WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument

It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.

In tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.

The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.

Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.

Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.

Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.

The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.

Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.

The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.

The plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.

They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.

Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.

Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.

One thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.

The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.

Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.

Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.

What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.

Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.

If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.

If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.

But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.

What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?

Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.

It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday heard two hours of&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-insurrection-trump-2024-election-397a481d2886b64bba06b24ff3d03f37">historic arguments</a>&nbsp;in a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">Colorado case</a>&nbsp;to remove former President Donald Trump from the ballot. The justices sounded highly skeptical of the effort.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen </a>to a replay of the oral argument<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Fmr Pres. Trump: &quot;In watching the Supreme Court today I thought it was a very beautiful process. I hope that democracy in this country will continue because right now we have a very, very tough situation with all of the radical left ideas with the weaponization of politics...&quot; <a href="https://t.co/cFn0Lh7TKk">pic.twitter.com/cFn0Lh7TKk</a>&mdash; CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1755650525855420441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>It's the first time that voters have tried to block a candidate from the presidency under a once-obscure post-Civil War constitutional provision barring those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.Some takeaways from the arguments:TRUMP SEEMS LIKELY STAY ON THE BALLOTIn tone and tenor, the justices' questions challenged the notion that a state court can order a presidential contender off the ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. That section bars those who engage in insurrection from holding office.The case was brought by a group of Republican and independent voters, and the state of Colorado. Their argument was rooted in the idea that states have the ability to police their own ballots and bar Trump for his role in the violent insurrection on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The riot stemmed from Trump's refusal to accept the results of the presidential election that the Republican lost to Democrat Joe Biden.From across the court's ideological divide, there was near consensus that the Colorado arguments were flawed.Justice Elena Kagan called the issue of determining whether someone engaged in insurrection “just more complicated and more contested and more political.” Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanagh and Chief Justice John Roberts questioned Jason Murray, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, about what would stop other states from citing Section 3 in taking aim at politicians they didn't like.Murray gave well-rehearsed arguments that won the day in the Colorado Supreme Court, whose 4-3 ruling that Trump was ineligible got the case to Washington. Murray contended that the Capitol riot was a once-in-history sort of event and that courts would ensure that the provision isn't abused. But that line did not not seem to persuade the justices.A WAY OUT?Section 3 presents a quandary for judges, who are reluctant to make decisions that reorder democratic elections, especially without a precedent. The provision doesn't spell out any procedures or even the meaning of “insurrection.” It just says anyone who engaged in one can't hold office.The court's best way out may be a lookback to an 1869 case known as Griffin's case. That involved a Virginia man who argued he couldn't have been convicted of a crime because the judge who heard his case was, as a former Confederate, disqualified from office under Section 3.Salmon Chase, who was then the chief justice of the Supreme Court, heard the case while acting as an appellate judge. He ruled that Congress had to create a mechanism for Section 3 to take effect. Congress did, but the measure expired in the 1940s.The justices repeatedly asked about Griffin's case. Trump's lawyers have argued it is still the only rational way for Section 3 to be applied. Chase had argued previously that Section 3 took effect automatically so the plaintiffs seeking to disqualify Trump contended his ruling was not good law. But that line of argument clearly didn’t carry the day.JAN. 6 GETS LITTLE MENTIONThe plaintiffs wanted this case to be about Jan. 6, not Griffin’s case. That sums up their problem.They hoped for a Supreme Court affirmation that the former president did engage in insurrection and threaten the Constitution with his campaign to stay in office after his 2020 loss. But the justices weren’t going there.Instead, they focused on the potential legal chaos of allowing state courts to decide who can be president. Kavanagh noted there is a federal law against insurrection and it bars those convicted from holding office. Trump has not been charged with violating that law.Trump would like the high court to declare him not responsible for the violence on Jan. 6. There was little indication that would happen because the matter barely came up.A DIFFERENT HISTORYOne thing that has distinguished the case is the extent of historical argument about the origins of Section 3, which has largely laid dormant since a congressional amnesty to most Confederates in 1872. Trump's main argument is that the provision isn't meant to apply to the presidency because that office isn't specifically mentioned, while senator, member of Congress and even presidential and vice presidential electors are.The argument largely revolved around obscure issues, but Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson, seemed curious. The plaintiffs have argued it would be absurd to bar people from all sorts of lower offices while leaving the most powerful one open. But Jackson, the first Black female justice, contended that the 14th Amendment was mainly about making sure “the South will not rise again” — meaning the states.Perhaps, she continued, the provision's authors presumed that keeping insurrectionists from serving as electors would be a sufficient safeguard against an insurrectionist president. Murray noted that in the congressional debate on the provision, a senator asked why the section didn't apply to the presidency and one of its authors pointed at language intended to include that office. But it's unclear that convinced Jackson or the court.WHAT'S NEXT?Going into the case, the prevailing view of legal experts was the Supreme Court would keep Trump on the ballot. That sense has grown now.What else the court decides will have major implications for both Section 3 and potentially other constitutional provisions. The justices all sounded skeptical of letting states decide Section 3.Murray acknowledged under questioning that there's no way to bring a federal lawsuit challenging a president's qualifications, so if the court bars state action, that would end efforts to challenge Trump's place on the ballot.If the court rules the provision doesn't apply to presidents, it could open up other sections of the Constitution such as the emoluments clause, which prohibits officials from accepting gifts from foreign countries, to new interpretation. Lawyers had attempted to apply this to Trump during his presidency but the case was rendered moot after he left office.If the court takes the Griffin's case route, the justices could say it's up to Congress to draw up new procedures to implement Section 3. That would likely kill all Section 3 challenges for the foreseeable future because a divided Congress is unlikely to accomplish that anytime soon.But Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised an unsettling possibility in her questioning of Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell.What if, she asked, Trump is elected and a new Congress writes rules applying Section 3 to him. Would that conflict with the impeachment clause? Would it mean a reelected President Trump suddenly becomes ineligible?Mitchell said he thought that would be legal, implying Congress could potentially remove Trump, or another president, from office.It may be a remote possibility, but it's the sort of hypothetical that underscored another point: However much the court may want to do away with Section 3, it could come back to haunt them in a sequel.

🎥 Trump responds to historic Supreme Court ballot ban hearing 

BLAIR, Neb. (AP) — A man accused of killing a priest in a small Nebraska town pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges on Thursday.

Kierre Williams, 43, of Sioux City, Iowa, also is accused of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, burglary and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His next court date is March 5,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-priest-killed-man-charged-pleads-not-guilty/46684987">KETV-TV</a>&nbsp;reported.

Prosecutors have said there doesn’t appear to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-catholic-priest-killed-gutgsell-e634b68f496074893b58eb45229805ed">any connection</a>&nbsp;between Williams and the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10 inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.

Williams' attorney has declined to discuss the case.

The priest’s death came four months after another seemingly random home invasion killing in the town of 1,100 and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-priest-woman-killed-community-reacts-896ccd64f049303fb79bc36e08b92d01">shook residents’ confidence</a>&nbsp;in their safety.

