KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating another homicide in Kansas City.&nbsp;

Just before 3:30a.m. Sunday, police responded to report of a shooting at 12th and Grand, according to Sheriff Daryl Forte'.&nbsp; First responders found a man with gunshot wounds. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Before the report of gunshots there was a large crowd was gathered in a parking lot, according to KCPD Sergeant Phil DiMartino.

Police are asking anyone with any information to contact Homicide detectives at 816-234-5043 or the TIPS Hotline anonymously at 816-474-TIPS.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719784274963.png" alt="Photo Sheriff Daryl Forte'" />
 <figcaption>Photo Sheriff Daryl Forte'</figcaption>
 </figure>KANSAS CITY —Law enforcement authorities are investigating another homicide in Kansas City.&nbsp;Just before 3:30a.m. Sunday, police responded to report of a shooting at 12th and Grand, according to Sheriff Daryl Forte'.&nbsp; First responders found a man with gunshot wounds. He was pronounced dead at the scene.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/7/1719851760036.png" alt="Google map" />
 <figcaption>Google map</figcaption>
 </figure>Before the report of gunshots there was a large crowd was gathered in a parking lot, according to KCPD Sergeant Phil DiMartino.Police are asking anyone with any information to contact Homicide detectives at 816-234-5043 or the TIPS Hotline anonymously at 816-474-TIPS.

One dead in shooting near KC Power and Light District

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>&nbsp;AND&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">JACOB FISCHLER</a>

WASHINGTON — U.S. presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official “core constitutional” acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, sending former President Donald Trump’s case back to the lower courts.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the ruling

The justices left open the question of how far official acts can reach, possibly reshaping the contours of the American presidency.

Trump escalated his immunity claim to the nation’s highest bench after two lower courts&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-claim-presidential-immunity-turned-down-federal-appeals-court-dc" target="_blank">denied</a>&nbsp;his request for protection from federal criminal charges alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential results.

The decision about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s actions while in office likely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/delayed-supreme-court-ruling-makes-trump-trial-2020-charges-unlikely-election" target="_blank">closes the door</a>&nbsp;to any chance that Trump’s election subversion case could go to trial before Election Day.

The justices took up the case in February but did not hear&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-floats-return-trial-court-trump-presidential-immunity-case" target="_blank">oral arguments</a>&nbsp;until April 25.

The trial court must now grapple with whether Trump’s alleged conduct to spread false information about the 2020 election results and conspiring to overturn them qualified as official presidential action.

In a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”

“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court held that Trump’s conversations with Department of Justice officials regarding the election results were official but left unanswered questions about other conduct named in Department of Justice special counsel Jack’s Smith&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">indictment</a>&nbsp;of Trump.

“​​Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” the opinion reads. “Other allegations— such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the decision makes the president “immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate criminal law.”

“If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop,” Sotomayor wrote.&nbsp;“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-makes-one-last-presidential-immunity-argument-us-supreme-court" target="_blank">claimed</a>&nbsp;in court filings that he could not be prosecuted for actions he took while still in office. His legal team also argues that former presidents cannot be tried in the court of law unless they are first impeached by the U.S. House and convicted by the Senate.

The indictment, which a federal grand jury handed up in August 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">alleges</a>&nbsp;Trump knowingly spread falsehoods to his supporters, plotting with co-conspirators to overturn results in seven states and eventually working his base into a frenzy that culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress was to certify electoral votes.

DOJ’s Smith&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1717443721620.png" alt="File photo courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>File photo courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>&nbsp;AND&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jacob-fischler/">JACOB FISCHLER</a>WASHINGTON — U.S. presidents enjoy full immunity from criminal charges for their official “core constitutional” acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, sending former President Donald Trump’s case back to the lower courts.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf">Click here to read</a>&nbsp;the rulingThe justices left open the question of how far official acts can reach, possibly reshaping the contours of the American presidency.Trump escalated his immunity claim to the nation’s highest bench after two lower courts&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-claim-presidential-immunity-turned-down-federal-appeals-court-dc" target="_blank">denied</a>&nbsp;his request for protection from federal criminal charges alleging he schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential results.The decision about the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s actions while in office likely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/delayed-supreme-court-ruling-makes-trump-trial-2020-charges-unlikely-election" target="_blank">closes the door</a>&nbsp;to any chance that Trump’s election subversion case could go to trial before Election Day.The justices took up the case in February but did not hear&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-floats-return-trial-court-trump-presidential-immunity-case" target="_blank">oral arguments</a>&nbsp;until April 25.The trial court must now grapple with whether Trump’s alleged conduct to spread false information about the 2020 election results and conspiring to overturn them qualified as official presidential action.In a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that the president is subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts, “like everyone else.”“But unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution.”The Supreme Court held that Trump’s conversations with Department of Justice officials regarding the election results were official but left unanswered questions about other conduct named in Department of Justice special counsel Jack’s Smith&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">indictment</a>&nbsp;of Trump.“​​Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” the opinion reads. “Other allegations— such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions.”In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the decision makes the president “immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate criminal law.”“If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop,” Sotomayor wrote.&nbsp;“With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”Trump&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/trump-makes-one-last-presidential-immunity-argument-us-supreme-court" target="_blank">claimed</a>&nbsp;in court filings that he could not be prosecuted for actions he took while still in office. His legal team also argues that former presidents cannot be tried in the court of law unless they are first impeached by the U.S. House and convicted by the Senate.The indictment, which a federal grand jury handed up in August 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">alleges</a>&nbsp;Trump knowingly spread falsehoods to his supporters, plotting with co-conspirators to overturn results in seven states and eventually working his base into a frenzy that culminated in a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, the day Congress was to certify electoral votes.DOJ’s Smith&nbsp;<a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149/gov.uscourts.dcd.258149.1.0_2.pdf" target="_blank">charged</a>&nbsp;the former president with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of, and attempt to obstruct, an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights.This is a developing story and will be updated.

Presidential immunity extends to some official acts, Supreme Court rules in Trump case

The St. Joseph Mustangs broke a 1-1 tie with two runs in the top of the ninth inning, defeating the Carroll Merchants 3-1 Sunday at Merchants Park in Carroll, Iowa.

With bases loaded and one out, Benton grad Carson Schmidt singled, scoring Lafayette grad Jayden Little along with Trevor McCollum.

 McCollum was 3-for-4 with a run scored in the game. Schmidt was 2-for-5 with a run scored and an RBI.

Carson Schmdit’s brother, Tanner, got the save in the ninth, striking out one. The Mustangs are 26-4 on the season. They beat Jefferson City Saturday 5-0 after losing to Clarinda Friday, 11-3.

The Mustangs are off Monday and are at Clarinda Tuesday for a 7 p.m. game.

By TOMMY REZACSt. Joseph PostThe St. Joseph Mustangs broke a 1-1 tie with two runs in the top of the ninth inning, defeating the Carroll Merchants 3-1 Sunday at Merchants Park in Carroll, Iowa.With bases loaded and one out, Benton grad Carson Schmidt singled, scoring Lafayette grad Jayden Little along with Trevor McCollum. McCollum was 3-for-4 with a run scored in the game. Schmidt was 2-for-5 with a run scored and an RBI.Carson Schmdit’s brother, Tanner, got the save in the ninth, striking out one. The Mustangs are 26-4 on the season. They beat Jefferson City Saturday 5-0 after losing to Clarinda Friday, 11-3.The Mustangs are off Monday and are at Clarinda Tuesday for a 7 p.m. game.

Mustangs eek out win at Carroll Sunday, scoring go-ahead run in the ninth

WICHITA, Kan.—&nbsp;The Kansas Turnpike will become cashless on July 1, for safety, customer convenience and operational efficiencies.

