(The Center Square) – The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a new Texas law banning abortions once a heartbeat is detected in a ruling late Wednesday.

The law went into effect Wednesday, making Texas the first state to effectively ban a majority of abortions from being performed in the state.

The justices ruled 5-4 in an unsigned opinion, denying a request for injunctive relief or to vacate stays of the district court proceedings. The majority of justices wrote that the petitioners did not meet the burden required to prove the “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” they raised.

The ruling added that “it is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit can or will seek to enforce the Texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention” and noted that Texas "has said that neither it nor its executive employees possess the authority to enforce the Texas law either directly or indirectly.”

Likewise, it remains unclear if under existing precedent the court could “issue an injunction against state judges asked to decide a lawsuit under Texas’s law.”

Roughly 85% of abortions are performed after six weeks of pregnancy, around the time when a baby’s heartbeat can first be detected. The new Texas law requires doctors to determine if a heartbeat can be detected before performing any procedure. If it is detected, abortions and abortion-inducing drugs are prohibited. Penalties carry fines and jail time for abortionists.

The court's ruling added: “We stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit. In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”

Although the order was unsigned, the majority included Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

The four dissenting were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who each wrote separate statements.

Roberts suggested that the case is not closed. In his statement, he said that while the court denied the emergency relief requested, the ruling is “emphatic in making clear that it cannot be understood as sustaining the constitutionality of the law at issue.”

The petitioners are continuing with their lawsuit in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said in response to the ruling that “No freedom is more precious than life itself. Starting today, every unborn child with a heartbeat will be protected from the ravages of abortion. Texas will always defend the right to life.”

President Joe Biden said in a statement that he's asked the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to “see what steps the federal government can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by [Roe v. Wade], and what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas' bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties.”

Petitioner Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said, “We are devastated that the Supreme Court has refused to block a law that blatantly violates Roe v. Wade.” She also called on Congress to pass a national law, the Women’s Health Protection Act, to codify abortion rights. Northup said they have the majority of votes needed in the House and 48 votes in the Senate.

“We are devastated by today’s ruling,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, the lead plaintiff in the case, said in a statement. “Our patients are scared and confused and desperately trying to figure out what they can do to get an abortion. We don’t know what will happen next. Our staff and providers are so afraid.”

Texas Right to Life hopes to replicate the Texas law nationwide.

“The Texas Heartbeat Act is the strongest Pro-Life law to take effect since the unjust ruling of Roe v. Wade (1973),” the group said in a statement.

The law is different from laws passed in other states that seek to limit abortions because it prohibits state officials from enforcing the law and relies solely on civil liability. Anyone can attempt to enforce the law by suing abortion providers or anyone who aids someone in getting an abortion in the state after a heartbeat is detected. Doctors and those aiding and abetting them who violate the law can be sued multiple times for a minimum of $10,000 per violation.

(The Center Square) – Over the past 10 months, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents have arrested 8,691 known criminals who have entered the U.S. illegally through the southern border. Combined, they have committed 12,685 crimes in the U.S., according to federal data.

Because Border Patrol agents do not have access to criminal records from other countries, they rely on information reported in the National Crime Information Center database. Many individuals arrested by Border Patrol are registered sex offenders who were previously convicted and served time in U.S. prisons. They were released and deported only to reenter the U.S. again illegally this year.

The NCIC is a centralized automated database designed to share information among law enforcement agencies including outstanding warrants for a wide range of offenses. Based on information from NCIC, Border Patrol officers have made previous arrests of individuals wanted on charges of homicide, escape, money laundering, robbery, narcotics distribution, sexual child abuse, fraud, larceny, and military desertion.

In a recent Laredo, Texas, Border Patrol Sector report, among a group of 20 apprehended this week, one was a Honduran national and registered sex offender with an extensive criminal history. He was convicted of lewd lascivious battery and sexual activity with a minor in 2017 in Florida and was deported in October 2020.

His arrest, the Laredo Sector said in a news release, “continues to highlight the dangers that illegal immigration poses to our country especially by those individuals who have been previously convicted for sexual misconduct. These dangerous criminals increasingly continue to endanger our communities and show a lack of regard for our country’s laws.”

In another apprehension, Laredo agents detained a Mexican national wanted for allegations of rape out of Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office, in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

“Sexual violence can have serious psychological, emotional and physical effects on a survivor. CBP collaborates with other law enforcement agencies to bring those allegedly committing these offenses to justice,” Acting Laredo Port Director Alberto Flores said.

