH HOUSE’

Along with 27 Mexicans, the victims included 14 Hondurans, eight Guatemalans and two Salvadorans, Mexican and Guatemalan officials said. Others, including minors, remain hospitalized.

A spokeswoman for Guatemala’s foreign ministry told Reuters it was unclear whether two of the Guatemalans identified Thursday had died on Monday or at a later date.

Among the dead were Pascual Melvin Guachiac, 13, and Juan Wilmer Tulul, 14, both from Guatemala, the country’s foreign ministry wrote on Twitter.

The two were cousins who left home two weeks ago to escape poverty, Guachiac’s mother was quoted as saying by Guatemalan media. read more

Also among the victims was Yazmin Nayarith Bueso, who left Honduras nearly a month ago. Her brother said she had gone a year without a job. “She looked and looked and couldn’t find anything, and became desperate,” Alejandro Bueso told a Honduran television program on Thursday.

Officials believe the migrants boarded the truck on the U.S. side of the border with Mexico.

Surveillance photographs captured the truck passing through a border checkpoint at Laredo, Texas, at 2:50 p.m. CT (1950 GMT) on Monday, before the migrant passengers are believed to have boarded.

Cuellar, the Texas lawmaker, said the migrants had likely crossed the border and gone to a “stash house” before being picked up by the trailer and passing the Encinal checkpoint. They likely then went into San Antonio and experienced mechanical issues that left them in the back of the truck without air conditioning or ventilation, Cuellar said.

Another truck carrying migrants headed for San Antonio evaded the Encinal checkpoint on Thursday, crashing into the back of a tractor-trailer after a chase and killing four on board, according to Mexican authorities. read more

Two other men suspected of involvement in Monday’s incident, Mexican nationals Juan Claudio D’Luna-Mendez and Francisco D’Luna-Bilbao, were charged on Tuesday in U.S. federal court with possessing firearms while residing in the country illegally. A preliminary hearing for the pair is set for Friday.

D’Luna-Mendez’s attorney, Michael McCrum, said his client is a 21-year-old carpenter who has been in the U.S. since childhood and had “nothing to do with” the tragedy. McCrum said he believed the other man charged was his client’s father.

Charging documents in the case said the truck’s registration was tracked to the men’s address. “They are arresting anyone they can,” McCrum said.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Jason Buch and Julio-Cesar Chavez in San Antonio, Ted Hesson in Washington; Additional reporting by Gustavo Palencia in Tegucigalpa, Sofia Menchu in Guatemala City and Kylie Madry in Mexico City
Writing by Rami Ayyub; Editing by Mica Rosenberg, Aurora Ellis and Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. Supreme Court allows Louisiana electoral map faulted for racial bias

WASHINGTON, June 28 (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday reinstated a Republican-drawn map of Louisiana’s six U.S. House of Representatives districts that had been blocked by a judge who found that it likely discriminates against Black voters, a setback for Democrats as they try to retain control of Congress in November’s elections.

The justices granted a request by Louisiana’s Republican secretary of state to put on hold U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick’s injunction requiring a new map that has a second district where Black voters represent the majority of voters rather than just one in the version adopted by the Republican-led state legislature.

The conservative-majority nine-member court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Democrats control the U.S. House by a slim margin, making every seat vital in Republican efforts to wrest control from President Joe Biden’s party one or both chambers of Congress in the midterm elections.

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on June 12 had refused to reinstate the Republican-drawn Louisiana districts, calling evidence presented by Black voters who challenged the map “stronger” than evidence presented in defense of the map.

The plaintiffs said in their lawsuit that the Republican-drawn map maximizes “political power for white citizens” by packing large numbers of Black voters into a single district and dispersing the rest into the five others where they are too few to elect their preferred candidates.

The Louisiana legislature passed the map in February. Democratic Governor Jon Bel Edwards then vetoed it – criticizing it for failing to include a second Black-majority district considering that Black voters comprise almost a third of the state’s population – but the legislature overrode the veto.

Democrats have accused Republicans of exploiting state legislature majorities to draw electoral maps that dilute the clout of Black and other minority voters, who tend to support Democratic candidates. Republicans have said the consideration of race in drawing electoral maps must be limited.

After the map was challenged by groups of Black voters – one alongside civil rights groups including the Louisiana NAACP – the judge ruled that the way it was drawn likely violated the Voting Rights Act. That landmark 1965 federal law for decades has been used to counter racially biased actions in voting and drawing electoral districts.