(Click below to watch how new cashless tolling works)

<a href="https://www.ksturnpike.com/cashless-tolling?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3Q-lF_1KPUWJtKQwVjf8SXz2xu1jtaCSVGES-2r3Ai-LpGgPbymaBYt-I_aem_A0qvoLAqgjh6u_3VUqaxAw">Click here to learn</a> more about cashless tolling in Kansas.

Cashless tolling allows for more consistent fares since elements used for cash collection, such as rounding to the nearest nickel or quarter, are no longer necessary. With the elimination of rounding to the nearest nickel or quarter, many short-distance travelers will see a reduction in the toll they pay.

The new toll structure will be a flat, per-mile rate based upon axle count and whether the vehicle has a transponder or is identified by their license plate. Find&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.ksturnpike.com/uploads/misc-documents/Cashless-Toll-Rates.pdf">new per-mile rates here</a>.

"This change will be especially beneficial for customers who drive shorter distances, such as Kansans commuting to work or school,” Deb Miller, Chairperson of the Kansas Turnpike Authority Board, said.

These new per-mile toll rates will go into effect when the Kansas Turnpike converts to cashless tolling in mid-2024.

Establishment of these toll rates is one of many tasks necessary for the modernization. In addition to on-roadway work, KTA teams have been developing the account management functions necessary to support customers.

This month, customer service call center hours will increase to 7:30 am – 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday, to better serve customers in advance of the conversion. Walk-in retail hours will remain the same 8 am – 5 pm.

Customers will also see a refreshed K-TAG logo that aligns visually with its parent organization, the Kansas Turnpike Authority. K-TAG is a small in-vehicle device used to facilitate a customer’s toll payment and provides the lowest toll rate on the Kansas Turnpike – now and in the future.

“We are excited about our progress toward cashless tolling and believe our customers will be too,” Steve Hewitt, CEO of the Kansas Turnpike Authority, said. “KTA’s recent satisfaction survey shows that 84 percent of customers support the modernization to cashless tolling.”

Additional information will be provided in the months leading up to the conversion. Learn more about cashless tolling, and watch short informational videos, at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ksturnpike.com/cashless-tolling">www.DriveKS.com</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/1/1706545368725.png" alt="Image KTA" />
 <figcaption>Image KTA</figcaption>
 </figure>WICHITA, Kan.—&nbsp;The Kansas Turnpike will become cashless on July 1, for safety, customer convenience and operational efficiencies.(Click below to watch how new cashless tolling works)<div><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kdgGrbsT68A?si=1xl5UKVy3G1j3hKl" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe></div><a href="https://www.ksturnpike.com/cashless-tolling?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3Q-lF_1KPUWJtKQwVjf8SXz2xu1jtaCSVGES-2r3Ai-LpGgPbymaBYt-I_aem_A0qvoLAqgjh6u_3VUqaxAw">Click here to learn</a> more about cashless tolling in Kansas.Cashless tolling allows for more consistent fares since elements used for cash collection, such as rounding to the nearest nickel or quarter, are no longer necessary. With the elimination of rounding to the nearest nickel or quarter, many short-distance travelers will see a reduction in the toll they pay.The new toll structure will be a flat, per-mile rate based upon axle count and whether the vehicle has a transponder or is identified by their license plate. Find&nbsp;<a target="_blank" href="https://www.ksturnpike.com/uploads/misc-documents/Cashless-Toll-Rates.pdf">new per-mile rates here</a>."This change will be especially beneficial for customers who drive shorter distances, such as Kansans commuting to work or school,” Deb Miller, Chairperson of the Kansas Turnpike Authority Board, said.These new per-mile toll rates will go into effect when the Kansas Turnpike converts to cashless tolling in mid-2024.Establishment of these toll rates is one of many tasks necessary for the modernization. In addition to on-roadway work, KTA teams have been developing the account management functions necessary to support customers.This month, customer service call center hours will increase to 7:30 am – 6:30 pm, Monday through Friday, to better serve customers in advance of the conversion. Walk-in retail hours will remain the same 8 am – 5 pm.Customers will also see a refreshed K-TAG logo that aligns visually with its parent organization, the Kansas Turnpike Authority. K-TAG is a small in-vehicle device used to facilitate a customer’s toll payment and provides the lowest toll rate on the Kansas Turnpike – now and in the future.“We are excited about our progress toward cashless tolling and believe our customers will be too,” Steve Hewitt, CEO of the Kansas Turnpike Authority, said. “KTA’s recent satisfaction survey shows that 84 percent of customers support the modernization to cashless tolling.”Additional information will be provided in the months leading up to the conversion. Learn more about cashless tolling, and watch short informational videos, at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ksturnpike.com/cashless-tolling">www.DriveKS.com</a>.

🎥New cashless tolling begins Monday on the Kansas Turnpike

ATCHISON COUNTY, Mo —Strong thunderstorms moved through Holt and Atchison counties in northwest Missouri on Friday.

MSHP Corporal Nic Greiner captured this photo of a tornado in western Atchison County on U.S. 136 looking south just east of the Brownville bridge.&nbsp; There were no report of injury or property damage.

Check the Post for additional details as they are released.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719662150616.png" alt="Photo MSHP" />
 <figcaption>Photo MSHP</figcaption>
 </figure>ATCHISON COUNTY, Mo —Strong thunderstorms moved through Holt and Atchison counties in northwest Missouri on Friday.MSHP Corporal Nic Greiner captured this photo of a tornado in western Atchison County on U.S. 136 looking south just east of the Brownville bridge.&nbsp; There were no report of injury or property damage.Check the Post for additional details as they are released.

Tornado rolled across rural NW Missouri 

(Radio Iowa) - The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled the law that bans most abortions after the sixth week of a pregnancy may take effect. 

Four of the justices joined the majority ruling that removed the injunction that had blocked enforcement of the law, which was passed last July. Three justices opposed the move. The majority ruling says the court's review of the historical record shows the right to an abortion is “is not rooted at all in our state's history and tradition. 

Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christiansen wrote a dissent, saying the four justices who joined the majority decision relied on male-dominated history from the 18-hundreds and ignored how far women's rights have come since the Civil War era. Governor Reynolds is praising the decision, saying nothing is more worthy of the strongest defense than the unborn. Iowa Democratic Party chair Rita Hart says Republicans went too far with this abortion ban and voters will hold them accountable in November.

(Radio Iowa) - The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled the law that bans most abortions after the sixth week of a pregnancy may take effect. Four of the justices joined the majority ruling that removed the injunction that had blocked enforcement of the law, which was passed last July. Three justices opposed the move. The majority ruling says the court's review of the historical record shows the right to an abortion is “is not rooted at all in our state's history and tradition. Iowa Supreme Court Chief Justice Susan Christiansen wrote a dissent, saying the four justices who joined the majority decision relied on male-dominated history from the 18-hundreds and ignored how far women's rights have come since the Civil War era. Governor Reynolds is praising the decision, saying nothing is more worthy of the strongest defense than the unborn. Iowa Democratic Party chair Rita Hart says Republicans went too far with this abortion ban and voters will hold them accountable in November.

State's highest court upholds Iowa's six week abortion ban

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>

WASHINGTON — A former Pennsylvania police officer who joined the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results cannot be charged with obstructing an official proceeding unless a lower court finds otherwise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The ruling throws into question the cases of potentially hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who faced the same charge, as well as a portion of Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment alleging former President Donald Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

In a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>, the justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote that the subsection in question of an early 2000s obstruction law can only be applied to tampering with physical records.

“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote.

“The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Roberts wrote.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.