In another arrest in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, agents apprehended a convicted murderer from El Salvador. He spent three years in prison in the 1990s for a murder in California, was released, and in 2005 was imprisoned again for “re-entry of a deported alien,” according to border patrol.

They also arrested a Mexican national who had been previously arrested for first degree attempted sexual abuse of a child in Lexington, Kentucky. He was sentenced to one year in prison, registered as a sex offender, and then deported only to reenter the U.S. illegally this month and be caught.

Agents also arrested a Honduras national who had been arrested in 2011 in New York City for raping an 8-year-old girl multiple times. He was sentenced to four years in prison, released, and subsequently deported in June 2015. In another arrest, an El Salvador national had a 2009 conviction for sexual battery in Georgia. The individuals were apprehended after attempting to reenter the U.S. illegally this month.

This fiscal year, RGV agents working in the busiest sector in Texas also arrested more than 140 migrant gang members affiliated with 10 different street gangs.

The Del Rio sector reported a 1,400% surge in the number of sex offenders apprehended by its border agents this year compared to last year.

In the El Centro Sector of California, a registered sex offender with previous felony conviction for child molestation in Atlanta, Georgia, was arrested. He had been previously deported and was caught upon illegal reentry.

The El Centro Sector has so far arrested and/or removed 38 individuals either convicted or wanted on sexual offense charges so far this fiscal year.

As of June 30, Border Patrol agents had arrested 353 illegal immigrants on charges of sex-related crimes, many with prior convictions involving minors. By comparison, during the same period in fiscal year 2020, agents had only apprehended 55 such criminals. The difference represents an increase of 542%.

The Biden administration directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to cancel Operation Talon, a nationwide operation conducted by ICE to remove convicted sex offenders illegally in the U.S.

In February, attorneys general from 18 states wrote a letter to Biden, expressing outrage over cancelling Operation Talon, citing criminal statistics.

Between October 2014 and May 2018, they note, ICE arrested 119,752 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions, many with prior convictions for sex-related offenses. They included 5,565 sexual assault convictions, 4,910 child molestation convictions, and 675 child exploitation and child pornography or sexual performances convictions.

“The cancellation of this program effectively broadcasts to the world that the United States is now a sanctuary jurisdiction for sexual predators. This message creates a perverse incentive for foreign sexual predators to seek to enter the United States illegally and assault more victims, both in the process of unlawful migration and after they arrive,” the attorneys general wrote.

(The Center Square) – Reports of violence and chaos in Afghanistan as the Taliban asserted control of the nation has sparked criticism of President Joe Biden, but the president reaffirmed his commitment Monday to the U.S. withdrawal.

Biden addressed the fallout of the U.S. removal of troops from Afghanistan in a speech from the White House.

“Here’s what I believe to my core,” Biden said. “It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. The political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down. They never would have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them. And our true strategic competitors, China and Russia, would love nothing more than the U.S. to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.”

Biden ordered 5,000 troops last week to return to Afghanistan temporarily to help evacuate the U.S. embassy. Those troops were needed after a sweeping takeover of the nation by the Taliban, the Islamic extremist group known for its violence, oppression of women and involvement in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

While initial estimates questioned the Taliban’s ability to retake the country, or at least expected the process to take months, the terrorist group was able to take every major city, including the capital, within days.

President Donald Trump set the U.S. withdrawal date during his administration for earlier this year, but Biden pushed it back after taking office. Trump has since called for Biden’s resignation, saying he would have handled the withdrawal differently.

Republicans in the House and Senate also have criticized Biden for his handling of the withdrawal.

“I fought in Afghanistan,” U.S. Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., said. “I lost friends in Afghanistan. We’ve seen this before in how Obama-Biden withdrew from Iraq in 2011. Same leadership. Same failure.”

Others pointed to the humanitarian crisis as religious minorities, foreign residents, women and those known to have helped the U.S. face danger as the Taliban establishes its rule.

“Biden’s decision in Afghanistan undermines America’s credibility around the globe,” U.S. Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., said. “His actions have destabilized the region and put Americans, our allies, women, and children in Afghanistan at greater risk of harm by the Taliban.”

Biden has remained firm in his position, saying the Taliban takeover was inevitable.

“I stand squarely behind my decision,” he said. “After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.”

(The Center Square) – A majority of voters support school choice, a new poll from Echelon Insights shows.

