Immigration occupies center stage in the 2024 presidential campaign and also was a major focus during the first presidential debate Thursday night between President Joe Biden and the presumptive GOP nominee, Donald J. Trump.

Immigration is a top issue for voters and for Trump, while the Biden administration has struggled to deal with the largest number of migrant encounters at the southern border in 20 years.

Biden during the 90-minute debate at CNN in Atlanta defended his administration’s handling of immigration and blamed Trump for tanking a bipartisan U.S. Senate border security deal.

Biden also pointed to that deal as a reason he should be reelected, because the White House was able to forge the agreement in the first place.

“We worked very hard to get a bipartisan agreement,” Biden said.

Senate Republicans rejected the bipartisan border security deal earlier this year, siding with their House colleagues and Trump. The agreement would have significantly overhauled U.S. immigration law by creating a temporary procedure to shut down the border during active times and raising the bar for asylum claims.

Trump in the debate argued that Biden did not need legislation to enact policy changes at the southern border because “I didn’t have legislation, I said close the border.”

In early June, Biden made the most drastic crackdown on immigration of his administration, issuing an executive order that instituted a partial ban on asylum proceedings at the southern border.

Trump called that action “insignificant.”

The debate came the day after U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas gave a briefing from Tucson, Arizona, about a decline in migrant encounters following Biden’s executive order.

He said the Tucson sector has “seen a more than 45 percent drop in U.S. Border Patrol encounters since the president took action, and repatriations of encountered individuals in Tucson have increased by nearly 150 percent.”

“Across the entire southern border, Border Patrol encounters have dropped by over 40 percent,” Mayorkas said.

‘Remain in Mexico’ policy

Trump cited his prior policies that he felt were successful and criticized Biden for rolling them back, such as one that required migrants to remain in Mexico while they awaited their asylum cases.

Biden slammed Trump’s “zero-tolerance” policy that separated parents from their children in efforts to deter unauthorized immigrants at the border.

“When he was president he was … separating babies from their mothers and putting them in cages,” Biden said.

And, without citing evidence, Trump blamed immigrants for crime, calling it “migrant crime.”

Overall violent crime in the country is down by 15%, according to recent FBI statistics, and researchers have found that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than U.S. citizens.

Trump brought up the death of a Georgia nursing student, Laken Riley, and blamed Biden’s immigration policies.

“All he does is make our country unsafe,” Trump said.

In late February, Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student at Augusta University, was reported missing by her roommate when she did not return home after a run on the campus of the University of Georgia at Athens.

Local police found her body and shortly afterward arrested a 26-year-old man from Venezuela for her murder — an immigrant previously arrested in Georgia on a shoplifting charge who entered the country without authorization in 2022, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. U.S. House Republicans in reaction passed the Laken Riley Act.

Trump was asked by debate moderators how he would carry out mass deportations, but he did not go into detail.

He has repeatedly claimed he would carry out a mass deportation campaign of undocumented immigrants by utilizing local law enforcement, the National Guard and potentially the U.S. military. He’s done so on the campaign trail and during a lengthy interview with Time Magazine. 

“We have to get a lot of these people out and we got to get them out fast because they’re destroying our country,” Trump said during the debate.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Ariana Figueroa

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump debated at CNN’s studios in Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday night, the first showdown of the 2024 general election season for the presumptive presidential nominees.

The debate was heated, with candidates accusing one another of lying about their and their opponent’s positions on the debate stage. Both presidential hopefuls also said the other candidate was not fit for office.

In one exchange, Biden and Trump couldn’t even agree on their golf games. Trump claimed the president “can’t hit a ball 50 yards.”

“I told you before, I’m happy to play golf, if you carry your own bag,” Biden responded. “Do you think you could do it?”

Here are more memorable quotes from the 90-minute debate:

Abortion

When a moderator stated that Trump was responsible for the overturn of Roe v. Wade, Trump said, “Correct.”

Trump said that he supports exceptions for abortion bans in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the pregnant patient. He said he understands some anti-abortion activists don’t believe in that, saying “follow your heart – but you have to get elected also.”

He claimed some Democrat-led states allowed for abortions up to nine months of gestation or “even after birth.” There are no states that allow for killing a child after birth.

According to 2020 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, about 1% of abortions occurred after 21 weeks of pregnancy, while 93% were performed in the first trimester – before 13 weeks of gestation, and 6% between 14 and 20 weeks.

Biden rebutted that this claim was false, and that there were no states that allow infanticide or non-medically necessary abortions during the third trimester.

“That is simply not true,” Biden said. “That – Roe v. Wade does not provide for that. That’s not the circumstance. Only if a woman’s life is in danger, she’s going to die, that’s the only circumstance where that can happen. But we are not for late-term abortion. Period, period, period.”

Jan. 6 insurrection

Trump told moderators Dana Bash and Jake Tapper that he offered National Guard soldiers to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to help defend the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection but was turned down.

“I said, ‘They ought to have some National Guard or whatever,’” Trump said. “And I offered it to her, and she now admits that she turned it down.”

Trump was referring to video recorded by Pelosi’s daughter and provided to congressional investigators by HBO where Pelosi discusses calling the National Guard on Jan. 6. However, there is no evidence for Trump’s claim about Pelosi turning down National Guard protection and the former speaker called Trump a liar in a post to X.

“Tonight (Trump) presented another pack of lies which along, with his candidacy, must be rejected,” a tweet from Team Pelosi said. “How dare he place the blame for January 6th on anyone but himself, the inciter of an insurrection?”