The ruling has the potential to affect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/39-months-since-the-jan-6-attack-on-the-capitol#:~:text=More%20than%20355%20defendants%20have,or%20attempting%20to%20do%20so." target="_blank">more than 355</a>&nbsp;Jan. 6 defendants who were charged with the same felony statute, which carries a fine and not more than 20 years in prison.

<a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1331746/dl?inline" target="_blank">Dozens</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/court-sentences-two-oath-keepers-leaders-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related-us" target="_blank">including</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges" target="_blank">leaders</a>&nbsp;of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have already been sentenced on the charge, according to the Department of Justice.

The case,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html" target="_blank">Fischer v. United States</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://penncapital-star.com/justice-the-courts/divided-u-s-supreme-court-wrestles-with-case-of-pennsylvania-man-who-joined-jan-6-mob/" target="_blank">centered</a>&nbsp;on whether Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer broke the obstruction law when he joined the mob that breached the U.S. Capitol and delayed Congress, and Vice President Mike Pence, from certifying the 2020 presidential election results that declared Democrat Joe Biden the winner.

Trump also faces the obstruction charge as part of his four-count federal indictment that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">alleges</a>&nbsp;he worked with others to overturn the election results in seven states, pressured Pence to join him and whipped his base into a frenzy that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack.

Trump will almost certainly challenge the charge, as his legal team has already&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-floats-return-trial-court-trump-presidential-immunity-case" target="_blank">argued</a>&nbsp;he is completely immune to it.

The obstruction provision examined by the high court is contained in section 1512 of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763/text" target="_blank">Sarbanes-Oxley Act</a>, enacted after the 2001 Enron accounting scandal.

The provision targets “whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”

Significant time during April’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-5572" target="_blank">oral arguments</a>&nbsp;centered on whether the second portion of the statute hinged on the first clause, meaning the law could only be applied if physical evidence was involved.

The government argued the two parts are separate and that Fischer, who sent texts leading up to the riot and is shown on police camera footage inside the Capitol, intended to disrupt an official proceeding of Congress.

Fischer’s team argued that he didn’t actually enter the Capitol until Congress had already paused the proceeding, and that he didn’t stay very long.

A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59753595/united-states-v-fischer/" target="_blank">lower federal court</a>&nbsp;agreed last year with Fischer’s motion to dismiss the felony charge.

A federal appeals panel in Washington, D.C., did not. Judge Florence Y. Pan — who also sat on the panel in Trump’s presidential&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/three-judge-federal-panel-grills-trump-lawyer-claim-presidential-immunity" target="_blank">immunity appeal</a>&nbsp;— wrote in the lead&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66629258/01208508143/united-states-v-joseph-fischer/" target="_blank">opinion</a>&nbsp;that the statute is “unambiguous” in its meaning of what constitutes obstructing an official proceeding.

The obstruction charge is not the only count brought against Fischer after his participation in the Jan. 6 riot.

The original indictment against him also included charges of civil disorder, assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2021/7/1625861317057.png" alt="Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the results of the presidential election. U.S. Department of Justice" />
 <figcaption>Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the results of the presidential election. U.S. Department of Justice</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/author/ashley-murray/">ASHLEY MURRAY</a>WASHINGTON — A former Pennsylvania police officer who joined the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol that delayed the certification of the 2020 presidential election results cannot be charged with obstructing an official proceeding unless a lower court finds otherwise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday.The ruling throws into question the cases of potentially hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants who faced the same charge, as well as a portion of Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment alleging former President Donald Trump schemed to overturn the 2020 presidential election.In a 6-3&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf" target="_blank">opinion</a>, the justices, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, wrote that the subsection in question of an early 2000s obstruction law can only be applied to tampering with physical records.“To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so,” Roberts wrote.“The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion,” Roberts wrote.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivered a concurring opinion.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented.<h2>Impact on Jan. 6 defendants, Trump</h2>The ruling has the potential to affect&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/39-months-since-the-jan-6-attack-on-the-capitol#:~:text=More%20than%20355%20defendants%20have,or%20attempting%20to%20do%20so." target="_blank">more than 355</a>&nbsp;Jan. 6 defendants who were charged with the same felony statute, which carries a fine and not more than 20 years in prison.<a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/media/1331746/dl?inline" target="_blank">Dozens</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/court-sentences-two-oath-keepers-leaders-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges-related-us" target="_blank">including</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/proud-boys-leader-sentenced-22-years-prison-seditious-conspiracy-and-other-charges" target="_blank">leaders</a>&nbsp;of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have already been sentenced on the charge, according to the Department of Justice.The case,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-5572.html" target="_blank">Fischer v. United States</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://penncapital-star.com/justice-the-courts/divided-u-s-supreme-court-wrestles-with-case-of-pennsylvania-man-who-joined-jan-6-mob/" target="_blank">centered</a>&nbsp;on whether Jan. 6 defendant Joseph W. Fischer broke the obstruction law when he joined the mob that breached the U.S. Capitol and delayed Congress, and Vice President Mike Pence, from certifying the 2020 presidential election results that declared Democrat Joe Biden the winner.Trump also faces the obstruction charge as part of his four-count federal indictment that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/fueled-lies-trump-charged-seeking-overturn-2020-election-6" target="_blank">alleges</a>&nbsp;he worked with others to overturn the election results in seven states, pressured Pence to join him and whipped his base into a frenzy that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack.Trump will almost certainly challenge the charge, as his legal team has already&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/us-supreme-court-floats-return-trial-court-trump-presidential-immunity-case" target="_blank">argued</a>&nbsp;he is completely immune to it.The obstruction provision examined by the high court is contained in section 1512 of the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/3763/text" target="_blank">Sarbanes-Oxley Act</a>, enacted after the 2001 Enron accounting scandal.The provision targets “whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so.”<h2>Physical evidence</h2>Significant time during April’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-5572" target="_blank">oral arguments</a>&nbsp;centered on whether the second portion of the statute hinged on the first clause, meaning the law could only be applied if physical evidence was involved.The government argued the two parts are separate and that Fischer, who sent texts leading up to the riot and is shown on police camera footage inside the Capitol, intended to disrupt an official proceeding of Congress.Fischer’s team argued that he didn’t actually enter the Capitol until Congress had already paused the proceeding, and that he didn’t stay very long.A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59753595/united-states-v-fischer/" target="_blank">lower federal court</a>&nbsp;agreed last year with Fischer’s motion to dismiss the felony charge.A federal appeals panel in Washington, D.C., did not. Judge Florence Y. Pan — who also sat on the panel in Trump’s presidential&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/three-judge-federal-panel-grills-trump-lawyer-claim-presidential-immunity" target="_blank">immunity appeal</a>&nbsp;— wrote in the lead&nbsp;<a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66629258/01208508143/united-states-v-joseph-fischer/" target="_blank">opinion</a>&nbsp;that the statute is “unambiguous” in its meaning of what constitutes obstructing an official proceeding.The obstruction charge is not the only count brought against Fischer after his participation in the Jan. 6 riot.The original indictment against him also included charges of civil disorder, assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers, entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly conduct, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on obstruction law helps cases of Jan. 6 defendants

(Radio Iowa ) - Governor Kim Reynolds announced Thursday that 28 additional counties have been approved for Public Assistance under the previously approved Major Federal Disaster Declaration for significant damage that was sustained from tornados, severe storms, and widespread flooding that occurred between May 20th through May 31st. 

The Public Assistance Program has been activated for: Adams, Buena Vista, Butler, Calhoun, Cedar, Cherokee, Clay, Dallas, Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Harrison, Humboldt, Jasper, Iowa, Jackson, Kossuth, Marshall, Mitchell, Montgomery, Muscatine, Polk, Pottawattamie, Poweshiek, Shelby, Story, Tama and Wright. The additional counties have been approved for funding for emergency work, such as debris removal and emergency protective measures.