Among more than 1,100 registered voters surveyed, 65% support school choice compared to 19% who oppose it, while 16% remain unsure.

The findings were consistent across party lines, with 75% of Republicans, 60% of independents, and 61% of Democrats saying they strongly or somewhat support school choice. Most voters in both parties agree parents should control all or some of the tax dollars they pay for education.

“Public support for school choice is nothing new,” American Federation for Children President and CEO Tommy Schultz said. “This year already, at least a dozen states have enacted new school choice programs or expanded existing programs because they're recognizing just how popular this issue is amongst K-12 families. We are grateful that lawmakers are listening to the needs of families, but millions of children are still waiting for better options. We will continue fighting for those kids and to empower parents with the funds meant to deliver a high-quality education."

Among those polled across all racial lines, the overwhelming majority expressed support for school choice, ranging from a low of 64% among whites to a high of 69% among Blacks.

The American Federation for Children notes that 70% of families “want to send their child to a private, charter, virtual or home school,” but 82% of families are attending district-controlled [public] schools, and most don't have a choice.”

A majority of voters, 55%, said some or all of the taxpayer dollars the government set aside for K-12 education should be directed by parents. Roughly one-fifth, 21%, said none of the funds should be directed by parents and 24% said they were unsure.

According to a Walton Family Foundation poll of 2,700 K–12 parents, strong majorities favored the use of federal education dollars for student-centered needs, including high-quality tutoring, pre-K programs, and summer school.

A majority, 65%, said they want federal stimulus dollars to support creating more school options like charter schools and learning pods; 62% want direct grants of $500 per child to help parents pay for education needs.

While support for school choice remains strong, public schools in 33 states reported a loss of 500,000 students since the 2019-2020 school year, according to a December Associated Press-Chalkbeat analysis.

(The Center Square) – As illegal immigration continues to surge at the southern border, President Joe Biden is under fire for reports that his administration is considering changing a key immigration policy to allow more people to enter the country.

Former President Donald Trump enacted a policy called Title 42 in March of last year to allow federal border officials to expel migrants held in border facilities in an attempt to keep COVID-19 from spreading in facilities and from there into U.S. communities. Biden has not reversed the policy despite pressure from liberal groups, but media reports Monday indicated the Biden administration is considering lifting the Trump rule.

The news comes after several months of increased illegal immigration along the U.S. border with Mexico.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol released data earlier this year reporting that CBP encountered 172,000 illegal immigrants attempting to cross the southern border in March, a major increase from 101,000 in February. Those figures have increased by several thousand per month since and significantly outpaced numbers from the same time last year.

Former Acting Department of Homeland Security secretary Chad Wolf raised the alarm about the proposed plan, pointing out the potential increase in COVID cases from migrants.

“The Biden administration's reported move to rescind Title 42 is both reckless and foolish. As the U.S. continues to climb out of this crisis, we need to ensure, now more than ever, that we do not intentionally introduce new COVID cases into the country,” Wolf said. “Removing Title 42 will also be yet another signal from this administration that the border is open and another reason for illegal migrants to enter the country illegally. It would be unfathomable that the administration would proactively take a step to make this crisis worse.”

To further complicate the issue, the Biden administration changed the rules for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, narrowing the circumstances under which they can arrest illegal immigrants.

A report from the Migration Policy Institute released in April of this year found that a series of executive actions by the Biden administration had led to a 60% reduction in ICE arrests, despite the significant rise in illegal border crossings.

“Make no mistake, the Biden administration is purposefully making it harder for federal law enforcement and immigration officials to do their jobs and expel those who come here illegally,” said Mark Morgan, former acting commissioner for Customs and Border Protection. “Sadly, this politically motivated action will not just push already sky-high border crossing numbers to the breaking point. It will also needlessly endanger the health and well-being of American citizens throughout the country as they will be exposed to increased numbers of illegal aliens potentially carrying COVID. Few to none of the nearly 1 million illegal aliens apprehended have been vaccinated, and there is little effective health infrastructure along the route to help prevent spread of the virus.”

Stats like these have led to increasing angst among Republicans, particularly in border states. Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced earlier this month that he would build a border wall for his state. He also demanded the federal government return land that was taken for a wall but never used.

Last week, Abbott announced a $250 million down payment on the wall as part of his overall immigration strategy.