The plaintiffs said that in Louisiana, “stark racially polarized voting almost universally leads to the electoral defeat of Black-preferred candidates.”

Louisiana Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin said in his legal filing that the judge’s order to adopt a second majority-Black district requires race to predominate in the map-making process, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The Louisiana dispute mirrors one from Alabama that the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear that could further weaken the Voting Rights Act. Arguments in the Alabama case are scheduled for Oct. 4. The eventual ruling, due by the end of June 2023, could make it harder for courts to consider race when determining whether an electoral district map violates the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, which bars voting practices that result in racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court’s order on Tuesday said they justices would take up the Louisiana case and hold it until it decides the Alabama case.

The Louisiana case is among dozens of legal challenges nationwide over the composition of electoral districts, which are redrawn each decade to reflect population changes as measured by a national census, last taken in 2020.

In most states, such redistricting is done by the party in power, which can lead to map manipulation for partisan gain.

In a ruling last July in favor of Republican-backed voting restrictions in Arizona, the Supreme Court made it harder to prove violations under Section 2.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Large U.S. law firms mostly quiet on abortion ruling, are walking a ‘tightrope’

June 26 (Reuters) – The largest U.S. law firms did not take a public stance following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade on Friday, diverging from the approach of some major companies that have made statements on the closely watched abortion case.

The high court’s 6-3 Dobbs decision upheld a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Many states are expected to further restrict or ban abortions following the ruling.

Reuters on Friday asked more than 30 U.S. law firms, including the 20 largest by total number of lawyers, for comments on the Dobbs ruling and whether they would cover travel costs for employees seeking an abortion.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The vast majority did not respond by Saturday afternoon, and only two, Ropes & Gray and Morrison & Foerster, said they would implement such a travel policy.

Morrison & Foerster, with nearly 1,000 attorneys, was the only large firm to issue a public statement by Saturday afternoon.

The firm’s chair, Larren Nashelsky, said Morrison & Foerster would “redouble our efforts to protect abortion and other reproductive rights.”

The Dobbs decision has been expected since a draft opinion was leaked in May.

Several major U.S. corporations, including The Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Meta Platforms (META.O) said on Friday they will cover travel costs for employees seeking abortions. read more

Industry experts say law firms could speak out on Dobbs in the future if employees and clients push them to take a public stance. For now, firm leaders appear to be carefully weighing the advantages and disadvantages of commenting, including the possibility of alienating clients, experts said.

“This is a tightrope to walk for firms,” said Kent Zimmermann, a law firm consultant with the Zeughauser Group. “They have a diversity of views among their talent and clients.”

Some firms have issued internal communications to employees about the decision. Ropes & Gray Chair Julie Jones said in an internal memo viewed by Reuters that the firm will hold several community gatherings to discuss the ruling and offer “comfort.”

“As a leader of Ropes & Gray, I am concerned about the effect of this decision on our community,” Jones wrote, while acknowledging that her memo may cause “offense to portions of our community.”

A Ropes & Gray spokesperson told Reuters Friday that employees enrolled in its medical plan are eligible for financial assistance to travel out of state for an abortion.

Another large U.S. law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, offered its U.S. workforce the day off on Friday, a spokesperson confirmed. The spokesperson did not immediately respond to further requests for comment.

Despite a dearth of public statements, a number of law firms publicly signaled ahead of the ruling that they planned to provide free legal support to women seeking abortions if Roe was overturned.

Both the New York Attorney General Leticia James and the San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, with the Bar Association of San Francisco, have convened pro bono initiatives that rely on law firm volunteers. Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and O’Melveny & Myers are among the participants.

Paul Weiss Chair Brad Karp called the Dobbs decision a “crushing loss” in an internal message to the firm on Friday provided to Reuters. Paul Weiss and O’Melveny, which both represented Jackson Women’s Health Organization, respondents in the Dobbs case, deferred comment on the ruling to their co-counsel, the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The center said in a statement that the court had “hit a new low by taking away – for the first time ever – a constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty.”

Gibson Dunn did not respond to request for comment.

Robert Kamins, a consultant with Vertex Advisors who works with law firms, said firms will be “very cautious” about taking early positions on the ruling.