Adair County has also been approved for Public Assistance funding for permanent work.

(Radio Iowa ) - Governor Kim Reynolds announced Thursday that 28 additional counties have been approved for Public Assistance under the previously approved Major Federal Disaster Declaration for significant damage that was sustained from tornados, severe storms, and widespread flooding that occurred between May 20th through May 31st. The Public Assistance Program has been activated for: Adams, Buena Vista, Butler, Calhoun, Cedar, Cherokee, Clay, Dallas, Franklin, Hamilton, Hancock, Harrison, Humboldt, Jasper, Iowa, Jackson, Kossuth, Marshall, Mitchell, Montgomery, Muscatine, Polk, Pottawattamie, Poweshiek, Shelby, Story, Tama and Wright. The additional counties have been approved for funding for emergency work, such as debris removal and emergency protective measures.Adair County has also been approved for Public Assistance funding for permanent work.

More Counties Approved For Federal Disaster Assistance

The St. Joseph Mustangs scored two key insurance runs in the top of the eighth inning to hold off the Chillicothe Mudcats Thursday, 4-1, at Shaffer Memorial Park.

The Mustangs outhit the Mudcats 10-4 and never trailed. Jeter Mauzey was 2-for-4 with a pair of runs scored. Lafayette alum Jayden Little was 2-for-4 with a double and an RBI.

On the mound, St. Joseph Central product Roy Holcomb got the win in five scoreless innings, striking out four and walking two. He allowed just two hits. Trenton Roehler got the save, tossing the last four innings and striking out four.

St. Joseph improves to 24-3 on the season. The Mustangs are home to face Clarinda Friday night at 7 p.m.

By TOMMY REZACSt. Joseph PostThe St. Joseph Mustangs scored two key insurance runs in the top of the eighth inning to hold off the Chillicothe Mudcats Thursday, 4-1, at Shaffer Memorial Park.The Mustangs outhit the Mudcats 10-4 and never trailed. Jeter Mauzey was 2-for-4 with a pair of runs scored. Lafayette alum Jayden Little was 2-for-4 with a double and an RBI.On the mound, St. Joseph Central product Roy Holcomb got the win in five scoreless innings, striking out four and walking two. He allowed just two hits. Trenton Roehler got the save, tossing the last four innings and striking out four.St. Joseph improves to 24-3 on the season. The Mustangs are home to face Clarinda Friday night at 7 p.m.

Mustangs fend off Mudcats in Chillicothe Thursday

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

A Missouri House committee began a new phase Tuesday of a years-long process to create a formula to fund the state’s higher education institutions.

Led by state Rep. Brenda Shields, a Republican from St. Joseph, the Special Interim Committee on Higher Education Performance Funding is hoping to pick a performance-based formula that would determine funding while allotting for institutions’ unique missions.

Shields sponsored&nbsp;<a href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2905&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R" target="_blank">legislation</a>&nbsp;in January pushing for the switch in higher-education funding, which passed a committee but was never debated by the full House.

The pressure to establish a formula stems from a 2022 appropriations bill that gave the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development $450,000 to commission “a study which provides recommendations to the governor and General Assembly on public higher education performance funding models.” The department has been working with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems since and has created&nbsp;<a href="https://dhewd.mo.gov/about/legislative/HigherEducationFundingStudy.php" target="_blank">reports on higher-education funding and efficiency</a>.

“It is a long haul to make this happen if we do the testing correctly,” Shields told the committee Tuesday afternoon.

She predicted the first year of implementation would be 2027, and she aims to have a model by January that the committee can “run simulations with.”

Committee members commented that it was a challenge to create a formula for higher education — especially when term limits place a ceiling on legislators’ experience.

“I’m concerned about the technicality of what we are talking about here that is beyond my experience and perhaps ability to understand,” said state Rep. John Black, a Marshfield Republican.

Black noted that he, as well as Shields and committee member state Rep. Kevin Windham, have two years remaining in the House.

“The legislature will never understand some of these parameters at a level necessary to implement a good program. We are going to have to give over some authority to the department,” he said.

He said they will have to “convince” fellow House members to give power to the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development.

Windham, a Democrat from Hillsdale, said they will need the Senate’s authorization.

Shields suggested expanding the group to a joint committee, incorporating senators.

Leroy Wade, deputy commissioner of the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, described a process of cooperation between the committee, the department and higher-education institutions, with the department serving as a liaison and source of manpower for the calculations involved.

Many of the state’s colleges sent a representative to talk to the committee Tuesday, answering what they wanted out of the funding model.

Mun Choi, president of University of Missouri System and chancellor of its flagship campus in Columbia, said his ideal formula would reward “strong outcomes such as high graduation rates and high future earnings.”

He said it should also account for pricier degree programs, comparing the cost of educating an engineering student versus a history major.

“The formula should also reflect the unique missions of all of the public universities in the state,” he said. “In fiscal year 2023 the University of Missouri System spent $600 million in expenditures to support research that led to discovery but also had impact to the region and the state.”

Elizabeth Kennedy, chair of the Council on Public Higher Education in Missouri and president of Missouri Western State University, said lawmakers should consider historic underfunding.

The Council on Public Higher Education in Missouri has 10 member schools, including the state’s two historically Black universities, Harris-Stowe State University and Lincoln University. A federal report recently showed&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/06/missouri-lawmakers-push-for-study-of-lincoln-university-funding-inequity/">Missouri, among other states, has been underfunding</a>&nbsp;its historically Black land-grant university.

Windham said funding imbalances are a challenge as the committee discusses performance funding.

“I find it hard to talk about performance funding when I think about how institutions have been underfunded, some worse than others in the state,” he said. “The institutions that have seen significant investments in the past from the state will likely do better than most.”

Kennedy said the committee has the opportunity to study this.

Kimberly Beatty, chancellor of Metropolitan Community College, said the funding model must account for the differences between four-year institutions and community colleges. She said the current way colleges are funded has left state aid out of valuable programs.

“We do the apprenticeship programs. We have (certified nurse assistant) programs, manufacturing, welding, and all of those are apprenticeship programs,” she said. “None of those apprenticeship programs or their enrollees are considered in the current funding model.”

She said non-credit programs, which provide workforce training, provide workforce development for Missouri but are not funded at the state level.

“We’d like to see the value of workforce programs included in the funding model, whether those are credit programs or non-credit programs,” she said.

Beatty said around 20% of students are currently not counted towards full-time enrollment, as funded currently.