At a hearing last month, Washington County Deputy Brady Tucker testified that he found Williams lying crossways on top of Gutgsell, whose face was covered with blood. Williams didn’t have a weapon, but investigators later found a broken knife with a serrated blade lying in a blood stain on the floor of Gutgsell’s bedroom, authorities said.

Williams has several felony convictions in other states.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707420437890.jpeg" alt="FILE - Kierre Williams, right, sits with his attorneys in court, Jan. 3, 2024, in Blair, Neb. Williams of Sioux City, Iowa, pleaded not guilty Thursday, Feb. 8, in the attack that killed the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10, 2023, inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in tiny Fort Calhoun, Neb. (AP Photo/Josh Funk, File)" />
 <figcaption>FILE - Kierre Williams, right, sits with his attorneys in court, Jan. 3, 2024, in Blair, Neb. Williams of Sioux City, Iowa, pleaded not guilty Thursday, Feb. 8, in the attack that killed the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10, 2023, inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in tiny Fort Calhoun, Neb. (AP Photo/Josh Funk, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>Associated PressBLAIR, Neb. (AP) — A man accused of killing a priest in a small Nebraska town pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and other charges on Thursday.Kierre Williams, 43, of Sioux City, Iowa, also is accused of using a deadly weapon to commit a felony, burglary and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His next court date is March 5,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ketv.com/article/nebraska-priest-killed-man-charged-pleads-not-guilty/46684987">KETV-TV</a>&nbsp;reported.Prosecutors have said there doesn’t appear to be&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-catholic-priest-killed-gutgsell-e634b68f496074893b58eb45229805ed">any connection</a>&nbsp;between Williams and the Rev. Stephen Gutgsell, who was fatally stabbed on Dec. 10 inside the rectory for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in Fort Calhoun, Nebraska.Williams' attorney has declined to discuss the case.The priest’s death came four months after another seemingly random home invasion killing in the town of 1,100 and&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/nebraska-priest-woman-killed-community-reacts-896ccd64f049303fb79bc36e08b92d01">shook residents’ confidence</a>&nbsp;in their safety.At a hearing last month, Washington County Deputy Brady Tucker testified that he found Williams lying crossways on top of Gutgsell, whose face was covered with blood. Williams didn’t have a weapon, but investigators later found a broken knife with a serrated blade lying in a blood stain on the floor of Gutgsell’s bedroom, authorities said.Williams has several felony convictions in other states.

Man accused of killing a priest in Nebraska pleads not guilty

FEBRUARY 8, 2024 (LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested a Beatrice man following a crash in Gage County.

At approximately 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, a trooper was on patrol in Cortland when he observed a Jeep Cherokee traveling at a high rate of speed on southbound Highway 77. The trooper turned around to attempt a traffic stop.

As the trooper was attempting a traffic stop approximately one mile south of Cortland, he observed the Jeep attempt a U-turn on Highway 77. As the vehicle entered the northbound lanes, it struck a Cadillac DTS that was turning northbound from a private driveway.

The trooper arrived on scene seconds later. The drivers of both vehicles, as well as a passenger in the Jeep, all suffered minor injuries. All were transported to Bryan Health West Campus in Lincoln where they were treated and released.

Following the crash, NSP received information that the Lincoln 911 center had received a report that the Jeep had been driving recklessly north of Cortland as well.

The driver of the Jeep, Michael Flowers, 23, of Beatrice, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol – 2nd&nbsp;offense, willful reckless driving, driving under revocation, flight to avoid arrest, open alcohol container, and several traffic violations. He was lodged in Gage County Jail.

Cody ThomasNebraska State PatrolFEBRUARY 8, 2024 (LINCOLN, NEB.)&nbsp;&nbsp;— Troopers with the Nebraska State Patrol have arrested a Beatrice man following a crash in Gage County.At approximately 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, a trooper was on patrol in Cortland when he observed a Jeep Cherokee traveling at a high rate of speed on southbound Highway 77. The trooper turned around to attempt a traffic stop.As the trooper was attempting a traffic stop approximately one mile south of Cortland, he observed the Jeep attempt a U-turn on Highway 77. As the vehicle entered the northbound lanes, it struck a Cadillac DTS that was turning northbound from a private driveway.The trooper arrived on scene seconds later. The drivers of both vehicles, as well as a passenger in the Jeep, all suffered minor injuries. All were transported to Bryan Health West Campus in Lincoln where they were treated and released.Following the crash, NSP received information that the Lincoln 911 center had received a report that the Jeep had been driving recklessly north of Cortland as well.The driver of the Jeep, Michael Flowers, 23, of Beatrice, was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol – 2nd&nbsp;offense, willful reckless driving, driving under revocation, flight to avoid arrest, open alcohol container, and several traffic violations. He was lodged in Gage County Jail.The investigation remains ongoing.

Beatrice Man Arrested for DUI after Crash in Gage County

United States Attorney Susan Lehr announced that Royce Love, 45, of Kearney, Nebraska, was sentenced on February 2, 2024, in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska, for receipt of child pornography.&nbsp; 

Senior United States District Judge John M. Gerrard sentenced Love to 84 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After Love is released from prison, he will begin an 8-year term of supervised release.

Love was contacted online by a vigilante group who posed as a minor female. A conversation ensued in which the group attempted to get Love to agree to meet with the minor female for a sex act. Ultimately, Love stopped communicating with the account and blocked it without ever agreeing to meet. The group then confronted Love in person at his residence and called police.

Love agreed to allow to law enforcement to search his phone. When the search was performed, police discovered multiple images of child pornography involving minor females. Police contacted Love again about a week later when the search was complete. After being advised of the&nbsp;Miranda&nbsp;warnings, Love was asked about the images. Love said he could not remember exactly where he had obtained the images, but he did acknowledge receiving them over the internet.

Additional electronic devices were seized after the second interview. When those devices were searched, police located additional images depicting children engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

This case was investigated by the Kearney Police Department and brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.justice.gov/psc" target="_blank">www.justice.gov/psc</a>.

Department of JusticeUnited States Attorney Susan Lehr announced that Royce Love, 45, of Kearney, Nebraska, was sentenced on February 2, 2024, in federal court in Lincoln, Nebraska, for receipt of child pornography.&nbsp; Senior United States District Judge John M. Gerrard sentenced Love to 84 months’ imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal system. After Love is released from prison, he will begin an 8-year term of supervised release.Love was contacted online by a vigilante group who posed as a minor female. A conversation ensued in which the group attempted to get Love to agree to meet with the minor female for a sex act. Ultimately, Love stopped communicating with the account and blocked it without ever agreeing to meet. The group then confronted Love in person at his residence and called police.Love agreed to allow to law enforcement to search his phone. When the search was performed, police discovered multiple images of child pornography involving minor females. Police contacted Love again about a week later when the search was complete. After being advised of the&nbsp;Miranda&nbsp;warnings, Love was asked about the images. Love said he could not remember exactly where he had obtained the images, but he did acknowledge receiving them over the internet.Additional electronic devices were seized after the second interview. When those devices were searched, police located additional images depicting children engaging in sexually explicit conduct.This case was investigated by the Kearney Police Department and brought as part of Project Safe Childhood, a nationwide initiative to combat the growing epidemic of child sexual exploitation and abuse launched in May 2006 by the Department of Justice. Led by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and CEOS, Project Safe Childhood marshals federal, state and local resources to better locate, apprehend and prosecute individuals who exploit children via the Internet, as well as to identify and rescue victims. For more information about Project Safe Childhood, please visit&nbsp;<a href="http://www.justice.gov/psc" target="_blank">www.justice.gov/psc</a>.

