A federal appeals court on Monday blocked the Biden administration from proceeding with another piece of its student debt relief agenda, a rule that would make it easier for people who are defrauded by their schools to have their loans forgiven.

At the request of a group representing for-profit colleges, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prevented the rule from taking effect pending the outcome of an appeal to be heard in November.

The three-judge panel gave no reason for granting the emergency injunction sought by the trade group, Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (CCST), which is appealing a lower-court judge's decision not to block the U.S. Department of Education's rule.

CCST sued in February after the Education Department in October finalized a new rule changing a program that allows students to seek debt relief if their schools mislead them.

The new rule offers greater grounds for borrowers to get debt relief in cases of fraud and establishes a procedure for the Education Department to forgive debt for groups of students at schools where this occurred.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee would become the latest state to require public school students to watch a video on fetal development produced by an anti-abortion group, or something comparable, under legislation that is headed to Republican Gov. Bill Lee's desk.

The GOP-dominated Senate passed the legislation Thursday, with the five Democrats in attendance and one Republican voting to oppose.

The Senate voted down various Democratic amendments: to let parents opt their children out of watching the video; to let school districts decide whether to show it; to show a disclaimer that it's scientifically inaccurate political propaganda; and to let schools teach comprehensive sex education.

“This cutesy, shiny, pink video is offensively childish and it diminishes the complexity of reproductive health," said Democratic Sen. Heidi Campbell. "It’s insulting to women and it’s insulting to the medical profession.”

The bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Janice Bowling, argued the video is accurate.

The same state leaders who banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — without exceptions for rape and incest — and barely waited a year to pass a six-week ban, are now calling a ballot referendum to restore reproductive rights “extreme.”

That makes no sense. Constitutional Amendment 4, on the ballot in the November elections, would mostly return abortion rights to what they were for decades in Florida, before the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the Florida Legislature passed one of the strictest laws in the nation.

And yet, as the Herald reported Tuesday, this is how House Speaker Paul Renner, who ushered in the passage of the six-week ban, characterized the ballot item: “This amendment goes far far beyond where most Floridians would land on the issue and is extreme in its scope”

The standard for nearly 50 years — which is popular with Floridians, according to polls — is not extreme. Banning abortions before most women even know they are pregnant is. Even Donald Trump called the six-week ban a “terrible mistake” last year.

The Florida Supreme Court approved the language of Amendment 4 on Monday. On the same day, it ruled in favor of Florida’s 15-week ban, which will trigger the six-week ban starting May 1.

The amendment will reverse the ban if it’s approved by at least 60% of voters. The measure states: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion before viability,” which is a fetus’ ability to survive outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks of gestation.

The same state leaders who banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy — without exceptions for rape and incest — and barely waited a year to pass a six-week ban, are now calling a ballot referendum to restore reproductive rights “extreme.”

That makes no sense. Constitutional Amendment 4, on the ballot in the November elections, would mostly return abortion rights to what they were for decades in Florida, before the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022 and the Florida Legislature passed one of the strictest laws in the nation.

And yet, as the Herald reported Tuesday, this is how House Speaker Paul Renner, who ushered in the passage of the six-week ban, characterized the ballot item: “This amendment goes far far beyond where most Floridians would land on the issue and is extreme in its scope”

The standard for nearly 50 years — which is popular with Floridians, according to polls — is not extreme. Banning abortions before most women even know they are pregnant is. Even Donald Trump called the six-week ban a “terrible mistake” last year.

The Florida Supreme Court approved the language of Amendment 4 on Monday. On the same day, it ruled in favor of Florida’s 15-week ban, which will trigger the six-week ban starting May 1.

The amendment will reverse the ban if it’s approved by at least 60% of voters. The measure states: “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay or restrict abortion before viability,” which is a fetus’ ability to survive outside the womb, usually around 24 weeks of gestation.

No modern presidency has been as consequential for the antiabortion movement as Donald Trump’s. And perhaps no present-day politician appears as uncertain about what to do about the issue now as Donald Trump.

Confirmation that voters in Trump’s home state of Florida will soon vote on whether to enshrine abortion rights into law — and whether to effectively veto Gov. Ron DeSantis’s and the state GOP’s six-week abortion ban — arrived this week. Similar questions could be on the ballot in many other states as Trump seeks a second stint in the White House.

The presumptive GOP presidential nominee has responded to this development with all the political certainty of a college freshman running for class president. And his hemming and hawing — even after effectively locking up the Republican nomination — speaks volumes about how much this sudden liability of an issue looms over the GOP’s 2024 hopes.