"The Biden Administration has abandoned its responsibilities to secure the border and Texans are suffering as a result," Abbott said. "The problems along the border are only getting worse due to President Biden's inaction. Property is being destroyed, deadly drugs and illegal weapons are being smuggled into communities throughout the state, law enforcement is having to redirect their resources, and county judges and mayors are facing skyrocketing expenses.

“In the Biden Administration's absence, Texas is stepping up to get the job done by building the border wall,” he added. “Through this comprehensive public safety effort, we will secure the border, slow the influx of unlawful immigrants, and restore order in our border communities."

Biden, though, has defended his handling of the border, pointing to a reduction in the amount of time children spend in border facilities, COVID testing for some migrants, and an expansion in open slots for refugees.

“Border numbers fluctuate, however, based on annual migration trends and that is why this administration is working to establish lawful pathways for individuals to migrate or seek protection, address the root causes of migration, restore fair, orderly and humane means to apply for asylum and deter irregular migration,” the White House said in a statement. “The administration has made significant progress at establishing a well-managed and secure border while also treating people fairly and humanely. The American people support this approach.”

The Republican establishment has capitalized on Biden’s struggles at the southern border, raking in record fundraising for three consecutive months.

“The Biden Administration is doing whatever it can to make the #BidenBorderCrisis worse and Americans are having to pay the price,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Spokeswoman Torunn Sinclair.

A key part of this line of attack has been lambasting Vice President Kamala Harris, who has not visited the southern border since being tapped by Biden to head up the immigration crisis.

“Border Patrol agents told me we need to keep Title 42 in place as they attempt to manage the illegal immigration surge,” said Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa. “Maybe if [Harris] had been to the border & heard from those on the ground, the Admin wouldn’t be reversing policies law enforcement use to keep us safe.”

(The Center Square) – While the origins of COVID-19 have been a political hot button issue rife with controversy, new evidence has prompted a different question: did American taxpayers help fund the controversial Wuhan lab?

A group of 209 House Republicans sent a letter Friday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., demanding she allow an investigation into whether the Wuhan lab released COVID-19. The same day, Republicans on the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees announced an investigation into the National Institutes of Health’s grant funding for the scandal-ridden Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“There is mounting evidence the COVID-19 pandemic started in the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the Chinese Communist Party covered it up," the Republican lawmakers wrote in a letter to NIH. "If U.S. taxpayer money was used to develop COVID-19, conduct gain of function research, or assist in any sort of cover-up, EcoHealth Alliance must be held accountable. It is incumbent upon grant recipients to ensure their work is performed within the scope of the grant, advances our national interest, and protects our national security. It is vital to understand if U.S. taxpayer funds were at all affiliated with a pandemic that has taken the lives of nearly 600,000 Americans so we can prevent similar future catastrophes.”

House Committee on Oversight and Reform ranking member James Comer, R-Ky., and House Committee on the Judiciary ranking member Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, sent a letter to Francis Collins, the director of the NIH, and Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The Republicans point to a grant from NIH given to EcoHealth, which they say has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology "to study bat coronaviruses."

“EcoHealth has awarded almost $600,000 to the WIV and another $200,000 to the Wuhan University School of Public Health," the letter reads. "On July 8, 2020, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Michael Lauer sent a letter to EcoHealth expressing concern over its relationship with the WIV and suspended EcoHealth’s grant pending answers to several routine questions. The questions posed by Dr. Lauer raise serious concerns and suggest COVID-19 was spreading worldwide by October 2019.

“Despite U.S. intelligence concerns about the ability of the WIV to properly contain the deadly disease including the virus that causes COVID-19 they study, EcoHealth still awarded U.S. taxpayer grant funds to the WIV,” the letter adds.

Suspicions that COVID originated in the Wuhan lab were widely dismissed last year, but the theory recently gained new credence after the Wall Street Journal reported that three doctors working at the Wuhan Institute of Virology were hospitalized in November 2019 for COVID-like symptoms.

“Dems haven't held a hearing on it,” said Minority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., after the letter was released. “Big Tech censored posts about it. The media attacked people who talked about it. China can't get away with this. Americans deserve answers.”

Though Republicans have been critical of Democrats, some Democrats have backed an inquiry into Wuhan in light of the most recent evidence. President Joe Biden said this week he has asked U.S. intelligence agencies to probe COVID's origins with an eye toward China.

