The case involves a 2023 state law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but the ruling is expected to have broader implications for free speech law.

By&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/kayla-guo/">Kayla Guo</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/eleanor-klibanoff/">Eleanor Klibanoff</a>&nbsp; <br><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/">Texas Tribune</a>

Texas’ law requiring Pornhub and other adult websites to verify users’ ages is constitutional and can remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">Click here to read the full Supreme Court ruling</a>

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-1122">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to the oral argument from January

The case stems from a 2023 law,&nbsp;<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB1181">HB 1181</a>, that required websites to verify that a user is over the age of 18 if more than one-third of their content is considered harmful to minors. A group of adult entertainment websites sued, arguing this violated free speech and privacy protections.

Texas countered that the state had a right to protect children with what Solicitor General Aaron Nielson framed as “simple, safe and common” restrictions.

While the Supreme Court justices&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/">seemed divided</a>&nbsp;on the free speech issues, a 6-3 majority of the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">ultimately sided</a>&nbsp;with Texas, finding that requiring age verification “is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content.”

The 2023 law “is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority’s opinion. “To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has ‘only an incidental effect on protected speech,’ making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.”

The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law should have been held to the higher standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent level of legal review used in cases related to fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. The dissenting judges also argued that while states have a “compelling interest” in protecting children from obscene speech, doing so sometimes impeded the right of adults to access that speech.

In her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan said that Texas’ law might well have passed strict scrutiny and used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals.

“But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech HB 1181 covers?” Kagan wrote. “The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary.”.

Texas’ law requires people visiting websites “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” to show they are over 18 by submitting digital identification, uploading government-issued identification or by using a “commercially reasonable method,” such as their banking information. Neither the website nor the party performing the verification can retain identifying information. Sites that violate the law face fines of up to $10,000 a day.

The law was passed amid a broader push in Texas and other states to prevent children from being exposed to sexual materials, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/26/texas-school-library-bill/">continued this legislative session</a>. Friday’s ruling could have implications for more than a dozen states that have passed similar laws.

It was not the first time that these Texas bills have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/17/texas-book-rating-lawsuit-5th-circuit/">tested the boundaries of</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/31/texas-drag-bill-lawsuit-federal-hearing/">free speech protections</a>: In two cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws aimed to prevent the distribution of obscene materials to minors unconstitutionally restricted free speech.

Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/">Ken Paxton</a>&nbsp;celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”

The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.

“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” Paxton said. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”

Civil liberties groups decried the decision as a rollback of free speech protections.

“Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents? Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity.”

The Free Speech Coalition, a legal advocacy group representing the adult film industry, has argued that laws targeting pornography are always the “canary in the coal mine of free speech.”

“Many of the First Amendment protections Americans hold dear are the result of hard battles fought by the adult industry and others over issues such as these,” the coalition said in a statement&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">last March</a>. “None of these battles has ever been simple or easy, though they have been important and just.”

Critics of Texas’ law raised privacy concerns and said it could make it dangerous for adults to access legal content. Critics also argued HB 1181 was overly broad and could apply to websites providing resources on reproductive health, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues.

The day before the law was set to go into effect in 2023, a U.S. district judge put it on hold, granting a request for a temporary injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition.

Federal District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said in granting the injunction that the law would allow the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” imposing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.

The state appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the law to take effect. In March 2024, the appeals court upheld most of the law, but struck down a requirement that these websites post a “health warning,” saying that pornography is addictive and weakens brain function.

The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in July 2024 and heard arguments earlier this year on whether the appeals court applied proper legal reasoning in upholding age-verification.

The pornography websites’ claims attracted support from a wide cross-section of advocacy groups, from librarians to libertarians, who cited concerns about the ripple effects of Texas’ law. The Biden administration also submitted an&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.freespeechcoalition.com/documents/legal/FSCvPaxton/amici/SG.pdf">amicus brief</a>&nbsp;in support of overturning the law.

Meanwhile, some websites, including Pornhub, have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">suspended services</a>&nbsp;in Texas, saying they are unable to comply with the law. In a statement that greets users who try to access the website in Texas, Pornhub says that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”

“As we’ve seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the hundreds of thousands of websites with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply,” the statement says.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1706036605430.png" alt="<br>" />
                        <figcaption><br></figcaption>
                    </figure><p>The case involves a 2023 state law requiring adult websites to verify users’ ages, but the ruling is expected to have broader implications for free speech law.</p><p>By&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/kayla-guo/">Kayla Guo</a>&nbsp;and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/about/staff/eleanor-klibanoff/">Eleanor Klibanoff</a>&nbsp; <br><a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/27/texas-porn-websites-age-verification-law-supreme-court/">Texas Tribune</a></p><p>Texas’ law requiring Pornhub and other adult websites to verify users’ ages is constitutional and can remain in effect, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday.</p><p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">Click here to read the full Supreme Court ruling</a></p><p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/23-1122">Click here to listen&nbsp;</a>to the oral argument from January</p><p>The case stems from a 2023 law,&nbsp;<a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&amp;Bill=HB1181">HB 1181</a>, that required websites to verify that a user is over the age of 18 if more than one-third of their content is considered harmful to minors. A group of adult entertainment websites sued, arguing this violated free speech and privacy protections.</p><p>Texas countered that the state had a right to protect children with what Solicitor General Aaron Nielson framed as “simple, safe and common” restrictions.</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751040262939.png" alt="" />
                        <figcaption></figcaption>
                    </figure><p>While the Supreme Court justices&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/01/15/texas-porn-site-ban-us-supreme-court/">seemed divided</a>&nbsp;on the free speech issues, a 6-3 majority of the Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1122_3e04.pdf">ultimately sided</a>&nbsp;with Texas, finding that requiring age verification “is within a State’s authority to prevent children from accessing sexually explicit content.”</p><p>The 2023 law “is an exercise of Texas’s traditional power to prevent minors from accessing speech that is obscene from their perspective,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority’s opinion. “To the extent that it burdens adults’ rights to access such speech, it has ‘only an incidental effect on protected speech,’ making it subject to intermediate scrutiny.”</p><p>The Court’s three liberal justices dissented, arguing that the law should have been held to the higher standard of strict scrutiny, the most stringent level of legal review used in cases related to fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech. The dissenting judges also argued that while states have a “compelling interest” in protecting children from obscene speech, doing so sometimes impeded the right of adults to access that speech.</p><p>In her dissent, which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Kentanji Brown Jackson, Justice Elena Kagan said that Texas’ law might well have passed strict scrutiny and used the least restrictive means to achieve its goals.</p><p>“But what if Texas could do better — what if Texas could achieve its interest without so interfering with adults’ constitutionally protected rights in viewing the speech HB 1181 covers?” Kagan wrote. “The State should be foreclosed from restricting adults’ access to protected speech if that is not in fact necessary.”.</p><p>Texas’ law requires people visiting websites “more than one-third of which is sexual material harmful to minors” to show they are over 18 by submitting digital identification, uploading government-issued identification or by using a “commercially reasonable method,” such as their banking information. Neither the website nor the party performing the verification can retain identifying information. Sites that violate the law face fines of up to $10,000 a day.</p><p>The law was passed amid a broader push in Texas and other states to prevent children from being exposed to sexual materials, which&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2025/05/26/texas-school-library-bill/">continued this legislative session</a>. Friday’s ruling could have implications for more than a dozen states that have passed similar laws.</p><p>It was not the first time that these Texas bills have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/01/17/texas-book-rating-lawsuit-5th-circuit/">tested the boundaries of</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2023/08/31/texas-drag-bill-lawsuit-federal-hearing/">free speech protections</a>: In two cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that laws aimed to prevent the distribution of obscene materials to minors unconstitutionally restricted free speech.</p><p>Attorney General&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/directory/ken-paxton/">Ken Paxton</a>&nbsp;celebrated the ruling Friday, calling it a “major victory for children, parents and the ability of states to protect minors from the damaging effects of online pornography.”</p><p>The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.</p><p>“Companies have no right to expose children to pornography and must institute reasonable age verification measures,” Paxton said. “I will continue to enforce the law against any organization that refuses to take the necessary steps to protect minors from explicit materials.”</p><p>Civil liberties groups decried the decision as a rollback of free speech protections.</p><p>“Today’s ruling limits American adults’ access to only that speech which is fit for children — unless they show their papers first,” Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said in a statement. “Data breaches are inevitable. How many will it take before we understand the threat today’s ruling presents? Americans will live to regret the day we let the government condition access to protected speech on proof of our identity.”</p><p>The Free Speech Coalition, a legal advocacy group representing the adult film industry, has argued that laws targeting pornography are always the “canary in the coal mine of free speech.”</p><p>The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors.&nbsp;<a href="https://mediakit.texastribune.org/">Become one</a>.</p><p>“Many of the First Amendment protections Americans hold dear are the result of hard battles fought by the adult industry and others over issues such as these,” the coalition said in a statement&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">last March</a>. “None of these battles has ever been simple or easy, though they have been important and just.”</p><p>Critics of Texas’ law raised privacy concerns and said it could make it dangerous for adults to access legal content. Critics also argued HB 1181 was overly broad and could apply to websites providing resources on reproductive health, sex education and LGBTQ+ issues.</p><p>The day before the law was set to go into effect in 2023, a U.S. district judge put it on hold, granting a request for a temporary injunction filed by the Free Speech Coalition.</p><p>Federal District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said in granting the injunction that the law would allow the government “to peer into the most intimate and personal aspects of people’s lives,” imposing a chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.</p><p>The state appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which allowed the law to take effect. In March 2024, the appeals court upheld most of the law, but struck down a requirement that these websites post a “health warning,” saying that pornography is addictive and weakens brain function.</p><p>The Supreme Court agreed to take up the case in July 2024 and heard arguments earlier this year on whether the appeals court applied proper legal reasoning in upholding age-verification.</p><p>The pornography websites’ claims attracted support from a wide cross-section of advocacy groups, from librarians to libertarians, who cited concerns about the ripple effects of Texas’ law. The Biden administration also submitted an&nbsp;<a href="https://assets.freespeechcoalition.com/documents/legal/FSCvPaxton/amici/SG.pdf">amicus brief</a>&nbsp;in support of overturning the law.</p><p>Meanwhile, some websites, including Pornhub, have&nbsp;<a href="https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/14/texas-pornhub-5th-circuit-age-verification-paxton/">suspended services</a>&nbsp;in Texas, saying they are unable to comply with the law. In a statement that greets users who try to access the website in Texas, Pornhub says that “providing identification every time you want to visit an adult platform is not an effective solution for protecting users online, and in fact, will put minors and your privacy at risk.”</p><p>“As we’ve seen in other states, such bills have failed to protect minors, by driving users from those few websites which comply, to the hundreds of thousands of websites with far fewer safety measures in place, which do not comply,” the statement says.</p>

State can require porn websites to verify users’ ages, Supreme Court rules

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a>

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a major decision reined in nationwide injunctions by some lower courts that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order barring birthright citizenship.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">Click here to read the full order from the court&nbsp;</a>

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/24A884">Click here to listen to</a>&nbsp;a replay of the oral argument

The high court declined to decide the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, but said the executive order rewriting the constitutional right to birthright citizenship could go into effect within 30 days after Friday’s ruling in the states that did not initially sue.