Kearney Man Sentenced for Receiving and Possessing Child Pornography

In the&nbsp;2024 Best Online Programs rankings from U.S. News &amp; World Report, the UNMC College of Nursing’s online master’s in nursing program ranked 70th out of 186 ranked schools. This places it in the top half of the rankings, which U.S. News &amp; World Report&nbsp;released Feb. 7.&nbsp;

The UNMC College of Nursing has shown steady increases in its ranking, said Lepaine Sharp-McHenry, DNP dean of the UNMC College of Nursing.

“We expect our ranking to continue to climb as we continually assess our online master’s programs to ensure quality and relevance to the needs of our state and beyond,” Dr. Sharp-McHenry said.

Five categories were used to rank the programs: Engagement, faculty credentials and training, services and technology, student excellence and&nbsp;opinions of experts.

The UNMC College of Nursing offers a variety of master’s and Doctor&nbsp;of Nursing Practice degree specialties that use online and other teaching formats. The programs prepare nurse practitioners in specialty tracks for women’s health, adult gerontology, pediatric, acute care, family health, psychiatric mental health,&nbsp;and executives in nursing administration.

<a href="https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/nursing/rankings" target="_blank">See the full rankings</a>.

As Nebraska’s only public academic health science center, the University of Nebraska Medical Center enrolls more than 4,500 students across six colleges, two institutes and a graduate studies program. Its mission is to create a healthier future for Nebraskans through premier education, research&nbsp;and clinical care, but its impact -- rooted in a culture of collaboration,&nbsp;big ideas&nbsp;and public-private partnerships – goes far beyond, in areas that include infectious diseases, rural health, cancer research and treatments, global health security, and&nbsp;simulation and experiential learning technologies.&nbsp;

<a href="https://twitter.com/unmc" target="_blank">Twitter</a>  |  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/unmcedu" target="_blank">Facebook</a>  |  <a href="https://instagram.com/iamunmc" target="_blank">Instagram</a>  |  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/UNMCEDU" target="_blank">YouTube</a>  |  <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unmc/" target="_blank">Flickr</a>&nbsp;

UNMCIn the&nbsp;2024 Best Online Programs rankings from U.S. News &amp; World Report, the UNMC College of Nursing’s online master’s in nursing program ranked 70th out of 186 ranked schools. This places it in the top half of the rankings, which U.S. News &amp; World Report&nbsp;released Feb. 7.&nbsp;The UNMC College of Nursing has shown steady increases in its ranking, said Lepaine Sharp-McHenry, DNP dean of the UNMC College of Nursing.“We expect our ranking to continue to climb as we continually assess our online master’s programs to ensure quality and relevance to the needs of our state and beyond,” Dr. Sharp-McHenry said.Five categories were used to rank the programs: Engagement, faculty credentials and training, services and technology, student excellence and&nbsp;opinions of experts.The UNMC College of Nursing offers a variety of master’s and Doctor&nbsp;of Nursing Practice degree specialties that use online and other teaching formats. The programs prepare nurse practitioners in specialty tracks for women’s health, adult gerontology, pediatric, acute care, family health, psychiatric mental health,&nbsp;and executives in nursing administration.<a href="https://www.usnews.com/education/online-education/nursing/rankings" target="_blank">See the full rankings</a>.About UNMC&nbsp;As Nebraska’s only public academic health science center, the University of Nebraska Medical Center enrolls more than 4,500 students across six colleges, two institutes and a graduate studies program. Its mission is to create a healthier future for Nebraskans through premier education, research&nbsp;and clinical care, but its impact -- rooted in a culture of collaboration,&nbsp;big ideas&nbsp;and public-private partnerships – goes far beyond, in areas that include infectious diseases, rural health, cancer research and treatments, global health security, and&nbsp;simulation and experiential learning technologies.&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/unmc" target="_blank">Twitter</a>  |  <a href="https://www.facebook.com/unmcedu" target="_blank">Facebook</a>  |  <a href="https://instagram.com/iamunmc" target="_blank">Instagram</a>  |  <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/UNMCEDU" target="_blank">YouTube</a>  |  <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unmc/" target="_blank">Flickr</a>&nbsp;

UNMC College of Nursing online master’s program ranks among best

On February 2, 2024, at approximately 11:00pm, an on-duty Buffalo County Sheriff's Office deputy sheriff was involved in a two-motor vehicle crash at the intersection of 56th Street and Ave N, in Kearney. 

The preliminary investigation revealed the 61-year-old male deputy sheriff, while operating a marked Sheriff's Office vehicle, was traveling eastbound on 56th Street and the other vehicle, driven by a 29-year-old female, was northbound on Avenue N, turning westbound onto 56th Street at the time of the collision. The deputy sheriff is a 33-year veteran deputy with the Buffalo County Sheriff's Office.&nbsp;

Both drivers were transported to CHI Good Samaritan Hospital for medical treatment. The deputy was treated and released for minor injuries sustained during the crash. We expect a full recovery and return to duty. On behalf of the Buffalo County Sheriff's Office, our thoughts and concern remain with the other driver and her continued recovery.&nbsp;

The Nebraska State Patrol is investigating the collision. Please refer all media inquiries related to this collision to the Nebraska State Patrol.&nbsp;

The Buffalo County Sheriff's Office would like to thank the responding agencies for their quick response and efforts in treating for both drivers, Nebraska State Patrol, Kearney Police Department, Kearney Volunteer Fire Department, and CHI Good Samaritan paramedics. 

Buffalo County Sheriff's OfficeOn February 2, 2024, at approximately 11:00pm, an on-duty Buffalo County Sheriff's Office deputy sheriff was involved in a two-motor vehicle crash at the intersection of 56th Street and Ave N, in Kearney. The preliminary investigation revealed the 61-year-old male deputy sheriff, while operating a marked Sheriff's Office vehicle, was traveling eastbound on 56th Street and the other vehicle, driven by a 29-year-old female, was northbound on Avenue N, turning westbound onto 56th Street at the time of the collision. The deputy sheriff is a 33-year veteran deputy with the Buffalo County Sheriff's Office.&nbsp;Both drivers were transported to CHI Good Samaritan Hospital for medical treatment. The deputy was treated and released for minor injuries sustained during the crash. We expect a full recovery and return to duty. On behalf of the Buffalo County Sheriff's Office, our thoughts and concern remain with the other driver and her continued recovery.&nbsp;The Nebraska State Patrol is investigating the collision. Please refer all media inquiries related to this collision to the Nebraska State Patrol.&nbsp;The Buffalo County Sheriff's Office would like to thank the responding agencies for their quick response and efforts in treating for both drivers, Nebraska State Patrol, Kearney Police Department, Kearney Volunteer Fire Department, and CHI Good Samaritan paramedics.