The movement among Republicans to investigate the lab has steadily increased to the crescendo Friday. What has rankled lawmakers most, though, is evidence that Americans helped fund the very lab at the center of this controversy.

"The cause of this pandemic is the most important question facing the world," said Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., who sent a letter to Fauci. "It's clear that we cannot ignore COVID-19's potential lab origins, and it's past time for Dr. Fauci to provide answers not only on the role of US funding for Chinese labs, but also his support for this reckless research.”

(The Center Square) – The Texas Public Policy Foundation and America First Policy Institute have sued the U.S. Small Business Administration, alleging a provision in the America Rescue Act requires the SBA to prioritize businesses owned by women and minorities to receive nearly $30 billion in COVID-19-designated relief money above other applicants.

Greer’s Ranch Café vs Guzman was filed against the SBA and its acting director, Isabella Casillas Guzman, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It is the first lawsuit filed by the TPPF and AFPI against the Biden administration.

The ARPA, which passed along party lines and was signed into law by President Joe Biden, appropriated $28.6 billion to a Restaurant Revitalization Fund to be dolled out to applicants. Section 5003 of the bill requires the SBA to prioritize applicants who are women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners.

The SBA defines socially disadvantaged individuals as those “who have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias within American society because of their identities as members of groups and without regard to their individual qualities. The social disadvantage must stem from circumstances beyond their control.”

Economically disadvantaged individuals are defined as those whose “ability to compete in the free enterprise system has been impaired due to diminished capital and credit opportunities as compared to others in the same or similar line of business who are not socially disadvantaged.”

The lawsuit asks the court to determine whether the government has the right to deny Americans access to federal assistance based on their ethnicity and gender. The groups argue the government’s policy “is wantonly illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral.”

“These race and sex preferences are patently unconstitutional, and the Court should promptly enjoin their enforcement,” the complaint states. “Doing so will promote equal rights under the law for all American citizens and promote efforts to stop racial discrimination, because ‘[t]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.’”

TPPF’s Chief Counsel Robert Henneke said, “For over 125 years, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that the Constitution forbids discrimination by the government against any citizen because of his race. This lawsuit will enforce that guarantee.”

The lawsuit calls on the court to block the enforcement of any policy that would discriminate against certain classes of people in order to “promote equal rights under the law for all American citizens and promote efforts to stop racial discrimination.”

As of May 12, the RRF has received more than 147,000 applications from women, veterans, and socially and economically disadvantaged business owners, requesting a total of $29 billion in relief funds, representing nearly half of the applicants.

Guzman argues the SBA “is helping thousands of restaurants and other food and beverage businesses across the country get the help they desperately need to recover and rebuild from this pandemic. The numbers show that we’ve been particularly successful at reaching the smallest restaurants and underserved communities that have struggled to access relief. These businesses are the pillars of our nation’s neighborhoods and communities. We are making progress, but we have much more work to do as we continue reaching our underserved entrepreneurs.”

Overall, the SBA received more than 266,000 applications representing over $65 billion in requested funds. During the first week of the program, it received applications from 76,183 women business owners, 6,093 veteran business owners and 42,284 economically and socially disadvantaged individuals.

A total of $2.7 billion of relief funds have already been distributed to 21,000 restaurants since the fund opened May 3, 2021, the SBA reports.

(The Center Square) – A federal grand jury has indicted four ex-Minneapolis police officers on federal civil rights charges related to the death of George Floyd.

The first indictment charges Derek Chauvin, 45; Tou Thao, 35; J. Alexander Kueng, 27; and Thomas Lane, 38. The three-count indictment alleges that all four defendants willfully deprived Floyd of his constitutional rights, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

Count one of the indictment alleges that on May 25, 2020, Chauvin pressed his left knee on Floyd’s neck, and his right knee on Floyd’s back and arm, as Floyd lay on the ground, handcuffed and unresisting, and kept his knees on Floyd’s neck and body even after Mr. Floyd became unresponsive.

The indictment alleges Chauvin’s actions violated Floyd’s constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer and resulted in Floyd’s death.

Count two charges that Thao and Kueng willfully failed to intervene to stop Chauvin’s use of unreasonable force, resulting in Floyd’s death.

Count Three of the indictment alleges that all four defendants saw Floyd lying on the ground in need of medical care and willfully failed to aid him. The indictment alleges that all four defendants willfully deprived Mr. Floyd of his constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law, which resulted in Floyd’s death.