The ruling likely could hamper other legal challenges against Trump administration actions in which nationwide injunctions are sought.

In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative justices found that nationwide “injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”

“The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank">according to the ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.</a>

While the dispute before the court related to Trump’s executive order to rewrite the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the high court to instead focus on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A884/352051/20250313135341225_Trump%20v.%20CASA%20Inc%20application.pdf" target="_blank">the issue of preliminary injunctions</a>&nbsp;granted by lower courts.

“The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” according to the ruling, referring to the practice of granting citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil.

The order instructs lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”

More than two dozen nationwide injunctions

In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, through April 29, judges issued about 25 nationwide injunctions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48476" target="_blank">according to the Congressional Research Service.</a>

“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments,” according to the ruling.

A narrower injunction could refer to a class action suit.

Barrett argued that a nationwide injunction would not grant more relief for barring the enforcement of Trump’s executive order against a pregnant person who is not a U.S. citizen and fears their child would be denied citizenship.

“Her child will not be denied citizenship. And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render&nbsp;her&nbsp;relief any more complete,” according to the ruling. “So the individual and associational respondents are wrong to characterize the universal injunction as simply an application of the complete-relief principle.”

Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.

If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">study</a>&nbsp;by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.

It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.

In last month’s oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-wants-supreme-court-let-him-mostly-carry-out-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">said, the injunctions should be limited</a>&nbsp;to those who brought the challenges.

The case, Trump v. CASA, was consolidated from three cases.

One was brought by immigrant rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens who filed their case in Maryland; the second came from four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — that filed a case in Washington state; and the third came from 18 Democratic state attorneys general who filed the challenge in Massachusetts.

Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship.

In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-9-2/ALDE_00000051/" target="_blank">14th Amendment,</a>&nbsp;in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, extending birthright citizenship.

<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649" target="_blank">In that 19th-century case</a>, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had legal authority to be in the United States, such as a temporary visa. While Ark was born in California, his citizenship was not recognized when he went on a trip to China. Upon his return to California, he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.

When his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled that children born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.

The Trump administration has argued that the 1898 case was misinterpreted and point to a specific phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

Government attorneys contend that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship&nbsp;does not apply to&nbsp;people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status&nbsp;who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1747336226952.png" alt="Protesters outside the Supreme Court during the arguments on the case in May-image courtesy CSPAN" />
                        <figcaption>Protesters outside the Supreme Court during the arguments on the case in May-image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ariana-figueroa/">Ariana Figueroa</a></p><p>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday in a major decision reined in nationwide injunctions by some lower courts that had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order barring birthright citizenship.</p><p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf">Click here to read the full order from the court&nbsp;</a></p><p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2024/24A884">Click here to listen to</a>&nbsp;a replay of the oral argument</p><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/T4SIRwsXOX">pic.twitter.com/T4SIRwsXOX</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1938611988697080142?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><p>The high court declined to decide the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself, but said the executive order rewriting the constitutional right to birthright citizenship could go into effect within 30 days after Friday’s ruling in the states that did not initially sue.</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751034373464.png" alt="" />
                        <figcaption></figcaption>
                    </figure><p>The ruling likely could hamper other legal challenges against Trump administration actions in which nationwide injunctions are sought.</p><p>In a 6-3 ruling, the conservative justices found that nationwide “injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts.”</p><p>“The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue,”&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf" target="_blank">according to the ruling written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.</a></p><p>While the dispute before the court related to Trump’s executive order to rewrite the constitutional right to birthright citizenship, the Trump administration asked the high court to instead focus on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A884/352051/20250313135341225_Trump%20v.%20CASA%20Inc%20application.pdf" target="_blank">the issue of preliminary injunctions</a>&nbsp;granted by lower courts.</p><p>“The applications do not raise—and thus the Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order violates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act,” according to the ruling, referring to the practice of granting citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil.</p><p>The order instructs lower courts to “move expeditiously to ensure that, with respect to each plaintiff, the injunctions comport with this rule and otherwise comply with principles of equity.”</p><h2>More than two dozen nationwide injunctions</h2><p>In the first 100 days of the second Trump administration, through April 29, judges issued about 25 nationwide injunctions,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48476" target="_blank">according to the Congressional Research Service.</a></p><p>“The lower courts should determine whether a narrower injunction is appropriate; we therefore leave it to them to consider these and any related arguments,” according to the ruling.</p><p>A narrower injunction could refer to a class action suit.</p><p>Barrett argued that a nationwide injunction would not grant more relief for barring the enforcement of Trump’s executive order against a pregnant person who is not a U.S. citizen and fears their child would be denied citizenship.</p><p>“Her child will not be denied citizenship. And extending the injunction to cover everyone similarly situated would not render&nbsp;her&nbsp;relief any more complete,” according to the ruling. “So the individual and associational respondents are wrong to characterize the universal injunction as simply an application of the complete-relief principle.”</p><p>Under birthright citizenship, all children born in the United States are considered citizens, regardless of their parents’ legal status.</p><p>If birthright citizenship were to be eliminated, more than 250,000 children born each year would not be granted U.S. citizenship, according to a recent&nbsp;<a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/birthright-citizenship-repeal-projections" target="_blank">study</a>&nbsp;by the think tank the Migration Policy Institute.</p><p>It would effectively create a class of 2.7 million stateless people by 2045, according to the study.</p><p>In last month’s oral arguments, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who argued on behalf of the Trump administration, contended that it’s unconstitutional for federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Instead, he&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-wants-supreme-court-let-him-mostly-carry-out-birthright-citizenship-order" target="_blank">said, the injunctions should be limited</a>&nbsp;to those who brought the challenges.</p><h2>Origins of birthright citizenship case</h2><p>The case, Trump v. CASA, was consolidated from three cases.</p><p>One was brought by immigrant rights groups and several pregnant women in Maryland who are not U.S. citizens who filed their case in Maryland; the second came from four states — Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon — that filed a case in Washington state; and the third came from 18 Democratic state attorneys general who filed the challenge in Massachusetts.</p><p>Those 18 states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The District of Columbia and the county and city of San Francisco also joined.</p><p>This is not the first time the Supreme Court has addressed the issue of birthright citizenship.</p><p>In 1898, the Supreme Court upheld the&nbsp;<a href="https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-8-9-2/ALDE_00000051/" target="_blank">14th Amendment,</a>&nbsp;in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, extending birthright citizenship.</p><p><a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649" target="_blank">In that 19th-century case</a>, Ark was born in San Francisco, California, to parents who were citizens of the Republic of China, but had legal authority to be in the United States, such as a temporary visa. While Ark was born in California, his citizenship was not recognized when he went on a trip to China. Upon his return to California, he was denied reentry due to the Chinese Exclusion Act— a racist law designed to restrict and limit nearly all immigration of Chinese nationals.</p><p>When his case went all the way to the Supreme Court, the high court ruled that children born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens automatically become citizens at birth.</p><p>The Trump administration has argued that the 1898 case was misinterpreted and point to a specific phrase: “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.</p><p>Government attorneys contend that the phrase in the 14th Amendment means that birthright citizenship&nbsp;does not apply to&nbsp;people in the U.S. without legal status or temporary legal status&nbsp;who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.</p>

 Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions; Fate of Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Unclear

WASHINGTON<b>–&nbsp;</b>On Thursday, U.S. Senators Roger Marshall,&nbsp; Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), introduced a resolution to implement term limits on the Senate Parliamentarian, a key figure in the United States Senate who advises on rules, procedures, and precedents as it relates to the reconciliation process, according to a statement from Marshall's office.

Click&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/BIN25098-1.pdf">HERE</a>&nbsp;to read the full text of the resolution

The Senators call for the parliamentarian to serve one six-year term, which would prevent power entrenchment, promote accountability, and encourage fresh perspectives.