Trump’s campaign initially put out a statement Monday saying merely, “President Trump supports preserving life but has also made clear that he supports states’ rights, because he supports the voters’ right to make decisions for themselves.”

It’s great to support the democratic process — something that isn’t always a given with Trump — but that statement basically says nothing about his own view on the issue at hand. And when asked for more specificity Tuesday about Florida’s six-week ban, Trump played a familiar card: I’ll tell you later.

A renewed push by Nebraska Republicans to move to a “winner-take-all” system in presidential elections has raised the prospect that the 2024 contest could end in an Electoral College tie — with the House of Representatives deciding the winner.

Nebraska and Maine are the only states that divide their electoral votes according to the presidential winners of congressional districts. In 2020, Joe Biden won the eastern district around Omaha and its one vote. On Tuesday, Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska, a Republican, threw his support behind a GOP-led bill languishing in the state’s unicameral legislature that would end the practice.

“It would bring Nebraska in line with 48 of our fellow states, better reflect the founders’ intent, and ensure our state speaks with one unified voice in presidential elections,” Pillen wrote in a statement.

The resurrection of the state bill was sparked this week by Charlie Kirk, the chief executive of Turning Point USA, a pro-Trump conservative advocacy group, who pressed the state legislature to move forward on social media.

Former President Donald Trump quickly endorsed the governor’s “very smart letter” on his social media site.

And for good reason. If Biden were to hold Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, but lose Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and the one Nebraska vote he took in 2020, the Electoral College would be deadlocked at 269 votes each. The House would then decide the victor, not by total votes but by the votes of each state delegation. That would almost certainly give the election to Trump.

While the majority of justices on Florida’s very conservative Supreme Court ruled that citizens clearly have a right to vote on this issue, three tried to deny you that right. The decision was a 4-3 split.

The three justices who tried to block the vote are all new and relatively inexperienced. And interestingly, two of them will have their own names on the ballot this fall — and need your permission to keep their seats.

That’s because Florida has something called “merit retention” for judges. It’s Florida’s version of checks and balances. Governors appoint Supreme Court justices. But Floridians get to decide whether those judges keep their seats in the first election cycle after they’re appointed.

That means the fate of the two newest justices, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso, will be decided this fall. Both have been on the bench less than two years. Both tried to block the abortion vote, as well as the statewide vote recreational marijuana. And both have careers marked by controversy.

Francis’ appointment was the most controversial — so much so that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ own Supreme Court justices refused to approve her as a justice the first time he tried.

The reason they rejected Francis was simple. She was unqualified. I don’t mean that she was unqualified in my opinion. I mean that she literally did not have the minimum 10 years legal experience required by the Florida Constitution to serve on the state’s highest court.



Florida Supreme Court Justices Renatha Francis, left, Meredith L. Sasso, were on the losing side of an abortion ruling this week. Both will also be asking Florida voters to let them keep their seats this fall.

While the majority of justices on Florida’s very conservative Supreme Court ruled that citizens clearly have a right to vote on this issue, three tried to deny you that right. The decision was a 4-3 split.

The three justices who tried to block the vote are all new and relatively inexperienced. And interestingly, two of them will have their own names on the ballot this fall — and need your permission to keep their seats.

That’s because Florida has something called “merit retention” for judges. It’s Florida’s version of checks and balances. Governors appoint Supreme Court justices. But Floridians get to decide whether those judges keep their seats in the first election cycle after they’re appointed.

That means the fate of the two newest justices, Renatha Francis and Meredith Sasso, will be decided this fall. Both have been on the bench less than two years. Both tried to block the abortion vote, as well as the statewide vote recreational marijuana. And both have careers marked by controversy.

Francis’ appointment was the most controversial — so much so that Gov. Ron DeSantis’ own Supreme Court justices refused to approve her as a justice the first time he tried.

The reason they rejected Francis was simple. She was unqualified. I don’t mean that she was unqualified in my opinion. I mean that she literally did not have the minimum 10 years legal experience required by the Florida Constitution to serve on the state’s highest court.



Florida Supreme Court Justices Renatha Francis, left, Meredith L. Sasso, were on the losing side of an abortion ruling this week. Both will also be asking Florida voters to let them keep their seats this fall.

2010


2015


(2016)


(2018)


(2020)


(2024) The Court of Knuckle-draggers (and the knuckle dragging appeals court) slow-walked this case intentionally IMO

(1989)


(2003)

The following year after this decision voters gave the legislature some power to regulate parental consent on abortions for minors.

(2012)


(2017)


(2024) The Court of Knuckle-draggers

(2020)


(2021)


(2021)