“They have to make sure that they are being thoughtful about it,” he said. “What is the business impact? What is the client impact? What is the recruiting impact? There are lots of things to think about.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Karen Sloan in Sacramento, California, and Jacqueline Thomsen in Swampscott, Massachusetts; Additional reporting by Mike Scarcella in Silver Spring, Maryland; Editing by Rebekah Mintzer, Noeleen Walder and Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Legal clashes await U.S. companies covering workers’ abortion costs

June 26 (Reuters) – A growing number of large U.S. companies have said they will cover travel costs for employees who must leave their home states to get abortions, but these new policies could expose businesses to lawsuits and even potential criminal liability, legal experts said.

Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Lyft Inc (LYFT.O), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) were among companies that announced plans to provide those benefits through their health insurance plans in anticipation of Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. read more

Within an hour of the decision being released, Conde Nast chief executive Roger Lynch sent a memo to staff announcing a travel reimbursement policy and calling the court’s ruling “a crushing blow to reproductive rights.” Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) unveiled a similar policy on Friday, telling employees that it recognizes the impact of the abortion ruling but remains committed to providing comprehensive access to quality healthcare, according to a spokesman. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Companies including health insurer Cigna Corp (CI.N), Paypal Holdings Inc (PYPL.O), Alaska Airlines Inc [RIC:RIC:ALKAIR.UL] and Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc (DKS.N) also announced reimbursement policies on Friday.

Abortion restrictions that were already on the books in 13 states went into effect as a result of Friday’s ruling and at least a dozen other Republican-led states are expected to ban abortion.

The court’s decision, driven by its conservative majority, upheld a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Meanwhile, some Democratic-led states are moving to bolster access to abortion.

Companies will have to navigate that patchwork of state laws and are likely to draw the ire of anti-abortion groups and Republican-led states if they adopt policies supportive of employees having abortions.

State lawmakers in Texas have already threatened Citigroup Inc (C.N) and Lyft, which had earlier announced travel reimbursement policies, with legal repercussions. A group of Republican lawmakers in a letter last month to Lyft chief executive Logan Green said Texas “will take swift and decisive action” if the ride-hailing company implements the policy.

The legislators also outlined a series of abortion-related proposals, including a bill that would bar companies from doing business in Texas if they pay for residents of the state to receive abortions elsewhere.

LAWSUITS LOOMING

It is likely only a matter of time before companies face lawsuits from states or anti-abortion campaigners claiming that abortion-related payments violate state bans on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions, according to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and expert on healthcare law.

“If you can sue me as a person for carrying your daughter across state lines, you can sue Amazon for paying for it,” Wilson said.

Amazon, Citigroup, Lyft, Conde Nast and several other companies that have announced reimbursement policies did not respond to requests for comment.

For many large companies that fund their own health plans, the federal law regulating employee benefits will provide crucial cover in civil lawsuits over their reimbursement policies, several lawyers and other legal experts said.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits states from adopting requirements that “relate to” employer-sponsored health plans. Courts have for decades interpreted that language to bar state laws that dictate what health plans can and cannot cover.

ERISA regulates benefit plans that are funded directly by employers, known as self-insured plans. In 2021, 64% of U.S. workers with employer-sponsored health insurance were covered by self-insured plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Any company sued over an abortion travel reimbursement requirement will likely cite ERISA as a defense, according to Katy Johnson, senior counsel for health policy at the American Benefits Council, a trade group. And that will be a strong argument, she said, particularly for businesses with general reimbursement policies for necessary medical-related travel rather than those that single out abortion.

Johnson said reimbursements for other kinds of medical-related travel, such as visits to hospitals designated “centers of excellence,” are already common even though policies related to abortion are still relatively rare.

“While this may seem new, it’s not in the general sense and the law already tells us how to handle it,” Johnson said.

LIMITS

The argument has its limits. Fully-insured health plans, in which employers purchase coverage through a commercial insurer, cover about one-third of workers with insurance and are regulated by state law and not ERISA.

Most small and medium-sized U.S. businesses have fully-insured plans and could not argue that ERISA prevents states from limiting abortion coverage.

And, ERISA cannot prevent states from enforcing criminal laws, such as those in several states that make it a crime to aid and abet abortion, so employers who adopt reimbursement policies are vulnerable to criminal charges from state and local prosecutors.

But since most criminal abortion laws have not been enforced in decades, since Roe was decided, it is unclear whether officials would attempt to prosecute companies, according to Danita Merlau, a Chicago-based lawyer who advises companies on benefits issues.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Grant McCool

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

U.S. tech industry frets about handing data to states prosecuting abortion

PALO ALTO, Calif., June 24 (Reuters) – The technology industry is bracing for the uncomfortable possibility of having to hand over pregnancy-related data to law enforcement, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to overturn the Roe v. Wade precedent that for decades guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. read more

As state laws limiting abortion kick in after the ruling, technology trade representatives told Reuters they fear police will obtain warrants for customers’ search history, geolocation and other information indicating plans to terminate a pregnancy. Prosecutors could access the same via a subpoena, too.