<i>“Based upon early reports, the Senate Parliamentarian may eliminate some $500 billion in savings for the American people, all of which are arbitrary decisions, with minimal guidance,”<b>&nbsp;said Senator Marshall.&nbsp;</b>“The current parliamentarian has been in office since 2012, appointed by former Democrat Senator Harry Reid. This is NOT an elected position. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits on a person with this absolute power need to be implemented. Therefore, we are dropping a resolution calling for just that, limiting a parliamentarian of the Senate to a maximum of 6 years.”</i>

<i>“The woke, Radical Left Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and was an advisor to Al Gore, is actively trying to&nbsp;undermine&nbsp;President Trump’s agenda,”&nbsp;<b>said Senator Tuberville.</b>&nbsp;“Unelected bureaucrats should not be able to overturn the will of the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump and his agenda. This is exactly why Americans hate the swamp. Proud to join my friend Senator Roger Marshall in introducing&nbsp;this resolution imposing 6-year term limits for the Senate Parliamentarian.”<b></b></i>

<i>“The Senate parliamentarian holds unchecked power over major legislation, despite never being elected by the American people,”&nbsp;<b>said Senator Blackburn.</b>&nbsp;“This individual has served for a decade, having been appointed by Harry Reid, we must act now to impose term limits on the Senate parliamentarian&nbsp;to ensure this position&nbsp;is accountable to the will of the people.”</i>

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751029214593.png" alt="Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough&nbsp; -photo U.S. Senate" />
                        <figcaption>Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough&nbsp; -photo U.S. Senate</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>WASHINGTON<b>–&nbsp;</b>On Thursday, U.S. Senators Roger Marshall,&nbsp; Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), introduced a resolution to implement term limits on the Senate Parliamentarian, a key figure in the United States Senate who advises on rules, procedures, and precedents as it relates to the reconciliation process, according to a statement from Marshall's office.</p><p>Click&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.marshall.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/BIN25098-1.pdf">HERE</a>&nbsp;to read the full text of the resolution</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1751027942171.png" alt="" />
                        <figcaption></figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In 2001 Leader Trent Lott fired the Senate Parliamentarian during reconciliation.<br><br>It’s 2025 during reconciliation &amp; we need to again fire the Senate Parliamentarian.<br><br>My resolution to term limit the parliamentarian will settle this now &amp; in the future.<a href="https://t.co/7XcVaNgcGH">https://t.co/7XcVaNgcGH</a></p>&mdash; Dr. Roger Marshall (@RogerMarshallMD) <a href="https://twitter.com/RogerMarshallMD/status/1938258594178211995?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><p>The Senators call for the parliamentarian to serve one six-year term, which would prevent power entrenchment, promote accountability, and encourage fresh perspectives.</p><p><i>“Based upon early reports, the Senate Parliamentarian may eliminate some $500 billion in savings for the American people, all of which are arbitrary decisions, with minimal guidance,”<b>&nbsp;said Senator Marshall.&nbsp;</b>“The current parliamentarian has been in office since 2012, appointed by former Democrat Senator Harry Reid. This is NOT an elected position. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Term limits on a person with this absolute power need to be implemented. Therefore, we are dropping a resolution calling for just that, limiting a parliamentarian of the Senate to a maximum of 6 years.”</i></p><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Did Harry Reid’s Senate Parliamentarian not get the memo? <br><br>President Trump’s landslide victory was a MANDATE from 77 million Americans.<br><br>The One Big Beautiful Bill delivers on that mandate.<br><br>The Parliamentarian is trying to UNDERMINE the President’s mandate and should be fired.</p>&mdash; Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTuberville/status/1938259471467438355?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><p><i>“The woke, Radical Left Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and was an advisor to Al Gore, is actively trying to&nbsp;undermine&nbsp;President Trump’s agenda,”&nbsp;<b>said Senator Tuberville.</b>&nbsp;“Unelected bureaucrats should not be able to overturn the will of the 77 million Americans who voted for President Trump and his agenda. This is exactly why Americans hate the swamp. Proud to join my friend Senator Roger Marshall in introducing&nbsp;this resolution imposing 6-year term limits for the Senate Parliamentarian.”<b></b></i></p><p><i>“The Senate parliamentarian holds unchecked power over major legislation, despite never being elected by the American people,”&nbsp;<b>said Senator Blackburn.</b>&nbsp;“This individual has served for a decade, having been appointed by Harry Reid, we must act now to impose term limits on the Senate parliamentarian&nbsp;to ensure this position&nbsp;is accountable to the will of the people.”</i></p><p><b>Background:</b></p><ul>
                        <li>The parliamentarian of the Senate serves at the will of the Secretary of the Senate, who is chosen by the Senate Majority Leader.</li><li>Since 1981 only three different individuals have served as parliamentarian of the Senate. Each served on average 15 years.</li>
                    </ul>

Kan. U.S. Senator calls for action to replace Senate Parliamentarian

&nbsp;Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine panel on Thursday endorsed this fall’s flu vaccinations — but only if they use certain shots free of an ingredient antivaccine groups have falsely tied to autism.

(Click below to watch the full committee hearing)

(Click below to watch Redwood's presentation on thimerosal)

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750974087831.png" alt="Image from the committee hearing" />
                        <figcaption>Image from the committee hearing</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>&nbsp;Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new vaccine panel on Thursday endorsed this fall’s flu vaccinations — but only if they use certain shots free of an ingredient antivaccine groups have falsely tied to autism.</p><p>(Click below to watch the full committee hearing)</p><div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z-16fImZoEc?si=RfPDCTz9gEs1Oz2Z&amp;start=1250" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750973658608.png" alt="Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner who once ran the anti-vaccine group that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. founded, spoke at the meeting on Thursday -image from the CDC video" />
                        <figcaption>Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner who once ran the anti-vaccine group that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. founded, spoke at the meeting on Thursday -image from the CDC video</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>(Click below to watch Redwood's presentation on thimerosal)</p><div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/z-16fImZoEc?si=z33-dj87jdPiqZRU&amp;start=10151" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>

🎥RFK Jr’s vaccine panel votes against preservative in flu shots 

Mayor Quinton Lucas issued a statement Thursday on the retention of the Chiefs and Royals in Kansas City, Missouri

<p>Mayor Quinton Lucas issued a statement Thursday on the retention of the Chiefs and Royals in Kansas City, Missouri</p><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750991539385.png" alt="" />
                        <figcaption></figcaption>
                    </figure>

KCMO Mayor issues a statement on retention of the Chief and Royals

Click below to watch the entire Pentagon press briefing

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750954444210.png" alt="Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from Pentagon video" />
                        <figcaption>Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth from Pentagon video</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS THE WEAPONRY OR THE CAPABILITIES THAT THE UNITED STATES HAS. <a href="https://t.co/7lqcsUFe3a">pic.twitter.com/7lqcsUFe3a</a></p>&mdash; DOD Rapid Response (@DODResponse) <a href="https://twitter.com/DODResponse/status/1938231510139867614?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><p>Click below to watch the entire Pentagon press briefing</p><div><iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=314&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDeptofDefense%2Fvideos%2F9721452061316507%2F&show_text=true&width=560&t=0" width="560" height="429" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pentagon releases test footage showing how bunker-busters work.<a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a> Hegseth: “Because of the hatred of this press... your people are trying to leak &amp; spin that it wasn&#39;t successful. It&#39;s irresponsible.” Gen. “Razin” Caine, on the mission: “I have chills..talking about this.” <a href="https://t.co/nS1q6ml7Ae">pic.twitter.com/nS1q6ml7Ae</a></p>&mdash; The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1938259832416391576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750954654873.png" alt="<br>" />
                        <figcaption><br></figcaption>
                    </figure><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750954719039.png" alt="<br>" />
                        <figcaption><br></figcaption>
                    </figure><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750954749972.jpeg" alt="<br>" />
                        <figcaption><br></figcaption>
                    </figure>

🎥Pentagon video shows weapons used in US attack on Iran

<b>By&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a><br></b><b><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/"></a></b><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/24/gov-laura-kelly-skeptical-kansas-houses-anti-tenure-legislation-will-reach-her-desk/"><i>Kansas Reflector</i></a>

TOPEKA — The Kansas Senate president said Thursday a meeting with bipartisan legislative leadership would be called July 7 to extend the deadline for the Kansas City Chiefs or Kansas City Royals to accept an offer of financial support for construction of professional sports stadiums in Kansas.

Senate President Ty Masterson said the Republican-dominated Legislative Coordinating Council, which conducts state business when the Legislature isn’t in session, would consider an extension of the one-year&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/06/21/kansas-gov-kelly-signs-bill-to-poach-kansas-city-chiefs-royals-from-missouri/">STAR bond deadline enacted in July 2024</a>. Masterson didn’t indicate how lengthy the extension could be.

Masterson said Mark Donovan, president of the Chiefs, asked Kansas officials to alter the deadline “in light of substantial progress the Chiefs have made in discussions” with the Kansas Department of Commerce on an NFL development on the Kansas side of the border with Missouri.

Those discussions have included building of a stadium, headquarters, practice facility and related business developments, Donovan said.

“The letter from Mark Donovan indicates that the drive to bring this historic project to Kansas is moving down the field,” Masterson said. “Now that we are in the red zone, this extension will provide stakeholders sufficient time to ensure the ball crosses the goal line.”

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly signed a bill last year authorizing issuance of bonds that would cover up to 70% of stadium construction, but the law set the deadline for making a deal at June 30, 2025.

Last month, Missouri Gov. Mike&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-governor-signs-kansas-city-stadium-funding-st-louis-disaster-aid/" target="_blank">Kehoe signed legislation&nbsp;</a>that would finance up to 50% of the cost to renovate or build new stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs. Missouri’s commitment of tax revenue would be capped at $1.5 billion.

The NFL and MLB franchises play at facilities in Kansas City, Missouri, that were built in the early 1970s. Owners of the teams have encouraged formation of public funding packages that would support replacement of those stadiums. Debate about the future of both franchises has rekindled the&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/06/26/missouri-or-kansas-business-leaders-dont-care-as-long-as-chiefs-and-royals-stay-near-kc/">economic border war between Missouri and Kansas</a>.

The Legislative Coordinating Council would take up the measure altering the deadline at 2 p.m. July 7 in Topeka.

“The complexity and scale of the project, and the importance of crafting a structure that works for all stakeholders, make it clear that more time is needed to bring the effort to full fruition,” Donovan said in a letter to Masterson.

He said the Chiefs had engaged in multiple rounds of dialogue about stadium proposals with the state Department of Commerce. The Chiefs hadn’t received a response to the franchise’s latest proposal in six weeks, he said.