Trump said he had “virtually nothing” to do with the event organized by his supporters on Jan. 6, and that he encouraged people to demonstrate “peacefully and patriotically.”

He also criticized the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, calling it the “unselect” committee.

​​Biden criticized Trump for not taking action on Jan. 6 and accused him of lying.

“The only person on this stage who’s a convicted felon is the man I’m looking at right now,” Biden said. “And the fact of the matter is, he isn’t – what he’s telling you is simply not true. The fact is that there was no effort on his part to stop what was going on.”

A New York state jury in May found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels for an affair she testified they had that Trump didn’t want to harm his 2016 election prospects.

Criminal convictions

The two also attacked one another on criminal records – Biden targeting Trump over the felony convictions and Trump bringing up Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, who was convicted of three felony charges related to purchasing and owning a gun while addicted to illegal substances.

Biden said that Trump invoking Hunter Biden’s criminal charges was not relevant, and that “the idea that I did anything wrong relative to what you’re talking about is outrageous.”

He also brought up the numerous other legal battles Trump has faced in court, including the civil fraud verdict ordering him to pay $454 million and allegations of sexual misconduct.

“Think of all the civil penalties you got,” Biden said. “How many billions of dollars do you owe in civil penalties for molesting a woman in public? For doing a whole range of things, for having sex with a porn star on the night while your wife was pregnant? What, what are you talking about?”

Trump denied he had sex with the porn star.

Another exchange was over Trump’s alleged comments on veterans, calling them “suckers” and “losers,” according to an 2020 article published in The Atlantic.

Trump denied using these words to refer to veterans, characterizing the comments as “a made-up quote” in a “third-rate magazine that’s failing.”

Trump also claimed that the quote originated with Hunter Biden and called for the president to apologize to him.

“That came from his son Hunter,” Trump claimed. “There wasn’t Russia disinformation. He made up the ‘suckers and losers’ story. He should apologize to me right now.”

Biden reacted strongly to Trump’s request, saying he would not apologize to Trump for anything related to veterans. Beau Biden, the president’s eldest son who died of brain cancer in 2015, was a veteran.

“My son was not a loser and was not a sucker,” Biden said, telling Trump, “You’re the sucker. You’re the loser.”

Biden also claimed that his administration has “done more for veterans than any president has in American history.”

Immigration

Illegal immigration is causing spikes in crime rates across the country, Trump claimed without citing evidence, especially in liberal states.

“We are living right now in a rat’s nest,” Trump said. “They are killing our people in New York and California and every state in the union, because we don’t have borders anymore. Every state is now a border. And because of his ridiculous, insane and very stupid policies, people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”

He also claimed that the U.S. had the “safest border in history” in the final months of his presidency.

“All he had to do is leave it,” Trump said of Biden, but “he decided to open up our border, open up our country to people that are from prisons, people that are from mental institutions, insane asylums, terrorists.”

Biden said that immigration policy has improved during his tenure and said that his administration has enacted more humane policies when handling undocumented immigrants.

“When he was president, he was taking, separating babies from their mothers, put them in cages, making sure their families were separated,” Biden said. “That’s not the right way to go.”

Economy

While Trump attacked Biden on inflation, Biden argued that his administration has effectively dealt with inflation caused during the former president’s tenure.

Trump called the American economy under his presidency the “greatest economy in the history of our country.” Biden said that he inherited “an economy that was in freefall” following the 2020 election.

“(Trump’s) the only one who thinks that, I think – I don’t know anybody else who thinks we had the greatest economy in the world,” Biden said.

He also claimed that Trump’s economic policies unfairly benefited wealthy Americans while hurting average families.

“And, you know, the fact of the matter is … his economy, he rewarded the wealthy. He had the largest tax cut in American history, $2 trillion. You raise a deficit larger than the president hasn’t any one term. He’s the only president other than Herbert Hoover, who, that lost more jobs than he had when he began.”

Foreign policy

The candidates sparred over U.S. foreign policy toward the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Trump said that the terms Russian President Vladimir Putin is seeking in ending its conflict with Ukraine are not acceptable, but added that he believed the war “should have never happened” and could have been prevented if he remained president.

“I will have that war settled between Putin and Zelenskyy as president-elect before I take office,” Trump said, referring to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Biden said that Putin is a war criminal, and that supporting Ukraine is necessary to prevent further conflict in Europe and protect NATO allies.

Trump has previously said that he would let Russia do “whatever the hell they want” to countries that are members of NATO if they do not meet funding requirements.

Biden reiterated his belief that U.S. involvement is necessary, and that Trump is not mindful of the importance of NATO allies. He cited NATO’s Article Five providing that an attack on one allied nation constitutes an act of violence against all the organization’s members.

“You want to start the nuclear war he keeps talking about, go ahead, let Putin go in and control Ukraine, and then move on to Poland and other places – see what happens then,” Biden said. “He has no idea what the hell he’s talking about.”

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Robin Opsahl

President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump pitched to undecided voters Thursday night during the first debate of the presidential campaign — trading insults over their policy differences, immigration and who represents a threat to democracy.

During the debate from CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta, the two men argued over who would be better for Americans during the next four years on a broad swath of issues, ranging from the economy to climate change to foreign policy. Each repeatedly accused the other of lying.

Biden early in the debate spoke softly at several points, coughed and gave somewhat confusing answers. At one point, Biden appeared to lose his train of thought and ended an answer with the statement that “we finally beat Medicare.”

His performance, filled with stumbles, prompted a torrent of questions after the debate about replacing him with another Democrat.