A separate, two-count indictment also charges Chauvin with willfully depriving a 14-year old Minneapolis resident of the constitutional right to be free from the use of unreasonable force by a police officer, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

Count one of this indictment alleges that on Sept. 4, 2017, Chauvin, without legal justification, held the teenager by the throat and struck the teenager multiple times in the head with a flashlight. The indictment alleges that this use of a flashlight equates to a dangerous weapon and resulted in bodily injury.

Count Two of the indictment charges that Chauvin held his knee on the neck and the upper back of the teenager even after the teenager was lying prone, handcuffed, and unresisting, also resulting in bodily injury.

Both indictments charge violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242. 18 U.S.C. § 242, which states that it is a crime for a government official to willfully violate a person’s constitutional rights.

An indictment is merely a formal accusation of criminal conduct.

These charges are separate from the charges Minnesota has brought against these former officers, and the Department of Justice probe announced April 21. Specifically, these charges allege criminal offenses for violating the U.S. Constitution.

On April 20, a jury found Chauvin guilty on charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

Floyd’s family settled a civil lawsuit with the city of Minneapolis for a record $27 million.

The federal criminal cases are being prosecuted by Acting U.S. Attorney W. Anders Folk of the District of Minnesota, Special Litigation Counsel Samantha Trepel and Trial Attorney Tara Allison of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys Samantha Bates, LeeAnn Bell, Evan Gilead, Manda Sertich and Allen Slaughter of the District of Minnesota.

(The Center Square) – The teachers union in the middle of a scandal for influencing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's official school reopening guidance gave nearly $20 million to Democrats in the 2020 election cycle, filings show.

Federal election filings reveal that the American Federation of Teachers and its local affiliates spent $19,903,532 on political donations during the 2020 cycle, with nearly all of the funds going to Democrats and liberal groups.

Last year’s AFT donations include $5,251,400 for the Democrats Senate Majority PAC and $4,600,000 for the Democratic House Majority PAC, according to data compiled by The Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets database.

Besides PACs that supported Congressional Democrats, the AFT network also gave to groups like “For Our Future,” a liberal organization that received more than $1.5 million and heralded Biden’s inauguration on Twitter.

“There is so much to celebrate today,” the group wrote on inauguration day. “While we know there is ‘much to repair, much to restore, much to heal, much to build, and much to gain.’ And we're ready, #PresidentBiden & #KamalaHarrisVP!”

AFT affiliates gave to Democratic federal Congressional candidates over Republicans more than 99% of the time in the 2020 cycle, filings show.

The AFT has come under fire recently for its role in shaping CDC guidance around schools reopening. The New York Post reported last weekend on emails between top White House, CDC, and AFT officials that show the AFT crafting language and overall working closely with the CDC. The communication intensified ahead of the CDC’s planned Feb. 12 announcement to recommend whether schools should reopen.

In that February announcement, the CDC ultimately sided with the teachers union and delayed issuing guidance that schools should resume fully in-person classes.

After the emails emerged, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter Wednesday to CDC Director Rochelle Walensky alleging that political influence from the teachers unions and White House influenced the federal agency’s official guidance. The Republicans argue the agency put “politics over science and Biden-Harris campaign donors over children.“

“Despite prior questions on the matter, recently released emails show that the AFT and NEA were able to weigh in on and lobby for changes made in the CDC’s Operational Strategy for Reopening Schools, the agency’s guidance for reopening schools around the country,” the Energy and Commerce Committee said in a statement.

The AFT defended its lobbying Thursday, saying the CDC should welcome input from other stakeholders and that it is simply representing the interests of their members.

“The AFT represents 1.7 million educators, healthcare professionals and public employees who spent the last 14 months serving on the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic,” AFT President Randi Weingarten said. "So naturally, we have been in regular touch with the agencies setting policy that affect their work and lives, including the CDC. We appreciate that under Dr. Walensky’s leadership, the CDC welcomes stakeholder feedback, as opposed to ignoring it.”

The National Education Association network, another large teachers union that consulted on the CDC guidance, gave nearly $15 million to Democratic-tied causes in the 2020 cycle, the vast majority of its spending. The AFT and NEA both endorsed Biden for president in March of last year.

Critics say the donations show teachers unions used their wealth as leverage to influence the Biden Administration.

“The unions knew exactly what they were buying in 2020,” said Aaron Withe, CEO of the Freedom Foundation. "We now see how well that investment is paying off.