“Extending the secretary’s authority will allow that process to continue productively and will preserve Kansas’ ability to secure the most significant economic development initiative in its history,” Donovan’s letter said.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748263709817.png" alt="GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Sat. Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent)." />
                        <figcaption>GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Sat. Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
                    </figure><p><b>By&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/">TIM CARPENTER</a><br></b><b><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/tim-carpenter/"></a></b><a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/02/24/gov-laura-kelly-skeptical-kansas-houses-anti-tenure-legislation-will-reach-her-desk/"><i>Kansas Reflector</i></a></p><p>TOPEKA — The Kansas Senate president said Thursday a meeting with bipartisan legislative leadership would be called July 7 to extend the deadline for the Kansas City Chiefs or Kansas City Royals to accept an offer of financial support for construction of professional sports stadiums in Kansas.</p><p>Senate President Ty Masterson said the Republican-dominated Legislative Coordinating Council, which conducts state business when the Legislature isn’t in session, would consider an extension of the one-year&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2024/06/21/kansas-gov-kelly-signs-bill-to-poach-kansas-city-chiefs-royals-from-missouri/">STAR bond deadline enacted in July 2024</a>. Masterson didn’t indicate how lengthy the extension could be.</p><p>Masterson said Mark Donovan, president of the Chiefs, asked Kansas officials to alter the deadline “in light of substantial progress the Chiefs have made in discussions” with the Kansas Department of Commerce on an NFL development on the Kansas side of the border with Missouri.</p><p>Those discussions have included building of a stadium, headquarters, practice facility and related business developments, Donovan said.</p><p>“The letter from Mark Donovan indicates that the drive to bring this historic project to Kansas is moving down the field,” Masterson said. “Now that we are in the red zone, this extension will provide stakeholders sufficient time to ensure the ball crosses the goal line.”</p><p>Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly signed a bill last year authorizing issuance of bonds that would cover up to 70% of stadium construction, but the law set the deadline for making a deal at June 30, 2025.</p><p>Last month, Missouri Gov. Mike&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-governor-signs-kansas-city-stadium-funding-st-louis-disaster-aid/" target="_blank">Kehoe signed legislation&nbsp;</a>that would finance up to 50% of the cost to renovate or build new stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs. Missouri’s commitment of tax revenue would be capped at $1.5 billion.</p><p>The NFL and MLB franchises play at facilities in Kansas City, Missouri, that were built in the early 1970s. Owners of the teams have encouraged formation of public funding packages that would support replacement of those stadiums. Debate about the future of both franchises has rekindled the&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/2025/06/26/missouri-or-kansas-business-leaders-dont-care-as-long-as-chiefs-and-royals-stay-near-kc/">economic border war between Missouri and Kansas</a>.</p><p>The Legislative Coordinating Council would take up the measure altering the deadline at 2 p.m. July 7 in Topeka.</p><p>“The complexity and scale of the project, and the importance of crafting a structure that works for all stakeholders, make it clear that more time is needed to bring the effort to full fruition,” Donovan said in a letter to Masterson.</p><p>He said the Chiefs had engaged in multiple rounds of dialogue about stadium proposals with the state Department of Commerce. The Chiefs hadn’t received a response to the franchise’s latest proposal in six weeks, he said.</p><p>“Extending the secretary’s authority will allow that process to continue productively and will preserve Kansas’ ability to secure the most significant economic development initiative in its history,” Donovan’s letter said.</p>

Kansas prepares to extend deadline for Chiefs, Royals to claim incentive for stadium construction

&nbsp;U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new vaccine advisers met for the first time&nbsp;

The seven-member panel reviewed the “cumulative effect” of the&nbsp;children’s vaccine schedule&nbsp;— the list of immunizations given at different times throughout childhood.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750899322024.png" alt="Dr. Martin Kulldorf speaks during a meeting of the Advisory Committee in Immunization Practices at the CDC image from CDC video" />
                        <figcaption>Dr. Martin Kulldorf speaks during a meeting of the Advisory Committee in Immunization Practices at the CDC image from CDC video</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>&nbsp;U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new vaccine advisers met for the first time&nbsp;</p><div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2PnYYb_xj3U?si=YvZGpeJ1tIySjBaL&amp;start=932" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><p>The seven-member panel reviewed the “cumulative effect” of the&nbsp;children’s vaccine schedule&nbsp;— the list of immunizations given at different times throughout childhood.</p>

🎥RFK Jr.’s CDC vaccine panel held first meeting to review long-approved shots 

KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating a fatal. hit-and-run and have made an arrest.

Just after 10:30a.m. Wednesday, a midsize SUV was westbound on Barry Road from N Boardwalk, according to KCPD&nbsp;Officer Alayna Gonzalez.

The SUV struck a construction worker and left the scene. A few minutes later, KC Fire Department paramedics pronounced the pedestrian deceased. The driver of the vehicle was apprehended shortly after, according to Gonzalez.&nbsp; Police have not released the name of the victim.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750897462101.png" alt="Photo courtesy KCTV" />
                        <figcaption>Photo courtesy KCTV</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement are investigating a fatal. hit-and-run and have made an arrest.</p><p>Just after 10:30a.m. Wednesday, a midsize SUV was westbound on Barry Road from N Boardwalk, according to KCPD&nbsp;Officer Alayna Gonzalez.</p><p>The SUV struck a construction worker and left the scene. A few minutes later, KC Fire Department paramedics pronounced the pedestrian deceased. The driver of the vehicle was apprehended shortly after, according to Gonzalez.&nbsp; Police have not released the name of the victim.</p>

KCPD: Driver arrested after SUV struck, killed construction worker

KANSAS CITY– Ten Mexican nationals, one Guatemalan national, and two United States citizens have been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine as well as numerous counts of distribution of those controlled substances, illegal possession of machine guns, alien in possession of firearms, felon in possession of firearms, and illegal reentry of removed aliens, according to the United State's Attorney.

The investigation began in January of 2024 and continued through June of 2025, during which time investigators seized approximately 40 kilograms of methamphetamine, two kilograms of cocaine, and 11 firearms, three of which had been equipped with machine gun conversion devices and functioned as fully automatic weapons.

A law enforcement operation conducted on June 18, 2025, resulted in nine arrests. Three defendants were already in custody, and one defendant remains at large. More than a dozen law enforcement agencies were involved in the operation which also resulted in the seizure of nine additional firearms.

Uriel Lopez-Farias, 31, a Mexican national; Jesus Adrian Meza-Meza, 42, a Mexican national; Walter Fernandez, 34, of Kansas City, Mo.; Carlos R. Lepe-Virgen, 52, a Mexico national; Pedro Ivan Roldan-Minjares, 44, a Mexican national; Joel Armando Guillen-Rodriguez, 31, a Mexican national; Jose Rodriguez-Vasquez, 44, a Mexican national; Jose Aroldo Troches-Reyes, 33, a Guatemalan national; Adalberto Meza-Meza, 37, a Mexican national; Maximiliano Oliva-Verdin, 30, a Mexican national; Osvaldo Chiapas-Aguilar, 38, a Mexican national; Jesus Alvarez-Giron, 23, a Mexican national; and Kenneth Baez, 25, of Kansas City, Mo., were charged in a forty-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo., on June 11, 2025.&nbsp; The federal indictment was unsealed and made public Friday following the initial appearances of those in custody.

Lopez-Farias is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine, alien in possession of a firearm, illegal possession of a machine gun, distribution and attempted distribution of cocaine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

J. Meza-Meza is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine, alien in possession of a firearm and reentry of a removed alien. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Fernandez is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Lepe-Virgen is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Roldan-Minjares is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine and reentry of a removed alien. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Guillen-Rodriguez is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Rodriguez-Vasquez is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine and reentry of a removed alien. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Troches-Reyes is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and attempted distribution of cocaine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

A. Meza-Meza is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Oliva-Verdin is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Chiapas-Aguilar is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Alvarez-Giron is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.

Baez is charged with illegal possession of a machine gun and felon in possession of a firearm. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to 15 years in federal prison without parole for this charge.

The maximum statutory sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.

The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Megan A. Baker and Heather Siegele.&nbsp; It was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Jackson County Drug Task Force in conjunction with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