Buffalo County Sheriff's Office deputy involved in motor vehicle crash. 

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.

Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas.

"It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.

The names of the Marines were not immediately released.

“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”

Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.

The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — Five U.S. Marines aboard a helicopter that&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/marine-helicopter-san-diego-a1498c3de5cc4d3bd6f59a97f10a4c74">went down during stormy weather</a>&nbsp;in the mountains outside of San Diego are confirmed dead, military said Thursday.<div><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Update: The five 3rd MAW Marines have been confirmed deceased. “To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time.” -Maj. Gen. Borgschulte, 3rd MAW Commanding General <a href="https://t.co/CBLs2jDKWG">pic.twitter.com/CBLs2jDKWG</a>&mdash; 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing (@3rdmaw) <a href="https://twitter.com/3rdmaw/status/1755576079710818351?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 8, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>Authorities say the CH-53E Super Stallion vanished late Tuesday night while returning to Marine Corps Air Station Miramar in San Diego after training at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas."It is with a heavy heart and profound sadness that I share the loss of five outstanding Marines from 3d Marine Aircraft Wing and the “Flying Tigers,” Maj. Gen. Michael J. Borgschulte, commander of 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, said in a statement.The names of the Marines were not immediately released.“To the families of our fallen Marines, we send our deepest condolences and commit to ensuring your support and care during this incredibly difficult time,” Borgshulte said. “Though we understand the inherent risks of military service, any loss of life is always difficult.”Efforts to recover the remains of the five have begun and an investigation into the crash is underway, according to the statement.The craft was discovered Wednesday morning near the mountain community of Pine Valley, an hour’s drive from San Diego.

5 Marines aboard helicopter that crashed confirmed dead

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.

<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral arguments

In more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.

Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”

Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.

Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.

In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.

Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”

Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.

It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.

Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”

Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.

For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.

The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.

A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.

A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.

The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.

Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.

The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.

People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.

The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.

Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.

In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.

The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.

The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707402813598.png" alt="Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN" />
 <figcaption>Protests Thursday morning outside the U.S. Supreme Court -image courtesy CSPAN</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday sounded broadly skeptical of efforts to kick former President Donald Trump off the 2024 ballot.<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2023/23-719">Click here to listen</a> to a replay of the oral argumentsIn more than two hours of arguments, both conservative and liberal justices raised questions of whether Trump can be disqualified from being president again because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The primary concern was whether Congress must act before states can invoke a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again. There also were questions about whether the president is covered by the provision.Without such congressional legislation, Justice Elena Kagan was among several justices who wanted to know “why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States.”Eight of the nine justices suggested that they were open to at least some of the arguments made by Jonathan Mitchell, Trump's lawyer at the Supreme Court. Trump could win his case if the court finds just one of those arguments persuasive.Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor sounded like she might vote to uphold the&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruling that found that Trump “engaged in insurrection” and is ineligible to be president. The state court ruled Trump should not be on the ballot for the state's Republican primary on March 5.In another sign of trouble for the Colorado voters who sued to remove Trump from the ballot, the justices spent almost no time talking about whether Trump actually “engaged in insurrection” following the 2020 election.Lawyer Jason Murray, representing the voters, pressed the point that Trump incited the Capitol attack to prevent the peaceful handover of power “for the first time in history.”Mitchell argued that the Capitol riot was not an insurrection and, even if it was, Trump did not participate.The case marks the first time the justices are considering Section 3 of the 14th amendment.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.Chief Justice John Roberts worried that a ruling against Trump would prompt efforts to disqualify other candidates, “and surely some of those will succeed.”Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;has begun hearing former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-UpNUmxKSc">to remain on the 2024 ballot</a>, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court, meeting Thursday, is weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices are considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.Justice Clarence Thomas is the only member of the court who also took part in Bush v. Gore. Thomas has ignored calls by some Democratic lawmakers to step aside from the case because his wife, Ginni, supported Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election results and attended the rally that preceded the storming of the Capitol by Trump supporters.------------------WASHINGTON (AP) — The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court">Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;on Thursday will hear former President&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/donald-trump">Donald Trump's</a>&nbsp;appeal to remain on the 2024 ballot, the justices' most consequential election case since Bush v. Gore in 2000.The court will be weighing arguments over whether Trump is disqualified from reclaiming the White House because of his efforts to undo his loss in the 2020 election, ending with&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Jan. 6, 2021, attack</a>&nbsp;on the U.S. Capitol.The case marks the first time the justices will be considering a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-14th-amendment-insurrection-supreme-court-colorado-7703a30566ce2588fb92bf22dd20c84d">constitutional provision</a>&nbsp;that was adopted after the Civil War to prevent former officeholders who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office again.It sets up precisely the kind of case that the court likes to avoid, one in which it is the final arbiter of a political dispute.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-insurrection-14th-amendment-2024-colorado-d16dd8f354eeaf450558378c65fd79a2">Colorado Supreme Court</a>&nbsp;ruled that Trump incited the riot in the nation’s capital and is ineligible to be president again. As a result, he should not be on the ballot for the state’s primary on March 5, the court ruled. It was the first time that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment was applied to a presidential candidate.Trump's lawyers argue that the amendment can't be used to keep Trump off the ballot for several reasons.For one thing, they contend the Jan. 6 riot wasn't an insurrection, and even if it was, Trump did not participate. The wording of the amendment also excludes the presidency and candidates running for president, they say. Even if they're wrong about all of that, they argue that Congress must pass legislation to reinvigorate Section 3.The lawyers for Republican and independent voters who sued to remove Trump's name from the Colorado ballot counter that there is ample evidence that the events of Jan. 6 constituted an insurrection and that Trump incited it. They say it would be absurd to apply Section 3 to everything but the presidency or that Trump is somehow exempt. And the provision needs no enabling legislation, they argue.A definitive ruling for Trump would largely end efforts in Colorado,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/maine-trump-presidential-ballot-election-insurrection-081fd38ce1f20be9b8423cb2f8c66dee">Maine</a>&nbsp;and elsewhere to prevent his name from appearing on the ballot.A decision upholding the Colorado decision would amount to a declaration from the Supreme Court that Trump did engage in insurrection and is barred by the 14th Amendment from holding office again. That would allow states to keep him off the ballot and imperil his campaign.The justices could opt for a less conclusive outcome, but with the knowledge that the issue could return to them, perhaps after the general election in November and in the midst of a full-blown constitutional crisis.Trump is separately appealing to state court a ruling by Maine’s Democratic secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, that he was ineligible to appear on that state’s ballot over his role in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/congress-confirm-joe-biden-78104aea082995bbd7412a6e6cd13818">the Capitol attack</a>. Both the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine secretary of state’s rulings are on hold until the appeals play out.The court has signaled it will try to act quickly, dramatically shortening the period in which it receives written briefing and holds arguments in the courtroom.People began lining up outside the court on Wednesday hoping to snag one of the few seats allotted to the public. “This is a landmark decision and I want to be in the room where it happened, to quote ‘Hamilton,’” said Susan Acker of Cincinnati, Ohio, who was in line with two friends.The issues may be novel, but Trump is no stranger to the justices,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-14th-amendment-immunity-supreme-court-d3f001f66c5c3e85302b8772753ed769">three of whom Trump appointed</a>&nbsp;when he was president. They have considered many Trump-related cases in recent years, declining to embrace his claims of fraud in the 2020 election and refusing to shield tax records from Congress and prosecutors in New York.Before the Supreme Court is even finished deciding this case, the justices almost certainly will be dealing with another appeal from Trump, who is expected to seek an emergency order to keep his election subversion trial on hold so he can appeal lower-court rulings that he is not immune from criminal charges.In April, the court also will&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-charge-trump-5cf0db4a71766f0b40ec199dd0d5a1ab">hear an appeal</a>&nbsp;from one of the more than 1,200 people charged in&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/capitol-siege">the Capitol riot</a>. The case could upend a charge prosecutors have brought against more than 300 people, including Trump.The court last played so central a role in presidential politics in its 5-4 decision that effectively ended the disputed 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush.