“For over a year now, we’ve been told to listen to the science and to follow the guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control,” Withe added. “Now we learn the government health bureaucracy we’ve been told is leading us through this pandemic is actually taking its cue from the teachers unions who’ve been holding our kids hostage to their political demands.”

Weingarten argues, though, her union lobbies Republicans as well, not just Democrats.

“In fact, we contacted the agency more in 2020 during the Trump administration than we have during the Biden administration in 2021 – requesting additional guidance, questioning policy, providing testimony and offering an educator and healthcare worker perspective,” Weingarten said. “And while we have at times been concerned about their conclusions – as we were initially with the change in classroom physical distancing rules – we respect deeply that the CDC career staff has always taken its responsibility seriously.”

Some on the right have called for Walensky’s resignation over the controversy.

“The CDC is supposed [to] be occupied by scientists who do not bow to political influence. This obviously is not the case under Dr. Walensky’s leadership,” said Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., who is also a doctor. “As the most important public health official in America, she should have had the fortitude to reject AFT’s influence in the CDC’s recommendations.”

(The Center Square) – A grassroots coalition of conservatives and Republican state leaders is pushing back after the Biden administration tied federal education funding to adopting controversial critical race theory teachings in schools' curriculum.

The Biden administration in April proposed a new Department of Education rule that gives preference in grant awarding to schools that incorporate into their curriculum content from the “1619 Project,” a controversial history project that is the most prominent work containing critical race theory ideas.

Critical race theory proponents argue that “the law and legal institutions in the United States are inherently racist insofar as they function to create and maintain social, economic, and political inequalities between whites and nonwhites, especially African Americans,” according to Britannica.

In the rule proposal, the Department of Education specifically notes the “1619 Project,” a long-form history writing project carried out by the New York Times that has come under heavy scrutiny from historians and many on the right. Notably, the 1619 project promoted an idea central to many critical race theorists, the teaching that racism and protecting slavery was a driving motivation for the American revolution. The New York Times later walked back that assertion.

“If you remember, The 1619 Project says America's not founded in 1776 with our revolution, it's not founded in 1788 with the adoption of our Constitution,” said University of California at Berkley Professor of Law John Yoo. “It's really founded in 1619 when the first African-American slaves are brought to the United States, and our history ever since then has been one of oppression.”

Critics argue it over-emphasizes the role of racism in American history and is politically motivated revisionist history.

“Parents in particular fear the dissemination of illiberal ideas to their children under the guise of ‘equity,’ and have begun to band together to challenge the movement at the state level,” the Manhattan Institute said in a statement.

Republican lawmakers sent a letter to the Biden administration last week arguing taxpayer funds should not be used to promulgate the theory but no response has been reported so far.

The DOE’s rule proposal references multiple controversial anti-racist activists and says schools will be given funding preference if they “take into account systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history” and help students in “understanding their own biases.”

State Battles

Several states have taken up the fight against critical race theory in the education system, including Louisiana, Florida, Texas and Tennessee, among others.

The Texas Senate passed a bill last week to prevent the states’ teachers from being forced to comply with any mandates to teach critical race theory.

“Texans reject critical race theory and other so-called ‘woke’ philosophies that maintain that one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex or that any individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive,” Texas’ Republican Lt. Governor Dan Patrick said. “These divisive concepts have been inserted into curriculums around the state, but they have no place in Texas schools.”

Republicans in other states have pushed back against the DOE rule, saying local leaders have authority over education in their states, not the federal government.

“When Texan parents send their children to school, they expect their students to learn to think critically without being forced to consume misinformation about our country’s founding and the biases of advocacy groups that seek to belittle our democracy and divide us,” Patrick said.

Tennessee Republicans advanced a bill Monday that would ban the state's schools from teaching critical race theory.

Florida Gov. Ron Desantis expressly attacked the idea in unveiling new education spending for his state in March.

“Florida civics curriculum will incorporate foundational concepts with the best materials, and it will expressly exclude unsanctioned narratives like critical race theory and other unsubstantiated theories,” Desantis said.

Grassroots Opposition

A grassroots swell of Americans, mostly on the right, are pushing back against the ideology and argue their tax dollars should not be used to fund it.

The debate over critical race theory hit a high point last year when former President Donald Trump banned federal agencies from using critical race theory materials in their training.

“It has come to the President's attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda,” Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget under Trump, wrote in a letter to the heads of federal agencies last September.