Wednesday’s law enforcement operation included the FBI, DEA, ATF, HSI, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Jackson County (MO) Drug Task Force, Johnson County (KS) Drug Task Force, Kansas City Missouri Police Department, Kansas City Kansas Police Department, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Lee’s Summit Police Department, Sugar Creek Police Department, Wyandotte County (KS) Sheriff’s Department, St. Joseph (MO) Police Department, Buchanan County (MO) Drug Strike Force, and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Missouri and the District of Kansas.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750512078192.png" alt="Meza-Meza from an earlier arrest in Wyandotte Co." />
                        <figcaption>Meza-Meza from an earlier arrest in Wyandotte Co.</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>KANSAS CITY– Ten Mexican nationals, one Guatemalan national, and two United States citizens have been indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine as well as numerous counts of distribution of those controlled substances, illegal possession of machine guns, alien in possession of firearms, felon in possession of firearms, and illegal reentry of removed aliens, according to the United State's Attorney.</p><p>The investigation began in January of 2024 and continued through June of 2025, during which time investigators seized approximately 40 kilograms of methamphetamine, two kilograms of cocaine, and 11 firearms, three of which had been equipped with machine gun conversion devices and functioned as fully automatic weapons.</p><p>A law enforcement operation conducted on June 18, 2025, resulted in nine arrests. Three defendants were already in custody, and one defendant remains at large. More than a dozen law enforcement agencies were involved in the operation which also resulted in the seizure of nine additional firearms.</p><p>Uriel Lopez-Farias, 31, a Mexican national; Jesus Adrian Meza-Meza, 42, a Mexican national; Walter Fernandez, 34, of Kansas City, Mo.; Carlos R. Lepe-Virgen, 52, a Mexico national; Pedro Ivan Roldan-Minjares, 44, a Mexican national; Joel Armando Guillen-Rodriguez, 31, a Mexican national; Jose Rodriguez-Vasquez, 44, a Mexican national; Jose Aroldo Troches-Reyes, 33, a Guatemalan national; Adalberto Meza-Meza, 37, a Mexican national; Maximiliano Oliva-Verdin, 30, a Mexican national; Osvaldo Chiapas-Aguilar, 38, a Mexican national; Jesus Alvarez-Giron, 23, a Mexican national; and Kenneth Baez, 25, of Kansas City, Mo., were charged in a forty-count indictment returned under seal by a federal grand jury in Kansas City, Mo., on June 11, 2025.&nbsp; The federal indictment was unsealed and made public Friday following the initial appearances of those in custody.</p><p>Lopez-Farias is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine, alien in possession of a firearm, illegal possession of a machine gun, distribution and attempted distribution of cocaine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>J. Meza-Meza is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine, alien in possession of a firearm and reentry of a removed alien. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Fernandez is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Lepe-Virgen is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Roldan-Minjares is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine and cocaine and reentry of a removed alien. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Guillen-Rodriguez is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Rodriguez-Vasquez is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution of methamphetamine and reentry of a removed alien. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Troches-Reyes is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and attempted distribution of cocaine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>A. Meza-Meza is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Oliva-Verdin is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Chiapas-Aguilar is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Alvarez-Giron is charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and distribution of methamphetamine. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to life imprisonment for these charges.</p><p>Baez is charged with illegal possession of a machine gun and felon in possession of a firearm. Under federal statutes, the defendant is subject to a sentence of up to 15 years in federal prison without parole for this charge.</p><p>The maximum statutory sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes, as the sentencing of the defendants will be determined by the court based on the advisory sentencing guidelines and other statutory factors.</p><p>The charges contained in this indictment are simply accusations, and not evidence of guilt. Evidence supporting the charges must be presented to a federal trial jury, whose duty is to determine guilt or innocence.</p><p>This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Megan A. Baker and Heather Siegele.&nbsp; It was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), and the Jackson County Drug Task Force in conjunction with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.</p><p>Wednesday’s law enforcement operation included the FBI, DEA, ATF, HSI, U.S. Marshals Service, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Postal Service, the Internal Revenue Service, Jackson County (MO) Drug Task Force, Johnson County (KS) Drug Task Force, Kansas City Missouri Police Department, Kansas City Kansas Police Department, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Lee’s Summit Police Department, Sugar Creek Police Department, Wyandotte County (KS) Sheriff’s Department, St. Joseph (MO) Police Department, Buchanan County (MO) Drug Strike Force, and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Western District of Missouri and the District of Kansas.</p>

FBI: 10 Mexican nationals accused of operating large KC crime ring

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750886425538.png" alt="Image from White House video at the NATO summit" />
                        <figcaption>Image from White House video at the NATO summit</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="zxx" dir="ltr"><a href="https://t.co/oyaW33UB6x">pic.twitter.com/oyaW33UB6x</a></p>&mdash; Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteHegseth/status/1937982998470926687?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="qme" dir="ltr">🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 <a href="https://t.co/s6RBYpIQJt">pic.twitter.com/s6RBYpIQJt</a></p>&mdash; DOD Rapid Response (@DODResponse) <a href="https://twitter.com/DODResponse/status/1937925674309931368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;Last weekend, the United States successfully carried out a massive precision strike on Iran&#39;s nuclear enrichment facilities... this incredible exercise of American strength has paved the way for peace, with a historic ceasefire agreement.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/F9gFmK4VW5">pic.twitter.com/F9gFmK4VW5</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1937874739432931517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">President Trump reads Israel assessment on U.S. strikes: &quot;The devastating U.S. strike on Fordow destroyed the site&#39;s critical infrastructure and rendered the enrichment facility totally inoperable.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/jgLkRoDUGU">pic.twitter.com/jgLkRoDUGU</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1937885146193051910?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Q: &quot;What&#39;s your reaction to intelligence reports saying that Iranian nuclear sites are only partially devastated?&quot;<br> <br>President Trump: &quot;We hear it was obliteration. It was a virtual obliteration.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/ppCvPzTntf">pic.twitter.com/ppCvPzTntf</a></p>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1937876171464577525?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New intelligence confirms what <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a> has stated numerous times: Iran&#39;s nuclear facilities have been destroyed. If the Iranians chose to rebuild, they would have to rebuild all three facilities (Natanz, Fordow, Esfahan) entirely, which would likely take years to do.<br><br>The…</p>&mdash; DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) <a href="https://twitter.com/DNIGabbard/status/1937934899710710170?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Debate continues over early US intelligence report on airstrikes in Iran

Missouri is one of only two states in which judges can unilaterally impose the death penalty when a jury can’t agree on whether the defendant should be sentenced to death. In most other states, a deadlocked jury results in a sentence of life without parole

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a><br><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/"><i>Missouri Independent</i></a>

A Missouri man who was sentenced to death by a trial judge in 2009 despite a jury deadlocking on whether he should be executed has been scheduled to undergo lethal injection in October.&nbsp;

The Missouri Supreme Court last week issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/SC90286WARRANT.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=209718" target="_blank">warrant</a>&nbsp;for the execution of Lance Shockley, who recently exhausted his state and federal appeals and was convicted of the 2005 murder of Missouri State Highway Patrol Sgt. Carl Dewayne Graham Jr.&nbsp;

The court announced the execution date on Tuesday afternoon.

Graham was shot and killed in his rural Carter County driveway. Graham had been investigating Shockley’s role in a fatal drunk driving accident, which the prosecution argued gave Shockley the motive to kill him. Shockley has insisted he’s innocent.

A jury in 2009 found Shockley guilty of first-degree murder. But&nbsp;in the punishment phase of Shockley’s trial, the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether he should be executed.&nbsp;

In most states with active death penalty laws, that deadlock would have resulted in the defendant being sentenced to life without parole.&nbsp;

But under Missouri law, Shockley’s penalty case then got handed off to a Carter County circuit judge who, after independent review, sentenced him to death.

Only Missouri and Indiana give judges the authority to unilaterally decide on the death penalty, a fact that&nbsp;<a href="https://philadelphia.citybuzz.co/article/483510/dla-piper-files-amicus-brief-with-us-supreme-court-in-missouri-capital-case" target="_blank">over the years</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-missouri-lets-judges-impose-death-sentences-if-juries-dont-that-should-change/article_b6c15e00-4cc4-11ee-bd57-8b920a2a85f0.html" target="_blank">has drawn scrutiny</a>&nbsp;from those who believe it places too much power in the hands of one person and denies defendants their constitutional rights to trial by jury and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

In 2023 Amber McLaughlin was executed because of the unilateral decision of a trial judge.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article270281972.html" target="_blank">S</a><a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article270281972.html" target="_blank">everal retired judges&nbsp;</a>opposed the execution in a letter to then-Gov. Mike Parson, calling it a “flaw in Missouri’s capital sentencing scheme.”

An&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pogo.org/analysis/who-should-make-decision-on-life-and-death" target="_blank">analysis included in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court organized by the national nonprofit watchdog group Project on Government Oversight&nbsp;</a>found Missouri judges, who are elected in most parts of the state, have been more likely than juries to impose death sentences.&nbsp;

In cases without jury deadlock, from 2000 to 2018, the jury imposed a death sentence in 64% of cases. But in deadlocked cases with a trial judge making the decision, the death penalty was imposed in 86% of cases, according to the brief.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/10/group-of-republican-lawmakers-raise-concerns-about-missouri-death-penalty/">in recent years have filed legislation&nbsp;</a>to eliminate judge-imposed executions, but the proposals have made little progress.

Shockley has denied his involvement in Graham’s death, citing the lack of physical evidence or eyewitnesses. His attorneys&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/APPELLANT%20LANCE%20SHOCKLEYS%20SUR-REPLY%20IN%20OPPOSITION%20TO%20THE%20STATES%20MOTION%20TO%20SET%20AN%20EXECUTION%20DATE.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=209165" target="_blank">have tried</a>&nbsp;unsuccessfully to get evidence from the crime scene tested for DNA and have argued the police failed to investigate other possible suspects.

“Shockley’s defense at trial was that he was not the one who killed Sgt. Graham,” his attorney&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/APPELLANT%20LANCE%20SHOCKLEYS%20SUR-REPLY%20IN%20OPPOSITION%20TO%20THE%20STATES%20MOTION%20TO%20SET%20AN%20EXECUTION%20DATE.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=209165" target="_blank">wrote in a brief last month.</a>&nbsp;“Shockley has never wavered in that position.”&nbsp;

His attorney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The prosecution said Shockley borrowed a relative’s car the afternoon of Graham’s death and the car matched the description witnesses gave of one parked near Graham’s house the afternoon of his murder. Prosecutors also argued the recovered bullets may have been consistent with the caliber of a rifle Shockley owned. No murder weapon was found.

The Missouri&nbsp;<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2013/sc90286.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a>, responding to the defense’s argument that the death penalty was excessive or disproportionate punishment for a case relying on circumstantial proof, said courts have previously upheld death sentences in cases hinging on strong circumstantial evidence and here, “the circumstantial evidence was strong.”