🎧 Supreme Court sounds broadly skeptical of efforts to kick Trump off ballot 

JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.

At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.

At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.

CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/12/1701652753204.png" alt="Photo U.S. Central Command" />
 <figcaption>Photo U.S. Central Command</figcaption>
 </figure>JERUSALEM —Attacks by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels continue and U.S. forces continue to attempt to prevent them.At approximately 9:00 p.m. (Sanaa time) Wednesday, U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes against two Houthi mobile anti-ship cruise missiles prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command.At 11:30 p.m. U.S. forces conducted a second strike against a Houthi mobile land attack cruise missile prepared to launch.CENTCOM identified these missiles in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.

U.S. responds to new Iran-backed rebel threats in Red Sea

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.

Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.

The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.

The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.

Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.

But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.

While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.

Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.

The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.

The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.

Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/1/1673546739694.png" alt="Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;" />
 <figcaption>Biden backing his Corvette into the garage next to stacks of boxes where classified documents were found-image from a 2020 Biden for President campaign ad&nbsp;</figcaption>
 </figure>WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department special counsel investigating&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">President Joe Biden's handling of classified documents</a>&nbsp;has completed his inquiry and a report is expected to be made public soon to Congress and the public, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers in a letter Wednesday.Garland did not detail the conclusions of the report from special counsel Robert Hur, but said he was committed to disclosing as much of the document as possible once the White House completes a review for potential executive privilege concerns. That process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, said Ian Sams, a spokesman for the White House counsel's office.The yearlong investigation centered on the improper retention of classified documents by Biden from his time as a U.S. senator and as vice president. Sensitive records were found at his Delaware home and at a private office that he used in between his service in the Obama administration and becoming president.The resolution of the investigation arrives in a pivotal year for the president&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-election-2024-president-democrats-trump-9c72115656855da89a41cac3f79aa65b">as he pursues reelection in a deeply polarized political time</a>. Though the probe's outcome is expected to lift a legal cloud over Biden, criticism of his handling of classified records could blunt his ability to attack Donald Trump — his presumptive opponent in November — over a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-documents-maralago-politics-florida-charges-bee867f48da593d351c5a91e87c356a9">pending indictment charging the former president with hoarding top-secret files at his Mar-a-Lago estate</a>&nbsp;and obstructing FBI efforts to get them back.Trump and other Republicans are likely to challenge the legitimacy of the investigation by noting that it was launched by the Biden Justice Department.But Garland&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/classified-documents-biden-home-wilmington-33479d12c7cf0a822adb2f44c32b88fd">sought to insulate the department from claims of bias and conflicts of interest by last year appointing Hur</a>, a former U.S. attorney for Maryland during the Trump administration, to handle the Biden investigation and by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/jack-smith-special-counsel-prosecutor-donald-trump-garland-e1fdb71cfc258bc2be48a8b890a9269b">naming a different special counsel, Jack Smith, to oversee investigations into Trump</a>.While the Trump investigation resulted in dozens of felony charges against the ex-president last year, the outcome of the Biden probe is expected to be different. Justice Department policy prohibits the indictment of a sitting president and, unlike in the Trump investigation, no evidence has emerged to suggest that Biden engaged in comparable conduct or willfully held onto records he wasn’t supposed to have.Even so, the White House's response to the discovery of classified documents early last year was delayed and incomplete.The White House did not disclose the Justice Department’s investigation until January 2023,&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-812ef44a5333f6d93423a67a683fa024">when it acknowledged the discovery two months earlier</a>&nbsp;of a “small number” of classified documents by Biden lawyers as they closed an office at the Penn Biden Center, a think tank affiliated with the Ivy League school. Biden&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-us-department-justice-a45855907a73acb256bb7c4dd5a91610">has said he was surprised</a>&nbsp;by the initial trove discovered by his lawyers.The&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-delaware-0827b59ee141b33af95023377713e075">FBI subsequently conducted a 13-hour, top-to-bottom check of his Wilmington, Delaware, home</a>, where agents located documents with classified markings from his time as a vice president and senator and took possession of some of his handwritten notes. Biden’s personal lawyers have also revealed that they had found a document bearing classified markings&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-united-states-government-district-of-columbia-0574fd762159e8cb5f31c85205df3dc0">while searching the Wilmington property</a>&nbsp;but said they had not found others during a separate inspection of his Rehoboth Beach home.The looming conclusion of the investigation had been foreshadowed last fall when&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-classified-documents-justice-4c657c8d19e3b1f232952a266eccc9b6">Biden sat for a voluntary interview</a>&nbsp;at the White House with Hur's team. Interviews of key subjects in an investigation are often done near the end.Justice Department regulations require Congress to be notified of any investigative steps or proposed actions by a special counsel that were rejected by department leadership. There were no such actions, Garland wrote.

AG: Special counsel has finished Biden classified documents probe

<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/06/passionate-battle-over-school-choice-resumes-in-nebraska-legislature/">Nebraska Examiner</a>

LINCOLN — The battle over school choice returned to the State Legislature on Tuesday over a proposal to allocate $25 million a year directly from state coffers to organizations that hand out scholarships to private and parochial schools.

Legislative Bill 1402 would serve as a replacement, according to its sponsor, for the Opportunity Scholarship Act passed last year by state lawmakers — a law that allows taxpayers to divert up to half of their state income taxes to Scholarship Granting Organizations for tuition to private and parochial schools.

That law is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for the public to decide whether to retain or repeal it&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/10/public-school-advocates-qualify-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarship-law-for-2024-election/">after 117,000 voters signed petitions</a>&nbsp;to force the vote.

Opponents of this year’s proposal called it an “end run” around the “will of the people,” and a university law professor opined that LB 1402 was most likely unconstitutional.

Scott Norby, an attorney for the Nebraska State Education Association,&nbsp; said last year’s law “does indirectly what LB 1402 does directly — the funding of private schools with public dollars.”

Passing LB 1402 would “preempt” the right of the people to vote on the measure, he said.

“The people have decided to decide that issue,” Norby said.

Rita Bennett, one of the petition circulators, compared it to a kids’ game, in which if you’re losing, you change the rules so you win.

“It says that regardless of what the voters say, we’ll find a way,” she said.