Reporters swamped high-profile Democrats on hand to help the Biden campaign promote a post-debate message with questions about whether they regretted having Biden as a candidate or whether he should be replaced.

One top-tier potential candidate, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, told reporters he would not consider it.

“I would never turn my back on President Biden,” Newsom said in the post-debate spin room. “I don’t know a Democrat in my party that would do so. And especially after tonight, we have his back. We run not the 90-yard dash. We’re all in. We’re going to double down in the next few months.”

Less than an hour into an uneven performance from Biden, media reports cited unnamed White House sources saying the president had a cold.

During an appearance at an Atlanta Waffle House following the debate, Biden was asked if he was sick and said he had “a sore throat.”

Abortion, Jan. 6, election results

Biden, 81, and Trump, 78, did not shake hands at the beginning, a break from past debates. They walked their separate ways after the 90-minute debate wrapped up, minutes after attacking each other’s mental acuity, golf game and weight.

Biden and Trump disagreed sharply over access to reproductive rights, including abortion, with Trump arguing Democrats’ position is “radical” and Biden saying that leaving decisions up to the states has been “terrible” for women.

Near the end of the debate, Trump said political violence was “totally unacceptable,” though he went on to downplay the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, defending the conduct of his mob of supporters.

Trump initially did not directly answer a question about whether he would accept the results of the election if he lost. When pressed by moderator Dana Bash, Trump conditioned his answer.

“If it’s a fair and legal and good election, absolutely,” Trump said. He then repeated the oft-debunked claims that election fraud was a major issue in his 2020 loss.

Jabs over personal conduct

Even with rules meant to minimize crosstalk, the debate — moderated by Bash, anchor and chief political correspondent, and Jake Tapper, anchor and chief Washington correspondent — saw many moments of acrimony.

While Trump had harsh words about Biden’s border policy and Biden blasted his predecessor for appointing some of the Supreme Court justices who overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, they saved their harshest criticism for the other’s personal conduct.

Referring to reports that, as president, Trump said veterans killed in action in France during World War II were “suckers and losers,” Biden, invoked his son, Beau, who was a National Guard veteran and later died of brain cancer.

“My son was not a loser and was not a sucker,” Biden told his predecessor, scowling. “You’re the sucker. You’re the loser.”

Trump denied he ever made the remark, first reported in The Atlantic and confirmed in other reports.

Biden at several times attacked Trump’s credibility and truthfulness, saying after one answer, “Every single thing he said is a lie.”

“I never heard so much malarkey in my whole life,” he said in response to another of Trump’s answers.

Trump brought up the conviction of Biden’s son, Hunter, on federal gun charges this year. And he said that Joe Biden could face prosecution for his performance on border security.

Trump and his legal team argued in front of the Supreme Court in April that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution.

Trump’s conviction

Thursday’s event was the first presidential debate where one participant was a convicted felon.

A New York state jury in May found Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels for an affair she testified they had that Trump didn’t want to harm his 2016 election prospects.

Trump has denied the affair and it hasn’t affected his support within the GOP, though his sentencing July 11 could impact his campaign strategy.

Trump rejected his criminal conviction during the debate and reiterated his stance that he didn’t have a sexual relationship with an adult film star.

“I didn’t have sex with a porn star,” Trump said, marking the first time such words, or anything near them, have been uttered during a presidential debate.

“I did nothing wrong. We have a system that was rigged and disgusting,” Trump said. “I did nothing wrong.”

Trump also responded to the question by referring to Hunter Biden.

“When he talks about a convicted felon, his son is a convicted felon,” Trump said.

Jan. 6 disagreement

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to release a ruling within days in another trial involving Trump, this time on whether presidents enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions while in office.

The justices’ decision will determine whether a federal trial against Trump for election interference stemming from his actions on Jan. 6, 2021 can proceed.

During the debate, Trump said that “on January 6 we were respected all over the world,” but that changed after Biden took office.

Trump seemed to imply that the people who stormed the Capitol building were “innocent” and “patriotic,” saying that “you ought to be ashamed of yourself” for those people being in prison.

Biden said that Trump encouraged the “folks” who attacked the U.S. Capitol building and U.S. Capitol Police officers.

“If they’re convicted, he says he wants to commute their sentences,” Biden said, criticizing Trump’s behavior that day. “These people should be in jail. They should be the ones held accountable.”

Biden rejected the idea that the people who attacked the police and disrupted the electoral certification were patriots.

Divide on abortion rights

Reproductive rights — including access to abortion — sharply divided Biden and Trump, who sparred over which political party’s stance is better.

Trump said that he agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision earlier this month to leave access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, in place. And he said he wouldn’t seek to limit access if elected president in November.

“I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it,” Trump said, adding that the Supreme Court’s earlier decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion was a good thing.

“We brought it back to the states and the country is now coming together on this issue,” Trump said. “It’s been a great thing.”

Trump said he supports exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the woman.

Biden rejected Trump’s classification that Democrats are “radical” on abortion policy and said he supports reinstating the protections that existed under Roe v. Wade.

“It’s been a terrible thing,” Biden said of leaving decisions about abortion access up to state lawmakers, comparing it to leaving civil rights decisions up to the states.

Trump said during an interview with Time magazine released in April that his campaign was on the brink of releasing a policy regarding mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion. The campaign has yet to release that policy.

Trump suggested that he would be okay with states limiting or barring access to contraception during a May interview with a Pittsburgh TV news station. But he quickly walked back those comments in a social media post.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank, has suggested that another Trump administration could block the mailing of mifepristone by enforcing the Comstock Act.