Shockley would be the first person executed in Missouri this year, barring intervention from Gov. Mike Kehoe or the U.S. Supreme Court.&nbsp;

Last year, Missouri executed four people. It was one of four states responsible for 76% of executions that year,&nbsp;<a href="https://dpic-cdn.org/production/documents/DPI-2024-Year-End-Report.pdf?dm=1735847939" target="_blank">according to the Death Penalty Information Center.&nbsp;</a>

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750874127475.png" alt="Shockley photo MODOC" />
                        <figcaption>Shockley photo MODOC</figcaption>
                    </figure><h2>Missouri is one of only two states in which judges can unilaterally impose the death penalty when a jury can’t agree on whether the defendant should be sentenced to death. In most other states, a deadlocked jury results in a sentence of life without parole</h2><p>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a><br><a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/"><i>Missouri Independent</i></a></p><p>A Missouri man who was sentenced to death by a trial judge in 2009 despite a jury deadlocking on whether he should be executed has been scheduled to undergo lethal injection in October.&nbsp;</p><p>The Missouri Supreme Court last week issued a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/SC90286WARRANT.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=209718" target="_blank">warrant</a>&nbsp;for the execution of Lance Shockley, who recently exhausted his state and federal appeals and was convicted of the 2005 murder of Missouri State Highway Patrol Sgt. Carl Dewayne Graham Jr.&nbsp;</p><p>The court announced the execution date on Tuesday afternoon.</p><p>Graham was shot and killed in his rural Carter County driveway. Graham had been investigating Shockley’s role in a fatal drunk driving accident, which the prosecution argued gave Shockley the motive to kill him. Shockley has insisted he’s innocent.</p><p>A jury in 2009 found Shockley guilty of first-degree murder. But&nbsp;in the punishment phase of Shockley’s trial, the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on whether he should be executed.&nbsp;</p><p>In most states with active death penalty laws, that deadlock would have resulted in the defendant being sentenced to life without parole.&nbsp;</p><p>But under Missouri law, Shockley’s penalty case then got handed off to a Carter County circuit judge who, after independent review, sentenced him to death.</p><p>Only Missouri and Indiana give judges the authority to unilaterally decide on the death penalty, a fact that&nbsp;<a href="https://philadelphia.citybuzz.co/article/483510/dla-piper-files-amicus-brief-with-us-supreme-court-in-missouri-capital-case" target="_blank">over the years</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/editorial/editorial-missouri-lets-judges-impose-death-sentences-if-juries-dont-that-should-change/article_b6c15e00-4cc4-11ee-bd57-8b920a2a85f0.html" target="_blank">has drawn scrutiny</a>&nbsp;from those who believe it places too much power in the hands of one person and denies defendants their constitutional rights to trial by jury and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.</p><p>In 2023 Amber McLaughlin was executed because of the unilateral decision of a trial judge.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article270281972.html" target="_blank">S</a><a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/state/missouri/article270281972.html" target="_blank">everal retired judges&nbsp;</a>opposed the execution in a letter to then-Gov. Mike Parson, calling it a “flaw in Missouri’s capital sentencing scheme.”</p><p>An&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pogo.org/analysis/who-should-make-decision-on-life-and-death" target="_blank">analysis included in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court organized by the national nonprofit watchdog group Project on Government Oversight&nbsp;</a>found Missouri judges, who are elected in most parts of the state, have been more likely than juries to impose death sentences.&nbsp;</p><p>In cases without jury deadlock, from 2000 to 2018, the jury imposed a death sentence in 64% of cases. But in deadlocked cases with a trial judge making the decision, the death penalty was imposed in 86% of cases, according to the brief.</p><p>A bipartisan group of lawmakers&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/01/10/group-of-republican-lawmakers-raise-concerns-about-missouri-death-penalty/">in recent years have filed legislation&nbsp;</a>to eliminate judge-imposed executions, but the proposals have made little progress.</p><p>Shockley has denied his involvement in Graham’s death, citing the lack of physical evidence or eyewitnesses. His attorneys&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/APPELLANT%20LANCE%20SHOCKLEYS%20SUR-REPLY%20IN%20OPPOSITION%20TO%20THE%20STATES%20MOTION%20TO%20SET%20AN%20EXECUTION%20DATE.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=209165" target="_blank">have tried</a>&nbsp;unsuccessfully to get evidence from the crime scene tested for DNA and have argued the police failed to investigate other possible suspects.</p><p>“Shockley’s defense at trial was that he was not the one who killed Sgt. Graham,” his attorney&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courts.mo.gov/fv/c/APPELLANT%20LANCE%20SHOCKLEYS%20SUR-REPLY%20IN%20OPPOSITION%20TO%20THE%20STATES%20MOTION%20TO%20SET%20AN%20EXECUTION%20DATE.PDF?courtCode=SC&amp;di=209165" target="_blank">wrote in a brief last month.</a>&nbsp;“Shockley has never wavered in that position.”&nbsp;</p><p>His attorney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.</p><p>The prosecution said Shockley borrowed a relative’s car the afternoon of Graham’s death and the car matched the description witnesses gave of one parked near Graham’s house the afternoon of his murder. Prosecutors also argued the recovered bullets may have been consistent with the caliber of a rifle Shockley owned. No murder weapon was found.</p><p>The Missouri&nbsp;<a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/missouri/supreme-court/2013/sc90286.html" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a>, responding to the defense’s argument that the death penalty was excessive or disproportionate punishment for a case relying on circumstantial proof, said courts have previously upheld death sentences in cases hinging on strong circumstantial evidence and here, “the circumstantial evidence was strong.”</p><p>Shockley would be the first person executed in Missouri this year, barring intervention from Gov. Mike Kehoe or the U.S. Supreme Court.&nbsp;</p><p>Last year, Missouri executed four people. It was one of four states responsible for 76% of executions that year,&nbsp;<a href="https://dpic-cdn.org/production/documents/DPI-2024-Year-End-Report.pdf?dm=1735847939" target="_blank">according to the Death Penalty Information Center.&nbsp;</a></p>

Execution date set for man sentenced to die by a Mo. judge over 2005 murder

WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested 11 Iranian nationals illegally in the United States over the weekend. ICE also arrested a U.S. citizen who threatened to kill ICE law enforcement while harboring an illegal alien from Iran. The weekend arrests reflect the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) commitment to keeping known and suspected terrorists out of American communities, according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security.

“Under Secretary Noem, DHS has been full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and violent extremists that illegally entered this country, came in through Biden’s fraudulent parole programs or otherwise,”&nbsp;said&nbsp;DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out—and we are. We don’t wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump’s mandate to secure the homeland.” 

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782397107.png" alt="Ribvar Karimi -photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Ribvar Karimi -photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>WASHINGTON — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested 11 Iranian nationals illegally in the United States over the weekend. ICE also arrested a U.S. citizen who threatened to kill ICE law enforcement while harboring an illegal alien from Iran. The weekend arrests reflect the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) commitment to keeping known and suspected terrorists out of American communities, according to a statement from the Department of Homeland Security.</p><p>“Under Secretary Noem, DHS has been full throttle on identifying and arresting known or suspected terrorists and violent extremists that illegally entered this country, came in through Biden’s fraudulent parole programs or otherwise,”&nbsp;said&nbsp;DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “We have been saying we are getting the worst of the worst out—and we are. We don’t wait until a military operation to execute; we proactively deliver on President Trump’s mandate to secure the homeland.” </p><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, ICE Atlanta arrested&nbsp;Ribvar Karimi&nbsp;in Locust, Alabama. Karimi reportedly served as an&nbsp;Iranian Army sniper&nbsp;from 2018 to 2021 and at the time of his arrest, in his possession, he had an Islamic Republic of Iran Army identification card. He entered the U.S. on a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/family/family-of-us-citizens/visas-for-fiancees-of-us-citizens" target="_blank">K-1 visa</a>, which is reserved for aliens engaged to be married to American citizens, in October 2024 under the Biden administration. Karimi never adjusted his status — a legal requirement — and is removable from the United States. He’s currently in ICE custody, where he’ll remain pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, ICE Houston officials arrested&nbsp;Behzad Sepehrian Bahary Nejad, an alien with a final order of removal, who was&nbsp;carrying a loaded 9mm pistol&nbsp;at the time of his arrest. Sepehrian entered the U.S. in Houston on Dec. 9, 2016, on an&nbsp;<a href="https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/study/student-visa.html" target="_blank">F-1 student visa</a>. On Aug. 19, 2017, Harris County police&nbsp;arrested him for assaulting a family member by impeding breathing; his wife told the local assistant district attorney that Sepehrian was threatening her and obtained a restraining order against him. She also alleged he was threatening her family in Iran. On July 23, 2018, the University of Texas terminated Sepehrian’s status after he was placed on academic suspension. An immigration judge ordered him removed on Oct. 10, 2019, after he was released on an immigration bond; he filed a motion to reopen his case, which a Department of Justice immigration judge denied. Sepehrian is in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.&nbsp;&nbsp;</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782459722.png" alt="Nejad-photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Nejad-photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>Also in Houston, ICE arrested&nbsp;Hamid Reza Bayat, an Iranian national an immigration judge&nbsp;ordered removed nearly 20 years ago, on Aug. 4, 2005. Twice&nbsp;convicted of drug crimes&nbsp;and once convicted of driving on a suspended license, Bayat served time before receiving his final order of removal. He’s now in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782512971.png" alt="Bayat photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Bayat photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, in Tempe — a Phoenix, Arizona suburb — ICE agents arrested&nbsp;Mehrzad Asadi Eidivand, an Iranian citizen with a final order of removal&nbsp;convicted of threatening a law enforcement officer&nbsp;and being an alien in&nbsp;possession of a firearm. Eidivand entered the U.S. in San Ysidro, California, in June 2012. In August 2013, an immigration judge granted him a voluntary departure, which allows an alien to leave the country without a formal ICE removal, but he never left. Eidivand will remain in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782589954.png" alt="Eidivand photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Eidivand photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>At the same residence, officials arrested&nbsp;Linet Vartaniann, a United States citizen, for threatening a law enforcement officer and harboring Eidivand, an illegal alien. Vartaniann&nbsp;threatened to open fire on ICE officials&nbsp;if they entered her home, then said she would go outside and “shoot ICE officers in the head.” ICE officials obtained a search warrant for the residence and arrested the pair, who are now charged with federal crimes.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782653736.png" alt="Vartaniann-photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Vartaniann-photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, in Gluckstadt, Mississippi, ICE officers and agents arrested&nbsp;Yousef Mehridehno, an Iranian national and former lawful permanent resident. The U.S. government terminated Mehridehno’s residency in October 2017 after determining he&nbsp;lied on his original visa application and committed potential marriage fraud.&nbsp;In February, Mehridehno was listed as a&nbsp;known or suspected terrorist, and he’s now in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782701962.png" alt="Mehridehno-photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Mehridehno-photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, in Colorado Springs, ICE officials arrested&nbsp;Mahmoud Shafiei&nbsp;and&nbsp;Mehrdad Mehdipour&nbsp;— two illegally present Iranian nationals living together. Immigration officials first encountered Shafiei in Seattle, Washington, in January 1981; a judge ordered him removed in January 1987. His criminal history includes&nbsp;state and federal convictions for drug crimes and arrests for assault and child abuse. U.S. Border Patrol encountered Mehdipour in June 2023 during the Biden administration near Rio Grande Valley, Texas, and processed him as an expedited removal. Both men are in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782773266.png" alt="Shafiei photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Shafiei photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782817364.png" alt="Mehdipour photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Mehdipour photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, in St. Paul, Minnesota, ICE arrested&nbsp;Mehran Makari Saheli, a 56-year-old Iranian national. He was&nbsp;convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm&nbsp;in Minneapolis, where he was sentenced to 15 months in prison. He is a former member of off the&nbsp;Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with admitted connections to Hezbollah.&nbsp;An immigration judge ordered him removed June 28, 2022, under the Biden administration, but he illegally remained in the U.S. Saheli is now in ICE custody pending removal.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782876316.png" alt="Saheli photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Saheli photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>On June 22, ICE San Francisco arrested&nbsp;Bahman Alizadeh Asfestani, a 62-year-old Iranian national, with a&nbsp;criminal history&nbsp;that includes a 1994&nbsp;conviction for petty theft&nbsp;and a 1995&nbsp;conviction of possession of a controlled substance for sale. Asfestani was&nbsp;sentenced to 10 years in state prison for the drug conviction&nbsp;and is now in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul><figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750782924349.png" alt="Asfestani photo Homeland Security" />
                        <figcaption>Asfestani photo Homeland Security</figcaption>
                    </figure><ul>
                        <li>On June 23, ICE Buffalo arrested&nbsp;Mohammad Rafikian, a 65-year-old Iranian national&nbsp;convicted of grand larceny,&nbsp;schemes to defraud, criminal impersonation and practicing as an attorney.  </li><li>On the same date, ICE San Diego arrested&nbsp;Arkavan Babk Moirokorli, a 57-year-old Iranian national&nbsp;convicted of forging an official seal. Both are in ICE custody pending removal proceedings.</li>
                    </ul>