But State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the sponsor of last year’s Opportunity Scholarship law and this year’s LB 1402, called the newest measure “an end run” around a ballot initiative that she said was marred by misinformation and —<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/09/sen-linehans-letter-seeks-to-boot-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarships-off-nebraska-ballot/">&nbsp;as she argued in a recent complaint about the ballot issue</a>&nbsp;— should be removed from the ballot.

“They don’t want the competition, folks. It’s so clear,” Linehan told members of the Appropriations Committee, referring to public schools.

She added that it was her intention that if LB 1402 was passed this year, she would ask that the Opportunity Scholarship Act be repealed by the Legislature, which would serve to render the November vote on the measure moot.

Article VII-11 of the Nebraska Constitution

Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;

Provided,&nbsp;that the Legislature may provide that the state or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.

Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who specializes in the State Constitution, told committee members that LB 1402 was, in his opinion, likely unconstitutional because it appropriated public funds for private schools.

A court could always rule otherwise, Schutz said, but because LB 1402 would send state money directly to the scholarship granting groups, it was more likely to be considered an “appropriation” and likely less defensible than last year’s law, which directed taxpayer money to those groups without passing through the state.

The clearest way to make it constitutional, the professor said after the hearing, was to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so voters could decide whether to allow public funds for private schooling.

But, Schutz said, back in the 1970s when state leaders were considering revisions to the Constitution, the matter of allowing public funds for private schools was dropped as “opening a can of worms” over a variety of issues.

There is also the question of whether voters would approve use of public funds for private schools. Voters in other states have consistently defeated it at the polls.

Voices rose at times during the three hours of often passionate testimony before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.

Supporters, including a majority of the committee’s members, maintained that Nebraska families who lack the financial means to send children to a private school deserve the state’s financial help.

They maintained that the competition would improve lagging academic outcomes in public schools and joined Linehan in criticizing anti-school choice petition circulators, claiming that they convinced people to sign by falsely stating that the ballot issue was about property tax relief.

A handful of students from parochial schools testified that switching from a public school had changed their lives and improved their grades and that their parents could not afford a private school without financial help.

Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, said her grade point average increased from 1.8 on a 4.0 scale, to 3.0 after she transferred from Omaha South.

“There are parents like me who need another option,” said Clarice Jackson, a former Omaha school teacher, who called school choice “educational freedom.”

But opponents of school choice were equally passionate, maintaining that diverting $25 million a year of money intended for the state took away funds from public education and that there was no proof that “competition” from private schools improved educational outcomes.

“This bill does not require one iota of accountability, either academically or attendance, from private schools,” said Kathy Danek, a member of the Lincoln School Board.

Shavonna Holman, a member of the Omaha School Board, said she’s proud of the education provided in public schools in Omaha.

Holman said students already have “choice” in that they can transfer to a different school or, like her daughter, choose to attend one that specializes in science.

“Public schools are the best investment to reach the largest number of children,” Holman said.

Bennett and other petition circulators pushed back on criticism that signers were deceived. They said they were well trained and versed on what the ballot initiative would do. They added that the people who misbehaved were petition “blockers” hired by pro-school choice forces to prevent people from signing, or to sign an unofficial petition supporting choice.

The Appropriations Committee took no action on LB 1402 after the lengthy public hearing, but it appeared certain to have enough votes to advance the bill for debate by the full Legislature. The bill has yet to get priority designation, which would ensure another emotional debate over school choice.

One wild card: Secretary of State Bob Evnen has yet to issue a ruling on a complaint lodged by Linehan a month ago that the Opportunity Scholarship ballot issue should be tossed off the ballot.

A ruling from Evnen could come as early as this week.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707335544830.jpeg" alt="Among those testifying in favor of a school choice bill at the State Capitol Tuesday was Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, and her brother, Javier, a second grader at St. Thomas More Catholic School. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)" />
 <figcaption>Among those testifying in favor of a school choice bill at the State Capitol Tuesday was Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, and her brother, Javier, a second grader at St. Thomas More Catholic School. (Paul Hammel/Nebraska Examiner)</figcaption>
 </figure>Paul Hammel<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/02/06/passionate-battle-over-school-choice-resumes-in-nebraska-legislature/">Nebraska Examiner</a>LINCOLN — The battle over school choice returned to the State Legislature on Tuesday over a proposal to allocate $25 million a year directly from state coffers to organizations that hand out scholarships to private and parochial schools.Legislative Bill 1402 would serve as a replacement, according to its sponsor, for the Opportunity Scholarship Act passed last year by state lawmakers — a law that allows taxpayers to divert up to half of their state income taxes to Scholarship Granting Organizations for tuition to private and parochial schools.That law is scheduled to appear on the November ballot for the public to decide whether to retain or repeal it&nbsp;<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/10/10/public-school-advocates-qualify-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarship-law-for-2024-election/">after 117,000 voters signed petitions</a>&nbsp;to force the vote.Opponents of this year’s proposal called it an “end run” around the “will of the people,” and a university law professor opined that LB 1402 was most likely unconstitutional.<h2>‘Preempts’ vote of the people</h2>Scott Norby, an attorney for the Nebraska State Education Association,&nbsp; said last year’s law “does indirectly what LB 1402 does directly — the funding of private schools with public dollars.”Passing LB 1402 would “preempt” the right of the people to vote on the measure, he said.“The people have decided to decide that issue,” Norby said.Rita Bennett, one of the petition circulators, compared it to a kids’ game, in which if you’re losing, you change the rules so you win.“It says that regardless of what the voters say, we’ll find a way,” she said.But State Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, the sponsor of last year’s Opportunity Scholarship law and this year’s LB 1402, called the newest measure “an end run” around a ballot initiative that she said was marred by misinformation and —<a href="https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2024/01/09/sen-linehans-letter-seeks-to-boot-referendum-on-opportunity-scholarships-off-nebraska-ballot/">&nbsp;as she argued in a recent complaint about the ballot issue</a>&nbsp;— should be removed from the ballot.<h2>Public schools don’t want competition</h2>“They don’t want the competition, folks. It’s so clear,” Linehan told members of the Appropriations Committee, referring to public schools.She added that it was her intention that if LB 1402 was passed this year, she would ask that the Opportunity Scholarship Act be repealed by the Legislature, which would serve to render the November vote on the measure moot.<h2>Article VII-11 of the Nebraska Constitution</h2>Notwithstanding any other provision in the Constitution, appropriation of public funds shall not be made to any school or institution of learning not owned or exclusively controlled by the state or a political subdivision thereof;Provided,&nbsp;that the Legislature may provide that the state or any political subdivision thereof may contract with institutions not wholly owned or controlled by the state or any political subdivision to provide for educational or other services for the benefit of children under the age of twenty-one years who are handicapped, as that term is from time to time defined by the Legislature, if such services are nonsectarian in nature.Anthony Schutz, a law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law who specializes in the State Constitution, told committee members that LB 1402 was, in his opinion, likely unconstitutional because it appropriated public funds for private schools.A court could always rule otherwise, Schutz said, but because LB 1402 would send state money directly to the scholarship granting groups, it was more likely to be considered an “appropriation” and likely less defensible than last year’s law, which directed taxpayer money to those groups without passing through the state.The clearest way to make it constitutional, the professor said after the hearing, was to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, so voters could decide whether to allow public funds for private schooling.<h2>‘Opening a can of worms’</h2>But, Schutz said, back in the 1970s when state leaders were considering revisions to the Constitution, the matter of allowing public funds for private schools was dropped as “opening a can of worms” over a variety of issues.There is also the question of whether voters would approve use of public funds for private schools. Voters in other states have consistently defeated it at the polls.Voices rose at times during the three hours of often passionate testimony before the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee.<h2>All parents deserve choice</h2>Supporters, including a majority of the committee’s members, maintained that Nebraska families who lack the financial means to send children to a private school deserve the state’s financial help.They maintained that the competition would improve lagging academic outcomes in public schools and joined Linehan in criticizing anti-school choice petition circulators, claiming that they convinced people to sign by falsely stating that the ballot issue was about property tax relief.A handful of students from parochial schools testified that switching from a public school had changed their lives and improved their grades and that their parents could not afford a private school without financial help.Betzy Bravo, a junior at Omaha Gross Catholic High School, said her grade point average increased from 1.8 on a 4.0 scale, to 3.0 after she transferred from Omaha South.“There are parents like me who need another option,” said Clarice Jackson, a former Omaha school teacher, who called school choice “educational freedom.”<h2>No accountability</h2>But opponents of school choice were equally passionate, maintaining that diverting $25 million a year of money intended for the state took away funds from public education and that there was no proof that “competition” from private schools improved educational outcomes.“This bill does not require one iota of accountability, either academically or attendance, from private schools,” said Kathy Danek, a member of the Lincoln School Board.Shavonna Holman, a member of the Omaha School Board, said she’s proud of the education provided in public schools in Omaha.Holman said students already have “choice” in that they can transfer to a different school or, like her daughter, choose to attend one that specializes in science.“Public schools are the best investment to reach the largest number of children,” Holman said.Bennett and other petition circulators pushed back on criticism that signers were deceived. They said they were well trained and versed on what the ballot initiative would do. They added that the people who misbehaved were petition “blockers” hired by pro-school choice forces to prevent people from signing, or to sign an unofficial petition supporting choice.The Appropriations Committee took no action on LB 1402 after the lengthy public hearing, but it appeared certain to have enough votes to advance the bill for debate by the full Legislature. The bill has yet to get priority designation, which would ensure another emotional debate over school choice.One wild card: Secretary of State Bob Evnen has yet to issue a ruling on a complaint lodged by Linehan a month ago that the Opportunity Scholarship ballot issue should be tossed off the ballot.A ruling from Evnen could come as early as this week.