The group included the proposal along with dozens of others in Project 2025, its 920-page blueprint for a second Trump administration.

The 1873 anti-obscenity law hasn’t been enforced in decades and is referred to as a “zombie law” by reproductive rights organizations, but it is still technically a law.

A future Republican attorney general seeking to enforce the law to block the mailing of mifepristone would likely see the law challenged in court, likely working its way up to the Supreme Court.

Mifepristone is one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions, which are approved for up to 10 weeks gestation by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The two-drug regimen accounts for about 63% of all abortions within the United States, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

First of two debates

The two presidential debates this year are a departure from past years, with both candidates ditching the proposed schedule from the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Biden and Trump later agreed to two debates, the one held Thursday by CNN and another one on Sept. 10 that will be hosted by ABC News.

CNN opted to hold its debate at its studios in Atlanta, Georgia, without an audience. Thursday night’s debate was also earlier than any other presidential debates, which have traditionally begun in September or October.

The television news network created frustration ahead of the debate with the White House Correspondents Association when it decided to keep the pool, the group of journalists that travel everywhere with the president, out of the room.

Kelly O’Donnell, president of the WHCA, released a statement Thursday afternoon that the organization was “deeply concerned that CNN has rejected our repeated requests to include the White House travel pool inside the studio.”

“The pool is there for the ‘what ifs?’ in a world where the unexpected does happen,” wrote O’Donnell, who is also the senior White House correspondent for NBC News. “A pool reporter is present to provide context and insight by direct observation and not through the lens of the television production.”

CNN’s rules also said that neither Biden nor Trump was allowed to bring props or pre-written notes into the debate area.

Each stood behind “a uniform podium” and was not allowed to interact with campaign staff during the two commercial breaks.

Biden was scheduled to travel with first lady Jill Biden to Raleigh, North Carolina, immediately after the debate wrapped. They’re set to participate in campaign events on Friday morning before traveling to New York later in the day.

The Bidens are then expected to travel to Red Bank, New Jersey, on Saturday for more campaigning before heading back to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

Trump will attend a campaign rally Friday afternoon in Chesapeake, Virginia. In a release announcing the event, Trump criticized Biden on inflation, crime and drug addiction, and immigration.

Reaction in the spin room

While Democrats were pelted with questions about Biden inside the spin room following the debate, U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat, focused on Trump.

“The American people got a chance tonight to be reminded about the character of Donald Trump, a man who stood there and lied for 90 minutes straight,” Warnock said. “But what I was also struck by was by what he did not say. Every time he was asked a question that had something to do with the lives of the ordinary working-class people that I represent here in the state of Georgia, did you notice he never answered the question?”

Trump allies declared victory for the former president.

“People who have not made up their mind, if you were watching this debate, you’re voting for Donald Trump,” South Carolina U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican whom Trump is considering as his running mate, said. “It was one of the greatest contrasts between two politicians I’ve ever seen in my life. The dominance of Donald Trump is undeniable.”

Scott and fellow potential Trump vice presidential pick Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York declined to comment on the possibility they could be asked to join the Trump ticket.

Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio said he would “very seriously” consider an offer if Trump made it.

Ross Williams and Jill Nolin contributed to this report. 

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Jennifer Shutt

Imagine being completely cut off from the world during a critical moment. You’re on a long flight with no Wi-Fi, anxiously wondering about an important family event. That feeling of helplessness and disconnection is what many Tribal members and rural communities experience daily due to the digital divide. Unlike the temporary inconvenience we might face, their lack of reliable internet access is a persistent barrier, impacting every aspect of life, including the freedom to vote.

Nevada’s Effective Absentee System for Elections (EASE) recently expanded to allow Tribal members of federally recognized Tribes or Bands residing on reservations or colonies to register to vote and cast their ballots using the electronic voting system. This system has been a vital tool for many Nevadans, including members of the armed services, their spouse and dependents, and Nevadans residing overseas. In 2021, EASE further expanded to include Nevadans with disabilities, a measure that passed the Nevada State Senate unanimously. Despite this progress, concerns about election security have surfaced, particularly as access to the ballot box expands to one of the most underserved, underrepresented, and disenfranchised communities – Indigenous peoples.

Tribes and county clerks are hopeful about this expansion. However, Chairman Andrea Martinez of the Walker River Paiute Tribe has stated that internet access is spotty on the reservation, as is electricity due to aging utility poles. These infrastructural issues create significant barriers to utilizing systems like EASE effectively. According to the Federal Communications Commission, approximately 35% of people who reside on Tribal lands lack access to broadband services, compared to 8% of the general population.

The issue of election security is often cited as a reason to scrutinize and potentially hinder the use of electronic voting systems. Yet, 31 states, including those with longstanding histories of voter disenfranchisement, such as Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and North Dakota, have successfully used similar systems. So why are these concerns heightened now, as we expand access for Tribal members?

This pattern of increased scrutiny when extending rights to Indigenous and other marginalized communities is not new. However, the real barrier that must be addressed is the digital divide that disproportionately impacts Tribal and rural communities. Without reliable internet access, the very systems designed to increase voter participation become inaccessible to those who need them most.

The digital divide is a significant issue affecting many aspects of life in Tribal and rural communities. Lack of internet access hampers education, economic opportunities, and political participation. For instance, a student in an urban area can easily access online resources, submit assignments, and communicate with teachers. Meanwhile, a student on a reservation may struggle to complete homework due to unreliable internet, perpetuating educational inequities.