ICE arrests Iranian nationals in US amid fears of secret terror cells

President Donald Trump responded to a U.S. intelligence report suggests that&nbsp;Iran’s nuclear program was set back only a few months after weekend U.S. strikes.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750848409452.png" alt="President Trump at the NATO summit on Wednesday-Image courtesy White House" />
                        <figcaption>President Trump at the NATO summit on Wednesday-Image courtesy White House</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>President Donald Trump responded to a U.S. intelligence report suggests that&nbsp;Iran’s nuclear program was set back only a few months after weekend U.S. strikes.</p><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;This was an unbelievable hit by genius pilots and genius people in the military, and they&#39;re not being given credit for it because we have scum... CNN is scum. MSDNC is scum. The New York Times is scum.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/IrRhwgqQaK">pic.twitter.com/IrRhwgqQaK</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1937800789356896343?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/SecRubio?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecRubio</a> sets the record straight for the Fake News: &quot;These leakers are professional stabbers... There&#39;s no way Iran comes to the table if somehow nothing had happened. This was a complete and total obliteration... They are way behind today compared to where they were just 7… <a href="https://t.co/V3wrIjic8F">pic.twitter.com/V3wrIjic8F</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1937800084621558011?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>: &quot;We hear it was obliteration... I believe they didn&#39;t have a chance to get anything out because we acted fast.&quot;<a href="https://twitter.com/SecDef?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SecDef</a>: &quot;They landed precisely where they were supposed to. It was a flawless mission... it was devastation underneath Fordow.&quot; <a href="https://t.co/29AT9hj8w7">pic.twitter.com/29AT9hj8w7</a></p>&mdash; Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) <a href="https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/1937798413472399483?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 25, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>

🎥Trump pushes back on assessment critical of Iran attack success

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750787876972.png" alt="Sherman" />
                        <figcaption>Sherman</figcaption>
                    </figure><div><blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLSmV0HJ8n9/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:16px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLSmV0HJ8n9/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"> <div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div></div></div><div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div> <div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><svg width="50px" height="50px" viewBox="0 0 60 60" version="1.1" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g stroke="none" stroke-width="1" fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd"><g transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)" fill="#000000"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></div><div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;">View this post on Instagram</div></div><div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"><div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div> <div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div></div><div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)"></div></div><div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div> <div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div></div></div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div> <div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div></div></a><p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DLSmV0HJ8n9/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none;" target="_blank">A post shared by John Stamos (@johnstamos)</a></p></div></blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></div>

Bobby Sherman, '60s teen idol, dies at 81

By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">Jennifer Shutt</a>&nbsp;

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats have succeeded in eliminating more than a dozen policy changes from Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” after successfully arguing before the chamber’s parliamentarian that the elements didn’t comply with the strict rules that go along with writing a budget reconciliation bill.

Removed is language&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-tries-ease-pain-states-sharing-costs-snap-benefits" target="_blank">that would have transferred some of the cost</a>&nbsp;of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments, potentially leaving states on the hook for billions in added spending on the food aid program for lower-income people.

Democrats also fended off a proposal to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which fields complaints on banking and other financial institutions, and another that sought to bar federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.&nbsp;

Among the contested items that remained, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley announced in a social media post that his&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/radiation-exposure-fund-backed-missouris-hawley-included-us-senate-mega-bill" target="_blank">years-long effort to reauthorize</a>&nbsp;the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund, or RECA, passed what’s known on Capitol Hill as the “Byrd bath” test.

“Terrific news for Missouri, radiation survivors, and MAHA: RECA has passed the ‘Byrd bath’ – Democrats did not strip it – and will be in the final bill,” Hawley wrote, referring to the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again slogan. “Huge step forward #MAHA.”

Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has cheered many of the parliamentarian’s rulings, though Republican committee chairs say they’ll look for ways to rewrite the various proposals.

“Today, we were advised by the Senate Parliamentarian that several more provisions in this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill will be subject to the Byrd Rule — and Democrats plan to challenge every part of this bill that hurts working families and violates this process,” Merkley wrote in a statement released Saturday night. “Republicans’ relentless attack on middle class families in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires is a slap in the face to working families everywhere, and Democrats are fighting back.”&nbsp;&nbsp;

The changes could create several issues for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and eventually for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who need nearly every GOP lawmaker in Congress to vote for the sweeping tax and spending cuts package in order for it to become law.

The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">voted 215-214 to approve</a>&nbsp;its version of the bill in May, but since the Senate is making substantial changes, the House will have to vote on the measure again before it can go to President Donald Trump for his signature. GOP leaders hope to complete all that before the Fourth of July.

Republicans are using reconciliation, instead of moving the bill through the regular legislative process, to avoid needing Democratic votes to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.

But the lower threshold for passing a reconciliation bill comes with several requirements, including that all of the proposals in the package have an impact on spending or revenues that’s not “merely incidental.”

The Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official scorekeeper who holds a detailed understanding of the rules and procedures, examines each of those policies and hears from both Republicans and Democrats before issuing the rulings.

The Byrd bath began last week behind closed doors and will continue for at least several more days. Once it concludes, Senate GOP leaders can move the bill to the floor, where&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/both-parties-prep-mega-bill-marathon-us-senate-vote-rama" target="_blank">members of both parties can call for votes on as many amendments as they want</a>.

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., released a written statement defending&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/rep/press/release/chairman-boozman-releases-agriculture-nutrition-and-forestry-budget-reconciliation-text" target="_blank">his committee’s bill</a>&nbsp;after the parliamentarian ruled several provisions must go to comply with the rules.

“To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,” Boozman wrote. “We are continuing to examine options that comply with Senate rules to achieve savings through budget reconciliation to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

The parliamentarian ruled the committee erred in including language that would have shifted some of the cost of the SNAP program to state governments if they didn’t meet an efficiency benchmark before 2028.

A proposal to eliminate SNAP eligibility for “immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, with certain exceptions,” was also determined not to comply with the rules, according to a press release from Merkley.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, ranking member on the committee, wrote the parliamentarian’s ruling “made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.

“While Republicans’ proposed cuts to SNAP will still be devastating to families, farmers, and independent grocers across the country, we will keep fighting to protect families in need. Instead of a rushed partisan process, Republicans should work with us to lower costs for Americans and pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that works for all farmers and rural America.”

Consumer financial agency victory for Dems

The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/scott-releases-banking-committee-provisions-for-the-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank">proposal to eliminate funding</a>&nbsp;for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Congress&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48295/R48295.8.pdf" target="_blank">established</a>&nbsp;in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also doesn’t comply with the rules, under the parliamentarian’s ruling.

Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ranking member on the panel, wrote in a statement that the GOP’s proposal for the CFPB represented “a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.”

But committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., wrote in a separate statement that he remains “committed to advancing legislation that cuts waste and duplication in our federal government and saves taxpayer dollars.”

Scott listed provisions that he said will remain.

“As it stands now, the Banking Committee’s reconciliation provisions will delay the implementation of Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, which reduces CFPB spending and protects the privacy and data of small business owners; rescind unused funds earmarked for green initiatives to give HUD discretion in funding critical housing programs; and save taxpayer dollars by eliminating an unnecessary reserve fund at the SEC,” Scott wrote. “My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.”

The parliamentarian told lawmakers that various elements of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-releases-senate-judiciary-committee-text-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank">the Judiciary Committee’s bill</a>&nbsp;don’t comply with the rules, including an attempt to block federal district court judges from issuing nationwide preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.

The issue has become a thorn in Trump’s side during the past few months as he’s watched the courts block several of his executive orders and other unilateral administration actions.

The Judiciary Committee’s reconciliation bill cannot block the Department of Justice from awarding Byrne JAG and COPS grants to “sanctuary cities.” The bill also can’t send funding to local and state governments for the purpose of “apprehending aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.”

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not respond to a request for comment, but a committee spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Democrats are clinging to their radical open borders legacy by fighting to keep criminal migrants in the United States.