“These types of ‘trainings’ not only run counter to the fundamental beliefs for which our Nation has stood since its inception, but they also engender division and resentment within the Federal workforce,” the letter reads.

The Trump administration’s letter sparked headlines and backlash. However, he received praise from Republicans, many of whom say they are wary of left-leaning curriculum that presents anti-American sentiments, especially when used for educating children.

Political Maneuvering

The Biden administration’s push for critical race theory at the federal level has provided a rallying point for Republicans to attack Biden and use his views for fundraising and campaigning going into 2022.

“On Day One, through executive order, I will immediately instruct the Georgia Department of Education to prohibit the teaching of Critical Race Theory within our public schools,” Vernon Jones, Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, wrote on Twitter. “It’s time for our schools to stop teaching our kids to hate America.”

Biden’s position has become a major talking point for conservative grassroots organizations.

“If you’re looking for institutional racism, it exists within Critical Race Theory,” said conservative author and speaker Candace Owens. “Ban it. At every level. It is the new Jim Crow.”

Beyond the state level, critical race theory is also shaping up to be a defining issue of the 2024 presidential race. Those leaders considered top contenders for the Republican nomination – Florida's Desantis, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and former Vice President Mike Pence – have all been vocal critics.

Hawley called for an investigation into the use of critical race theory in federal agencies last year, and DeSantis has used a common conservative line of attack against the educational dogma, calling it “marxism” on Fox News.

“I do think we need to rediscover in our K-12 system the founding of the country, what makes our country unique,” DeSantis said. “But when you do that, it’s got to be true and solid and factual. And you can’t let it become infected with left wing ideology like Critical Race Theory.”

“Critical race theory is basically teaching people to hate our country, hate each other,” he added. “It’s divisive and it’s basically an identity politics version of Marxism.”

The bill passed, 216-208, without any Republican support.

A Rasmussen poll released in March found only 29% of Americans supported D.C. statehood and 55% opposed it. The rest were unsure.

“In no other democratic nation in the world does the capital city of that nation not have a vote in their parliament,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., “Now our ‘parliament’ is called the Congress. Think of that, in no other democratic nation in the world are their citizens treated unequally in terms of a vote in the parliament of their nation.”

Many constitutional scholars, though, argued D.C. statehood cannot be accomplished through legislation.

“DC statehood can only happen by constitutional amendment," said Jenna Ellis, who was a legal adviser to former President Donald Trump and is a constitutional law attorney. “The founders designed the district because federal government needs to have independent control over the seat of government. Read Federalist 43.”

The District of Columbia has a population of roughly 700,000, more than Vermont or Wyoming and just a little less than Alaska. The district already has a nonvoting Democratic representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton. She praised the bill’s passage.

“Today’s victory was historic, both for D.C. residents and for the cause of D.C. statehood,” Norton said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed support for D.C. statehood when it was passed during the Trump administration, but that legislation never gained traction. This time around, the bill faces a difficult road ahead in the Senate.

“It is past time to end the historic disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens and make D.C. a state,” Sen. Schumer said when the provision passed the House last year. “As one of my top priorities when it comes to voting rights and democracy reform, I will keep working in the Senate to secure statehood, full voting rights and full home rule, for D.C. in this Congress and beyond.”

Hoyer, though, also called for an end to the filibuster to get this legislation and their other controversial agenda items to the president’s desk.

“There are no provisions in the Constitution about a filibuster, so, frankly, I think that filibuster rule ought to be eliminated in the United States so that democracy can prevail,” Hoyer said.

The statehood legislation provides that “the commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states." That means representation in the House and Senate and notably, more weight in Congress likely going to the Democratic Party.

The residents of Washington voted more than 90% for both Hillary Clinton in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020, leaving little doubt about what party their members of Congress would support.

Republicans pointed to this leftward bias as evidence that D.C. statehood is only about expanding Democratic power.

“The Democrats’ D.C. statehood scheme is about two things: consolidating power and enacting radical policies,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “The American people see right through this blatant power grab.”

A contingent within the district has pushed for statehood for years under the motto, “taxation without representation,” a reference to the same slogan that united the American colonies against the British during the American Revolution. That motto dons license plates registered in the district today.

"I voted YES for DC statehood,” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, wrote on Twitter. “The Districts 700,000 residents, who pay more taxes than 21 states, deserve full representation and an equal voice. No taxation without representation.”