Similarly, for voters, the inability to access online voting systems means that many Tribal members remain disenfranchised. While EASE is a step in the right direction, its benefits cannot be fully realized without addressing the underlying issue of digital inequality.

To bridge this digital divide, significant investments in infrastructure are needed. This means expanding broadband access to ensure quality, high-speed internet is available in every corner of Nevada, from urban centers to the most remote reservations. Additionally, providing digital literacy programs can empower Tribal members to navigate and utilize these technologies effectively.

By addressing the digital divide, we can ensure that every voice is heard, and every eligible vote is counted. The participation of Indigenous voices is crucial for a representative democracy. Expanding digital access will not only enhance voting rights but also provide opportunities for education, economic growth, and overall community well-being.

As we celebrate the expansion of voting rights through EASE, we must also commit to bridging the digital divide. This means recognizing that access to reliable internet is a fundamental right in the digital age. It is not enough to simply grant access; we must ensure that access is equitable and effective for all.

Indigenous communities have long fought for their rights and recognition. By investing in the necessary infrastructure and education to bridge the digital divide, we take a meaningful step toward rectifying historical injustices and building a more liberated future. The promise of democracy is only fulfilled when every eligible voter can participate fully and fairly, and it is our responsibility to make that a reality for all.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Mathilda Guerrero

Henderson City Councilman Dan Shaw is facing two more lawsuits, accusing him of making illegal loans via a tribal lender allegedly owned and controlled by Shaw and his business partner Greg Jones. 

The filings bring the number of federal class action lawsuits filed against Shaw, Jones, and the lender, Green Arrow Solutions, to six since 2022. Four of the suits, which are almost identical, have been settled in Illinois, Massachusetts, and Indiana, court records indicate.

The new lawsuit, in Illinois, seeks to prevent Green Arrow Solutions, purportedly a tribal enterprise operated by the Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians in California, from making and collecting high-interest loans of more than 700% annual interest over the Internet. The company is allegedly using tribal immunity to evade regulation. 

The plaintiff in the case received a loan for $350 from Green Arrow Solutions in February 2023, according to the complaint.  

“The loan would result in repayment of $1,132.28 if paid on schedule,” the complaint says. “The total interest charged would be $787.28, which according to Green Arrow Solutions equates to an annual percentage rate of 852.42%, a rate more than 20 times that permitted in Illinois (36%).”

Shaw, who was appointed to Henderson City Council in 2017 and later won election, faces a general election challenge in November from Dr. Monica Larson.

“The personal and business behavior of elected leaders matters,” Larson said in a statement to the Current. “It goes to the heart of ethics, integrity, and good decision-making. The charges in these current and past lawsuits are serious. Residents deserve better.” 

Elizabeth Trosper, Shaw’s campaign communications director, said she expects Shaw to be dropped from the lawsuit. “It would be inappropriate to further comment on a open lawsuit that includes Dan Shaw or his companies.” 

The Illinois suit, filed May 30, alleges that in an attempt to evade prosecution, “non-tribal owners of online payday lending businesses frequently engage in a business model commonly referred to as a ‘rent-a-tribe’ scheme,” in which “non-tribal payday lenders create an elaborate charade claiming their non-tribal businesses are owned and operated by Native American tribes.”

The alleged scheme, according to the new suit and those filed previously, is purported to shield the lenders from state and federal usury laws under the guise of sovereign immunity. 

“However, the tribal lending entity is simply a facade for an illegal lending scheme; all substantive aspects of the payday lending operation – funding, marketing, loan origination, underwriting, loan servicing, electronic funds transfers, and collections – are performed by individuals and entities that are unaffiliated with the tribe.”

The suit alleges that in exchange for use of the tribe’s name, the true owners pay the tribe “a fraction of the revenues generated.” While the percentage varies, “the number is almost always in the single digits.” 

Tribal administrator Ben Ray did not respond to requests for comment. 

A map on Green Arrow Solutions’ website indicates it does business in Nevada. 

“On information and belief, the list of states in which Defendants do not make loans depends on the likelihood they will face public or private enforcement actions,” says the Illinois suit.

The complaint lists five other Internet lenders that purport to be operated by tribal enterprises, but are owned by Nevada Impact Management, LLC, a company that lists Shaw and Jones as officers. 

“Attempting to circumvent state interest rate caps by fraudulently hiding behind tribal sovereign immunity has been found to constitute criminal conduct,” the suit says, noting a New York jury convicted two individuals in 2017 on 14 felony counts for operating a network of tribal lending companies. 

A Wisconsin suit was filed this week. Only a cover sheet has been filed. The attorney representing the plaintiff did not respond to requests for comment.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Dana Gentry

There’s nothing quite like watching your democracy fail in real-time, with chyrons and everything.

I’ve had some long moments in my life, but few seemed more elongated than the 90-minute debate between your great-grandpa and an aspiring authoritarian.

As much as I was watching the debate, I was watching social media and came to realize that there was nothing good about Thursday’s CNN Presidential Debate.

I mean nothing.

In live-TV reality, unscripted, unrehearsed, and completely unhinged, it was like an MRI machine peering slice-by-slice into the rot that has gripped us, and if you haven’t been scared before the debate about the fate of this country, it’s time to start fretting.

The thing that has most made America seem like the world’s spontaneous and thrill-seeking cousin is what proved to be our most ugly reality: We value style over substance.

Former President Donald J. Trump was poised and gave a flawless factless performance that left the anchors dumbfounded — or at least that’s what I have to assume was the stunned feeling that should have washed over them as Dana Bash and Jake Tapper left absolutely no lie checked.