“Republicans are committed to enforcing the rule of law, and will continue using all available avenues to secure our borders, clean up the mess left by the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous policies and ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards.”

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the committee, issued a statement calling the bill’s policies “an attempted power grab by our Republican colleagues that we would not stand for.”

“Here’s what Senate Republicans attempted to sneak into their so-called Big, Beautiful Bill: a provision intended to limit the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge lawless Trump Administration executive actions by putting those potential plaintiffs on the hook for millions of dollars; and a provision conditioning grant eligibility on a state or locality’s compliance with federal immigration policies,” Durbin wrote.

The parliamentarian didn’t, however, remove all of the proposals contested by Democrats.

Language that would prevent local and state governments from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade if those jurisdictions want to receive money from a $500 million fund does meet the reconciliation requirements and can remain in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/6/chairman-cruz-releases-budget-reconciliation-text" target="_blank">the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s bill</a>.

But that doesn’t mean the provision will stay in the bill moving forward, since several GOP lawmakers have expressed concern about potentially tying the hands of local and state governments when it comes to AI.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1929946902566494653" target="_blank">wrote in a social media post</a>&nbsp;after she voted for the House’s bill that she had no idea about the AI provision. That chamber’s package barred state and local AI regulation for a decade without tying it to any funding stream.

<figure>
                        <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/6/1750772403338.png" alt=" At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 14, 2012, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA)." />
                        <figcaption> At a farm market in St. Petersburg, Florida, on April 14, 2012, SNAP recipients were able to use their Electronic Benefits Transfer cards for food. (Photo by Lance Cheung/USDA).</figcaption>
                    </figure><p>By:&nbsp;<a href="https://kansasreflector.com/author/jennifer-shutt/">Jennifer Shutt</a>&nbsp;</p><p>WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Democrats have succeeded in eliminating more than a dozen policy changes from Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” after successfully arguing before the chamber’s parliamentarian that the elements didn’t comply with the strict rules that go along with writing a budget reconciliation bill.</p><p>Removed is language&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-senate-gop-tries-ease-pain-states-sharing-costs-snap-benefits" target="_blank">that would have transferred some of the cost</a>&nbsp;of running the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to state governments, potentially leaving states on the hook for billions in added spending on the food aid program for lower-income people.</p><p>Democrats also fended off a proposal to eliminate funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which fields complaints on banking and other financial institutions, and another that sought to bar federal district court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions.&nbsp;</p><p>Among the contested items that remained, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley announced in a social media post that his&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/radiation-exposure-fund-backed-missouris-hawley-included-us-senate-mega-bill" target="_blank">years-long effort to reauthorize</a>&nbsp;the Radiation Exposure Compensation Fund, or RECA, passed what’s known on Capitol Hill as the “Byrd bath” test.</p><p>“Terrific news for Missouri, radiation survivors, and MAHA: RECA has passed the ‘Byrd bath’ – Democrats did not strip it – and will be in the final bill,” Hawley wrote, referring to the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again slogan. “Huge step forward #MAHA.”</p><h2>Democrats to continue challenges</h2><p>Budget Committee ranking member Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., has cheered many of the parliamentarian’s rulings, though Republican committee chairs say they’ll look for ways to rewrite the various proposals.</p><p>“Today, we were advised by the Senate Parliamentarian that several more provisions in this Big Beautiful Betrayal of a bill will be subject to the Byrd Rule — and Democrats plan to challenge every part of this bill that hurts working families and violates this process,” Merkley wrote in a statement released Saturday night. “Republicans’ relentless attack on middle class families in order to fund tax breaks for billionaires is a slap in the face to working families everywhere, and Democrats are fighting back.”&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The changes could create several issues for Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and eventually for Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., who need nearly every GOP lawmaker in Congress to vote for the sweeping tax and spending cuts package in order for it to become law.</p><p>The House&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid" target="_blank">voted 215-214 to approve</a>&nbsp;its version of the bill in May, but since the Senate is making substantial changes, the House will have to vote on the measure again before it can go to President Donald Trump for his signature. GOP leaders hope to complete all that before the Fourth of July.</p><p>Republicans are using reconciliation, instead of moving the bill through the regular legislative process, to avoid needing Democratic votes to get past the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster.</p><p>But the lower threshold for passing a reconciliation bill comes with several requirements, including that all of the proposals in the package have an impact on spending or revenues that’s not “merely incidental.”</p><p>The Senate parliamentarian, the chamber’s official scorekeeper who holds a detailed understanding of the rules and procedures, examines each of those policies and hears from both Republicans and Democrats before issuing the rulings.</p><p>The Byrd bath began last week behind closed doors and will continue for at least several more days. Once it concludes, Senate GOP leaders can move the bill to the floor, where&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/both-parties-prep-mega-bill-marathon-us-senate-vote-rama" target="_blank">members of both parties can call for votes on as many amendments as they want</a>.</p><h2>SNAP program</h2><p>Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairman John Boozman, R-Ark., released a written statement defending&nbsp;<a href="https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/newsroom/rep/press/release/chairman-boozman-releases-agriculture-nutrition-and-forestry-budget-reconciliation-text" target="_blank">his committee’s bill</a>&nbsp;after the parliamentarian ruled several provisions must go to comply with the rules.</p><p>“To rein in federal spending and protect taxpayer dollars the committee is pursuing meaningful reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to improve efficiency, accountability and integrity,” Boozman wrote. “We are continuing to examine options that comply with Senate rules to achieve savings through budget reconciliation to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.”</p><p>The parliamentarian ruled the committee erred in including language that would have shifted some of the cost of the SNAP program to state governments if they didn’t meet an efficiency benchmark before 2028.</p><p>A proposal to eliminate SNAP eligibility for “immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents, with certain exceptions,” was also determined not to comply with the rules, according to a press release from Merkley.</p><p>Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, ranking member on the committee, wrote the parliamentarian’s ruling “made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts.</p><p>“While Republicans’ proposed cuts to SNAP will still be devastating to families, farmers, and independent grocers across the country, we will keep fighting to protect families in need. Instead of a rushed partisan process, Republicans should work with us to lower costs for Americans and pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that works for all farmers and rural America.”</p><h2>Consumer financial agency victory for Dems</h2><p>The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/scott-releases-banking-committee-provisions-for-the-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank">proposal to eliminate funding</a>&nbsp;for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Congress&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R48295/R48295.8.pdf" target="_blank">established</a>&nbsp;in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, also doesn’t comply with the rules, under the parliamentarian’s ruling.</p><p>Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, ranking member on the panel, wrote in a statement that the GOP’s proposal for the CFPB represented “a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk–all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires.”</p><p>But committee Chairman Tim Scott, R-S.C., wrote in a separate statement that he remains “committed to advancing legislation that cuts waste and duplication in our federal government and saves taxpayer dollars.”</p><p>Scott listed provisions that he said will remain.</p><p>“As it stands now, the Banking Committee’s reconciliation provisions will delay the implementation of Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, which reduces CFPB spending and protects the privacy and data of small business owners; rescind unused funds earmarked for green initiatives to give HUD discretion in funding critical housing programs; and save taxpayer dollars by eliminating an unnecessary reserve fund at the SEC,” Scott wrote. “My colleagues and I remain committed to cutting wasteful spending at the CFPB and will continue working with the Senate parliamentarian on the Committee’s provisions.”</p><h2>Judges and injunctions</h2><p>The parliamentarian told lawmakers that various elements of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/grassley-releases-senate-judiciary-committee-text-of-the-one-big-beautiful-bill" target="_blank">the Judiciary Committee’s bill</a>&nbsp;don’t comply with the rules, including an attempt to block federal district court judges from issuing nationwide preliminary injunctions or temporary restraining orders.</p><p>The issue has become a thorn in Trump’s side during the past few months as he’s watched the courts block several of his executive orders and other unilateral administration actions.</p><p>The Judiciary Committee’s reconciliation bill cannot block the Department of Justice from awarding Byrne JAG and COPS grants to “sanctuary cities.” The bill also can’t send funding to local and state governments for the purpose of “apprehending aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States.”</p><p>Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, did not respond to a request for comment, but a committee spokesperson wrote in an email to States Newsroom that “Democrats are clinging to their radical open borders legacy by fighting to keep criminal migrants in the United States.</p><p>“Republicans are committed to enforcing the rule of law, and will continue using all available avenues to secure our borders, clean up the mess left by the Biden-Harris administration’s disastrous policies and ensure courts operate according to lawful and constitutional standards.”</p><p>Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, ranking member on the committee, issued a statement calling the bill’s policies “an attempted power grab by our Republican colleagues that we would not stand for.”</p><p>“Here’s what Senate Republicans attempted to sneak into their so-called Big, Beautiful Bill: a provision intended to limit the ability of individuals and organizations to challenge lawless Trump Administration executive actions by putting those potential plaintiffs on the hook for millions of dollars; and a provision conditioning grant eligibility on a state or locality’s compliance with federal immigration policies,” Durbin wrote.</p><h2>Artificial intelligence and states</h2><p>The parliamentarian didn’t, however, remove all of the proposals contested by Democrats.</p><p>Language that would prevent local and state governments from regulating artificial intelligence for the next decade if those jurisdictions want to receive money from a $500 million fund does meet the reconciliation requirements and can remain in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2025/6/chairman-cruz-releases-budget-reconciliation-text" target="_blank">the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s bill</a>.</p><p>But that doesn’t mean the provision will stay in the bill moving forward, since several GOP lawmakers have expressed concern about potentially tying the hands of local and state governments when it comes to AI.</p><p>Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RepMTG/status/1929946902566494653" target="_blank">wrote in a social media post</a>&nbsp;after she voted for the House’s bill that she had no idea about the AI provision. That chamber’s package barred state and local AI regulation for a decade without tying it to any funding stream.</p><p>“We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,” Greene wrote. “This needs to be stripped out in the Senate.</p><p>“When the OBBB comes back to the House for approval after Senate changes, I will not vote for it with this in it.”</p>