Full-time enrollment is one metric among many that may be incorporated into the formula. Currently, performance funding is not in effect in the budget process.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719576316247.png" alt="Rep. Brenda Shields. R-St. Joseph, is leading a special committee that seeks to set a performance-based formula for higher education funding (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications)." />
 <figcaption>Rep. Brenda Shields. R-St. Joseph, is leading a special committee that seeks to set a performance-based formula for higher education funding (Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>A Missouri House committee began a new phase Tuesday of a years-long process to create a formula to fund the state’s higher education institutions.Led by state Rep. Brenda Shields, a Republican from St. Joseph, the Special Interim Committee on Higher Education Performance Funding is hoping to pick a performance-based formula that would determine funding while allotting for institutions’ unique missions.Shields sponsored&nbsp;<a href="https://house.mo.gov/Bill.aspx?bill=HB2905&amp;year=2024&amp;code=R" target="_blank">legislation</a>&nbsp;in January pushing for the switch in higher-education funding, which passed a committee but was never debated by the full House.The pressure to establish a formula stems from a 2022 appropriations bill that gave the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development $450,000 to commission “a study which provides recommendations to the governor and General Assembly on public higher education performance funding models.” The department has been working with the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems since and has created&nbsp;<a href="https://dhewd.mo.gov/about/legislative/HigherEducationFundingStudy.php" target="_blank">reports on higher-education funding and efficiency</a>.“It is a long haul to make this happen if we do the testing correctly,” Shields told the committee Tuesday afternoon.She predicted the first year of implementation would be 2027, and she aims to have a model by January that the committee can “run simulations with.”Committee members commented that it was a challenge to create a formula for higher education — especially when term limits place a ceiling on legislators’ experience.“I’m concerned about the technicality of what we are talking about here that is beyond my experience and perhaps ability to understand,” said state Rep. John Black, a Marshfield Republican.Black noted that he, as well as Shields and committee member state Rep. Kevin Windham, have two years remaining in the House.“The legislature will never understand some of these parameters at a level necessary to implement a good program. We are going to have to give over some authority to the department,” he said.He said they will have to “convince” fellow House members to give power to the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development.Windham, a Democrat from Hillsdale, said they will need the Senate’s authorization.Shields suggested expanding the group to a joint committee, incorporating senators.Leroy Wade, deputy commissioner of the Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, described a process of cooperation between the committee, the department and higher-education institutions, with the department serving as a liaison and source of manpower for the calculations involved.Many of the state’s colleges sent a representative to talk to the committee Tuesday, answering what they wanted out of the funding model.Mun Choi, president of University of Missouri System and chancellor of its flagship campus in Columbia, said his ideal formula would reward “strong outcomes such as high graduation rates and high future earnings.”He said it should also account for pricier degree programs, comparing the cost of educating an engineering student versus a history major.“The formula should also reflect the unique missions of all of the public universities in the state,” he said. “In fiscal year 2023 the University of Missouri System spent $600 million in expenditures to support research that led to discovery but also had impact to the region and the state.”Elizabeth Kennedy, chair of the Council on Public Higher Education in Missouri and president of Missouri Western State University, said lawmakers should consider historic underfunding.The Council on Public Higher Education in Missouri has 10 member schools, including the state’s two historically Black universities, Harris-Stowe State University and Lincoln University. A federal report recently showed&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/10/06/missouri-lawmakers-push-for-study-of-lincoln-university-funding-inequity/">Missouri, among other states, has been underfunding</a>&nbsp;its historically Black land-grant university.Windham said funding imbalances are a challenge as the committee discusses performance funding.“I find it hard to talk about performance funding when I think about how institutions have been underfunded, some worse than others in the state,” he said. “The institutions that have seen significant investments in the past from the state will likely do better than most.”Kennedy said the committee has the opportunity to study this.Kimberly Beatty, chancellor of Metropolitan Community College, said the funding model must account for the differences between four-year institutions and community colleges. She said the current way colleges are funded has left state aid out of valuable programs.“We do the apprenticeship programs. We have (certified nurse assistant) programs, manufacturing, welding, and all of those are apprenticeship programs,” she said. “None of those apprenticeship programs or their enrollees are considered in the current funding model.”She said non-credit programs, which provide workforce training, provide workforce development for Missouri but are not funded at the state level.“We’d like to see the value of workforce programs included in the funding model, whether those are credit programs or non-credit programs,” she said.Beatty said around 20% of students are currently not counted towards full-time enrollment, as funded currently.Full-time enrollment is one metric among many that may be incorporated into the formula. Currently, performance funding is not in effect in the budget process.

Missouri committee sets goal to enact performance funding formula for higher education

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>

Hundreds of earmarked items in the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/10/democrats-say-final-missouri-budget-pads-special-interests-with-state-cash/">$51.7 billion budget passed</a>&nbsp;by lawmakers this year will be vetoed, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday, just days before the new fiscal year begins.

Speaking with reporters after groundbreaking for a new multi-agency state laboratory, Parson had two criticisms for the budget plan — it goes overboard on earmarks and shortchanges essential state services.

Parson said the administration’s budget staff had identified more than 600 earmarked items throughout the 16 appropriation bills for the fiscal year that begins Monday.

“We’re going to veto a lot of the earmarks, especially some of them that maybe were not even ready to be done, that just people put different things in there,” Parson said. “There’s gonna be a lot of the those making it across the finish line, but not everybody’s gonna get what they want.”

The Independent analyzed the budget and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/27/state-budget-loaded-with-earmarks-nears-deadline-for-action-by-missouri-gov-mike-parson/">found more than 400 earmarked items</a>&nbsp;– with 284 new this year – totaling $2.1 billion in spending.&nbsp;

Parson called those earmarks “a lot of overspending.” The state services that are not fully funded will require a large infusion of additional cash, he said, but lawmakers won’t have to return this fall to pass a supplemental budget.

“You’ll see one of the largest supplementals at the beginning of next year that you’ve seen,” Parson told reporters.

The state is sitting on a large surplus, but Parson said it is not as large as the fund balances in the treasury would make it appear. The budget passed by lawmakers spends $15.3 billion in general revenue — including $700 million on earmarked items identified by The Independent.&nbsp;

When they were finished with the budget in May, legislative leaders claimed two achievements – a total $1 billion less than Parson requested in January and ongoing general revenue spending that was less than ongoing revenues.

In legislative language, that means that spending above the expected $13.1 billion in general revenue would be one-time expenses met by tapping the surplus.

When the total after his vetoes is added to the amount of the supplemental budget needed to maintain services, he said, that will no longer be true.

“That was more of a political gesture than it was anything,” Parson said.

The House Budget Committee chairman, state Rep. Cody Smith of Carthage, and the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, state Sen. Lincoln Hough of Springfield, are both running for statewide office.

Even with spending from the surplus, Parson said, the state will have about $1.5 billion in extra cash at the end of the coming fiscal year.

“I’m gonna make sure,” Parson said, “that there’s enough finances available for the next administration.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719523908460.png" alt="&nbsp;Gov. Mike Parson discusses his plans for the coming fiscal year’s budget Thursday following groundbreaking for a new multiagency state laboratory in Jefferson City. (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)" />
 <figcaption>&nbsp;Gov. Mike Parson discusses his plans for the coming fiscal year’s budget Thursday following groundbreaking for a new multiagency state laboratory in Jefferson City. (Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rudi-keller/">RUDI KELLER</a>&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>Hundreds of earmarked items in the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/10/democrats-say-final-missouri-budget-pads-special-interests-with-state-cash/">$51.7 billion budget passed</a>&nbsp;by lawmakers this year will be vetoed, Gov. Mike Parson said Thursday, just days before the new fiscal year begins.Speaking with reporters after groundbreaking for a new multi-agency state laboratory, Parson had two criticisms for the budget plan — it goes overboard on earmarks and shortchanges essential state services.Parson said the administration’s budget staff had identified more than 600 earmarked items throughout the 16 appropriation bills for the fiscal year that begins Monday.“We’re going to veto a lot of the earmarks, especially some of them that maybe were not even ready to be done, that just people put different things in there,” Parson said. “There’s gonna be a lot of the those making it across the finish line, but not everybody’s gonna get what they want.”The Independent analyzed the budget and&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/27/state-budget-loaded-with-earmarks-nears-deadline-for-action-by-missouri-gov-mike-parson/">found more than 400 earmarked items</a>&nbsp;– with 284 new this year – totaling $2.1 billion in spending.&nbsp;Parson called those earmarks “a lot of overspending.” The state services that are not fully funded will require a large infusion of additional cash, he said, but lawmakers won’t have to return this fall to pass a supplemental budget.“You’ll see one of the largest supplementals at the beginning of next year that you’ve seen,” Parson told reporters.The state is sitting on a large surplus, but Parson said it is not as large as the fund balances in the treasury would make it appear. The budget passed by lawmakers spends $15.3 billion in general revenue — including $700 million on earmarked items identified by The Independent.&nbsp;When they were finished with the budget in May, legislative leaders claimed two achievements – a total $1 billion less than Parson requested in January and ongoing general revenue spending that was less than ongoing revenues.In legislative language, that means that spending above the expected $13.1 billion in general revenue would be one-time expenses met by tapping the surplus.When the total after his vetoes is added to the amount of the supplemental budget needed to maintain services, he said, that will no longer be true.“That was more of a political gesture than it was anything,” Parson said.The House Budget Committee chairman, state Rep. Cody Smith of Carthage, and the Senate Appropriations Committee chairman, state Sen. Lincoln Hough of Springfield, are both running for statewide office.Even with spending from the surplus, Parson said, the state will have about $1.5 billion in extra cash at the end of the coming fiscal year.“I’m gonna make sure,” Parson said, “that there’s enough finances available for the next administration.”