And that’s the problem: If this were an acting audition, Trump completely steamrolled President Joe Biden. But only one of the debate participants was acting.

Unfortunately, Biden used much of his time being speechless. And sadly, it showed.

Trump’s sheer blitzkrieg of bullsh—t completely overwhelmed Biden, leaving him not knowing where to start, or how to make sense of the nonsense and lies.

If we’re scoring the debate on factual accuracy, there is no question who won.

And that’s exactly the problem: No one was watching this debate, looking to be swayed or hoping to be inspired. Indeed, no one was scoring the debate.

We weren’t carefully considering the policy points, discussing them because we wanted information. Instead, the headlines declared that Trump won the debate based on public perception. The buzzkill fact-checkers among us, though, would tell a different story.

But seriously, how many voters went watching the debate searching for facts? Let’s face it, many went there to rubber-neck this 90-minute train wreck. Few probably expected to have it validate so many bad things so quickly.

That’s the worst part of it. We’ve had almost 249 years of history, and these two are the best we can do?

I don’t know if I am mad, or scared or resigned.

Trump’s performance was smooth in the way the devil bribed Robert Johnson — a deal done, but at a helluva price. Just like that deal, the devil promised glory, but didn’t say for how long. How many times can we trick ourselves into believing we can get the better end of the deal from a man who has made his career going bankrupt and stiffing average workers?

Trump’s popularity concerns me because if Trump’s first term was an exercise in allowing us to be our worst selves, the second term may be mandate for something even worse.

But the Republicans can be credited for giving their base what it would seem to want, which is the opposite way Dems have treated their voters.

The vanity of the Democrats to believe that their cause is so righteous, and the voters so desperate for an alternative, that they would blindly accept a knowledgeable, but ancient, octogenarian makes them every bit as guilty as anyone for not seeking out a candidate who could blow us away or at least blow out his own birthday candles.

Finally, the most heartbreaking moment of last night’s debate was the failure of journalism.

Often, journalists are called on to be moderators — well researched so they could keep factual sideboards on the often wily debates.

Bash and Tapper weren’t unprofessional in the way they treated the candidates, but they completely failed journalism.

Trump spewed a torrent of lies and both moderators seemed fearful or unwilling to call out even the most outrageous falsity. Moderating is holding a candidate to account, pressing them for answers. Without that, the debate became less than neutral, it had a corrosive effect on our democracy by allowing lies to perpetuate unchecked.

Because of the role both of those journalists play, especially on their own cable television shows, when they do not let politicians squirm away from difficult questions, the lay audience on Thursday was left to think that silence might have equaled approval.

It wasn’t so much a debate as a platform. At other times during the debate, it was something more sinister but not unlike watching a couple of grumpy old men argue over the TV remote in the nursing home’s communal lounge.

At a time when journalism has a chance to shine a bright light, helping to re-assert the inextricable role a free press plays in free society, it, like everyone else involved in the debate, failed.

This commentary was originally published in the Daily Montanan, which like the Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Darrell Ehrlick

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a precedent Friday that had for decades limited judicial power to strike executive branch regulations, in a decision immediately criticized for potentially undermining decisions by scientists and agency experts.

The 6-3 and 6-2 decisions in two cases brought by fishing operators in New Jersey and Rhode Island challenged a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rule and overturned the principle known as Chevron deference.

That precedent gave federal agencies broad discretion to use their judgment to resolve any ambiguity Congress left in a federal statute.

The court’s six conservatives reasoned that courts “routinely confront statutory ambiguities” that have nothing to do with the authority of regulatory agencies, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

“Of course, when faced with a statutory ambiguity in such a case, the ambiguity is not a delegation to anybody, and a court is not somehow relieved of its obligation to independently interpret the statute,” Roberts wrote.

Under the 40-year-old precedent, courts gave up their interpretive role and deferred to agencies, Roberts wrote.

But they shouldn’t, he added. Judges should apply their own legal reasoning to reach a sound decision.

“Courts instead understand that such statutes, no matter how impenetrable, do —  in fact, must — have a single, best meaning.”

1984 ruling overturned

The decision overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that said courts must defer to federal agencies’ expertise when considering legal challenges to a rule. The 1984 ruling significantly raised the bar for overturning an agency rule.

The precedent strengthened the executive branch under presidential administrations of both parties, but experts worry its reversal will strip agencies of the power to enact regulatory safeguards across a broad spectrum of issues including clean air and public health.

In a dissenting opinion, the court’s three liberals — not including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in one of the cases, after she recused herself because she’d heard the case as an appeals court judge before joining the Supreme Court — said the majority erred by misunderstanding the roles of three branches of government.

Congress knows it cannot “write perfectly complete regulatory statutes,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent. Interpretation of those statutes is a given, and Congress usually prefers a “responsible agency” instead of a court.

Agencies are more politically accountable and have greater technical expertise in a given issue than courts, she wrote.

“Put all that together and deference to the agency is the almost obvious choice,” Kagan wrote.

Kagan went on to criticize the decision as a power grab by the judiciary at the expense of agency experts.

“A rule of judicial humility gives way to a rule of judicial hubris,” she wrote. “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law.”

Liberals see a weakening of safeguards

Liberal groups and elected Democrats worried the reversal will strip agencies of the power to enact strong regulatory safeguards across a broad spectrum of issues, especially climate and environmental regulations.