Passionate battle over school choice resumes in Nebraska Legislature

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A federal judge has approved an agreement between two tribes and an eastern Nebraska county that gives Native American voters a majority in five of the county's seven board districts.

Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Rossiter Jr. called the agreement a “fair, reasonable and adequate” settlement of a lawsuit in which the Winnebago and Omaha tribes alleged that Thurston County and its board of supervisors violated the Voting Rights Act with a district map adopted in 2022.

“The settlement reasonably resolves difficult voting rights issues in a manner that is fair to all parties,” Rossiter said in his Jan. 26 ruling.

Thurston County is on Nebraska's border with Iowa, between Omaha, Nebraska, and Sioux City, Iowa. Much of it overlaps the two tribes’ reservations. Native Americans make up 50.3% of the county’s voting age population, compared to 43% for whites.

The&nbsp;<a href="https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-courts/voting-rights-winnebago-omaha-tribe-thurston/article_62e9fc0c-c09f-11ee-8b0f-b31fb6d083cb.html">Sioux City Journal reported</a>&nbsp;that the settlement includes a new district map, which the county has approved for this year’s election.

The tribes and nine individuals sued in January 2023, saying the 2022 map violated federal law because it did not provide Native American voters a fair chance to elect candidates of their choice in at least four of the seven districts. The map gave them a clear majority in only three.

The county board currently has two Native American and five white members.

The parties reached agreement on a redrawn map in November.

“This is the third time the county has been sued under the Voting Rights Act and the third time the county has had to take court-ordered corrective action. Hopefully this is the last time this has to be done,” said Mike Carter, a lawyer with the Native American Rights Fund.

The county had denied the discrimination claims. But Board Chairman Glen Meyer said the agreement was reached amicably.

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A federal judge has approved an agreement between two tribes and an eastern Nebraska county that gives Native American voters a majority in five of the county's seven board districts.Chief U.S. District Judge Robert Rossiter Jr. called the agreement a “fair, reasonable and adequate” settlement of a lawsuit in which the Winnebago and Omaha tribes alleged that Thurston County and its board of supervisors violated the Voting Rights Act with a district map adopted in 2022.“The settlement reasonably resolves difficult voting rights issues in a manner that is fair to all parties,” Rossiter said in his Jan. 26 ruling.Thurston County is on Nebraska's border with Iowa, between Omaha, Nebraska, and Sioux City, Iowa. Much of it overlaps the two tribes’ reservations. Native Americans make up 50.3% of the county’s voting age population, compared to 43% for whites.The&nbsp;<a href="https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/crime-courts/voting-rights-winnebago-omaha-tribe-thurston/article_62e9fc0c-c09f-11ee-8b0f-b31fb6d083cb.html">Sioux City Journal reported</a>&nbsp;that the settlement includes a new district map, which the county has approved for this year’s election.The tribes and nine individuals sued in January 2023, saying the 2022 map violated federal law because it did not provide Native American voters a fair chance to elect candidates of their choice in at least four of the seven districts. The map gave them a clear majority in only three.The county board currently has two Native American and five white members.The parties reached agreement on a redrawn map in November.“This is the third time the county has been sued under the Voting Rights Act and the third time the county has had to take court-ordered corrective action. Hopefully this is the last time this has to be done,” said Mike Carter, a lawyer with the Native American Rights Fund.The county had denied the discrimination claims. But Board Chairman Glen Meyer said the agreement was reached amicably.

Federal judge approves election map settlement between Nebraska county and 2 tribes

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. drone strike hit a car in the Iraqi capital Wednesday night, killing three members of the powerful Kataib Hezbollah militia, including a high-ranking commander, officials said.

The strike came on a main thoroughfare in the Mashtal neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A crowd gathered as emergency response teams picked through the wreckage. Security forces closed off the heavily guarded Green Zone, where a number of diplomatic compounds are located, amid calls for protesters to storm the U.S. embassy.

Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander was targeted in a U.S. strike on Wednesday in Iraq. They were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Two officials with Iran-backed militias in Iraq said that one of the three killed was Wissam Mohammed “Abu Bakr” al-Saadi, the commander in charge of Kataib Hezbollah’s operations in Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.

The strike came amid roiling tensions in the region and days after the U.S. military launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan in late January.

The U.S. has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a broad coalition of Iran-backed militias, for the attack in Jordan, and officials have said they suspect Kataib Hezbollah in particular of leading it.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has regularly claimed strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria against the backdrop of the ongoing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel-Hamas war</a>, saying that they are in retaliation for Washington's support of Israel in its war in Gaza that has killed 27,707 Palestinians, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory</a>.