The concern reflects how the data collection practices of companies like Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google, Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) have the potential to incriminate abortion-seekers for state laws that many in Silicon Valley oppose.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

“It is very likely that there’s going to be requests made to those tech companies for information related to search histories, to websites visited,” said Cynthia Conti-Cook, a technology fellow at the Ford Foundation.

Google declined to comment. Representatives for Amazon and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Technology has long gathered – and at times revealed – sensitive pregnancy-related information about consumers. In 2015, abortion opponents targeted ads saying “Pregnancy Help” and “You Have Choices” to individuals entering reproductive health clinics, using so-called geofencing technology to identify smartphones in the area.

More recently, Mississippi prosecutors charged a mother with second-degree murder after her smartphone showed she had searched for abortion medication in her third trimester, local media reported. Conti-Cook said, “I can’t even imagine the depth of information that my phone has on my life.”

While suspects unwittingly can hand over their phones and volunteer information used to prosecute them, investigators may well turn to tech companies in the absence of strong leads or evidence. In United States v. Chatrie, for example, police obtained a warrant for Google location data that led them to Okello Chatrie in an investigation of a 2019 bank robbery.

Amazon, for instance, complied at least partially with 75% of search warrants, subpoenas and other court orders demanding data on U.S. customers, the company disclosed for the three years ending in June 2020. It complied fully with 38%. Amazon has said it must comply with “valid and binding orders,” but its goal is to provide “the minimum” that the law requires.

Eva Galperin, cybersecurity director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said on Twitter on Friday, “The difference between now and the last time that abortion was illegal in the United States is that we live in an era of unprecedented digital surveillance.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Jeffrey Dastin and Katie Paul in Palo Alto, Calif., Paresh Dave in Oakland, Calif., and Stephen Nellis
Editing by Anna Driver and Matthew Lewis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Disney, other U.S. companies offer abortion travel benefit after Roe decision

NEW YORK, June 24 (Reuters) – U.S. companies including Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) said on Friday they will cover employees’ expenses if they have to travel for abortion services after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark 1973 ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, handing a momentous victory to Republicans and religious conservatives who want to limit or ban and, in some states criminalize, the procedure. read more

Many states are expected to further restrict or ban abortions following the ruling, making it difficult for female employees to terminate pregnancies unless they travel to states where the procedure is allowed.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

For example, in Oklahoma a bill due to take effect in August bans abortion except in medical emergencies and penalizes providers who violate the law with up to $100,000 in fines and 10 years in prison. States offering abortion protections include New York and Maryland. read more

Disney told employees on Friday that it remains committed to providing comprehensive access to quality healthcare, including for abortions, according to a Disney spokesperson. read more

The company’s benefits will cover the cost of employees who need to travel to another location to access care, including to obtain an abortion, it said.

Meta will reimburse travel expenses for employees seeking out-of-state reproductive care, but the company was also “assessing how best to do so given the legal complexities involved,” according to a spokesperson.

Dick’s Sporting Goods (DKS.N) Chief Executive Lauren Hobart said on LinkedIn that the company would pay up to $4,000 in travel for employees or their family members and a support person if abortion was not available nearby.

Companies that offer reimbursements for abortion-related travel could be vulnerable to lawsuits by anti-abortion groups and Republican-led states, and even potential criminal penalties.

Lawyers and other experts said employers could face claims that their policies violate state laws banning, facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions.

Ride hailing company Lyft (LYFT.O) said it would legally shield drivers in abortion cases, saying it would expand a recent policy as new state laws were passed. “No driver should have to ask a rider where they are going and why,” a spokesperson said.

A draft of the Supreme Court ruling on abortion was leaked in May. At that time, many other companies, including online review site Yelp (YELP.N), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), and Tesla (TSLA.O), said they would help cover the cost of travel for employees seeking reproductive services. Apple (AAPL.O) repeated that it supported employees making their own decisions on reproductive health and that its healthcare covered travel for services unavailable nearby.

Yelp co-founder and Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman on Friday said the ruling “puts women’s health in jeopardy, denies them their human rights, and threatens to dismantle the progress we’ve made toward gender equality in the workplace since Roe.”