Missouri Gov. says he plans to veto hundreds of earmarked spending items

(Radio Iowa) - Marshalltown police have arrested teenager in connection with a deadly shooting on June 1st. Police Chief Mike Tupper says the 15 year-old in custody played a significant role following the shooting that left 41-year-old Ramon Feliciano Nieves of Marshalltown dead. 

Police say the main suspect in the murder case, identified as 18-year-old Victor Delgadillo, is still at large. Tupper says he believes the Delgadillo is still in Marshalltown and anyone who is harboring or helping him will face serious charges. 

The Marshall County Crime Stoppers has quintupled the reward to five-thousand dollars for any information that leads to Delgadillo's arrest.

(Radio Iowa) - Marshalltown police have arrested teenager in connection with a deadly shooting on June 1st. Police Chief Mike Tupper says the 15 year-old in custody played a significant role following the shooting that left 41-year-old Ramon Feliciano Nieves of Marshalltown dead. Police say the main suspect in the murder case, identified as 18-year-old Victor Delgadillo, is still at large. Tupper says he believes the Delgadillo is still in Marshalltown and anyone who is harboring or helping him will face serious charges. The Marshall County Crime Stoppers has quintupled the reward to five-thousand dollars for any information that leads to Delgadillo's arrest.

Marshalltown police nab 15-year-old in murder case, prime suspect still at large

(Radio Iowa) - The eastern side of Iowa is bracing for more rain and a rising Mississippi River. The river has been steadily rising over the past week due to heavy rainfall, prompting flood warnings in parts of southeastern Iowa. 

Northeast Iowa has mostly been spared, but Sarah Moser (MOHZ-sher), the Emergency Management Coordinator in Clayton County, says the ground in the area is already saturated and the river is forecasted to rise just below levels reached during flooding in 2019.

The City of Davenport has deployed temporary barriers and water pumps along the Mississippi River in preparation for flooding and a number of parks and streets near the river have been closed. The Mississippi crest in Davenport is expected around July 4th and current forecasts indicate it will be below the record set in 2019.

(Radio Iowa) - The eastern side of Iowa is bracing for more rain and a rising Mississippi River. The river has been steadily rising over the past week due to heavy rainfall, prompting flood warnings in parts of southeastern Iowa. Northeast Iowa has mostly been spared, but Sarah Moser (MOHZ-sher), the Emergency Management Coordinator in Clayton County, says the ground in the area is already saturated and the river is forecasted to rise just below levels reached during flooding in 2019.The City of Davenport has deployed temporary barriers and water pumps along the Mississippi River in preparation for flooding and a number of parks and streets near the river have been closed. The Mississippi crest in Davenport is expected around July 4th and current forecasts indicate it will be below the record set in 2019.

Eastern Iowans brace for rising Mississippi River

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelciemoseleymorris/">KELCIE MOSELEY-MORRIS</a>&nbsp;

As expected after the court said it inadvertently uploaded the opinion prematurely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/document-indicates-supreme-court-will-punt-idaho-emergency-abortion-case-now" target="_blank">on Wednesday</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf" target="_blank">issued a decision</a>&nbsp;Thursday remanding a case about emergency abortions in Idaho back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for now.

The decision was 6-3, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. It was issued “per curiam,” meaning there is no lead author of the overall opinion.

The justices affirming the decision wrote that they determined the court took the case too early in the process. It granted the request to hear the case in January before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hold its own hearing on an injunction that blocked enforcement of the law against emergency room physicians who might need to perform an abortion to prevent a pregnant patient from experiencing significant health effects from infection or other conditions.

The government argued Idaho could not enforce its criminal abortion ban in emergency rooms because it would violate a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients who come to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay.

When justices agreed to hear the case, the court also dropped the injunction, leaving doctors in Idaho open to prosecution under its criminal abortion ban, which carries penalties of jail time, fines and the loss of a medical license. Idaho’s civil law also allows immediate and extended family members to sue the doctors for up to $20,000 over an abortion procedure.

Idaho’s ban contains only an exception to save the pregnant patient’s life, not to prevent detrimental health outcomes, including the loss of future fertility, which is a risk with severe infection or bleeding. Without further clarity written into the law, doctors have said they can’t confidently assess when to safely intervene to save someone’s life.

Rather than take the chance, high-risk obstetric specialists have airlifted patients to a facility out of state that can freely perform the procedure before it’s too late. In 2023, the state’s largest hospital system said at their facilities such transfers happened once, but occurred six times between January and April, when the injunction was lifted.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is typically conservative in her rulings, said the court’s decisions to hear the case and drop the injunction were premised on the belief that Idaho would suffer “irreparable harm” under the injunction and that the cases were ready for the court’s immediate determination.

She wrote that the briefings and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-justices-appear-split-over-whether-protect-abortion-care-during-emergencies" target="_blank">oral argument in April</a>&nbsp;shed more light on the case, and made it clear that conscience objections were covered under EMTALA and other concerns about an interpretation that would include emergency mental health concerns did not apply.

“I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution,” Barrett wrote.

Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, president of a group of Idaho physicians who have spoken out against the ban and submitted a brief to the court in the case, said the decision is not the end of her coalition’s work.

“We are relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Gustafson said. “However, this ruling addresses only a small part of the ever-increasing barriers across the health care landscape. The coalition remains committed to advocating for comprehensive policy updates to fill the gaps in healthcare access created by Idaho’s restrictive laws, which jeopardize patient safety. We will not relent until private healthcare decisions are once again at the discretion of patients and their physicians, free from political interference.”

Ahead of the decision,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/doctors-urge-us-supreme-court-include-abortion-stabilizing-care-under-federal-law" target="_blank">more than 6,000 doctors</a>&nbsp;from around the country also appealed to the court to protect ER physicians, along with medical professionals in Idaho and advocacy organizations.