“It weakens our government’s ability to protect us from the climate crisis, threats to worker safety, public health, clean air and water, safe medicines and food, a sound financial system, and more,” Manish Bapna, president of the environmental group NRDC Action Fund, wrote in a statement.

“Today’s reckless but unsurprising decision from this far-right court is a triumph for corporate polluters that seek to dismantle common-sense regulations protecting clean air, clean water and a livable climate future,” Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of the advocacy group Food & Water Watch, said in a statement.

Rachel Weintraub, the executive director of the Coalition for Sensible Safeguards, a group that advocates for strong federal regulations, said in an interview before the decision was released that Chevron deference has allowed a host of regulations affecting consumer safety, labor, environmental protections and other issues.

“The important role that government plays in ensuring the health and safety of our families and the fairness of our markets could be undermined here,” she said.

The ruling takes power away from the experts on a particular subject of a federal regulation — traffic engineers at the Department of Transportation, disease experts at the Food and Drug Administration or scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, for example — and gives it to the federal judiciary, Weintraub said.

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member on the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, called the ruling a gift to polluters and the fossil fuel industry.

“For 40 years, Congress has passed laws with the understanding that the interpretation of those laws is for the courts, but the implementation laid in the hands of the scientific and policy career experts at our federal agencies,” Grijalva said in a statement.

“But now, thanks to this extremist power-grab, our most fundamental protections will be at the whim of individual judges — many of whom are far-right ideologues — regardless of their lack of expertise or political agenda.”

Conservatives applaud rollback

Republicans in Congress and conservative activists praised the decision for weakening the administrative state, saying it would return power to the legislative branch.

“The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said in a statement. “After forty years of Chevron deference, the Supreme Court made it clear today that our system of government leaves no room for an unelected bureaucracy to co-opt this authority for itself.”

Rep. Bruce Westerman, an Arkansas Republican who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, said Friday’s ruling should spur Congress to write more prescriptive laws.

“Congress has sidestepped our legal duties for far too long and today’s ruling puts us back in the driver’s seat when it comes to rulemaking and regulatory authority,” Westerman said in a written statement. “We’re no longer going to let federal agencies fill in the details when it comes to the policies we enact.”

Roman Martinez, an attorney who argued on behalf of the Rhode Island fishing operators, called the ruling a “win for individual liberty and the Constitution.”

“The Court has taken a major step to shut down unlawful power grabs by federal agencies and to preserve the separation of powers,” Martinez said in a statement distributed by the conservative public relations firm CRC Advisors. “Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government.”

No plans to reopen old cases

In the majority opinion, Roberts said the court did not plan to reopen cases that had been decided by Chevron “despite our change in interpretive methodology.”

Even prior to Friday’s decision, the court had used Chevron less often. During the oral argument, Roberts cited a study that the court had relied on the precedent sparingly over the past 14 years.

The court’s conservative majority has shown a willingness to move away from deference to agency decision-making, demanding more explicit congressional instruction.

In West Virginia v. EPA in 2022, for example, the court ruled that the EPA lacked the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Daniel Wolff, an administrative law attorney at the law firm Crowell & Moring, downplayed the effect the ruling would have on the administrative state.

Congress at times explicitly directs agencies to craft regulations, and those rules will still be subject to the same standard that they were written reasonably, Wolff said in an interview prior to the decision.

Rules with solid legal and statutory foundations would survive under either standard, he said.

“Rolling back Chevron is simply going to mean agencies don’t get the benefit of the doubt in the case of a tie,” Wolff said. “They have to come into the court and persuade the court that they have the better reading of the statute.”

Fishing operators

The cases decided Friday was brought by herring fishing operators from New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged a NOAA rule requiring the operators to pay for the federal monitors who regularly join fishing boats to ensure compliance with federal regulations.

The fishing operators said the rule forced them to hand over up to 20% of their profits.

After a lower court relied on Chevron deference to rule in favor of NOAA, oral arguments at the Supreme Court in January focused almost entirely on Chevron.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Jacob Fischler

KFF Health News senior correspondent Aneri Pattani discussed the Supreme Court’s Purdue Pharma decision and the opioid settlement on WHYY’s “Studio 2” on June 27.

• Click here to hear Pattani on “Studio 2”
• Read Pattani’s series “Payback: Tracking the Opioid Settlement Cash”

KFF Health News ethnic media editor Paula Andalo discussed California’s new heat rules on Radio Bilingüe’s “Línea Abierta” on June 22.

• Click here to hear Andalo on “Línea Abierta”
• Read Samantha Young’s “Heat Rules for California Workers Would Also Help Keep Schoolchildren Cool”
• Leer Samantha Young’s “Leyes que protegen a trabajadores de California del calor extremo ayudarían a estudiantes”

KFF Health News contributor Andy Miller discussed the impact of social media use on young people’s mental health on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on June 21.

• Click here to hear Miller on “The Georgia Health Report”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Journalists Break Down SCOTUS Decision on Purdue Pharma and California’s New Heat Rules https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/on-air-june-29-2024-scotus-purdue-pharma-california-heat-rules/

At a brief campaign stop in Las Vegas on Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris acknowledged concerns about her runningmate’s weak debate performance the night prior and defended the president.

“Last night, President Joe Biden and Donald Trump had their first debate, and earlier today the president said himself it was not his best performance,” she told a crowd of supporters at the East Las Vegas Community Center. “But there are three things that were true yesterday before the debate that are still true today. Let’s level set on this. First, the stakes of this race could not be higher. Second, the contrast in this election could not be more stark. And third we believe in our President Joe Biden, and we believe in what he stands for.”