Alaska Air Group (ALK.N), parent of Alaska Airlines, said on Friday it is “reimbursing travel for certain medical procedures and treatments if they are not available where you live. Today’s Supreme Court decision does not change that.”

Other companies offering the benefit include Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N), online dating sites OkCupid and Bumble Inc (BMBL.O), Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), the nation’s largest bank. read more

OkCupid sent in-app messages to customers in 26 states likely to ban abortions, gearing up for a political fight. “Act now by calling your representatives and demanding freedom and choice,” said a copy of the message tweeted by OkCupid Chief Marketing Officer Melissa Hobley.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Nivedita Balu and Tiyashi Datta in Bengaluru, Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles, Doyinsola Oladipo and Daniel Wiessner in New York and David Shepardson in Washingon; Writing by Anna Driver; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Rosalba O’Brien

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Trump pressed, threatened Pence to overturn election, panel hears

WASHINGTON, June 16 (Reuters) – Former President Donald Trump pressured his vice president, Mike Pence, to overturn his 2020 election defeat despite being told repeatedly it was illegal to do so, aides to Pence told the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol on Thursday.

Members of the Democratic-led House of Representatives select committee said Trump continued his pressure campaign even though he knew a violent mob of his supporters was threatening the Capitol as Pence and lawmakers met to formally certify President Joe Biden’s victory in the November 2020 election.

The nine-member committee has used the first three of at least six public hearings this month to build a case that Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat amounted to illegal conduct, far beyond normal politics.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing, while repeating his false accusations that he lost the election only because of widespread fraud that benefited Democrat Biden. Trump and his supporters – including many Republican members of Congress – dismiss the Jan. 6 panel as a political witchhunt.

The certification vote on Jan. 6 had become a focus for Trump, who saw it as a last-ditch chance to retain the presidency despite his loss at the polls.

Marc Short, who was Pence’s chief of staff, said in videotaped testimony that Pence told Trump “many times” that he did not have the authority to stop the vote certification in Congress as the Republican president sought.

Gregory Jacob, an attorney for Pence, said the main proponent of that theory, attorney John Eastman, admitted in front of the president two days before the attack that his plan to have Pence halt the procedure would violate the law.

Eastman had argued that Pence could reject results from certain states if he thought they were illegitimate, giving Republicans in those states an opportunity to declare Trump the victor despite the actual vote count.

Advisers to Pence told the committee that idea had no basis in law.

“It is breathtaking that these arguments even were conceived, let alone entertained by the president of the United States,” former U.S. Appeals Court Judge J. Michael Luttig, an informal Pence adviser, said.

Trump is widely expected to run for president again in 2024, and committee members and witnesses warned that he would not accept defeat no matter the actual outcome.

“Today almost two years after that fateful day in January 2021, that still, Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy,” Luttig said.

The committee showed an email Eastman sent to Trump’s attorney, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, asking for a presidential pardon. Eastman never received one.

‘HANG MIKE PENCE’

The hearing featured several chilling clips of some of the thousands of Trump supporters who descended on the Capitol after a rally in which Trump repeatedly criticized Pence, chanting for Pence to be pulled out of the building or hanged.

Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., while the attack was going on, that Pence did not have the “courage” to stop the count.

“It felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that,” Sarah Matthews, a Trump White House staffer, said in video testimony.

Representative Pete Aguilar said a witness had told the Federal Bureau of Investigation that the Proud Boys, one of the right-wing groups participating in the Capitol attack, said the group would have killed Pence if they been able to get to him.

Committee members said Trump’s comments against Pence incited the crowd.

The committee displayed photos of Pence sheltering in place during the riot. Jacob, who was with Pence during the attack, said he refused to leave and that he did not want to give the demonstrators the satisfaction of forcing him from the building. “The vice president did not want to take any chance that the world would see the vice president of the United States fleeing the U.S. Capitol,” he said.

The attack on the Capitol delayed certification of the election for hours, injured more than 140 police officers and led to several deaths.

Even after police had suppressed the attack and reclaimed the Capitol, Eastman continued to press Pence’s team to overturn the vote.

“I implore you one last time, can the Vice President, please do what we’ve been asking him to do these last two days – suspend the Joint Session, send it back to the States,” Eastman wrote to Jacob at 11:44 p.m. in an email released by the committee.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Patricia Zengerle, Richard Cowan and Doina Chiacu; Additional reporting by Katherine Jackson; Editing by Andy Sullivan and Alistair Bell

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here