Kataib Hezbollah had said in a statement that it was suspending attacks on American troops to avoid “embarrassing the Iraqi government” after the strike in Jordan, but others have vowed to continue fighting.

On Sunday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/syria-iraq-sdf-islamic-resistance-us-c621972db21d6b3db7ca1bccd50ce6ef?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=share">claimed a drone attack</a>&nbsp;on a base housing U.S. troops in eastern Syria killed six fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group allied with the United States.

The latest surge in the regional conflict came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-07-2024-6ceffca2970243cd039e90268c32c617">rejected terms proposed by Hamas</a>&nbsp;for a hostage-release agreement that would lead to a permanent cease-fire, vowing to continue the war until “absolute victory.”

Also on Wednesday, the media office of the Houthi rebels in Yemen reported two airstrikes in Ras Issa area in Salif district in Hodeida province.

BAGHDAD (AP) — A U.S. drone strike hit a car in the Iraqi capital Wednesday night, killing three members of the powerful Kataib Hezbollah militia, including a high-ranking commander, officials said.The strike came on a main thoroughfare in the Mashtal neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. A crowd gathered as emergency response teams picked through the wreckage. Security forces closed off the heavily guarded Green Zone, where a number of diplomatic compounds are located, amid calls for protesters to storm the U.S. embassy.Two U.S. officials familiar with the matter said that a senior Kataib Hezbollah commander was targeted in a U.S. strike on Wednesday in Iraq. They were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.Two officials with Iran-backed militias in Iraq said that one of the three killed was Wissam Mohammed “Abu Bakr” al-Saadi, the commander in charge of Kataib Hezbollah’s operations in Syria. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak to journalists.The strike came amid roiling tensions in the region and days after the U.S. military launched an air assault on dozens of sites in Iraq and Syria used by&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/hamas-hezbollah-houthis-iran-militant-groups-745bfc36e23997ee3f0bc499a9f5c16d">Iranian-backed militias</a>&nbsp;and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in retaliation for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/biden-american-service-members-killed-jordan-iran-5cb774fd835a558d840ae91263037489">drone strike that killed three U.S. troops</a>&nbsp;in Jordan in late January.The U.S. has blamed the Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a broad coalition of Iran-backed militias, for the attack in Jordan, and officials have said they suspect Kataib Hezbollah in particular of leading it.The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has regularly claimed strikes on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria against the backdrop of the ongoing&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/hub/israel-hamas-war">Israel-Hamas war</a>, saying that they are in retaliation for Washington's support of Israel in its war in Gaza that has killed 27,707 Palestinians, according to&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-gaza-health-ministry-health-death-toll-59470820308b31f1faf73c703400b033">the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory</a>.Kataib Hezbollah had said in a statement that it was suspending attacks on American troops to avoid “embarrassing the Iraqi government” after the strike in Jordan, but others have vowed to continue fighting.On Sunday, the Islamic Resistance in Iraq&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/syria-iraq-sdf-islamic-resistance-us-c621972db21d6b3db7ca1bccd50ce6ef?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=share">claimed a drone attack</a>&nbsp;on a base housing U.S. troops in eastern Syria killed six fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led group allied with the United States.The latest surge in the regional conflict came shortly after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-02-07-2024-6ceffca2970243cd039e90268c32c617">rejected terms proposed by Hamas</a>&nbsp;for a hostage-release agreement that would lead to a permanent cease-fire, vowing to continue the war until “absolute victory.”Also on Wednesday, the media office of the Houthi rebels in Yemen reported two airstrikes in Ras Issa area in Salif district in Hodeida province.

U.S. drone strike in Baghdad kills high-ranking militia commander

A bill that would allow teachers and other staff in schools to be armed in the hopes of deterring school shootings drew dozens of people and some emotional testimony to the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee on Tuesday.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2024/2/1707335363419.jpeg" alt="FILE - Neb. State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon speaks during debate, Jan. 8, 2018, in the Legislative Chamber in Lincoln, Neb. Brewer's bill, which would allow teachers and other staff in schools to be armed in the hopes of deterring school shootings, drew dozens of people and some emotional testimony to the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)" />
 <figcaption>FILE - Neb. State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon speaks during debate, Jan. 8, 2018, in the Legislative Chamber in Lincoln, Neb. Brewer's bill, which would allow teachers and other staff in schools to be armed in the hopes of deterring school shootings, drew dozens of people and some emotional testimony to the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee on Tuesday, Feb. 6, 2024. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik, File)</figcaption>
 </figure>Associated PressA bill that would allow teachers and other staff in schools to be armed in the hopes of deterring school shootings drew dozens of people and some emotional testimony to the Nebraska Legislature’s Education Committee on Tuesday.State Sen. Tom Brewer's bill is among the latest in GOP-led state legislatures across the country embracing bills expanding gun rights.The Nebraska bill is made up of three parts. It would give local school boards the ability to allow off-duty law enforcement to carry guns onto school property and create detailed maps of schools' buildings and grounds to give to local law enforcement and first responders to use in the event of a school shooting.It would also allow for teachers or other school staff to be armed, as long as they undertook gun handling and safety training.The bill is needed in Nebraska's rural districts, Brewer said, where schools can be many miles away from the nearest law enforcement and rarely have access to resource officers that are prevalent in cities like Omaha and Lincoln.At least 32 states have laws allowing teachers or other school staff to be armed during school hours, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. That includes all of Nebraska's neighboring states, including Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota.“We are an island that has decided not to protect our children,” he said.Most of those testifying in favor of the bill focused on its school mapping provision. Even opponents of the bill said they supported its school mapping.But the sanctioning of armed school staff drew some emotional testimony, including from one teacher who was present for a&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/eb88a86b47024f28bd370bc2f41952dd">deadly school shooting</a>&nbsp;in Omaha 13 years ago.Tim Royers, president of the Millard Education Association, told the committee he was in his school's lunchroom overseeing students on Jan. 5, 2011, when someone announced over the school's speakers, “Code Red.”Royers and other teachers scrambled to gather as many students as possible and search for a room in which to hide.“I will never forget the looks on those students’ faces,” he said.Authorities later said that a 17-year-old student — the son of an Omaha police detective — had been suspended from Millard South High School, but he returned that same day with his father's service revolver. He fatally shot the assistant principal and wounded the school's principal before fatally shooting himself.In the years since, he has never heard any educators express a desire to be armed, Royer said.“But I've had plenty of them tell me that a provision like this would drive them out of the profession,” he said to the committee.Brewer said those opposing the bill aren't being fair to schools in rural areas that “are unable to fill law enforcement positions, let alone resource officer positions.”Brewer has long been an opponent of laws regulating guns. A bill that he pushed since he was first elected in 2016 to allow Nebraska residents to carry concealed guns&nbsp;<a href="https://apnews.com/article/constitutional-carry-bill-nebraska-a8168215d00c1e4bf51017e82e8da80b">without a permit</a>&nbsp;was passed and enacted last year. Similar to other so-called constitutional carry laws in other states, it allows people to carry guns hidden in their clothing or vehicle without having to pay for a government permit or take a gun safety course.