The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit to resume the process, but it could ultimately return to the Supreme Court at a later date.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719501733752.png" alt=" A protester at a Planned Parenthood Great Northwest rally in Boise, Idaho, holds up a sign about the EMTALA case on April 21, 2024 (Otto Kitsinger/Idaho Capital Sun)." />
 <figcaption> A protester at a Planned Parenthood Great Northwest rally in Boise, Idaho, holds up a sign about the EMTALA case on April 21, 2024 (Otto Kitsinger/Idaho Capital Sun).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/kelciemoseleymorris/">KELCIE MOSELEY-MORRIS</a>&nbsp;As expected after the court said it inadvertently uploaded the opinion prematurely&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/document-indicates-supreme-court-will-punt-idaho-emergency-abortion-case-now" target="_blank">on Wednesday</a>, the U.S. Supreme Court&nbsp;<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf" target="_blank">issued a decision</a>&nbsp;Thursday remanding a case about emergency abortions in Idaho back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for now.The decision was 6-3, with conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting. It was issued “per curiam,” meaning there is no lead author of the overall opinion.The justices affirming the decision wrote that they determined the court took the case too early in the process. It granted the request to hear the case in January before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hold its own hearing on an injunction that blocked enforcement of the law against emergency room physicians who might need to perform an abortion to prevent a pregnant patient from experiencing significant health effects from infection or other conditions.The government argued Idaho could not enforce its criminal abortion ban in emergency rooms because it would violate a federal law known as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, which requires Medicare-funded hospitals to treat patients who come to an emergency room regardless of their ability to pay.When justices agreed to hear the case, the court also dropped the injunction, leaving doctors in Idaho open to prosecution under its criminal abortion ban, which carries penalties of jail time, fines and the loss of a medical license. Idaho’s civil law also allows immediate and extended family members to sue the doctors for up to $20,000 over an abortion procedure.Idaho’s ban contains only an exception to save the pregnant patient’s life, not to prevent detrimental health outcomes, including the loss of future fertility, which is a risk with severe infection or bleeding. Without further clarity written into the law, doctors have said they can’t confidently assess when to safely intervene to save someone’s life.Rather than take the chance, high-risk obstetric specialists have airlifted patients to a facility out of state that can freely perform the procedure before it’s too late. In 2023, the state’s largest hospital system said at their facilities such transfers happened once, but occurred six times between January and April, when the injunction was lifted.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who is typically conservative in her rulings, said the court’s decisions to hear the case and drop the injunction were premised on the belief that Idaho would suffer “irreparable harm” under the injunction and that the cases were ready for the court’s immediate determination.She wrote that the briefings and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/supreme-court-justices-appear-split-over-whether-protect-abortion-care-during-emergencies" target="_blank">oral argument in April</a>&nbsp;shed more light on the case, and made it clear that conscience objections were covered under EMTALA and other concerns about an interpretation that would include emergency mental health concerns did not apply.“I am now convinced that these cases are no longer appropriate for early resolution,” Barrett wrote.Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, president of a group of Idaho physicians who have spoken out against the ban and submitted a brief to the court in the case, said the decision is not the end of her coalition’s work.“We are relieved by the Supreme Court’s decision,” Gustafson said. “However, this ruling addresses only a small part of the ever-increasing barriers across the health care landscape. The coalition remains committed to advocating for comprehensive policy updates to fill the gaps in healthcare access created by Idaho’s restrictive laws, which jeopardize patient safety. We will not relent until private healthcare decisions are once again at the discretion of patients and their physicians, free from political interference.”Ahead of the decision,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsfromthestates.com/article/doctors-urge-us-supreme-court-include-abortion-stabilizing-care-under-federal-law" target="_blank">more than 6,000 doctors</a>&nbsp;from around the country also appealed to the court to protect ER physicians, along with medical professionals in Idaho and advocacy organizations.The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit to resume the process, but it could ultimately return to the Supreme Court at a later date.

U.S. Supreme Court sends Idaho abortion case back down to lower courts

Attorneys representing transgender youth and the attorney general’s office both claim evidence is being illegally concealed

Attorneys representing transgender minors and health care providers squabbled with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office Wednesday over thousands of documents both sides say are being wrongfully withheld.

At its core, the case seeks to determine whether the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors is lawful. The lawsuit was filed by the families of three transgender minors, Southampton Healthcare, two of Southampton’s providers and two national advocacy organizations, saying the ban could have “extremely serious, negative health consequences” for transgender youth.

The attorney general filed a counterclaim alleging Southampton Healthcare, which provides gender-affirming care, did not fully disclose risks when treating transgender youth.

A trial is scheduled for late September, and attorneys are in the process of deposing witnesses. The deadline to send responsive documents to the other party passed, but both plaintiffs and defendants were unhappy with how much the other side has willingly turned over.&nbsp;

Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter, who is stepping into Cole County Circuit Court for this case, said it would take time to rule on each exception the parties found to requests for discovery.

Jim Lawrence, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the state has withheld documents citing exceptions not backed by state law.

Lawrence told the judge the parties would “be here until next week” if he were to explain every document he is requesting. He displayed a powerpoint with a chart of the objections from the attorney general’s office and the corresponding evidentiary requests.

Peter Donahue, assistant attorney general for special litigation, said the state went through a “burdensome” process of reviewing 100,000 documents that matched search terms in investigatory requests and spent $25,000 taking the time to narrow the lot to what is relevant and not deemed protected — which ended up being 2.6% of those files.

“If the state reviewed 100,000 (documents) and only 2,600 are relevant… That is an impossible fact to digest,” Lawrence said. “That doesn’t pass the smell test.”

Included in the state’s objections were documents protected by “gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence said. This impacted almost half of the requests for production issued to the office of Gov. Mike Parson.

Gubernatorial privilege, Lawrence argued, doesn’t exist. He said there isn’t legal precedent in Missouri for it.

The idea of an executive privilege was discussed during the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article206546554.html" target="_blank">attorney general’s investigation of former Gov. Eric Greitens</a>, with many dismissing the excuse as illegitimate.

“They are asking you to be the first court in the state of Missouri to declare gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence told the judge.

Donahue said he hadn’t seen the privilege successfully invoked in Missouri, but it was “widely recognized across the nation.”

“We are just talking about communications between the governor and his close circle,” Donahue said. “This is not a unique concept in the gubernatorial process.”

Carter asked what types of documents have been withheld from discovery under gubernatorial privilege. Lawrence listed off a handful of examples, including “policies and procedures related to enforcement of the act.”

“Even if (gubernatorial privilege) does exist, it wouldn’t apply to all that,” he said.

Donahue said the objection was an “add-on privilege” for some of the documents, where another exception would have already protected the information from disclosure.

Lawrence tossed an arm up at the admission, then folding his arms and furrowing his brow.

“His argument really goes to why we are here today,” he said. “If you are asserting a privilege and withholding information based upon a privilege, you have to put that.”

It is written in the privilege log, Donahue said. A privilege log is a file that describes the documents withheld and the privileges asserted to protect them.

Lawrence also took issue with claims of attorney-client privilege that protected Jamie Reed, a witness in the case and whistleblower following her work at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit alleging quick “medicalization” of transgender minors launched the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">attorney general’s investigation of gender-affirming care</a>&nbsp;and was a main talking point when&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/14/proposed-ban-on-medical-transitions-for-minors-gains-renewed-traction-in-missouri-senate/">lawmakers discussed a ban</a>&nbsp;for minors.

The attorney general isn’t Reed’s lawyer, Lawrence said, so his office shouldn’t argue attorney-client privilege for documents related to her.

Plaintiffs subpoenaed Reed separately and received a letter she sent to the attorney general. That letter should have also been sent by the attorney general’s office responsive to the investigative requests, but plaintiffs didn’t get it, Lawrence said.

Other exceptions include external communications allegedly withheld as work product and many documents sealed under investigative privilege.

Lawrence said they did not receive the responses the public gave to a tip line the attorney general opened to report complaints about gender-affirming care, but that information was compiled for outside sources. Indeed,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stlpr.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2024-05-03/instead-of-complaints-baileys-trans-tip-line-flooded-with-pro-trans-support" target="_blank">St. Louis Public Radio</a>&nbsp;requested the responses in a Sunshine Request and received the compilation a year later.

Donahue also argued Southampton was withholding documents. He said he received informational pamphlets from Southampton but wanted medical records of four or five patients that received gender-affirming care as minors.

The judge questioned why he needed these particular documents.