Biden and Trump participated in a 90-minute debate Thursday at CNN’s headquarters in Atlanta. Biden’s performance has been widely panned as weak, overshadowing numerous unchecked lies made by Trump about abortion, immigration and other key issues.

Harris spoke for roughly 10 minutes at the East Las Vegas Community Center, located in a predominantly Hispanic part of the Las Vegas metro area. The event was billed as a post-debate campaign event focused on Latino voters, though most of her comments were about Trump.

“Donald Trump is unburdened by the truth,” she said. “It’s not a burden he carries. Case in point, last night was a nonstop stream of lies.”

When it comes to a “real leader,” she said, “character matters more than style. Donald Trump does not have the character to be president of the United States.”

Election Day is 130 days from Friday, Harris said, adding, “This race will not be decided by one night in June.”

Friday’s stop marked the vice president’s fifth visit to Nevada this year and her 13th since taking office.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by April Corbin Girnus

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court Friday sided with a local ordinance in Oregon that bans homeless people from sleeping outdoors, and local governments will be allowed to enforce those laws.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the opinion that the enforcement of those local laws that regulate camping on public property does not violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

“Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it,” he wrote. “The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”

The case originated in Grants Pass, a city in Oregon that argued its ordinance is a solution to the city’s homelessness crisis, which includes fines and potential jail time for repeat offenders who camp or sleep outdoors.

Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented the city, said in a statement to States Newsroom that the ruling would provide relief to local communities trying to address the issues of encampments of homeless people.

“The Court has now restored the ability of cities on the frontlines of this crisis to develop lasting solutions that meet the needs of the most vulnerable members of their communities, while also keeping our public spaces safe and clean,” she said. “Years from now, I hope that we will look back on today’s watershed ruling as the turning point in America’s homelessness crisis.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent arguing that the ordinance against camping and a separate ordinance against using blankets on public property targets the status of being homeless and is therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment.

“Grants Pass’s Ordinances criminalize being homeless,” she wrote. “The Ordinances’ purpose, text, and enforcement confirm that they target status, not conduct. For someone with no available shelter, the only way to comply with the Ordinances is to leave Grants Pass altogether.”

During oral arguments, the justices seemed split along ideological lines.

The conservative justices sided with the town in Oregon, arguing that policies and ordinances around homelessness are complex, and should be left up to local elected representatives rather than the courts.

The liberal justices argued the Grants Pass ordinances criminalized the status of being homeless and criticized the city’s argument that homelessness is not a status protected under the Eighth Amendment.

The Biden administration took the middle ground in the case, and U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler offered partial support for the city.

“It’s the municipality’s determination, certainly in the first instance with a great deal of flexibility, how to address the question of homelessness,” he said during oral arguments in late April.

Homelessness crisis

The ruling, which was split along ideological lines, reverses the 9th Circuit’s decision that previously blocked the local law because it found the ordinance criminalized the status of being homeless and was therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment.

The Grants Pass ordinances prohibited people from camping and sleeping in parks and on public property and barred those people from using blankets, pillows or other materials to sleep outdoors. A violation carried a $295 file, and if not paid, could be increased to $530. Repeat offenders could also risk jail.

But the city, and a coalition of leaders from red and blue Western states, including Montana and California, petitioned the Supreme Court to review the case.

“Cities across the West report that the Ninth Circuit’s involuntariness test has created intolerable uncertainty for them,” Gorsuch wrote.

Cities across the U.S., particularly in the West, are grappling with an increasing homelessness crisis. It’s estimated that 650,000 people were homeless on a single night in January of 2023, a 12% increase from 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

“HUD data indicates that the rise in overall homelessness is largely due to a sharp rise in the number of people who became homeless for the first time,” according to the agency.

States with the highest rates of homelessness include California, Oregon, Washington and Montana, according to five-year estimates in the American Community Survey.

Gorsuch argued that the case the 9th Circuit relied on in Martin v. City of Boise had a “poor foundation” for using the Eighth Amendment as its basis. In that case, homeless plaintiffs sued the city of Boise, Idaho, after it fined them under a camping ordinance.

“The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what ‘method or kind of punishment’ a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place,” he wrote. “The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual.”

Sotomayor argued that the ruling focuses only on the needs of local officials and “leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

“The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused,” she wrote. “This Court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular.”

‘A crime to be homeless’

Advocacy groups expressed their frustration and disappointment in Friday’s decision, and raised concerns that it could lead to homeless people being criminalized for sleeping outdoors when they have nowhere else to go.

The president of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Diane Yentel, strongly condemned the court’s decision and argued it would only worsen the crisis.

“It gives cover to elected officials who choose political expediency over real solutions by merely moving unhoused people out of public view rather than working to solve their homelessness,” Yentel said in a statement. “These ineffective and inhumane tactics exacerbate homelessness by saddling unhoused people with debt they can’t pay, while further isolating them from the services and support they need to become stably housed.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s deputy legal director for economic justice, Kirsten Anderson, said in a statement that the ruling will set a precedent for criminalizing homeless people.

“The Supreme Court held that it is a crime to be homeless — at a moment in which housing is unaffordable for half the people in the country — proving that it continues to be out of touch with the American public,” Anderson said.

Rosanne Haggerty, the president of Community Solutions, a nonprofit that works to end homelessness, expressed disappointment in the decision.

“Arresting or fining people for experiencing homelessness is cruel — and it won’t solve the problem,” Haggerty said in a statement.

originally publisher at nevadacurrent.com by Ariana Figueroa