“These documents are relevant to our counterclaim that plaintiffs have been inaccurate about the types of harm that can come from these treatments,” Donahue said.&nbsp;

He argued gender-affirming care providers weren’t always truthful — a claim&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/01/transgender-st-louis-whistleblower/">patients have disputed</a>&nbsp;when their care is questioned.

“It essentially amounts to snake-oil salesmanship, if true,” he said.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/6/1719493597787.png" alt="The Cole County Courthouse in Jefferson City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)" />
 <figcaption>The Cole County Courthouse in Jefferson City (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Attorneys representing transgender youth and the attorney general’s office both claim evidence is being illegally concealed</h2>BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>Attorneys representing transgender minors and health care providers squabbled with the Missouri Attorney General’s Office Wednesday over thousands of documents both sides say are being wrongfully withheld.At its core, the case seeks to determine whether the state’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors is lawful. The lawsuit was filed by the families of three transgender minors, Southampton Healthcare, two of Southampton’s providers and two national advocacy organizations, saying the ban could have “extremely serious, negative health consequences” for transgender youth.The attorney general filed a counterclaim alleging Southampton Healthcare, which provides gender-affirming care, did not fully disclose risks when treating transgender youth.A trial is scheduled for late September, and attorneys are in the process of deposing witnesses. The deadline to send responsive documents to the other party passed, but both plaintiffs and defendants were unhappy with how much the other side has willingly turned over.&nbsp;Wright County Circuit Court Judge Craig Carter, who is stepping into Cole County Circuit Court for this case, said it would take time to rule on each exception the parties found to requests for discovery.Jim Lawrence, an attorney for the plaintiffs, argued that the state has withheld documents citing exceptions not backed by state law.Lawrence told the judge the parties would “be here until next week” if he were to explain every document he is requesting. He displayed a powerpoint with a chart of the objections from the attorney general’s office and the corresponding evidentiary requests.Peter Donahue, assistant attorney general for special litigation, said the state went through a “burdensome” process of reviewing 100,000 documents that matched search terms in investigatory requests and spent $25,000 taking the time to narrow the lot to what is relevant and not deemed protected — which ended up being 2.6% of those files.“If the state reviewed 100,000 (documents) and only 2,600 are relevant… That is an impossible fact to digest,” Lawrence said. “That doesn’t pass the smell test.”Included in the state’s objections were documents protected by “gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence said. This impacted almost half of the requests for production issued to the office of Gov. Mike Parson.Gubernatorial privilege, Lawrence argued, doesn’t exist. He said there isn’t legal precedent in Missouri for it.The idea of an executive privilege was discussed during the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article206546554.html" target="_blank">attorney general’s investigation of former Gov. Eric Greitens</a>, with many dismissing the excuse as illegitimate.“They are asking you to be the first court in the state of Missouri to declare gubernatorial privilege,” Lawrence told the judge.Donahue said he hadn’t seen the privilege successfully invoked in Missouri, but it was “widely recognized across the nation.”“We are just talking about communications between the governor and his close circle,” Donahue said. “This is not a unique concept in the gubernatorial process.”Carter asked what types of documents have been withheld from discovery under gubernatorial privilege. Lawrence listed off a handful of examples, including “policies and procedures related to enforcement of the act.”“Even if (gubernatorial privilege) does exist, it wouldn’t apply to all that,” he said.Donahue said the objection was an “add-on privilege” for some of the documents, where another exception would have already protected the information from disclosure.Lawrence tossed an arm up at the admission, then folding his arms and furrowing his brow.“His argument really goes to why we are here today,” he said. “If you are asserting a privilege and withholding information based upon a privilege, you have to put that.”It is written in the privilege log, Donahue said. A privilege log is a file that describes the documents withheld and the privileges asserted to protect them.Lawrence also took issue with claims of attorney-client privilege that protected Jamie Reed, a witness in the case and whistleblower following her work at the Washington University Transgender Center at St. Louis Children’s Hospital. Reed’s affidavit alleging quick “medicalization” of transgender minors launched the&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">attorney general’s investigation of gender-affirming care</a>&nbsp;and was a main talking point when&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/14/proposed-ban-on-medical-transitions-for-minors-gains-renewed-traction-in-missouri-senate/">lawmakers discussed a ban</a>&nbsp;for minors.The attorney general isn’t Reed’s lawyer, Lawrence said, so his office shouldn’t argue attorney-client privilege for documents related to her.Plaintiffs subpoenaed Reed separately and received a letter she sent to the attorney general. That letter should have also been sent by the attorney general’s office responsive to the investigative requests, but plaintiffs didn’t get it, Lawrence said.Other exceptions include external communications allegedly withheld as work product and many documents sealed under investigative privilege.Lawrence said they did not receive the responses the public gave to a tip line the attorney general opened to report complaints about gender-affirming care, but that information was compiled for outside sources. Indeed,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stlpr.org/show/st-louis-on-the-air/2024-05-03/instead-of-complaints-baileys-trans-tip-line-flooded-with-pro-trans-support" target="_blank">St. Louis Public Radio</a>&nbsp;requested the responses in a Sunshine Request and received the compilation a year later.Donahue also argued Southampton was withholding documents. He said he received informational pamphlets from Southampton but wanted medical records of four or five patients that received gender-affirming care as minors.The judge questioned why he needed these particular documents.“These documents are relevant to our counterclaim that plaintiffs have been inaccurate about the types of harm that can come from these treatments,” Donahue said.&nbsp;He argued gender-affirming care providers weren’t always truthful — a claim&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/03/01/transgender-st-louis-whistleblower/">patients have disputed</a>&nbsp;when their care is questioned.“It essentially amounts to snake-oil salesmanship, if true,” he said.He wanted to get access to records showing what doctors have discussed with patients and letters of support from mental-health professionals, which he said sometimes have “irregularities.”Complaints from the attorney general’s office about these letters have<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/05/24/therapists-social-workers-face-scrutiny-in-missouri-ag-investigation-of-transgender-care/">&nbsp;led to the investigations of 57 health professionals</a>, putting their licenses at risk. As of early May, 16 cases were open in the probe by the Department of Professional Registration.Jason Orr, another attorney representing plaintiffs, said the state may ask Southampton’s physicians questions but can’t ask for patients’ private records.“Southampton does not have the ability to waive their doctor-patient privilege, and in fact, they are required to exercise it on their behalf,” he said.There are currently four cases open between healthcare providers and the attorney general where providers are&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/06/18/planned-parenthood-vows-to-fight-missouri-ag-push-for-transgender-youth-medical-records/">fighting requests to hand over medical records</a>.Southampton’s patients are not the plaintiffs in the case at hand, Orr said.Plaintiffs PFLAG and GLMA, two advocacy organizations, have not been complying with requests for documents, Donahue argued.He said he hasn’t received anything from the two organizations, despite the deadline already passing.Orr said the request led to 20,000 documents that attorneys are “working in good faith” to narrow down and deliver. He hoped for it to be ready by the end of the week, complaining that the request was sent one month before the deadline.“This was an issue that was created in part by defendants’ timing,” he said.At the start of the hearing Wednesday, Solicitor General Josh Divine mentioned a federal case that may change their proceedings.<a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-hear-challenge-ban-transgender-care-minors-2024-06-24/" target="_blank">The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday</a>&nbsp;to hear a case on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors.There are additional claims in the case before Carter, Orr said.Carter said to keep him updated if the case will be affected.“We’re going to keep marching on until we hear something different,” he said.<a href="https://www.hrc.org/resources/attacks-on-gender-affirming-care-by-state-map" target="_blank">Half of U.S. states</a>&nbsp;have a restriction on gender-affirming care for minors, with litigation blocking some states’ bans.

Kbct